••Zeiss versus Zeiss••

Coco Bermudez

Coco Bermudez

Well-known member
I was wondering if any of you have had the experience of working with both Zeiss ZF's and Zeiss CP.2's?

I understand all the technical and mechanical differences between them both. I wonder "visually" how they look. Side by side is there a huge difference?...one is sharper the other is more subtle? Hard to tell the difference? One more pleasing? Does it vary if you use them outdoors or under a studio with a controlled environment?

At the end, it only boils down to mechanics? Would the AF-100 benefit with one or the other? or any Zeiss would make the camera shine?
 
* actually those aren't screencaps he took photos it was mounted on a Canon 5D. He didn't move the camera, just changed the lens.
 
They look the same to me. Zeiss claims there is less breathing on the CP.2s and of course the Cine housed body and longer focus throw... but I don't believe Zeiss has ever claimed optically that they were better than ZF...

Keep in mind.. if you're planning on using these on the AF100 they are coming out with m4/3 mounts for the CP.2s soon... so if you want to be adapterless that would be a nice way to go.
 
I was under the impression that the CP.2s were ZFs in cine-style housings, so they should look the same.
 
yeah...we can all understand the difference in the mechanics of both lenses...

I am pleasantly surprised that they look so much the same.

vagarob said:
Keep in mind.. if you're planning on using these on the AF100 they are coming out with m4/3 mounts for the CP.2s soon... so if you want to be adapterless that would be a nice way to go.
Click to expand...

This is nice...though you would be marrying into the m4/3 technology. I know you can change mounts...but Zeiss recommends that they are sent to a service shop that has a collimator so that the backfocus can be adjusted...
 
Coco Bermudez said:
This is nice...though you would be marrying into the m4/3 technology. I know you can change mounts...but Zeiss recommends that they are sent to a service shop that has a collimator so that the backfocus can be adjusted...
Click to expand...

Yes but it increases the resale value if you ever decided to move to a different set. They have so many interchangeable mounts now and some people just hate using adapters. I decided to stick with PL because there always seems to be some PL adapter for anything out there. lol.
 
Having worked with both, I can tell you there are only five "reasons" to shell out for the CP2s:

A) You work with an AC who is used to focusing cinema lenses (ZF will focus the other way, and muscle memory is a big part of focus pulling). You can't handle the idea of focusing by eye or taping out and recording marks on the follow focus ring; you want WITNESS marks dammit!

B) You shoot nothing but out of focus trees in winter and you absolutely have to have "pleasing" bokeh--as you can see above, the 7-blade ZF are just fine for most situations.

C) Someone dupes you into thinking these are "cinema lenses," and you've always wanted to own a cinema lens! Nope. This is still glass re-housed, and though Zeiss claims to select the "best" for the CP2s.... you saw the two pictures above. Being Germans, they've designed some of the world's best coatings for lenses... being Germans, they probably reserved the cinema coatings for the cinema lenses.

D) You need to be able to switch lenses in 10 seconds instead of 20, so having gear rings in the exact same place is key.

E) You beat the hell out of your lenses, perhaps with a lens motor (which might muck up the ZF after a while), perhaps through sheer abuse.

If none of these issues matter to you, get the ZF glass and spend the difference on a Blackbird steadicam and enough food to feed yourself for a few months.
 
The Zeiss CP 2's are slower at 50mm and 85mm than the ZF or CP 1's--T2.1 vs. F1.4 or T1.5, respectively. This is due to Zeiss adding baffles to the 50 and 85mm CP 2's to reduce loss of contrast, hold sharpness and reduce flares, which they must have thought was an issue with the CP 1's. There is a huge difference in focus draft compared to any 35mm SLR lens. I shoot with the CP 1's often, as well as Nikon AIS primes. I can't see a difference in sharpness, but I'm using them with 35mm DOF adapters, which soften the image. I'm sure it's unlikely that the CP 2's would look sharper than the ZF's, with the exception of shooting a 50 or 85mm ZF at F1.4 vs. a CP 2 at T2.1.
 
Coco Bermudez said:
I was wondering if any of you have had the experience of working with both Zeiss ZF's and Zeiss CP.2's?
Click to expand...
I have both the ZF set and the original Compact Primes. Not the CP.2's, but as far as I can tell the only difference between mine and the new CP.2's is that the CP.2's have slower maximum iris on the 50 & 85, and they have an interchangeable mount instead of a fixed PL mount.

I wonder "visually" how they look. Side by side is there a huge difference?...one is sharper the other is more subtle? Hard to tell the difference? One more pleasing? Does it vary if you use them outdoors or under a studio with a controlled environment?
Click to expand...
Same glass, but the CP's have a 14-blade iris for rendering perfectly circular bokeh. Other than that, you're not going to notice much if any difference on a static shot. If doing a moving shot involving tracking focus or shifting iris, the CP's will be much smoother and better for that, but you can overcome some of that by having the ZF's cine-modded by ducloslenses.com.

At the end, it only boils down to mechanics?
Click to expand...
Yes, and price.

Would the AF-100 benefit with one or the other?
Click to expand...
Image-wise, probably not. The upgrade is for functionality. That's why I went for the CP's. I had a full ZF set, but decided I didn't want to go with a modified/halfway measure, I much prefer getting the proper cine lenses and doing it right. But I also found 'em for a great price on ebay and could also afford them and also plan on doing most of my shooting full cine style. The ZF's, on the other hand, are vastly less expensive, and much smaller and lighter -- so if you do a lot of handheld work, that's a big advantage.
 
There are three key differences. The first is all the rage at the moment, "pleasing" bokeh: the old Contax lenses (6 iris leaves) may show slightly hexagonal out of focus highlights if you're not stopped down all the way. Does the average viewer notice these things? No, but some claim it registers subconsciously...

Next is T* multicoatings: the famous Zeiss magic sauce of minerals and trace elements painted in a super-thin layer over the front element. The newer ZF coatings claim to have elements of the cinema lens coatings--this is what gives Zeiss the famous "3D" pop that makes your subject really stand out from the out-of-focus background. The coatings also keep unsightly flare down to a minimum (allowing the occasional pretty, small blossom of color) and improve transmission (your new f/2.8 is brighter than your old 1960s f/2.8). Contax Zeiss have T* coatings as well, but Zeiss claims the newer ones are much improved.

Finally, the newer lenses are made by Cosina in Japan, while the older lenses were supposedly "made with European standards" at the Zeiss factory in post-WWII West Germany. This is purely a mystical thing, but some people claim the West German glass was of better quality. The Contax series is universally bigger and slightly heavier than the ZF lenses, so if you can find one for $200 cheaper than a used ZF and you don't mind trading bokeh for a bigger lens, go for it!
 
Thanks for that. That's pretty much exactly what I've been wondering. I've been considering C/Y primes for a while. Might have to do that until I can afford to step up to CP.2s. I get my first hands-on with those next week. Really looking forward to that. My favorite lens I've shot with until now has been the Canon 50 1.2. These might change my mind
 
The Canon 50 1.2 is a nice lens that doesn't have too many unique characteristics--it's damn fast and it looks good enough you know? With the Zeiss you're getting unbelievable sharpness. This is a good thing--shots with fine detail look so crisp I still get blown away sometimes--but also a nasty thing, as I can never point my Zeiss primes at an actress without them bringing out some flaw my eye would never notice.

They have such nice contrast that the difference between a smooth cheek and a small pimple becomes very noticeable in HD. So in closeups, mediums what have you, I'm usually on the Nikkor primes; that's why I bought a wide angle Zeiss instead of, say, the 50 or 85. If you like macro photography the 60mm f/2.8 is unbelievable, it's like a whole 'nother world of sharpness, focuses right up to the edge of the lens and it becomes a 120mm on the m4/3 sensor....
 
I've been a long time Canon shooter for stills. I love my Canon L series primes and I am planning to stick with Canon L glass so that I can continue to us them on my Canon DSLR's as well. Keeping AF on the still side is important to me.

With all that being said, I've never owned any Zeiss glass except for way back when I shot Hasselblad.

How do the Canon L Primes compare to the Zeiss? Anyone ever own both and have any experience with them? I've always loved Canon glass and plus the L primes are so fast!

I understand that the big drawback to Canon glass is the lack of precise MF control but I plan to get the Birger mount and I'm assuming that the upgraded Birger mount will work with the Impero in a similar way to the way it worked on the RED so in that sense the Canon glass should actually offer better and more precise MF control than anything short of true cine glass.

Am I right about all this?

How do the Canon primes compare to Zeiss?

Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top