AF100 Zeiss Ultra Vs Compact

V

vagarob

Well-known member
Hello,

This is my first post here, although I have been a lurker for awhile =)

I am about to pre-order my AF100 through Vistek.ca and the issue of lenses came up.

My initial idea was to go with a set of 3 Zeiss Compact Prime Lenses ($4K each). But, I noticed the crews.tv test was shot using Ultra Primes ($12K each) and it looked amazing.

Would the upgrade to Ultra's be that much better on the AF100?

Would you buy one Ultra Prime, over getting 3 Compact Primes, and just increase your lense collection over time?

I also own a Zeiss still lense collection, which i heard conflicting reports that the Compact primes are "not that much better."

Anyone have any thoughts? thanks!!! :cheesy:
 
Why not rent before you buy? I saw at Birns and Sawyer you can rent the full set of 7 CP2s for $450/day.

I saw that report as well. In terms of sharpness I think there is virtually no difference. The cinema lenses are superior with their longer throw focus rings as well as precise calibration of said rings - but for the price I'd rather go SLR and learn to work with them.
 
Start with your Zeiss still lens collection that you already own. after you use it then decide what lens you need to add.
 
Well the AF100 is not a full frame sensor, so i don't know how much more a ultra prime is going to give me over a compact prime (although both are for full frame, I figure ultra's are even better in the corners). I haven't seen any comparison tests. I figure the crews.tv just took the best possible lense they could get (since a rental shop provided it for them).

Thats the annoying thing. Like the recent finding @ using an onboard codec vs nano, there was not a huge difference (unless you are planning on putting your stuff on a huge screen). Soooo it's difficult....
 
Though it is true that the crop for your slr lenses is 2x, the crop factor is 1.18 for a PL mount lens.

So if you get a CP2 for PL mount the FOV will be very close to what it would be on a 35mm film camera.
 
vagarob said:
Hello,

This is my first post here, although I have been a lurker for awhile =)

I am about to pre-order my AF100 through Vistek.ca and the issue of lenses came up.

My initial idea was to go with a set of 3 Zeiss Compact Prime Lenses ($4K each). But, I noticed the crews.tv test was shot using Ultra Primes ($12K each) and it looked amazing.

Would the upgrade to Ultra's be that much better on the AF100?

Would you buy one Ultra Prime, over getting 3 Compact Primes, and just increase your lense collection over time?

I also own a Zeiss still lense collection, which i heard conflicting reports that the Compact primes are "not that much better."

Anyone have any thoughts? thanks!!! :cheesy:
Click to expand...

Why not get a set of ZF's and get them cinemoded by Duclos, nearly identical optics to the CP's but you can get 3 ZF's for the price of 1 CP. At the end of the day you can spend a fortune on lenses, but where do you draw the line. I'm not saying don't get them, but renting would probably be the best bet for jobs where you need amazing glass. What will make a nice image is good lighting, composition and subject matter, as long as you nail those things people won't care what lenses you shot it on.
 
vagarob said:
Well the AF100 is not a full frame sensor, so i don't know how much more a ultra prime is going to give me over a compact prime (although both are for full frame, I figure ultra's are even better in the corners).
Click to expand...
You sure about that? I think the Ultra Primes don't cover full frame. No cinema lenses do, other than the Compact Primes.

"full frame" has pretty much nothing to do with cinema, cinema lenses typically will cover either the 35mm cinema frame, or at most, the S35 frame. The Compact Primes are unique in that they will cover the still-photography "full frame". Almost -- the 18mm doesn't cover fully, it'll vignette a little on a full frame camera.
 
Last edited:
JesterJJZ said:
Is it true that optically, the Zeiss CP2s and the ZFs are the same?
Click to expand...

Well, mostly, yes. But there are differences; for example, the CPs have a 14-blade iris, for delicious perfectly circular bokeh. The ZFs don't.

The CPs are based on the ZF glass, so they're very similar. Most of the difference is in the housings, the construction, the same-size diameter and common size overall between them, focusing the right way instead of the Nikon way, and the 14-blade iris.
 
Matthew B said:
Why not get a set of ZF's and get them cinemoded by Duclos, nearly identical optics to the CP's but you can get 3 ZF's for the price of 1 CP.
Click to expand...
That was my original plan, and I bought the entire ZF set, planning on doing that. But in the end, I knew I wasn't going to be satisfied. They still focus the wrong way, they're different sizes which means fooling around with the mattebox, etc... in the end, I bought a set of Compact Primes (got a great deal on a full set of all 7 CPs).

The Duclos option is pretty viable; it won't satisfy everyone but it's probably the best option out there short of buying purpose-built cinema lenses.

At the end of the day you can spend a fortune on lenses, but where do you draw the line.
Click to expand...
Also consider whether the additional expense is actually going to deliver you a discernible difference in the footage. There comes a point where the better glass isn't going to make much of a difference in a 1920x1080 image. On a DSLR like the 7D, I found that a $50 ebay Zeiss jena lens was indistinguishable from my $1500 ZF version of the same lens. The AF100 resolves a lot more so it matters more, but still, I doubt anyone's going to see THAT much of a difference between a ZF and a Master Prime, other than the much-sweeter wider iris on wider lenses.

I'm not saying don't get them, but renting would probably be the best bet for jobs where you need amazing glass.
Click to expand...
Undoubtedly!

What will make a nice image is good lighting, composition and subject matter, as long as you nail those things people won't care what lenses you shot it on.
Click to expand...
That is totally true. I sprung for the CPs because of the usability factors, but as far as footage wise, the ZFs would do a nearly visually indistinguishable job.

Of course, I happen to think there are many factors that make something worth more, not just the ultimate end result; but if you're focused solely on the end result, and you can work with the DSLR lenses, then yeah, the ZFs will probably extract just about everything an AF100 can use.
 
Thank you Barry, you made me decide to go with the CP Primes over the ultra...B&H should give you a commission! =) Like I assumed the crew.tv people just picked the best lense because they could (wouldn't we all?) but would not make a huge difference on the AF100.

I also agree that technical stuff aside, a good movie could be made on a cheap camcorder vs an expensive one as long as the story is good, acting etc. Just because you have amazing equipment does not equal an amazing shot or movie.

With that aside... I just didn't want to invest $$$ into compact primes and find out out, oops you should have really started buying up Ultra's instead!
 
Well, it depends on what you're going to do with the lenses. If you intend on renting them out, the sweet spot is probably the CP.2's, because they could be rented by Nikon users, PL users, or Canon users. PL-mount lenses like the Ultra Primes could only be rented by PL users.

Zeiss has a comparison chart of the various lenses they offer, which let you see where some excel over others. The Compact Primes are the budget line; they're fully professional housings and mechanics, and the optics are frankly based on the very best SLR lenses available, so they're not slouches. But they're no Master Primes either. They exhibit chromatic aberration when wide open, and they have inconsistent T-stops, whereas in top-of-the-line lenses they are standardized around a set T-stop.

Not to say they're bad or anything (like I said, I just sunk some dough into a set), but ... they're not Master Primes, by any stretch. Then again, I would find it doubtful that a 1080p user would need or even really benefit from the top-end glass that much; if you were shooting on an Alexa or Epic, then yeah, you'll definitely get the benefit of the better glass. But it's WAY more expensive.
 
Steve Kahn said:
Why not rent before you buy? I saw at Birns and Sawyer you can rent the full set of 7 CP2s for $450/day.

I saw that report as well. In terms of sharpness I think there is virtually no difference. The cinema lenses are superior with their longer throw focus rings as well as precise calibration of said rings - but for the price I'd rather go SLR and learn to work with them.
Click to expand...

Steve I believe you are right on the money. I am a go buy it guy but when it comes to glass I prefer to rent big price lenses. Not to mention the fact that the cameras houses that I now know of take excellent care of there lenses. Gear, and glass are always in great shape. My Zeiss SLRs will do me great in between.
 
I'm not big on renting. I'll be using the af100 long term and at 500 per day to rent a cp2 set... No thanks :D

I'm still curious how much better the ultras are especially for lowlight. I keep thinkg I should sink money into one or two ultras and use zf lenses for anything else I need.

I wish I had the 100K to buy the ultra set :D
 
Barry_Green said:
I bought a set of Compact Primes (got a great deal on a full set of all 7 CPs).
Click to expand...
Did you go with the PL mount (and if so what adapter are you using)?

For the first short I'm shooting (I hope in early January if I can actually get the cam) I may rent the CP2 set of 7. To be honest though having 7 sounds like way overkill to me. I know from experience as a still photographer that I have my favorite two lenses that I end up using again and again (28 and 50mm).

Even when I shoot video I'm usually zoomed pretty much all the way out and it's usually not so much of an issue to move in or away from a subject.

Barry_Green said:
Not to say they're bad or anything (like I said, I just sunk some dough into a set), but ... they're not Master Primes, by any stretch. Then again, I would find it doubtful that a 1080p user would need or even really benefit from the top-end glass that much; if you were shooting on an Alexa or Epic, then yeah, you'll definitely get the benefit of the better glass. But it's WAY more expensive.
Click to expand...
I wonder (I don't know) how true this actually is. dSLR lenses are made to take 15-20megapixel stills. That seems like quite a standard. Now I understnad ergonomics of the cinema lenses - pulling focus, smooth iris ring, matte box friendly sizing but for pure image quality... I'm not so sure.

Now if were talking NASA Barry Lyndon f0.7 ultral sharp Zeiss well yeah I totally understand why the lens costs a half a million bucks.
 
vagarob said:
I'm not big on renting. I'll be using the af100 long term and at 500 per day to rent a cp2 set... No thanks :D

I'm still curious how much better the ultras are especially for lowlight. I keep thinkg I should sink money into one or two ultras and use zf lenses for anything else I need.

I wish I had the 100K to buy the ultra set :D
Click to expand...

The CP2 50mm is f2.1 where the Ultra Prime is f1.9 that equates to about 3/10 stop faster. Not much.
 
Hmm Steve Kahn brings up a good point, Red's 4k resolution is equivalent to what? Cursory search on google shows me 12 or so megapixels. Something like Canon 5dmkii takes 22-23 megapixel stills and as such its lenses presumably are designed for such a task. How do you reconcile that Barry G.? In theory DSLR lenses should be even more advanced and sharper than Zeiss ultra primes and such that shoot a measly 4k resolution compared to 23 megapixels and the like.
 
Ultimately you have to weigh economics vs. ergonomics. Decent still glass will produce an excellent image, but pulling focus will be the issue. What market are you in, how often do you work and will the client pay a fair rental rate for your lens kit. Once your lens budget gets close to the 20k range why not go all it and move up to RED. This is a revolutionary camera at its price point, and what is really cool is that it can use lenses you probably already own. Get a PL mount and rent high end glass as needed. Use nikons or canon FD's to practice with for everyday shooting.

The OP mentioned already have a set of zeiss still lenses, so that is a starting point, I probably wouldn't reproduce those focal lengths for cp's, but others may differ. Zeiss isn't the only solution either, cooke panchro's, the new russian stuff (not sure the name, optimus, illumina something like that) the duclos conversions, you might even find a struggling RED owner to give up his rights to buy their lenses. The cp.2's are popular as they can change to canon mount and cover 5dII. If you are doing commercials you can be sure that whatever you have will not be good enough and the client will want whatever they have heard is the best, cooke s5, leica etc.... That's what has carried the 5dII, it is the buzz camera, full frame everything out of focus la la and cheap. As good as we all know the af100 is going to be it still has to get past the 5DII buzz in certain markets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top