AF100 Zeiss Ultra Vs Compact

dop16mm, can anyone tell me what is the difference pulling focus on still lens and cinema lens. I have never used a 'cinema lens" why does everyone say pulling focus is a nightmare on stills lenses compared to cinema lens? What is the difference?

thanks
 
Steve Kahn said:
Did you go with the PL mount (and if so what adapter are you using)?
Click to expand...
The ones I got are CPs, not CP.2's, so they don't have the interchangeable mount, they're only PL-mount. I've ordered a ciecio7 adapter and I'm looking at the Hot Rod. If there's a big difference, I'll reserve the ciecio7 for the GH2 and use the Hot Rod on the AF100. If there's not a big difference, I'll get a second ciecio7.
 
Homunculus said:
dop16mm, can anyone tell me what is the difference pulling focus on still lens and cinema lens. I have never used a 'cinema lens" why does everyone say pulling focus is a nightmare on stills lenses compared to cinema lens? What is the difference?

thanks
Click to expand...

Not dop16mm, but I'm a big fan of the format...so...stand-in?

1. Cinema lenses are permanently geared, ready to receive a standard follow focus gear.
2. Cinema lenses have a long "throw", allowing for precise focus.
3. Cinema lenses have a very smooth physical motion as the product of precise internal engineering.
4. Cinema lenses have focus gears which rotate towards infinity in a standard direction, making it easy to switch from one lens to another without worrying about one being a Nikon.
5. Cinema lenses (if properly maintained) have very accurate and repeatable focus markings.
6. Cinema lenses are generally optimized to breathe as little as possible while focusing.
 
Homunculus said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's numbers, and then there's reality. No kit lens off the 7D is going to hold a candle, or even an excited electron, in comparison to a $20,000 cinema prime.

Don't get caught up in numbers. Numbers would make you think that a 1920x1080 Canon HV20 is better than a 1280x720 Varicam 2700. But it ain't, not by a hundred thousand miles.
 
Homunculus said:
dop16mm, can anyone tell me what is the difference pulling focus on still lens and cinema lens. I have never used a 'cinema lens" why does everyone say pulling focus is a nightmare on stills lenses compared to cinema lens? What is the difference?
Click to expand...
It's one of those things where you just have to sample it once, to see. It's like the difference between a world-class sirloin steak, and a McDonald's hamburger. Someone can try to minimize the difference by saying "they're both beef" but ... no. Cinema lenses (well, good ones) are extremely precise, with huge focus rotation distance (300 degrees or so), and precise markings all around the barrel and great distances between the markings so you can precisely hit your target each and every time. Stills camera lenses are vaguely labeled and are marked no more accurately than "in the ballpark", they have usually extremely short focus throws, and the mechanisms are night and day different.
 
Barry_Green said:
But it ain't, not by a hundred thousand miles.
Click to expand...

...damn.

--

Seriously, Barry's right. Resolution gets a lot of talk, probably because its easy to talk about how this camera has more megapixels or out-resolves another. But there is a lot else left to be said about lenses, including the way they reproduce a scene aside from how sharp they are when sitting in front of a lens projector.
 
Michael Olsen said:
Not dop16mm, but I'm a big fan of the format...so...stand-in?

1. Cinema lenses are permanently geared, ready to receive a standard follow focus gear.
2. Cinema lenses have a long "throw", allowing for precise focus.
3. Cinema lenses have a very smooth physical motion as the product of precise internal engineering.
4. Cinema lenses have focus gears which rotate towards infinity in a standard direction, making it easy to switch from one lens to another without worrying about one being a Nikon.
5. Cinema lenses (if properly maintained) have very accurate and repeatable focus markings.
6. Cinema lenses are generally optimized to breathe as little as possible while focusing.
Click to expand...


Among other things. Like having silky buttery-smooth iris action with infinite positions, instead of clunky half-stops. Or that cinema lenses are typically all the same diameter and size, so swapping one out for another means no hassles whatsoever with re-fitting your follow focus or your mattebox or whatever.
 
Barry_Green said:
Among other things. Like having silky buttery-smooth iris action with infinite positions, instead of clunky half-stops. Or that cinema lenses are typically all the same diameter and size, so swapping one out for another means no hassles whatsoever with re-fitting your follow focus or your mattebox or whatever.
Click to expand...

Oh sure...he just wanted the short list about focusing though!

Cinema lenses are wonderful creations. One reason I'm loving the idea of the little RED mini-primes or even some of the Zeiss distagons. Talk about a fun little camera.
 
Homunculus said:
dop16mm, can anyone tell me what is the difference pulling focus on still lens and cinema lens. I have never used a 'cinema lens" why does everyone say pulling focus is a nightmare on stills lenses compared to cinema lens? What is the difference?

thanks
Click to expand...

Michael Olson has put it excellently clear - just anther angle: Cinema lenses are also optimized for the very "act of focussing". Because change of focus is an important mean of story telling - not just a technical/aesthetical necessity. Cinema lenses are the "Steinways" of film making..... ;-)
 
Exactly. Now, in comparison, many stills lenses are simply just not well suited to the task. Especially an autofocus lens. One thing that attracted me to the ZFs is that they have absolutely magnificent focus, for SLR lenses. About as good as you're going to find in any DSLR lens. If you simply cannot justify the (comparatively exorbitant) cost of cinema lenses, don't worry about it, there are plenty of very inexpensive or (comparatively) affordable stills lenses that will deliver beautiful results. Cinema lenses cost a lot because they aren't mass-manufactured consumer products, they're highly specialized and extremely precision-engineered marvels. For certain types of uses, they're just plain indispensible. For other uses, they're massive overkill.

On a shoot with a budget, and a dedicated 1st AC, and a mattebox, the cinema lenses are going to be soooo worth it. On a no-budget shoot where the camera operator is pulling his own focus and the catering budget is pizza, the cinema lenses are going to be a waste of money. There are many places where that money could be better spent. But at a certain level of production the cinema lenses move from being a luxury to being (what I consider) a necessity.
 
Barry_Green said:
But at a certain level of production the cinema lenses move from being a luxury to being (what I consider) a necessity.
Click to expand...

I think the weak link analogy works here - if the project has the budget to get good actors, a good director, and a great camera, it would just be a pity if all of those were "filtered" by a lens that didn't do it justice.
 
Well the nice thing about CP2s is that they support PL, nikon/EF and sony alpha mounts (for maybe a sony af100 competitor). So, it appears to have good resell value if you decide to upgrade later.

Speaking of Sony and saving money (hmm, those never go together). There are other ways to minimize your budget as well.

We recently purchased a NEXVG10 and stuck a Zeiss lense on it, and then put the entire thing onto a Merlin Steadicam and ran it through a crowded asian market.

A few filters later, and slowing the footage down, it became a perfect dream sequence. It was stuck between two pieces of red footage, and you couldn't tell that we just went from red to a sony handycam.

Saved us from hiring a pro steadicam operator that could support a red one camera and lense.



Course this was just for a web movie but.. :D
 
Barry_Green said:
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).
Click to expand...

My solution is reversing the gearbox on my follow focus.
 
As zeiss has designed the cp.2's to take different mounts, you can be sure m4/3 will be available by the time the camera ships. This could be a deciding factor if exposure can be set and controlled in camera. If I could have three I'd probably pick 35mm, 50mm and 85mm, and hope they were not a bad match for 14mm and 20mm pancakes, which will hopefully support the electronic focus tracking features.

That said, I work at the lowest of no budgets and make the most of what I have. If I had zeiss glass in any mount, I'd be finding a way to make it work before dismissing it for a new purchase. I still hope someone will produce an affordable single chip 2/3 camera so I can use my 16mm lenses and be done with it. Doesn't need to be RED or RAW, just saying.
 
So... the crop factor on the Zeiss CP.2 4/3 mount will be about the same as what the lense is listed for? 35mm will be around 35mm? is that right ?
 
The crop factor has nothing to do with the lens, at all. The lens is the lens.

It's the sensor that does the cropping, not the lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top