AF100 Zeiss Ultra Vs Compact

Mmm.. Steve said earlier:

"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."

and

"A Nikon 50/1.4 (50mm F1.4) = 60(ish)mm F2.4(ish) view on an AF100 if you're coming from RED, 7D, T2i, D90

A Nikon 50/1.4 (50mm F1.4) = 92(ish)mm F3.8(ish) view on an AF100 if you're coming from Canon 5D MKII Video."

I'm confused coming from still photography... :D

p.s. Barry when are you going to compile this into a lil blog/FAQ/whatever, with a nice donation button. You're a wealth of information, and save a lot of people $$$ with time. :D
 
I think it may make more sense to just use a field of view calculator and a depth of field calculator for the imager you are working with than to try and make comparisons between different sensors. That will give you the FOV as a simple degree and the depth of field in inches or feet, along with the near limit, far limit, and the hyperfocal distance. It's simple, it's straightforward, and it doesn't lead to misunderstandings about lenses "becoming" another focal length and so on.
 
That calculator helped a lot. Thanks!!! Sooooo... If I wanted a CP.2 50mm lense with the AF100, I'd pick the 28mm one instead, okay. i think ? :D

Now I just have to wait for the Zeiss 4/3 mounts to come out. Saves me a $1000 not having to buy the PL adapter.
 
Last edited:
Thanx for a very useful discussion on still v.s. cine lenses.

Now, for the truly low budget, can someone comment on the usability of C/Y mount Zeiss still glass v.s. other Zeiss stills? It seems like a very cheap way to have a prime lens kit with a fancy name and it looks like it can be adapted to most formats. What is the downside?

p.s. I admire you people who constantly take on the task of explaining effective focal lengths, and the "crop factor". There used to be a joke that all internet discussions eventually end in someone being compared to Hitler. Seems to be all threads on lenses eventually end in someone being confused about "crop factor".
 
Arnarfjodur said:
There used to be a joke that all internet discussions eventually end in someone being compared to Hitler. Seems to be all threads on lenses eventually end in someone being confused about "crop factor".
Click to expand...

Hitler was known for a particularly vicious crop factor. You're right, it happened.
We now return to our previous thread of discussion... :Drogar-Mark-10(DBG)
 
To answer the OP:

Ultra's are more expensive, better quality and a better build... kinda.

The ultra's are cine lenses. No doubt. They have faster apertures and better optics. I would bet they are better color matched in a set and have the same T-stop throughout the set. They are heavier, longer, and are notorious for stiff focus ring feel. The Ultra's are made for S35mm format, and only the long focal lengths would cover a larger sensor size. They are made for cinema, not photography. They are only available in PL mount. The CP'2's are not consistent in maximum aperture throughout the set, and require more light (which I don't think is a very big deal as sensors are more sensitive. Just make sure you know the least common denominator stop of the lens you plan on using in a scene). However they are much less expensive, have pretty good, but not as, quality. Their biggest strength is the very short and lightweight build. I can't comment on focus markings on the barrel, as I do not have enough experience on those as I do on, say, Cooke's, RPP's, or SuperSpeeds, however, the focus rings are not as 'stiff' as the Ultra's and I like that. They are great options at anytime, but steadi-cam would highly benefit from their build size and weight. These lenses also utilize the lens element tech from the famous still photography line ZE's/ZF's. These lenses have an interchangeable mount, and because of it's circle projection size for photography, can cover just about any format up to FF photography. The CP'2's focus like a cine lens, meaning the barrel turns in the right direction, and the focus markings are spread out unlike photography lenses of today. The Ultra's and CP'1's of course are like this (cine style) as well. This is only mentioned as the still lenses the CP2's are based off of are not. The CP'2's I believe have more aperture blades.

I'm always curious why some lenses pick some aperture blade numbers while others pick something different. It's odd to me. But it does effect the look!
 
Last edited:
This is my aesthetic, my opinion and very personal but I rather dislike seeing a scene where focus is pulled. It must be done in subtle ways and not too frequently or, I feel, like bombastic music or (God forbid) a zoom during the shot, it can really stand out like a sore thumb and take the viewer out of the moment.

Though it isn't always possible, I'd much rather set an f-stop/camera distance where the actors are and remain within focus with a background that falls off nicely with bokeh. Hell sometimes actually many times it is best to stop down entirely to get a deep dof.

My fear is that (like the zoom shots of old) pulling focus will be done to such an extreme that it will become apparent and therefore distracting to a casual viewer. And that day (like the days of power zooms) will be the last day of focus pulling.
 
Steve Kahn said:
This is my aesthetic, my opinion and very personal but I rather dislike seeing a scene where focus is pulled. It must be done in subtle ways and not too frequently or, I feel, like bombastic music or (God forbid) a zoom during the shot, it can really stand out like a sore thumb and take the viewer out of the moment.

Though it isn't always possible, I'd much rather set an f-stop/camera distance where the actors are and remain within focus with a background that falls off nicely with bokeh. Hell sometimes actually many times it is best to stop down entirely to get a deep dof.

My fear is that (like the zoom shots of old) pulling focus will be done to such an extreme that it will become apparent and therefore distracting to a casual viewer. And that day (like the days of power zooms) will be the last day of focus pulling.
Click to expand...


You might get your wish when the DSLR shooting at F/1.4 fad goes away and people go back to the ever-so-pleasing look of T/2.8, T/4, or T/5.6. I've been pushing for that for a long time. T/1.4 or F/1.4 is just silly, unless the story really calls for that aesthetic.
 
Steve Kahn said:
This is my aesthetic, my opinion and very personal but I rather dislike seeing a scene where focus is pulled. It must be done in subtle ways and not too frequently or, I feel, like bombastic music or (God forbid) a zoom during the shot, it can really stand out like a sore thumb and take the viewer out of the moment.

Though it isn't always possible, I'd much rather set an f-stop/camera distance where the actors are and remain within focus with a background that falls off nicely with bokeh. Hell sometimes actually many times it is best to stop down entirely to get a deep dof.

My fear is that (like the zoom shots of old) pulling focus will be done to such an extreme that it will become apparent and therefore distracting to a casual viewer. And that day (like the days of power zooms) will be the last day of focus pulling.
Click to expand...

99% of focus pulls are to simply keep the subject in focus. It's as common and necessary as the sound guy using microphones to hear dialogue.

I agree that zooms often take me out of the movie. But pulling focus is more often a duty than a stylistic choice
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
You might get your wish when the DSLR shooting at F/1.4 fad goes away and people go back to the ever-so-pleasing look of T/2.8, T/4, or T/5.6. I've been pushing for that for a long time. T/1.4 or F/1.4 is just silly, unless the story really calls for that aesthetic.
Click to expand...

T5.6 is a nice place to be where many of the top ASCs spend much of their time.
 
I don't think the F1.4 "fad" is going to be going away anytime soon. I use my 30mm F1.4 Sigma ALL THE TIME wide open and I love the lens. Mainly, what I like about it is the ability to use LESS light to light my scenes. It allows me more freedom with current sensors to really get some great shots in locations that I would typically require a lot of light and then, with that light, I run into having to shoot in ways to prevent seeing all the extra lighting (like when we shot with the HVX200).

Sigma has just sent me a 50mm F1.4 to review for them for video purposes, as the Canon 50mm F1.4 is HORRIBLE wide open for us. The CA is horrible. I also have an 85mm F1.4 and use it quite a bit at F1.4 for focus reveals, but for other stuff, I do use it much higher for deeper DoF all the time. Having faster lens gives you the freedom to do those sorts of shots in more ways when you want.

I did in fact put a CP.2 50mm on my 7D a month ago and I can tell you, the lens does in fact look great. I did some video AND some stills. And the silky smooth operation is awesome.

However...

The lens is HEAVY and HUGE! For many uses to shooting cine style lens, I am sure this is fine for you, but I like to run around with a hand held stabilizer (Blackbird by CMR) and there is NO WAY that is going to be happening with these lens for me! :) Of course, if you have a vest system, you'll be fine. The lens felt like it weighed more than my 7D and it got in the way of the Manfrotto mounting plate I had on the camera!!

The reason I mention all this is do you guys get bothered by the weight at all?
 
vagarob said:
If I wanted a CP.2 50mm lens with the AF100, I'd pick the 28mm one instead, okay. i think?
Click to expand...

vagarob,

It depends.

If you're used to shooting 35mm stills (or Canon 5D I or II), then a 25mm Zeiss CP.2 lens on the Panasonic AF100 will give you a similar field-of-view.

If, however, you are used to the FOV of the APS-C sensors (Canon 7D, T2i, etc), 35mm motion picture film or RED One, etc. then you'll get a similar field-of-view (albeit slightly wider) from the 35mm Zeiss CP.2 lens on the Panasonic AF100 (2x crop factor). 40mm would be a better match, but it's not an option with the CP.2 lenses.
 
Barry_Green said:
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.
Click to expand...

Master Primes Do.....but not all .
 
Arnarfjodur said:
Thanx for a very useful discussion on still v.s. cine lenses.

Now, for the truly low budget, can someone comment on the usability of C/Y mount Zeiss still glass v.s. other Zeiss stills? It seems like a very cheap way to have a prime lens kit with a fancy name and it looks like it can be adapted to most formats. What is the downside?

p.s. I admire you people who constantly take on the task of explaining effective focal lengths, and the "crop factor". There used to be a joke that all internet discussions eventually end in someone being compared to Hitler. Seems to be all threads on lenses eventually end in someone being confused about "crop factor".
Click to expand...

I put together a set of C/Y mount Zeiss lenses some time ago and have been very pleased with them. Not only do they focus cine-wise, most people can't tell the difference between them and the newer ZF & CP.2 line which are based off the original C/Y designs.
In my situation they perform flawlessly for shooting local and regional TV commercials at a much lower budget than CP.2 lenses, with no discernible quality difference.

All The Best!

Dave
 
avro said:
Master Primes Do.....but not all .
Click to expand...

What Master Primes do? None of them are designed to. If any of them do cover, I would bet that they're the longer telephoto ones, like 50mm+, and that it would be the same accidental effect we're seeing with c-mount lenses on the GH1/GH2/AF100. They're not designed to cover the much-larger 4/3 sensor, but the longer focal lengths usually do. Not well though; you're definitely seeing areas of the frame that Zeiss would most definitely prefer you not be using! Distortion, aberration, blurry corners, all that stuff happens with the c-mount lenses, and I would wager that the edges and corners of a Master Prime on a 5D would exhibit similarly less-than-optimal effects in the corners.
 
grimepoch said:
I did in fact put a CP.2 50mm on my 7D a month ago and I can tell you, the lens does in fact look great. I did some video AND some stills. And the silky smooth operation is awesome.

However...

The lens is HEAVY and HUGE! For many uses to shooting cine style lens, I am sure this is fine for you, but I like to run around with a hand held stabilizer (Blackbird by CMR) and there is NO WAY that is going to be happening with these lens for me! :) Of course, if you have a vest system, you'll be fine. The lens felt like it weighed more than my 7D and it got in the way of the Manfrotto mounting plate I had on the camera!!

The reason I mention all this is do you guys get bothered by the weight at all?
Click to expand...

Did you just call the 50mm CP.2 heavy and huge?! At 2.2lbs? Lol. I think it's time you experience a camera that weighs over 28 ounces. :) You should be fine with a 2lb lens... how heavy are the ones you use now? A glidecam2000 can take about 10lbs (I push it over the 6 limit). You don't need a vest.


Barry_Green said:
What Master Primes do? None of them are designed to. If any of them do cover, I would bet that they're the longer telephoto ones, like 50mm+, and that it would be the same accidental effect we're seeing with c-mount lenses on the GH1/GH2/AF100. They're not designed to cover the much-larger 4/3 sensor, but the longer focal lengths usually do. Not well though; you're definitely seeing areas of the frame that Zeiss would most definitely prefer you not be using! Distortion, aberration, blurry corners, all that stuff happens with the c-mount lenses, and I would wager that the edges and corners of a Master Prime on a 5D would exhibit similarly less-than-optimal effects in the corners.
Click to expand...



Yeah... MP's don't cover FF intentionally. I've never tested them, but I'm sure some of the very high focal lengths do have larger projections. My Cooke Panchro/i lenses cover FF but with only the 75mm and 100mm. Illya friedman tested my lenses on one of his PL'd 5D's. But who knows about quality.

Barry is correct to fear some optical issues outside of the intended projection circle. Which is usually around 30-33mm for high end PL lenses.
 
Last edited:
You can add more weight to the camera, but the less is better for me :) Sure, I could run with the 2.2lbs on there, but if I had a lens that was lighter, I can go even longer! :) I use a blackbird stabilizer. Given I was shooting on the 7D, that lens is overkill! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top