best Zeiss lens package for new af100

V

vincent6805

Member
Any DP's online, or top camera people, getting ready to purchase my first AF100...What would be the ideal PRIME CINIE lens package to start with. From best closeup wide angle, to telephoto?
 
Best Zeiss lens package?

Zeiss Master Primes!

Do you really want the best, or do you have a budget you need to stay within?
 
+1 on the Master Primes but if you want to save weight (a couple pounds) you can go with the Ultra Primes. Not as fast but they are super nice and a tad cheaper but not cheap by any means.

I would say the 16, 28, 65 would be a nice 3 lens set for the AF100. Try looking for older Arri/Zeiss glass if you are budget conscious.
 
Agree with the comments so far. Another budget conscious choice would be the Zeiss Compact Primes. Not as nice as the Ultras or Masters but a lot less money.
 
Vince, I'm pretty frugal, so I went low dollar with my Zeiss lens kit. I purchased used Zeiss Contax C/Y mount lenses.
They focus cine-wise, are fully manual, come in a wide variety of focal lengths, and their optical design is the basis for the newer Zeiss ZF & CP.2 lenses. I use them with a Kipon C/Y to M4/3 adapter, which surprisingly has a great fit for an inexpensive adapter. I then had Delrin focus gears installed and added 80mm hard fronts for ease of use with a follow focus and matte box.
 

Attachments

  • Jones Zeiss Lenses.jpg
    Jones Zeiss Lenses.jpg
    90 KB · Views: 0
thanks one and all so very much. Budget is always a concern, thus the reason I'm using some forethought and asking the pro's. I'm including a top lens package in my proposal. I've never been one to scrimp where it matters. So I'll definitely be looking at CP.2 lenses. Now, I'm am no expert, but from what I've gleaned, ( from this site) older lenses give a softer, less sharper look...So, buying used isn't going to factor. I like David Jones set, (pictured)...Covering all basis before purchase. And as an aside, all you pro's on this site are absolutely fantastic. I've learned so much from reading...I always approach everything with a completely empty cup. Thanks so very much.
 
I would say Ultra's or Standards. Both sets have amazing focal length range. The Ultra's have an 8mm - 180mm, and the Standards have 10mm -180mm. MP's are amazing but they are expensive and monster in size. Unless you have top-dog clients already, most people will scare off from MP's because of the price. If you have really big clients, then by all means go MP's. But only 2% of all films will be going with lenses that cost $1,500/day. Especially when Ultra's cost 600/day, Cooke S4's are 900/day, Cooke Panchro/i's are 400/day and etc.

If you want that slightly organic/vintage feel, yet great performance, Standard Speeds are wonderful. Yes they have very short focus throw distance, but they are very well made, and have a great look. They are not very expensive and come in a great range of lengths.

I would say that if in the rental business, Ultra's, Standards or Supers are your best bet. SuperSpeeds are garbage wide open but they rent mainly because of people who are afraid of exposure and don't know otherwise. They rent often, so I'd consider them for that reason... but as a DP, I'd rather go with standards than supers.

CP.2's are a great modern day-low cost set. They are no where near Ultra's, in terms of quality, but they will have a more modern rendition than the vintage Zeiss sets. They also have great focus scales and interchangable mounts. Most importantly, they also are very affordable, perhaps the second most affordable new set of PL lenses made for cinema out there. They would be much more appropriate with smaller budget folks. If your client base is bigger budget productions, they may not want CP.2's, to be honest. Unless you are buying these for your work, you need to simply gauge your client base and get what you think they will use the most and be happy with.

If you are renting to small-budget folks, they will like CP.2's, Supers or Standards. If you are renting to medium budget-bigger budget, they will likely want Standards or Ultra's (maybe supers), and if you are renting to BIG dogs, they will want Ultra's and MP's. But that is pretty big league to hustle MP's on the daily.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't waste your money for this caliber of lens for this camera. If you're going to invest in glass for the future, that's one thing, but if it's specifically for this camera, it won't pay off. The difference between a nice zeiss and let's say a nikon on an af100 is pretty lean. I've done a bunch of tests with a bunch of glass and I've come to feel that the sensor is what is delivering the image here and not the glass. Just my opinion though.
 
^ that seems to be the good news... lenses last much longer than cameras. :)


But I agree with your point... AF100's can take any cinema lens, but because of their price point, it is not typical to see them with anything like a Master Prime. However, I was just a camera assistant on a production where we had CCI Anamorphics and Hawk Anamorphics on three AF100's. If you know anything about Hawks, that kinda blows the mind a little. Regarding your findings with Nikons, depending on the Nikon lens, you might not see much of a difference, or a difference at all, in resolving power, contrast, and thus overall sharpness. However, sharpness is not the only reason DP's rent cinema glass, and as my college professor always said, 'everything goes down the coke bottle'... so glass always makes the image and is always very important. The sensor can only capture what the glass provides. That being said, for many circumstances and display requirements, the benefits of cinema lenses may not be needed, and thus is a reason why you seldom see anything above mid-level cine glass on AF-100's.

424090_902250535927_39602619_38877704_1621248484_n.jpg431019_902251498997_39602619_38877706_287548518_n.jpg

I'd say glass is a very good investment, better than a camera! :)
 
Last edited:
I totally agree with what you are saying. I just feel that glass on the af-100 doesn't play as big as a role of what people think. It's almost like investing thousands in putting a turbo charged conversion on a Toyota Camry. Sure it might be a bit better, but it's still a Camry. Buy glass for the future. Glass that will last. Make sure it will work on the af for now, but also will work on what you will get next. That's why I didn't buy any native micro 4/3 stuff.
 
When considering STILLS v. CINE lenses (assuming highest caliber image quality on both sides) the most outstanding differences regard the angular rotation of the focus barrel and breathing. CINE lenses have a greater rotation or a larger distance between focus marks (and more marks at that). Larger rotational distance as the distance to the subject is shortened and vise versa. This allows for easier focus pulling on difficult moves. STILLS lenses don't take this into account (although they might be starting to) because you are not focusing on an object in motion. They also have a shorter distance between markings which are ambiguous at best.

I agree that the glass is the best investment you can make in this world of constantly changing formats and sensors!
 
The only native M4/3 lens I own is the 14-140mm.
Every other lens covers either S35 or full frame 35mm.

If you invest in glass for the future you maximize your investment.
 
vincent6805 said:
Now, I'm am no expert, but from what I've gleaned, ( from this site) older lenses give a softer, less sharper look...So, buying used isn't going to factor.
Click to expand...

That is not really the case, as it depends on the lens. Yes some older lenses are softer, some are sharper than newer lenses, and some exhibit a magical quality that's hard to explain. Modern lenses no longer use rare earth elements if that matters to your overall look. For what it's worth, we did a test with the same focal length lens from Zeiss super speed, ZF, C/Y, CP.2, shot at f5.6 and nobody could tell a real difference, or pick which lens was which.
 
Ryan, again, thank you. I agree with your point about the sensor captures what the glass transmits. And Michael, I most definitely plan on stepping up to a Red Epic...when I hit the lottery, or sell one of my incredible, most excellent and highly developed screenplays. I sure hope you're laughing and not thinking I'm some moron. We all need to take a pee at ourselves once in awhile. Everything that has been posted in response to my thread has been nothing but incredible. It's nice to be around pros. Maybe someone should do a comparison of the various glass, pros and cons of use and post it as a sticky...Just a thought. A lot of guys such as myself needing all the help we can get. Hopefully, I'm not the only one. Again, thank you gentlemen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top