Canon Cinema lenses?

R

Ryan-Guy

Well-known member
So the only thing that got my attention from Canon was their new cine-zoom lenses. Did anybody catch an estimated price for those bad boys?
 
From press release…

Both the Canon CN-E14.5-60mm T2.6 L S (EF mount) lens and the Canon CN-E14.5-60mm T2.6 L SP (PL mount) lens are scheduled for late January 2012 availability for an estimated list price of $45,000 each. The Canon CN-E30-300mm T2.95-3.7 L S (EF mount) and Canon CN-E30-300mm T2.95-3.7 L SP (PL mount) lens are scheduled for late March 2012 availability for an estimated list price of $47,000 each.

The Canon CN-E24mm T1.5 L F (EF mount) and CN-E50mm T1.3 L F (EF mount) lenses are scheduled to be available in late July 2012. The CN-E85mm T1.3 L F (EF mount) lens is scheduled to be available in late August. The Canon CN-E24mm T1.5 L F (EF mount) lens will have an estimated list price of $6,800. The Canon CN-E50mm T1.3 L F (EF mount) lens will have an estimated list price of $6,800. The Canon CN-E85mm T1.3 L F (EF mount) lens will have an estimated list price of $6,800.
 
sad they're way out of my price range, that 2.6 30-300 seems like the perfect event / ENG lens.
 
Man, if Canon had priced those primes around or slightly higher than what they charge for the L series still primes, they would have sold a gazillion of them. As it is, they're way out of my price range. Looks like I'll be buying some L series glass.
 
Why would cannon make a new product that competes with their existing product in cost?
Especially when one is MORE expensive to make?
 
Because they serve different markets. The cine lenses are fully manual without any autofocus motors and are slower, so I don't think they compare with L series glass. No still photographer is going to use them. And I would wager that they are roughly the same cost to produce (no motors, no electronics, etc.) but they're priced as such due to the market; i.e. their competitors price their cine lenses at 5K+ so they want to stay in that range. For example, look at the Zeiss CP2s. They are literally the exact same lens as their ZF line, yet they are 3000 dollars more expensive per lens. One could argue that the cine features are inherently more expensive to produce, but that would be specious. Frankly, and granted this is just my opinion, companies charge as much for cine glass as they do because they can get away with it.
 
echo9 said:
One could argue that the cine features are inherently more expensive to produce, but that would be specious. Frankly, and granted this is just my opinion, companies charge as much for cine glass as they do because they can get away with it.
Click to expand...
Or it's how much it actually costs to produce cinema lenses. Do you remember when the lens bubble popped and all these companies were making new cinema glass (uniqoptics, red, schneider, cooke, etc...) and all of them came in around the same price? Cameras keep getting better and cheaper but lenses have roughly stayed the same. I believe there is a reason for that.
 
I'm sorry, but can anyone tell me, with any actual detailed information, why a lens costs as much as a car? That's not a joke. I don't get it.

It's a few pounds of metal and glass. Precision engineered, yes, but a Lotus Esprit is also a precision-engineered few-thousand pounds of metal and glass --- and a whole lot of other things.
 
combatentropy said:
I'm sorry, but can anyone tell me, with any actual detailed information, why a lens costs as much as a car? That's not a joke. I don't get it.

It's a few pounds of metal and glass. Precision engineered, yes, but a Lotus Esprit is also a precision-engineered few-thousand pounds of metal and glass --- and a whole lot of other things.
Click to expand...

Well my guess is that they can argue economies of scale. But you are right. A BMW 5 series is going to have much more total precision than any lens, unless you plan on looking at other galaxies. Maybe 10-15 lens components have to have tolerances of +/-.0001", where as a bmw may need to have 1000+ dimensions of +/- .0005". But if you were to sell a BMW in a market with the supply/demand curves of cinema lenses, I'm willing to bet that price would multiply many times.
 
Matty_g said:
Or it's how much it actually costs to produce cinema lenses. Do you remember when the lens bubble popped and all these companies were making new cinema glass (uniqoptics, red, schneider, cooke, etc...) and all of them came in around the same price? Cameras keep getting better and cheaper but lenses have roughly stayed the same. I believe there is a reason for that.
Click to expand...

Respectfully disagree. I don't work work in lens manufacturing, but for most companies, engineering and manufacturing something with electronics and motors into a smaller body with less range (i.e. less focus throw) is much more difficult and expensive to produce than the mechanical, larger counterpart. Again, I'd wager pricing is more due to market competition than anything else. The unfortunate fact is that film equipment and accessories are vastly overpriced compared to their design and manufacturing costs. Look at Zacuto's camera rigs, for example. They charge thousands of dollars for aluminum rods and right angle connectors. Granted they're machined to tight tolerances, but nevertheless that's about $20 worth of engineering and $50 worth of parts going for several thousand at retail.

Certainly economies of scale factor into pricing, but nevertheless the entire cine market has a significant markup on just about everything.
 
Here are a few quotes from this reduser thread: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?20437-Why-cine-lenses

Pawel Achtel said:
Yep. And what beautiful MP 14mm lens it is.


Basic differenences are:


1. Cine lenses have limited breathing


2. Cine zoom lenses hold focus through zoom


3. Cine lenses have small or no ramping


4. Generally modern cine lenses are sharper and have higher contrast than still picture lenses. A $30k Master Prime will outgun any still picture lens out there, no ifs or buts. I projected them and there is substantial difference.


5. Generally modern cine lenses are faster. You don't find f/1.2 at 14mm or 150mm in still picture lenses.


6. Cine lenses have much more solid build and are consistent in their performance. If Canon L lenses are an indication, every example is different and performance can vary dramatically.


7. Cine lenses have calibrated focus marks and long throw - for me a feature that disqualifies still lenses from professional use where critical focusing at wide apertures is essential.


8. Cine lenses have industry standard PL mount that does not require adapters, which often cause back focus calibration problems or void camera warranty.


9. Cine lenses have fixed and non-rotationg front element allowing usage of clip-on matte boxes.


10. Cine lenses have focus and aperture gears, which are smooth, accurate and precise.


11. Cine lenses do not have hard stops on aperture ring.


12. Cine lenses from the same manufacturer are colour matched. Still lenses aren't, in fact, their colour response is vastly different even within the same series.


13. Modern cine lenses tend to flare much less than still lenses.


14. Cine lenses are optimised for wide apertures and produce high MTFs even at f/1.2. Still picture lenses are generally noticably softer open wide.


15. Full frame still lenses cover larger sensor area and therefore do not perform as well as dedicated lenses designed for S35 size sensor.


I bought a small set of three MPs and, after more than $100k, I could not be happier. As usual, you get what you pay for.
Click to expand...



Jorge Díaz-Amador said:
Pawel's post was excellent. I would only add the following:
  • On a still camera, the lens is never doing anything while the exposure is made. No focusing or zooming while the shutter is open. This simplifies construction and a lot of looseness and play can be tolerated.
  • Still lenses have to be designed to a price point, and with size and weight limits in mind.
  • All cine lenses are designed to be serviced and have a very long life expectancy (longer than cameras of the same age). Inexpensive still lenses are not designed to be serviced.
  • Because the cine lens selling price is higher, the manufacturing reject rate can be higher, and this means closer tolerances in manufacturing can be held. This in turn makes possible certain optical designs that depend on tight manufacturing tolerances in order to perform properly.
  • All professional cine lenses are assembled by hand. I've seen how this is done at Cooke Ltd. and at Carl Zeiss. The process is very labor intensive, especially at Cooke.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top