Cine-mod vs. Cine-lens

M

movieman1005

Member
Hi all,

In doing research to buy some cine lenses (most likely a wide, 50mm, and a telephoto) I've found that the absolute most expensive ones I can afford are either the Zeiss CP.2's or the Canon CN-E's. Recently, though, I discovered the "cine-mod" process, and seeing as the zeiss ZF looks almost identical to the CP.2 optically, I'm just wondering why anyone in their right mind would spend a couple thousand extra just to get the cine lens? I mean if you have to work with professional film equipment to impress or give validity to yourself to a client I understand, but if those won't be issues for me shouldn't I just buy some zeiss or canon cine-modded lenses and save about 10,000 on the three lenses? The only differences would seem to be the number of blades on the iris (which it sounds like it doesn't make much of a difference) and maybe a stronger build quality, but if I can get the same-looking images I'd rather save the cash.
 
You provide your own counterargument... If you didn't need the "validation" then you wouldn't be buying cine lenses on the cheap in the first place. You would know that 3 prime lenses is NOT enough to shoot anything so you would be better off with a few more photo lenses. However for whatever reason you feel that cine is the way to go. You see, majority of people make decisions not on practical implications but on harder to define points of prestige, name brand, what marketing accomplishes with their message, general standing of the gear in the community, easy access to funds etc. In your example you only take one of the factors in the consideration: price. But what if in 2 years you have funding to purchases a set of higher end primes? How easy will it be to sell the CP2s v cinivised lenses? Moreover with cine lenses you and your potential renters know what they are getting, how easy will it be to rent cinivised lenses? Bottom line is that without looking at all the factors it's hard to make presumption of what will work for one group of people v another.
 
Without more information I would recommend spending a few hundred dollars on two or three used Nikkor lenses.

A cinema lens's price has more to do with economies of scale than quality. Nobody but us weirdos prefers a big heavy lens with no autofocus or autoiris. For every cinema lens sold, a thousand plasticky autofocus lenses are sold, and it would be about the same even if cinema lenses cost as much as consumer lenses. Don't get me wrong, cinema lenses are great and often look better than everyday ones. But they are not 100 times as good, although they may cost 100 times as much. They are only two or three times as good, and only to a perfectionist who has pressed his face up against the screen. To the everyday citizen, they look 1.0 times as good and are -10 times as fun to actually deal with.

3 prime lenses is NOT enough
Click to expand...

From Why Fixed Lenses Take Better Pictures, by Ken Rockwell:

Actually, three fixed lenses are more than enough. As you learn to see, even one fixed lens is plenty, and more lenses are just distractions you have to carry around with you.

I'm serious: I used to think like most people, and worry that I'd miss all kinds of pictures by not carrying everything from 14mm through 400mm every time I left the house. Today, I'll travel for a week and bring nothing more than a 28mm, 50mm and 100mm, and as the week goes on, wish I'd left the 100mm at home.
Click to expand...

Shot with one lens:

 
Last edited:
combatentropy, that short film proves my point - there is no language of the lens behind it - only a collection of images. So in essence you CAN shoot anything with one of anything but then the "language" doesn't get a chance to exist.
 
movieman1005 said:
In doing research to buy some cine lenses (most likely a wide, 50mm, and a telephoto) I've found that the absolute most expensive ones I can afford are either the Zeiss CP.2's or the Canon CN-E's. Recently, though, I discovered the "cine-mod" process, and seeing as the zeiss ZF looks almost identical to the CP.2 optically, I'm just wondering why anyone in their right mind would spend a couple thousand extra just to get the cine lens? I mean if you have to work with professional film equipment to impress or give validity to yourself to a client I understand, but if those won't be issues for me shouldn't I just buy some zeiss or canon cine-modded lenses and save about 10,000 on the three lenses? The only differences would seem to be the number of blades on the iris (which it sounds like it doesn't make much of a difference) and maybe a stronger build quality, but if I can get the same-looking images I'd rather save the cash.
Click to expand...

Take a look at this, I think you will enjoy it.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?324691-Zeiss-CP-2-vs-ZF-ZE-vs-Cine-modded-lenses
 
Last edited:
movieman1005 said:
Hi all,

In doing research to buy some cine lenses (most likely a wide, 50mm, and a telephoto) I've found that the absolute most expensive ones I can afford are either the Zeiss CP.2's or the Canon CN-E's. Recently, though, I discovered the "cine-mod" process, and seeing as the zeiss ZF looks almost identical to the CP.2 optically, I'm just wondering why anyone in their right mind would spend a couple thousand extra just to get the cine lens? I mean if you have to work with professional film equipment to impress or give validity to yourself to a client I understand, but if those won't be issues for me shouldn't I just buy some zeiss or canon cine-modded lenses and save about 10,000 on the three lenses? The only differences would seem to be the number of blades on the iris (which it sounds like it doesn't make much of a difference) and maybe a stronger build quality, but if I can get the same-looking images I'd rather save the cash.
Click to expand...


The reason I spent the money on CP.2's is simple. When you start to work many long days with a set of lenses, what was a minor irritation can become a major problem. If you have spent any time pulling focus then you know what I am talking about. I want the same degree of focus rotation across the whole range of lenses - 300mm. I want to use one set of filters and not have to adjust my mattebox everytime I change a lens. This saves a HUGE amount of time over the long haul. I want witness marks that my 1st AC can count on. I want to be able use both PL and EF mounts and I want to be able to change them myself without worrying about recollimation. I want a lens that turns in the same direction as all my other lenses. And lastly, yes I prefer 14 blades for out of focus lights and bokah rather than 7 blades, because guess what? It does look better. So all of that adds up to, yes they are definitely worth it - for me.
 
I have Duclos ZFs and I love the way they look but as an owner, and one who pulls his own focus and has worked with ACs the thing that is most troublesome is the difference in throw. For instance, the 35mm throw is short compared to the others. On a recent shoot we had a long focus pull on a Bartech as an actor was running from far away to us and it was hard to nail. There just wasn't enough throw. The 85 has too much throw close, which is great for stills but can be tough pulling for motion. You can sprain your wrist with a whip on it!

As far as the reverse deal, I got a Zacuto FF with a reverse gear and the problem was solved. Certain remote follow focus systems have this too.

I think consistency in operation from lens to lens is worth the extra cost for cinema lenses. I also think that having accurate witness marks is a fair ask for an AC. I'm hugely impressed with the last AC I worked with and his ability to adjust to the inconsistent throw.

Missing a take because it was inordinately hard to pull focus is not acceptable if the project scope can support getting cinema lenses.

Oh yeah, and although I like the continuously variable de-clicked iris, it's not practical to do an aperture pull on the ZFs which only has a gear ring for focus.

I think the Duclos modded ZFs look fantastic and I'm very happy to have them. For an owner/operator set, I don't think there are better. For my projects and many of my clients they are great. Maybe someday I'll buy cinema lenses when my business can support them but in the meantime, if I had something critical with a budget for all pro crew, in many cases, I'd rent cinema lenses.
 
Last edited:
If you are a one-man band shooting special events and fun films with your friends on the side, I would again take a very hard look at old Nikons (Manual Focus Nikon Primes: The Swiss Army Knife of Lenses).

However if you're shooting professionally, day in, day out, and have first assistant camera, second assistant camera, somebody's grandma, and someone on standby to load film even though you don't have film anymore, then yeah, those little idiosyncrasies can add up.
 
The only way you will get good advice is if you describe what you are going to shoot.
There are situations where it is stupid to use a CP2 over a still photo lens. Yes, for video.
And with all respect to Patryk "lens language" means nothing out of context. There are lots of great films shot with a single fixed lens or within a small focal range. Some DPs will tell you that the consistency of a single focal length adds integrity to the image.
 
If you are not fussy about throw from lens to lens yet still want something which looks similar to a CP.2 and even uses the same Zeiss glass, consider the Cinematics mods CT.2

4_sm_zpsd6351b9d.jpg


I started a separate thread with some information and a price comparison from ZF.2 to Duclos mod to the CT.2's.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?324691-Zeiss-CP-2-vs-ZF-ZE-vs-Cine-modded-lenses
 
cpc said:
There are lots of great films shot with a single fixed lens or within a small focal range. Some DPs will tell you that the consistency of a single focal length adds integrity to the image.
Click to expand...
Actually there is only a few good films done in such a way where the one-lens was used as a challenge that was build upon and added specific staging and distortion of the actors to their language. It never was: we only have one lens lets go with it after typical wide, medium, CU - as the example above is trying to do.

cpc said:
Some DPs will tell you that the consistency of a single focal length adds integrity to the image.
Click to expand...
No, no real DP will tell you this. This is description of a technical quality of the lens and DPs deal with meaning of the image not technical. Young guys who are still learning and thus understand little about real job of a DP (or master DPs talking to such guys) might tell you that but no, no real DP will.
 
movieman1005 said:
Hi all,

In doing research to buy some cine lenses (most likely a wide, 50mm, and a telephoto) I've found that the absolute most expensive ones I can afford are either the Zeiss CP.2's or the Canon CN-E's. Recently, though, I discovered the "cine-mod" process, and seeing as the zeiss ZF looks almost identical to the CP.2 optically, I'm just wondering why anyone in their right mind would spend a couple thousand extra just to get the cine lens? I mean if you have to work with professional film equipment to impress or give validity to yourself to a client I understand, but if those won't be issues for me shouldn't I just buy some zeiss or canon cine-modded lenses and save about 10,000 on the three lenses? The only differences would seem to be the number of blades on the iris (which it sounds like it doesn't make much of a difference) and maybe a stronger build quality, but if I can get the same-looking images I'd rather save the cash.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't buy either the cp.2 or CN-E. If your gonna spend the money on real glass why buy rehoused stills? Cause thats what your gonna get with CP.2 and CN-E's. Look into the Schneider Xenon. First REAL full frame cinema glass. And it comes in every mount option, unlike CN-E which are EF only.
Here's 3 stills from a shoot I just did in Utah with my set of Schneider XENONS.
A008_C002_0607HG.0000333.jpgA008_C012_0607PK.0000355.jpgA001_C006_0604B8.0000000.jpg
 
Nice frame grabs Joncarr,

As someone who just decided to build a set of CP.2's, I share the disappointment that in fact they are just rehoused stills but on the other hand I have done a great deal of work in video/film and stills using stills lenses for the last 10 years to know that stills glass has never really let me down and c'mon this is still Zeiss glass!

That aside, the Xenon's are quite limited in focal lengths right now and not sure I could live not being able to go wider than 25mm. I am unaware of Schneider's planned release schedule and hopefully its been announced or will be announced soon because that would prevent me from investing in something so unforeseen.

Available focal lengths aside the Xenon's are still anywhere from $1500 to $2000 more than the CP's so that's another reason to shy away from them but I do agree in the "buy once cry once" motto. The Xenon's look to be about 1 to 1.5lbs heavier than CP's on average which is not a big deal but it is more weight if anyone is looking into other comparables.

Personally I think that anyone is going to be pretty happy with the CP.2's as a start into PL glass territory and if you go with the CP.2's over the ZF.2's I think you'll find it better for resale as well.
 
starcentral said:
Nice frame grabs Joncarr,

As someone who just decided to build a set of CP.2's, I share the disappointment that in fact they are just rehoused stills but on the other hand I have done a great deal of work in video/film and stills using stills lenses for the last 10 years to know that stills glass has never really let me down and c'mon this is still Zeiss glass!

That aside, the Xenon's are quite limited in focal lengths right now and not sure I could live not being able to go wider than 25mm. I am unaware of Schneider's planned release schedule and hopefully its been announced or will be announced soon because that would prevent me from investing in something so unforeseen.

Available focal lengths aside the Xenon's are still anywhere from $1500 to $2000 more than the CP's so that's another reason to shy away from them but I do agree in the "buy once cry once" motto. The Xenon's look to be about 1 to 1.5lbs heavier than CP's on average which is not a big deal but it is more weight if anyone is looking into other comparables.

Personally I think that anyone is going to be pretty happy with the CP.2's as a start into PL glass territory and if you go with the CP.2's over the ZF.2's I think you'll find it better for resale as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks,

dont by get me wrong, cp.2 are not bad. I just wouldn't want to own a set. There too cold, inconsitant apertures and soft wide open for my taste. I'm into warmer glass. But they are great glass to own if you want to rent them out or own mulitipal cameras with different mounts. They are a lot easier to swap mounts then my Xenons. As for or weight, the Xenons are .4 pounds more then the cp.2. Which isn't that much more. When I do movi work, the weight is perfect for my epic. It's a match made in movi heaven. As for the set, it does suck to only have 3 out now. But the 100 is due in end of June and 25 is due in Augest after some German holiday. Price is the same when you do the reduser group buy.

I do agree that if you buy cp.2 you should be happy with the performance for most jobs, as they are a great all around glass.
 
These replies have been very helpful so far. I suppose I should have mentioned I am planning on using my lenses with a Canon 5dmark3 and doing most of the filming by myself.
 
Last edited:
Well, then its probably best to forget about expensive lenses and get some decent stills lenses. Leica R, Zeiss Contax C/Y, Nikon are all good vintage options and can be mounted on Canon DSLRs with adapters. If you are going to shoot handheld/or with a chest rig/or with a shoulder rig, just get some image stabilized Canon lenses.
If you are shooting alone, there are probably better ways to spend thousands of $$ than shelling out for CP2, Xenons, CN-E or whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top