CP.3 vs Sigma Cine Primes

Arthur Love

Arthur Love

Member
Am I missing something or are the Sigma Primes still an incredible value compared to the new CP3's (non xd)? Faster, supposedly sharper? How are the mechanics, and matching across the range? Breathing? I'd assume zeiss wins here. It's hard to find footage of both. I need a set of primes and have about 30K to spend but I can't see why I shouldn't just get the Sigmas...

I guess what I really want is the CP.Otus. Ha!
 
Last edited:
Until both lens sets get out into the world for people to use and compare, I doubt we'll know. Breathing is very well controlled on the CP.2s, so I'd be surprised if the newer CP.3s are worse in that regard.

Matt Duclos just posted up a breathing comparison between the new Tokina cine primes and the Sigmas, and the Tokinas were perfect, whilst the Sigmas showed a bit of breathing. Is that breathing strong enough to bother anyone in day-to-day shooting? We'll have to wait and see.
 
I've shot with the Sigma Cine Primes. They are built beautifully and look great. But they do breathe,
some focal lengths more than others.
 
Teddy_Dem said:
Phil Holland did a pretty comprehensive test of all the available Sigma Cine Primes on the RED Monstro last year, including the new 28mm, 40mm (my favorite) and the 105mm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLVEqTwCORo
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I only had the 14mm, 50mm and 85mm to test. As Phil's test shows, the breathing on the 14 was pretty bad, the 50mm acceptable and the 85mm kind of breathed a decent amount too.
Nice test, really shows that off well. They were great looking lenses IMHO. But others breathe less.
 
Any thoughts on how the Sigma, or Zeiss 28mm would match up with Tokina Vista and ATX lenses? I'm not sure if I can wait until next spring for the 25-75 Tokina. (I already have the Tokina 11-20, 50, and 85mm.)
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
As Phil's test shows, the breathing on the 14 was pretty bad, the 50mm acceptable and the 85mm kind of breathed a decent amount too.
Nice test, really shows that off well. They were great looking lenses IMHO. But others breathe less.
Click to expand...

For a useful point of reference, here's the 14mm Sigma compared to a 14mm Arri/Zeiss Master Prime.

I feel like it does rather well considering the price/prestige difference between the two. From memory the 14mm Ultra Prime fairs very similarly from a breathing point of view, and these are also significant racks of focus (so you're seeing the effect about as pronounced as it can be). Ultra-wides that don't breathe are not a common thing:


I feel like I can speak pretty well to this topic, as I owned a set of CP.2s for years, have shot with CP.3s a bunch (both alone and in support of my CZ.2 zooms) and currently still own a 21mm CP.3 (though that's for sale at the moment). I've also just sold off my Zeiss zooms and moved to a set of Sigma Cine Primes (14mm, 20mm, 28mm, 40mm, 50mm, 85mm).

Optically, I don't think there's really much contest. The newer computer-assisted lens design process that's made the Sigmas possible, really does put them a level above the older designs of the Zeisses.

They're shockingly good wide-open, and damned near perfect by the time you've closed the aperture down a stop.

There's certainly (and unsurprisingly, given their stills heritage) some breathing to be had with the Sigmas, but I wouldn't call it objectionable. And there's a lot of much pricier glass out in the world, that suffers comparably. If you're willing to add an extra kilogram per lens, the Tokinas are definitely the pick (in that price bracket) for glass that controls breathing.

They're also wonderfully compact, very robust, and only drop down a T/2 at 14mm and 135mm (everything else is a T/1.5). Where with the Zeisses, the 15mm, 18mm and 21mm are all T/2.9 (with everything else at T/2).

My favourite trick of the Sigmas though, is the bokeh, which is silky smooth (and plays WAY above its pay grade). It lets you really focus in on a subject without any distracting artefacts in the background or foreground.

So it's a wash then right? The Sigmas sweep the floor with the CP.3s? Well, no. Although optically, the Sigmas win convincingly - showcasing a fraction of the aberrations you'll from the CP.3s under stress/high-contrast edges. When it comes to coatings, no one does it quite like the Germans.

The colour and contrast that the Zeisses give you are just gorgeous. And although the Sigmas do just fine, they certainly don't have quite that same magic.

The CP.3s also have fully interchangeable lens mounts, where the PL-mount versions of the Sigmas do not.

I'm sure the OP has already made his decision, but for anyone else pondering between the two, definitely compare them side by side before you make your pick. The Sigmas win optically, and speed-wise, but you may find the Zeiss's look nicer regardless.
 
I have a full set of Canon CN-E primes(sans the newest 20mm) and if I was buying new today, I’d be leaning heavily towards the Sigma’s and the CP’s wouldn’t even be in the conversation. I’ve had one for a demo and really, really liked it. Looked amazing and the mechanics were top-notch. Everyone I’ve talked to that owns them, loves them. If you like the looks you get from Canon Cine lenses, you’ll like the Sigma Cine’s, too. To my eye, they were close enough in my testing that you could intercut them uncorrected with no issues.
 
Great information ...

I have been toying with the idea of a SLR Magic 70 anamorphic ... but that would come close to 1.5 of these ... and I
assume that they will see more use.
 
docmoore said:
Great information ...

I have been toying with the idea of a SLR Magic 70 anamorphic ... but that would come close to 1.5 of these ... and I
assume that they will see more use.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, spherical lenses would be more useful to the "everyday" shooter and in more situations. It's not out of the ordinary for me to shoot interviews and b-roll that are quick-turn and fed in via something like a LiveU to be "on-the-air" same day, where little to no post is done, so no one is going to be de-squeezing the image. I've even shot multi-cam sit-down interviews and sent them "down-the-line" live as it was happening so that they could be cut and put together as quickly as possible. Yes, we were shooting on cine cameras and in 24 and with primes, but it still had to be turned in a few hours.

To me, anamorphics are very specialized and niche, despite everyone "wanting them". Kinda like all of these special edition soft lenses that everyone is putting out, as well. Very specialized. You'll get way more use out of a clean spherical lens, especially if you serve multiple clients and markets.
 
Yes, a straightforward set of spherical primes are not the lenses you want but the lenses you need
 
I'm a huge fan of the Sigma lenses, Art and Cine (same optics). They've gotta be the best bang/buck lens out there right now. They've got ZERO character, but that's more often than not a good thing. You can "add" to it with filters and the like, but a lot of clients just want a clean, neutral look like the Sigmas provide. They're also very sharp wide-open which is nice.
 
The only complaint I've heard about Sigmas is the Art series autofocus performance (from photographers). I wonder if they manage good video AF on the latest Canons
 
I can only speak to the 85 F1.4 Art on the 1DX III .... great stills AF but even on the slowest AF focus rack speed ... too fast for me.

Which is why I am sending it out in trade for the Cine version .... along with the Canon 50 1.2L.
 
owlbot said:
I'm a huge fan of the Sigma lenses, Art and Cine (same optics). They've gotta be the best bang/buck lens out there right now. They've got ZERO character, but that's more often than not a good thing. You can "add" to it with filters and the like, but a lot of clients just want a clean, neutral look like the Sigmas provide. They're also very sharp wide-open which is nice.
Click to expand...

Yep. You can dirty up a clean lens. You can't clean up a soft, flare prone lens. I'll take neutral and sharp all day, everyday. If you really feel like you need to "take the edge off", there are almost countless filters to do just that, from 'almost imperceptible' to 'WTF are you thinking?'.
 
All things considered, the CP.3s are about 0.5kg lighter on average, than the Sigmas. I guess that is important for gimbal work and lighter setups.
 
I own CP3s / CP2s and for me they are very versatile because of the user interchangeable mount and because they are so damn lightweight. It makes a huge difference when you’re trying to make a lightweight build. The Metadata in PL turns out to be more useful than I realised too.

They aren’t the sexiest lenses out there but they have been very reliable across multiple continents and many different crews.

https://www.flickr.com/gp/johnbrawley/25LZr5

JB
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top