FS7: E-MOUNT CINE GLASS DEBATE (Veydra Vs. Zeiss CP.2 vs. Fujinon MK)
- Thread starter sleekmedia
- Start date
I agree with this as well - and also think the OP's narrowing to these 3 is too narrow - based on the statement " I will be selling all my Zeiss and Canon stills glass to get one of the following cine zoom / prime lens combos" - which the OP states might be put on a full frame mirrorless. I own the a6300 & fs7 & they play nicely together with s35/APC lenses (along with SB ff Canon lenses). I've been considering the a7rIII - but part of my hesitation is that I'd also then like perhaps other ff glass - besides just my Canons. Angenieux's 15-40 as well as Sigma's / Tokina's offerings are certainly on my radar...
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Of course if one has any affinity with manual focussing it might be imperitive to sell all of ones canon and zeiss stills glass - be it AF
That does not proclude changing it for other canon and zeiss glass.. MF.
In reality there seem to be two routes,
'Go Large' - buy a proper set of Cine Primes and/or Zooms
'Go hodge podge' - work out something that works - which often means skipping brands.
For example I would suggest that these combos would be better than a one brand plan..
2 Fuji MK zooms and a manual stills 50 1.8
Manual stills primes and a Tonka 11-16
Sony plastic 18-110 zoom, set of vedras
Generally one gets the core that one likes and fills in the holes around the edges
That does not proclude changing it for other canon and zeiss glass.. MF.
In reality there seem to be two routes,
'Go Large' - buy a proper set of Cine Primes and/or Zooms
'Go hodge podge' - work out something that works - which often means skipping brands.
For example I would suggest that these combos would be better than a one brand plan..
2 Fuji MK zooms and a manual stills 50 1.8
Manual stills primes and a Tonka 11-16
Sony plastic 18-110 zoom, set of vedras
Generally one gets the core that one likes and fills in the holes around the edges
SamEdwards
Well-known member
The Fujinon MK 18-55 is a great workhorse and stays on my FS5 most of the time. When I need to get a close up I slip on the Batis 85mm or the Sony 55mm 1.8. My B-Cam is a A7RIII and I cary the 16-35 f2.8, but can swap in the other Sony stills lenses. It makes a pretty tight kit. I have a lot more stills lenses but I don't use them a lot when shooting video. The Sony 10-18mm f4 stays in my bag for when I have to go wide. I try not to rack focus too much with the stills glass.
My advice for the OP is to get the MK 18-55, and see what you're really missing.
My advice for the OP is to get the MK 18-55, and see what you're really missing.
SamEdwards
Well-known member
I also carry a couple of decent LED lights, that I can put up quickly when light is needed. With one Arri Locaster I can usually get my exposure up to where the MK lens can get a good exposure wide open.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Its doubtless really nice - but -I wonder how it squares up to my speedboosted 28-85 nikkor manual (S35equiv 20-60 T2.9 (F2.5)) - silky manual focus, manual iris, macro mode - small difference of being 15% of the cost.
I could fund the expensive zoom but only seem to need to zoom on the jobs that dont really fund anything!
Canon FD also did a 28-85.
Both the canon and nikkons work with full frame too!
SamEdwards
Well-known member
If it's a choice between spending money on gear or making your film, then make your film. Good luck!
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Nah - I dont want to spend my money on making other peoples films 
Jobs that need zooms Im happy for the client to rent me (as they have) the proper one.. Canon CN17
BTW Im not knocking your choice of this lens - or the lens itself - if it works in your business model great - my business model seems to be better on the jobs I have time for primes ergo my money is better spent elswhere.
S
Jobs that need zooms Im happy for the client to rent me (as they have) the proper one.. Canon CN17
BTW Im not knocking your choice of this lens - or the lens itself - if it works in your business model great - my business model seems to be better on the jobs I have time for primes ergo my money is better spent elswhere.
S
Last edited:
Wes.
Well-known member
Nah - I dont want to spend my money on making other peoples films
Jobs that need zooms Im happy for the client to rent me (as they have) the proper one.. Canon CN17
BTW Im not knocking your choice of this lens - or the lens itself - if it works in your business model great - my business model seems to be better on the jobs I have time for primes ergo my money is better spent elswhere.
S
I've been shooting with the CN17 for the better part of two months now, rental. As much as I love my 18-55, I'm going to miss the focus ring on the 17-120 a lot
abreu-canedo
Well-known member
If you want "full frame" ability and low light, I'd recommend either the Sigma Cine Primes or the Celere primes. Both are really fast, both cover full frame, both have e-mount. But let me recommend getting them in ef mount and adapting them to e mount. This way you can use a speedbooster to get more light and FOV, and when you don't want the extra glass, you can use a passive adapter.
There are other fine lenses out now that are similar, but for a budget set of glass for e mount, I'd definitely go the speedbooster route. Of course, that's just one approach.
sleekmedia
Well-known member
Great response from all and much appreciated!
Of course I have thought about the "speed-booster" approach with still zoom and still prime lenses (many of which I already own)
Or the cheap market cinema primes route (i.e. rokinon/ veydra / slr magic)
And of course the higher priced options, many of which are listed here (Fujinon MK Zooms, Zeiss CP.2, Zeiss Milvus Cine-Mod, Zeiss Otus Cine-Mod, Sigma 18-35 T2, Sigma Cinema Primes, and even Rokinon Xeen's).
Quite honestly it was hard to sum up in a short version of my post my "exact situation" in regards to my current lens kit and my existing and future needs.
I will always rent "job-specific" gear when a specific shot or client requests it so any lens and camera combinations are technically in reach dependent on a clients budget.
However my interest in the specific lenses featured in the original post persists purely for my interest in them for INDIVIDUAL longer term ownership and use when I am stacking footage while I travel for work or for shooting individual projects and working with clients that I am not renting for. So I am not asking for these lenses listed to be the do all (as there is no such thing realistically for every job) but rather seeking to find the best "bang for my buck" combination for personal ownership to round out an entire kit for my FS5/FS7/A7RII (Hopefully soon to be A7SIII).
The Fujinon's were and still are my first choice as I do not currently own any zoom in my kit and have preferred to only work with primes (I have MANY and some of which are semi-fast). My interest in these zoom lenses started from a feeling I have felt before on jobs that there were opportunities where workflow has suffered in corporate and documentary settings due to having to constantly change lenses. I originally thought about the cheaper well known options (18-35 Sigma 1.8) but realized that zooms for still photography still possess many of the vital flaws of the prime lenses I already own (some focus by wire, focus breathing, very short focus throws, no manual / closable iris). So I had to ask myself WHY did I really want a zoom and what should a zoom really posses if I was going to INVEST in one and the answer I came to is PAR-FOCALITY. There are many zooms out there, many of which are cheaper and faster than the Fuji MK series but they really aren't in the same "category" or even should be called a ZOOM in comparison. Their focal lengths may adjust but there is need for re-focusing after the fact so I am not sure what they really bring to the table other than reducing the need to change lenses for different focal lengths. There are workarounds for their lack of par-focality but at the end of the day there is simply no way to really fake and or replace the cleanliness of a par-focal zoom. The ability to punch in our out for opening / closing dramatacism or for many other cinematic expressions (facial expressions & reactions, slider / parallax product shots, etc.) would be a paramount addition to my productions and is simply not possible without a par-focal zoom unless you shoot on high resolution sensors (8K) and could possibly punch in digitally while still retaining final shot resolution. So I started only focusing my sights on the Fujinon MK and the Sigma 18-35 T2 as they were the only affordable options in their class for me at this time.
I further deduced my interest solely to just the Fujinon MK after researching many comparison tests which lead me to realize that the Sigma is slightly colder, has slightly less micro-contrast, breathes slightly more, has no macro function, and has only half the range of the Fuji. Furthermore, the reviews of the Sigma 50-100 (which would be a nice future addition to compliment a WA-zoom, and a direct competitor to the Fujinon MK 50-135) was piss poor with unacceptable breathing for a lens in this category. Therefore to still go with the 18-35 T2 from sigma it would make the most sense to invest in an additional two to three Sigma Cinema Primes (an additional $7,000 : Total Reaching $10,000-$12,000 for the 18-35 and 2-3 primes). Thinking about it, I really can't justify that combination for that price especially considering the Sigma Cinema Primes are just the ART series rehoused. So there is really no point in spending the extra money there, especially when compared to a CP.2 that has an interchangeable mount and has more options on alternative camera platforms going forward.
So I guess it is safe to say I really want the Fujinon...... but my problem still lies in a need for FAST glass.
I really feel like my FS5 and FS7 just do not have the low-light performance I require on some jobs (especially not at 1.8 and above) and I am always finding myself having to reduce noise on certain low-light scenes which is one of my least favorite post-production tasks. Lenses in the 1.3-1.5 range would provide a much needed ability to shoot in lower light on my smaller more "noise-sensitive" S35 cameras. That is my biggest holdup with investing in the Fujinon is I keep asking myself If I will only end up using it for outdoor scenes with good light, or on docs & interviews or advertising work where I bring in my full lighting kits and I am shooting stopped down for subject clarity and sharpness. Will it be entirely useless in low-light? I know my 85mm/1.8 Zeiss Batis is even borderline on my FS5/FS7 when light is low and my set of Zeiss Loxia's @ F2 and my Veydras 25mm T2.2 don't cut it either and can really make me push my ISO.
What I also need and really want going forward is the additional of truly fast glass (Not to mention I have grown to love the look of the Bokeh they produce) as it was easy to get spoiled quickly the many times I have played around with some Milvus / Otus 1.4 glass I have gotten my hands on.
I guess what I am trying to figure out most is where can I best spend $8,000-$10,000 on long term (true cine lenses) as an investment going forward.
After re-reading and evaluating this post many times I kinda have re-narrowed my interest to the following options.....
A. Fuji MK (18-55 T2.9 & 50-135 T2.9) + SLR Magic Cine Hyperprime (50/0.95 & 85/0.95) = $8700 NEW
B. (Fuji MK 18-55 T2.9) + Ziess CP.2 (35/T1.5 & 85/T1.5) =$9600 NEW/USED (+1 for CP.2 mount changeability)
C. Fuji MK (18-55 T2.9) + Zeiss Otus Cine-Mod 28/F1.4 EF + Zeiss Milvus Cine-mod 50/1.4 EF + Metabones Speedboster = $10,000 NEW / USED (+1 Can be used on Canon EF as well but I must admit I really hate adapters)
Of course I have thought about the "speed-booster" approach with still zoom and still prime lenses (many of which I already own)
Or the cheap market cinema primes route (i.e. rokinon/ veydra / slr magic)
And of course the higher priced options, many of which are listed here (Fujinon MK Zooms, Zeiss CP.2, Zeiss Milvus Cine-Mod, Zeiss Otus Cine-Mod, Sigma 18-35 T2, Sigma Cinema Primes, and even Rokinon Xeen's).
Quite honestly it was hard to sum up in a short version of my post my "exact situation" in regards to my current lens kit and my existing and future needs.
I will always rent "job-specific" gear when a specific shot or client requests it so any lens and camera combinations are technically in reach dependent on a clients budget.
However my interest in the specific lenses featured in the original post persists purely for my interest in them for INDIVIDUAL longer term ownership and use when I am stacking footage while I travel for work or for shooting individual projects and working with clients that I am not renting for. So I am not asking for these lenses listed to be the do all (as there is no such thing realistically for every job) but rather seeking to find the best "bang for my buck" combination for personal ownership to round out an entire kit for my FS5/FS7/A7RII (Hopefully soon to be A7SIII).
The Fujinon's were and still are my first choice as I do not currently own any zoom in my kit and have preferred to only work with primes (I have MANY and some of which are semi-fast). My interest in these zoom lenses started from a feeling I have felt before on jobs that there were opportunities where workflow has suffered in corporate and documentary settings due to having to constantly change lenses. I originally thought about the cheaper well known options (18-35 Sigma 1.8) but realized that zooms for still photography still possess many of the vital flaws of the prime lenses I already own (some focus by wire, focus breathing, very short focus throws, no manual / closable iris). So I had to ask myself WHY did I really want a zoom and what should a zoom really posses if I was going to INVEST in one and the answer I came to is PAR-FOCALITY. There are many zooms out there, many of which are cheaper and faster than the Fuji MK series but they really aren't in the same "category" or even should be called a ZOOM in comparison. Their focal lengths may adjust but there is need for re-focusing after the fact so I am not sure what they really bring to the table other than reducing the need to change lenses for different focal lengths. There are workarounds for their lack of par-focality but at the end of the day there is simply no way to really fake and or replace the cleanliness of a par-focal zoom. The ability to punch in our out for opening / closing dramatacism or for many other cinematic expressions (facial expressions & reactions, slider / parallax product shots, etc.) would be a paramount addition to my productions and is simply not possible without a par-focal zoom unless you shoot on high resolution sensors (8K) and could possibly punch in digitally while still retaining final shot resolution. So I started only focusing my sights on the Fujinon MK and the Sigma 18-35 T2 as they were the only affordable options in their class for me at this time.
I further deduced my interest solely to just the Fujinon MK after researching many comparison tests which lead me to realize that the Sigma is slightly colder, has slightly less micro-contrast, breathes slightly more, has no macro function, and has only half the range of the Fuji. Furthermore, the reviews of the Sigma 50-100 (which would be a nice future addition to compliment a WA-zoom, and a direct competitor to the Fujinon MK 50-135) was piss poor with unacceptable breathing for a lens in this category. Therefore to still go with the 18-35 T2 from sigma it would make the most sense to invest in an additional two to three Sigma Cinema Primes (an additional $7,000 : Total Reaching $10,000-$12,000 for the 18-35 and 2-3 primes). Thinking about it, I really can't justify that combination for that price especially considering the Sigma Cinema Primes are just the ART series rehoused. So there is really no point in spending the extra money there, especially when compared to a CP.2 that has an interchangeable mount and has more options on alternative camera platforms going forward.
So I guess it is safe to say I really want the Fujinon...... but my problem still lies in a need for FAST glass.
I really feel like my FS5 and FS7 just do not have the low-light performance I require on some jobs (especially not at 1.8 and above) and I am always finding myself having to reduce noise on certain low-light scenes which is one of my least favorite post-production tasks. Lenses in the 1.3-1.5 range would provide a much needed ability to shoot in lower light on my smaller more "noise-sensitive" S35 cameras. That is my biggest holdup with investing in the Fujinon is I keep asking myself If I will only end up using it for outdoor scenes with good light, or on docs & interviews or advertising work where I bring in my full lighting kits and I am shooting stopped down for subject clarity and sharpness. Will it be entirely useless in low-light? I know my 85mm/1.8 Zeiss Batis is even borderline on my FS5/FS7 when light is low and my set of Zeiss Loxia's @ F2 and my Veydras 25mm T2.2 don't cut it either and can really make me push my ISO.
What I also need and really want going forward is the additional of truly fast glass (Not to mention I have grown to love the look of the Bokeh they produce) as it was easy to get spoiled quickly the many times I have played around with some Milvus / Otus 1.4 glass I have gotten my hands on.
I guess what I am trying to figure out most is where can I best spend $8,000-$10,000 on long term (true cine lenses) as an investment going forward.
After re-reading and evaluating this post many times I kinda have re-narrowed my interest to the following options.....
A. Fuji MK (18-55 T2.9 & 50-135 T2.9) + SLR Magic Cine Hyperprime (50/0.95 & 85/0.95) = $8700 NEW
B. (Fuji MK 18-55 T2.9) + Ziess CP.2 (35/T1.5 & 85/T1.5) =$9600 NEW/USED (+1 for CP.2 mount changeability)
C. Fuji MK (18-55 T2.9) + Zeiss Otus Cine-Mod 28/F1.4 EF + Zeiss Milvus Cine-mod 50/1.4 EF + Metabones Speedboster = $10,000 NEW / USED (+1 Can be used on Canon EF as well but I must admit I really hate adapters)
Run&Gun
Veteran
Can I throw something else in the mix for you to think about, since fast glass is something you really want? Canon CN-E Primes. Yes, they are EF mount only(unless you have Duclos do their PL mount swap/modification, although EF is pretty ubiquitous now, though), but they are beautiful lenses that look great on people(nice warm skin tones). Five of their seven cine primes are in Master Prime & Supreme Prime speed territory at either T1.3 or T1.5(20, 24, 35, 50 & 85). The 135 isn't too bad at T2.2. So really, the only "stinker" is the 14mm at T3.2. And, of course, they all cover "full frame". The only real negative of the CN-E's is that they're native EF only. If they were available from the factory in PL or user swappable mounts, I think these lenses would have had a much broader uptake and acceptance, because everyone that owns them or uses them generally loves the image. But at the price, I think people want to see PL or swappable mounts.
This is my vote out of the three options.
Although I'd ditch the 50/0.95 and swap it out for the very very slightly slower 50/1.1
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1200735-REG/slr_magic_cine_50mm_f_1_1_lens.html
This then frees up plenty of money to get either the SLR Magic Cine 35mm f1.2 or the SLR Magic Cine 24mm f1.4 , or heck, get both! As living with a widest prime of only 50mm would be too constraining for myself.
You might want to consider the Anamorphot-40 1.33x as well to use with them:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/sear...&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=