F3: Looking into Carl Zeiss Z.2 70-200/T2.9 PL lens, any thoughts?

Sparky874

Sparky874

Well-known member
Hi there. Loving my F3 at the moment - enjoying it more than ever. I am currently shooting with a Red 17-50mm lens which has been great, but I really need some more length. I am looking into purchasing a Carl Zeiss 70-200/T2.9 PL lens - the two lenses (that and my RED) would certainly cover the range - and be great at sports events. Has any used this lens, any thoughts about it? It seems like a great piece of glass that would work great on the F3 - and indeed on the F55 possibly going ahead. Best, Sparky
 
Hi Mac. Just looking at your kit, and see you have a Red 50-150mm, and you have my RED 17-50mm as well. Had not considered the RED 50-100, how do you find it, looks nice and compact in the images? Thanks, Sparky
 
The Red 50-150mm is a great lens, but no longer made.

I have been offered twice what I paid for mine but will not sell it.
 
Good man. Just out of interest, why it is called the RED 50-150mm and the other RED lens 17-50mm calls RPZ 17-50mm. Do they have the same mount, feel etc? Best, Sparky
 
The RPZ was made later and I believe it means (Red Pro Zoom).

Same mount, same feel, they match each other very well.
 
I use the 17-50 ALL the image and I love it. Great build quality, great to use, and a great picture too.
 
I believe (but I'm not entirely certain) that the Red 50-150 is a repackaged Sigma 50-150. I bought one in a Nikon mount and use it on the F3 with the Optitek adapter. A very nice piece of glass. You can find the older model on eBay inexpensively. Sigma has released an IS version for around $1K. There is also a Lomo 50-150 that has been kicking around on eBay for a buy it now price of $4450.

Ned
 
I think you are right. I know there are advantages to using lenses with adaptors, but you can't beat using a PL mount lens with accurate focus and aperature control - I am so used to it I don't think I could switch to 'still' lenses.
 
I bought stuff from that seller about a decade or so ago, back when I had a Konvas camera... so if you do decide to buy from him, his feedback is good.

That said, I had an old Zeiss 35mm zoom, looked a lot like that but was a different focal length -- and it was terrible. Paid $1500 for it, thought I got a steal but instead I got robbed. Ended up giving it away to a film school.

That lens may say it's fast, up to T2.3, but the question is if it'd be usable. With the Zeiss I had, it opened to T2.9, but it was useless until you stopped down to 5.6.

My point is -- I wouldn't buy anything like that, for that price, from the other side of the world, especially a rare/unknown item, without having someone trusted to test it out.
 
Lots of thoughts here:

-Lomo: Usually soft, 80s technology, overpriced for this particular lens. Good for a dated feel, lens coatings are almost guaranteed to flare much more than anything made in last 10 years, and not necessarily in a good way. Mechanics are all over the place. i would not buy this lens for $2500, much less $4500. As much as I hate using EF lenses because of fine focusing issues, I'd say you're much better off with with Canon EF if you are hurting for something affordable.

-Zeiss 70-200 Compact Zoom: Wicked sharp. I mean stupid sharp. In a great way. I shot charts at Abel LA with this lens maybe 6 weeks back when I was also checking out a Canon 30-105. I shot charts with it against my Red 50-150 as well. There was no comparison. The Red 50-150 is "good enough" for a lot of situations and will get you through, as it has for me for a number of years. But it is not in the same category as the new Zeiss & Canon cine lenses. Sharpness should not be one's only criteria for comparing and buying lenses, but you want to know you're getting something good and will carry you for a while into ever increasing pixel counts. I also have had a short conversation since shooting my charts with Stuart Rabin of Focus Optics, and without prompting, he confirmed what I had been guessing at, which is that it's a fantastic lens. He also was very impressed with it's internal mechanics.

[edit after deprecating my 50-150 that I hope to sell this year: The Red 50-150 gets the job done. It is amazing and very useful when you are a one-man-band. Only once or twice in my 4 years with it have I watched the footage later and wished I had a better performing lens. The 17-50 or 18-50 +50-150 is a combo for lightweight S35 work that just simply can't be matched for sheer usefulness and utility. I will miss mine when it is gone]

I was initially very unimpressed with the Zeiss Compact Zooms just from a ergonomic point of view, and assuming they were re-hashed stills designs being trotted out for cine use like the Compact Primes. So far, I seem to have been dead wrong. New designs, and very worthwhile ones at that.

-Canon 30-105: I have one on loan right now, and I'm hoping to get some more time with it this week and next. In my hastily-shot charts, it seemed to be very much on par with the Zeiss 70-200 in every way, but without the over-the-top feeling of sharpness of the Zeiss.
 
Last edited:
I as well bought a lens from that seller and I would think his descriptions would be trustworthy. No, I wouldn't spend $4450 for it but in defense of the old Lomo's-- they can be highly variable. Some were assembled very well. Others were shoddy. Flare is definitely an issue. A good example could have a nice creamy look. The Red 50-150, by the way, can be rented rather reasonably from Adorama.

Ned
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top