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

Nate Weaver said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time out to write such a strong reply, and an informative one too. I think I will invest in either the Canon or CZ lens, but it's tricky knowing which one to go for. Both zoom ranges are really interesting, but I can imagine you could get some amazing images shooting on the Zeiss at 200 mm wide open - and it would give you more options going forward with its extra reach. They both seem like reasonable size pieces of glass too. Interesting..!
 
I didn't mean to be so harsh on the Lomos, it's just that there has been a bit of a gold rush for folks digging up lenses in the former USSR and selling them for prices that are a bit (put mildly in some cases) inflated. A few of them are worthwhile lenses, but...many of them are pretty soft and have problems.

To say nothing about the risks of ordering on Ebay from sellers so far away.
 
Nate Weaver said:
I didn't mean to be so harsh on the Lomos, it's just that there has been a bit of a gold rush for folks digging up lenses in the former USSR and selling them for prices that are a bit (put mildly in some cases) inflated. A few of them are worthwhile lenses, but...many of them are pretty soft and have problems.

To say nothing about the risks of ordering on Ebay from sellers so far away.
Click to expand...

Hi Nate

This same vendor had a Lomo 20-100 which was essentially a Soviet knock-off of the Cooke from about the same vintage. He noted in his auction that shipment was at buyer's risk since those Lomo's were very fragile. I trust his knowledge and his ratings of the products.

Having said that, the vintage USSR glass definitely has risen in price with this new generation of PL cameras and created a whole new industry of those adapting OCT18 and OCT19 mounts to PL. And often not well. It is definitely a caveat emptor situation. I just have a good feeling about the mechanics of this lens, but not good enough to risk $4450.

I'll be interested in taking a look at your lens comparison.

Best

Ned
 
I am out of the country and on a relatively slow wireless connection, so took me over an hour to d/l

Just a quick glimpse on the MBPro Retina. Canon looks very nice. At first glance, Alura was a little disappointing. I did note the red shift with the Red lens.

When I have the time, I'll study the grabs in more detail. Thanks for the work and thanks to Abel. You've now got Andy in the Burbank office and we miss him on the east coast. But at least we still have our other national treasure Mitch.

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