Other: Lovely piece shot entirely on the Zeiss 21-100

Ben Scott

Ben Scott

Veteran
I think on Alexa Mini but it gives you an idea of the range and reach of the lens.

https://vimeo.com/181275957

Forget all that OMB ENG stuff. This seems a perfect option to make pretty pictures on a S35 sensor camera. A commercial/marketing/branded content/lower budget narrative maker's dream. Especially if allied to some fast Otus primes for key things.
 
Ramping from T2.9 to 3.9 on that lens is a legitimate concern for many types of shooting. I own a series of T2.8/2.9 cine zooms and the trend these days is shallower than that, so the thought of being forced a stop slower is daunting. Having to compensate for stop based on where you are on the zoom range when working fast is a pain (i've done it and don't like it). That said, the price point is extremely attractive and it will be worth the workaround for some. I'd just hesitate it to call it a perfect option/dream.
 
Most lower end cine zooms ramp though. They just don't advertise it. Had a play with it at BVE and it's so gradual as to be unnoticeable. That said I take your point completely. But in the sub 10k realm it's pretty special.
 
As I've used a 24-105 on S35 so many days shooting this last year, this range can really cover just about anything. So no surprise to see the Zeiss 21-100 could do it.
 
Im into the idea of a 2 zoom setup at around t2-2.8. But not sure if they exist at the right price/performance yet in a cine-housing. For now I can work with stills lenses without much problems for most stuff. A speedboosted 24-70 is still pretty hard to beat in that scenario, getting a f2 17-55 zoom.
 
Thanks for sharing, that was neat.

I'd like to rent this lens and have at it one day. I wonder if the price will come down at all with the Fuji MK's out now.... doubt zeiss gives an F but hey, who knows
 
Do you think this piece would have looked appreciably different if shot on the 18-110?

I rarely criticize work on the boards, and it was certainly well done enough , but not overwhelming to me.
The food prep shots in the beginning looked like they were shot on an iphone - not a good ad for an expensive lens IMHO.

Also am I old fashioned or was the color excessively Red and looked like they wanted it to all look it was shot at magic hour when it actually wasn't.

Am I being a jerk?
 
Last edited:
Not being a jerk at all. But clearly the piece was supposed to be punchy and full of colour. Absolutely yes it would have looked different on the 18-110.

It's not an expensive lens. It's an incredibly cheap lens.
 
One thing I think is a real problem when using most of these is the near limit. This Zeiss is at 80 cm and the 17-55 Fujinon isn't much better or the Sony 18-110 in manual focus either. It's so limiting not getting close for that product shot of details. That's what I like about the Canon 24-105 and the ability to get up close.
 
Osslund said:
One thing I think is a real problem when using most of these is the near limit. This Zeiss is at 80 cm and the 17-55 Fujinon isn't much better or the Sony 18-110 in manual focus either. It's so limiting not getting close for that product shot of details. That's what I like about the Canon 24-105 and the ability to get up close.
Click to expand...

Fujinon has a macro mode, doesn't it?
 
Fuji MK- MOD ( minimum object distance ) via macro:

71.12cm at 55mm focal length.

5 cm at 17mm focal length.


______________


Canon 24-105 is 45 cm.

Canon refers to it as "MFD", minimum focus distance. And I could be wrong but I think "MFD" is measured from the sensor while "MOD" is measured from the front element of the lens. Anyone?

In the Sony material linked below they refer to the minimum focus distance as measured from the front of the lens as "minimum working distance"-

http://https://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-us/Learnmore/knowledge/04.html
 
JPNola said:
Fuji MK- MOD ( minimum object distance ) via macro:

71.12cm at 55mm focal length.

5 cm at 17mm focal length.


______________


Canon 24-105 is 45 cm.

Canon refers to it as "MFD", minimum focus distance. And I could be wrong but I think "MFD" is measured from the sensor while "MOD" is measured from the front element of the lens. Anyone?

In the Sony material linked below they refer to the minimum focus distance as measured from the front of the lens as "minimum working distance"-

http://https://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-us/Learnmore/knowledge/04.html
Click to expand...

I always thought he terms were interchangeable, but doing some cursory research on Google, including a Nikon resource site, the info that I saw supports your explanation.
 
I think he was saying a "perfect option" and "dream" for budget filmmakers who might otherwise be on Canon L zooms or have no zoom available at all and are instead working solely from budget cine primes / better EF primes.

I suppose the direct competition with the Zeiss 21-100 are the Angie EZ zooms which can be configured to deliver T2.0. But they are a 2-lens set ala the Fuji MK's. So you have to spend double the price of the Zeiss 21-100mm to acquire a wide focal range.

And is it just me, or does it seem that the look produced by the Angenieux zooms has fallen out of favor in lieu of a more crisp and cooler look like that of the Zeiss glass?


"Im into the idea of a 2 zoom setup at around t2-2.8. But not sure if they exist at the right price/performance yet in a cine-housing."

'that's the Angie EZ set. But it will cost you $21K. A price that makes the $8k Fuji MK set more attractive.
 
Run&Gun said:
I always thought he terms were interchangeable, but doing some cursory research on Google, including a Nikon resource site, the info that I saw supports your explanation.
Click to expand...


I just learned this myself, R&G.

Speaking of new terminology, the poster 'puredrifting' recommended an article where the terms "cheek scratch" and "hard scratch" were used in reference to a backlight that raked the cheek of the subject. Anyone else heard "scratch" used in lighting speak? I googled it but found nothing.

Here is the article linked by forum user puredrifting:

https://www.provideocoalition.com/polishing-talking-head-interview/
 
Scratch is a very common term in lighting. Usually a cheek rake, but typically any backlight that is about subject height and coming in from the side for a raking glance. Can be hard or soft.
 
It was almost hard to pay attention to the optics since no shot was held for more than a fleeting moment. I'm sure it's a great lens, undoubtedly...but nothing in that video made it jump out to me. Just my opinion.

What genuinely surprised me about the Fujinon MK demo videos was that the optical performace actually caught my attention. I'm so used to zoom lenses (even some good ones) just simply getting the job done-- like in the Zeiss promo-- and not making a positive or negative impact on the image. For some people 18-55mm might not work, but I think I'd be willing to put in the extra effort to use a 2 lens set of MK's (over something like the Zeiss, Canon or Sony) because there's a beauty to the image that looks truly unique to me.

On an S35 sensor, any lens with a max aperture slower than f/2.8 is (almost) wasting the benefit of the S35 format in the first place. Not to sound like an ass, but when I see the ubiquitous Canon 24-105mm f/4 mounted on the ubiquitous C300, I feel like the owner of that combination can't *really* give two sh**s about what they're doing. Like putting all season tires on a sports car. :lipsrseal
 
Everyone looks good when Bill Bennett shoots your promo.
That said, I thought the lens showed some decent personality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top