Prime Set Decision

Rick Burnett said:
I was going to ask how many of them you use mostly. While I don't use CP.2 lenses, with my set I use the Tokina 11-16, 30mm and an 85mm most of the time (like 90%). I do want to add a 50mm macro because I've used one and REALLY like what you can do with it. Some of those lenses are so close, I feel I'd just move a little closer or farther for those few mm difference. But that's probably because I don't want to carry that many lenses around, and those CP.2 be heavy! :)
Click to expand...

That's why i don't want to get 21mm from the set, 18 and than 25 is fine for me, i could have leave 18mm aswell but then i thought there is difference between 16mm of tokina and 18mm CP2, you may want to shoot some establishing shots with 18, in that case 16 is too wide, it gives totally a different effect but like i said 11-16 is a must for me anyway.
 
Rick Burnett said:
I was going to ask how many of them you use mostly. While I don't use CP.2 lenses, with my set I use the Tokina 11-16, 30mm and an 85mm most of the time (like 90%). I do want to add a 50mm macro because I've used one and REALLY like what you can do with it. Some of those lenses are so close, I feel I'd just move a little closer or farther for those few mm difference. But that's probably because I don't want to carry that many lenses around, and those CP.2 be heavy! :)
Click to expand...

Fact is, for nearly two years I only owned the 25mm, 50mm, and 85mm Zeiss ZF lenses. I also had a cheap used 20mm Nikkor for wides, and a Nikkor 80-200mm zoom. I learned them and loved them. This past winter I filled out the set, adding the 18mm, 35mm f2.0, and 100mm. The ZF lenses are a little smaller than the CP.2s, but carrying the extra glass can be a pain if I'm solo. If I have an AC, no issue. Solo, sometimes I'll go back to just the base three.

I like the extra storytelling options, but I'd get by without them.

The 18mm has some barrel distortion. By all accounts, the 21mm performs better, but it
s just not as wide. I nearly bought it, but decided I needed to spend the money elsewhere.
 
My decisions on taking lens are generally based on carrying them around. We run with a very small crew so I try to be efficient as possible. When I got my AF100 (and my FS100) since I've been waiting for the Birger mounts, I have only two lens with manual control at the moment, so on a few shoots I would just use those, and let me tell you, it is VERY interesting to restrict yourself to one or two lenses. What I found is before I did this, I rarely used my 85mm. Now that I've used it A LOT because of the restrictions, I have learned to use it in ways I would never have before. It's funny, but I think each focal length I have focused on, there are SO MANY uses for them and shots you can get with them that it is amazing how I had overlooked much of this before.

In any case, congrats on some awesome lenses. As I said, the one I share in common is the Tokina 11-16 and I love that lens (well, yours will be the Dulcos model, with at least the optics are the same!) :)
 
Rick Burnett said:
I was going to ask how many of them you use mostly. While I don't use CP.2 lenses, with my set I use the Tokina 11-16, 30mm and an 85mm most of the time (like 90%). I do want to add a 50mm macro because I've used one and REALLY like what you can do with it. Some of those lenses are so close, I feel I'd just move a little closer or farther for those few mm difference. But that's probably because I don't want to carry that many lenses around, and those CP.2 be heavy! :)
Click to expand...

Cp2's heavy ?!?!
 
TimurCivan said:
Cp2's heavy ?!?!
Click to expand...

Haha, well coming from me who does not use cine lenses. :) My lenses are very light. When I put the 50mm CP.2 on my 7D last year I couldn't believe how heavy it made the camera. I carry my lenses in a camera bag around with me while I film, and it has 5 lenses, spare batteries for both my cameras and my LCDs, and my filters. Because of that, I try to limit my weight. If I was carrying around 7 or so CP.2 lenses, that would be a heavy hit for me! :) I stay mobile because sometimes I have to hike a bit to our locations and with it just being me, efficiency is key.
 
a case for super 35 sensor size over Full Frame

a case for super 35 sensor size over Full Frame

TimurCivan said:
Forget about FF. Its not a motion aspect. Its a fluke in the 5D.

Just think about your angle of view. Refer to the asc manual. EVERYONE who is working on a motion s35 camera should have one......
Click to expand...

SPZ said:
Sony F65 and Epic Monstro (FF) will probably change that... Full frame seems like its the way the industry is heading.
Click to expand...

The new Sony F65 has a super35 3-perf sensor size, not a FF. It is a single CMOS 8K sensor (8768 x 2324 pixels, that’s 20.4 Megapixels).

As far as I know, Epic Monstro (FF) is at the moment, literally just an idea.

I think super 35 mm sensor size is the new standard for high end video and it is here to stay. s35 is a sweet spot in terms of sensor size. It builds on the 35mm analog film camera platform (PL lenses), the standard for cinema production for decades.

Also, s35 is not so biased towards extreme shallow Depth of Field (DoF) as FF is. In my opinion, extreme shallow DoF is a current fashion today (due in part to the Canon 5D FF DSLRs) , something great for some shots but not adequate for many shots where the scene requires larger DoF and a sharper image.

I also have this idea that, keeping everything else equal (e.g. if both sensors output the same number of pixels, say 1080 HD) well, the relative Circle of Confusion on the larger sensor (FF) is going to be bigger than on the smaller sensor (s35). This, on a shot that demands larger DoF, could translate on a sharper image using the smaller sensor (s35) than using the bigger one (FF). But when you go to extreme shallow DoF, sharpness doesn't matter as much because most of the stuff is out of focus (that's maybe why Canon 5D shooters typically don't notice how soft is the image that this sensor produces on video mode).

Another reason why going to a FF standard in my opinion is not a necessary move, is that there are plenty of used and new cine lenses for s35 on the market, and more advanced and affordable ones are coming as new large sensor cameras are developed. But, in the case of FF, there are very few cine lenses that can project a FF image circle, and if you find them (vistavision?) they are very, very expensive. So to shot video on FF at an affordable cost you will have to rely on still lenses for a while. But still lenses are not designed for capturing motion pictures (so you have issues like breathing while zooming, short range on the focus ring, lack of accurate marks to pull focus). Developing new FF cinema lenses will be time consuming and costly, and those FF lenses are going to be big and bulky, something that is at odds with the current trend towards smaller cameras and equipments (e.g. Epic).

So, why are the advantages of FF such that the industry could eventually move in that direction? Well as a general rule, the larger the sensor, the more sensitive and less noisy it is. But s35 sensors like the ones on the Alexa, the F3s, the new Epics, are already reaching levels of sensitivity and signal to noise ratios that are more than acceptable, so this apparent advantage of FF doesn't seem to outweigh the disadvantages of FF mentioned above (I am repeating here):

- the requirement for the development of FF cinema lenses that are not even available on the market yet, and that are going to be big, bulky, and expensive, something against the current trend in the industry towards smaller cameras and equipment.

- the bias towards more extreme shallow DoF on FF relative to s35

- the fact that s35 can produce a more sharp image than FF in some cases due to the relative size of the Circle of Confusion (this of course is true only when you keep all the other factors equal: DoF of the scene, number of photosites on the sensor, resolution of the recorded format (1080, 2K, 4K), sensitivity and noise levels of both sensors, etc).

So, I think that the trend in the future is not going towards bigger sensor cameras (FF), but just the opposite, towards smaller sensors (smaller even than s35).

What are some of the advantages of smaller sensors?
smallers cameras, smaller and more affordable lenses, easy to get large DoF, etc.

What are some of the disadvantages?
more difficult to get shallow DoF, lack of sensitivity, more noisy, less latitude, you can pack less pixels than on a bigger sensor (or they have to be smaller if you pack the same number).

Well, these disadvantages are the kinds of factors that can be improved with the development of electronic sensor technology, aren't they? We have seen a lot of progress in recent years on sensitivity, noise levels, sensor reading speed, the capacity to pack smaller pixel elements on the same area, etc.

But there is still the issue of getting shallow DoF with those smaller sensors. Well, for that you just need to develop more wide angle high quality lenses for those cameras.

To summarize this last point, I think that a tend towards smaller sensors involve developments that are more achievable in the future than the kind of developments that going to a FF standard format would require. FF sensor cameras are going to be developed for sure, but I think it will not be the standard of digital cinematography but more for specific applications (e.g. super large screens projections and the like). Just a thought.
 
Off topic but, I just got a Nikon 17x55 DX for my F-3 and it looks great, very sharp low distortion at 17. Nice wide to have with F-3. But they are going fast...
 
Cinesin said:
There is no such thing as "crop factor" actually, the trendy term has no purpose in cinematography. You guys seriously need to stop reading so many internet forums and the pretend DP's out there with DLSR's.
Click to expand...


+10!
 
The thread, of course turned into FF-S35 and crop factor discussion:) Just to bring it back to the main, Whoever each time i talk filmmakers around me they just keep confusing me. People have an extreme underestimating opinions about CP2's. Unfortunately i never find a chance to work with them, people i talk keep saying they are build from ZF lenses so they are same with dslr lenses, etc...Seems like noone wants to understand the difference between the cine lens and slr one. I've been reading and following these lenses since the day they out, investment wise maybe thay are not the perfect cine lenses, but money-performance wise i think they are unbeatable? How many prime sets you guys know under CP2 price from a big respectful brand? Schnieder? Cookes are far beyond my budget, even the s-log update needs to be delayed in my business plan. I'm not writing this as a reply to anyone's post here, just thinking loudly, i mean a set of 7 CP's is £19K which is $31K here in UK and a set of Panchro is $44K, i know the deal about what you pay is what you get, but CP's seems like they are gonna be known as DSLR prime set for the rest of their life, That sucks on my side:((
 
The problem you will run into is there is a huge number of people who love and use Cine lenses and think they are worth every penny, and then there are those that don't and use SLR lenses because they are satisfied with the performance. Luckily, I had the opportunity to use the 50mm CP.2 and it was indeed a VERY nicely designed lens. I also took the time to use the ZF 50mm as well, and while the image still looked great, there was a huge difference in the mechanical performance to me. If you are looking for longer focus throws, focus direction, built in gears, accurate marks, and a declicked IRIS, your only choice is to go Cine. Not ONE of my SLR lenses would I say even come close to working like the CP.2 focus, at all. Even using a Follow Focus, and trying to keep any number of gear rings aligned right, I could see right away that there was a lot of advantage to using the Cine lenses in those situations. Also, given they are at the bottom of the cine world list, obviously some concessions were made. That said, they are pretty fantastic in their own right.

I think the best solution before you invest $31K is to rent a few of them, maybe along with the ZF lenses, maybe along with an even more expensive lens and compare them. If you are already spending $31K, which is a sizable investment, I think the cost of renting is DEFINITELY worth it. Maybe by looking at some slightly more expensive cine lenses, you can see what other differences there are. Maybe you find that you absolutely love using the CP.2 and it's worth the investment. If I were going to be buying with that sort of price tag, I'd absolutely test before owning.

You might also find that a slightly more expensive lens is substantially better in some way. In that case, it might be best to work for a better investment by waiting a bit longer and getting by. This is theoretical of course, just sharing how my logic would be in making a big purchase.
 
Here's you go, just jumped outside for some quick ones. Too freak'in hot
at 55mm Nikon.jpgvan at 17mm.jpg17mm.jpg
@55mm 4.5 ft away from plant. @10 or so inches on 17mm away from shoe. And the action van is 17mm.
Sorry a little small.
 
Last edited:
Rick Burnett said:
If you are looking for longer focus throws, focus direction, built in gears, accurate marks, and a declicked IRIS, your only choice is to go Cine.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't presume to wade into how much difference the CP's make as I haven't been able to compare them in a production situation - however - declicked iris and built in gears come with the Duclos cine mod and I think the focus throw is the same, but I might be wrong about that. Definitely the marks are better on a CP. Focus direction is easy to switch with a reverse gear FF or adding an additional reverse gear that Duclos sells fpor $300 that mounts next to the FF.
 
I have a Red prime set 18mm - 100mm. My jobs are basically people talking and product. I could get through just about any job with a 25, 35, 50. If I had to choose one lens it would be 35mm. I never use the 100mm and rarely the 85mm.

I've shot a few commercials with the CP.2. If I were to purchase I would get the Tokina 11-16, CP.2 28mm, 35mm, 50mm (as they are all 2.1). 7 primes is overkill for an owner / operator, but I live and work in my own little bubble - specific content.
 
I contact with Zeiss Germany and what they told me is they only planning to produce new 25mm @T2.1 which is coming end of this year. So i guess 25mm T2.1 is very important against to 2.9 lens, probably i'll get 11-16 Tokina, 35-50-85 Maybe 100 as well and will wait for the new faster 25 to come out.
 
It should be known that Zeiss CP.2s are available in package sets of 4 at a reduced price. I think the lowest I have seen was off the Letus Store which at the time was 14 grand.
 
Anyone have any views on the KelvinKamera 'BabyPrimes'?

Essentially they are Carl Zeiss ZF.2 lenses that have been rehoused by an Italian company for video work. They claim that the ZF.2 (at around $1.5K) contain the same optics as the CP.2 (at around $4K); once they add in all of their custom housings they charge $2.5K for the lens.

Protos here: http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=6525

Thoughts?
 
Lumiere said:
...new 25mm @T2.1 which is coming end of this year.
Click to expand...

This is great news. I really like the CP.2 over the Red primes (which I have) purely for weight reasons. Test out shooting with an 85mm and 100mm. There is very little difference in FOV change between 85 and 100, I think your money would be better spent on another focal length vs these two so close together. But sounds like a good plan all in, good luck!
 
I put together a set of canon fd L series and had rplens.com gear them. Just shot a film on them last week and couldn't be more happy- even shot quite a bit at 1.2 on the 50mm and 85mm- sharp even at that stop.
This last project was a documentary style narrative film, all handheld- if I were shooting something on a dolly in a classic narrative environment I would of course prefer some cine lenses- but these guys rock and they are light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top