FS7: Primes

traviswears

traviswears

Well-known member
Used to own a set of Rokinon primes in Nikon mount when I shot AF100.

Moved to nearly all L-series and Sigma ART zooms w/the C100 and have been using them on my FS7 w/the SB Ultra.

I'm ready to get back into the prime game but a bit stuck on which ones. Especially as I'm considering swapping my 70D out for either the A7RII or the A6300 and so I'd like to have some AF capabilities if possible. I like the idea of all my lenses working on any of my cameras, but I'm open to switching to Sony mount for the primes, though it would mean they wouldn't work on my C100.

Anyone using the Sigma Art-series E-mount primes? They're inexpensive but have no image stabilizing and neither does the A6300.

Also intrigued by the Zeiss Milvus, Zeiss Batis and the Sigma Art-series EF-mount.

Any stories or real world experiences would be great!
 
If you need manual focus control, the Sigma Art primes are pretty woeful for that (lovely glass though). Milvus would seem the best bet for a well rounded set, with reasonable (for stills lenses) manual control. There's no autofocus capability going that route though.
 
bill totolo said:
To piggy back on Travis's question, are there any good a/f primes out there for the FS7 for gimbal use?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call them "primes" but the SEL 35/1.8 and the SEL 50/1.8 do a pretty good job. The are underestimated as they are cheap and they look cheap but I found them very useful on the Ronin. The SEL 10-18 does a great job too but you asked for fixed focal lenses.

@traviswear
I am buying a CP.2 lens when ever I found one a good occasion as Ebay for example at auctions ending at unusual time.
I do 50% of my shots with the CP.2 35mm and I love this lens.
 
If you want to be able to pull focus - check out Leica R.
They have a long throw.

Other option is Contax Zeiss.
Check REDuser Survival guide.

Third option is Zeiss ZF2.
Theres no point to CP2-s as they are just rehoused version of ZF2-s.
 
Joseph K. said:
Theres no point to CP2-s as they are just rehoused version of ZF2-s.
Click to expand...

They are not just rehoused. They are rebuilt completely, using only the glass itself. Different iris and mechanics. Whether you are fan of them or not, they are exponentially better for filmmaking/video than ZF2s.
 
Joseph K. said:
Theres no point to CP2-s as they are just rehoused version of ZF2-s.
Click to expand...

Big differences are the number of bladed 14 vs 9 hence nicer bokeh on CP2's, the long rotation you'll get with the PL housing and smoothness of iris/focus. And what may not matter for some productions are the standard lens lengths which can be handy.

Having said that I'm not sure I believe Zeiss that CP2's are made using "hand picked elements".

Good article on the subject: https://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/cp2vszf2/
 
Hahahaa classic.

Original poster asks about what primes he should buy and you start blabbering about how CP2-are so completely different than ZF2-s.


Anyhow.

I've shot with CP-s and ZF2-s and I do love them both. Anyone saying that there a big difference their image quality or look of the image - is deluding themselves and mentally masturbating on the paper specs.

The biggest problem of ZF2-s, is that their focus goes the wrong way when compared to other lenses.

I do agree that standard lens length and size is really nice thing to have but.. I come from a mindset, that Sony FS7 is not a camera which you would use with all the best and most standard gear.
It's a low budget camera and when buying lenses, one should choose accordingly.

Otherwise I would just said by yourself a set of Cooke S4-s and topic closed.
 
Joseph K. said:
Hahahaa classic.

…. you start blabbering about how CP2-are so completely different than ZF2-s.
Click to expand...

If only you hadn't made such an incorrect and uninformative statement about CP.2's vs ZF2. Except now you go back and address some fundamental differences yourself?

Pick a direction and stick to it.
 
starcentral said:
If only you hadn't made such an incorrect and uninformative statement about CP.2's vs ZF2. Except now you go back and address some fundamental differences yourself?

Pick a direction and stick to it.
Click to expand...


I picked a side and said no point of buying CP2 over ZF2 and I am and have been sticking to it.
Since as I said the image quality from these lenses is identical as the optics inside are identical anything other than that does not matter and is not "fundamental" when it comes to these lenses.
 
Last edited:
Lens mechanics are as important for filmmaking as are optical qualities in real life most modern lenses are sharp enough, controlled enough etc. unless you are specialized in shooting charts and blowing up a1080p image to %800. Where lenses differ tremendously is their mechanics and that is where true cinema primes shine compared to the rest.
 
I've been talking on the topic of CP2 vs ZF2-s the whole time and I made the mistake of overgeneralizing in the last post. I should have said that optical quality of these lenses is identical and everything else is that is better on CP2-s is not fundamental enough to buy them over ZF2-s. Of course there's always the option that OP has so much money, he doesn't care about these things - then as I said just go for a set of Cooke S4-s.

As I mentioned in one of my posts earlier (which has been deleted for some reason) I've used both CP2 and ZF2 and I do like them both. But for buying for myself as personal use I would go ZF2 over CP2 as the image quality is the same and mechanically the are good enough (focus rotation length) for cinema use.

Of course mechanics matter but only do a degree. The most important mechanical part is the length of the focus gear. It just impossible to pull focus on some slr lenses.
No one is saying that L series is as good as Master Primes but image quality or the look is the most "fundamental" part of the lens. Thats why we are shooting old school anamorphs and primes at moment, all though the newer are mechanically far superior.
 
Joseph K. said:
I picked a side and said no point of buying CP2 over ZF2 and I am and have been sticking to it.
Since as I said the image quality from these lenses is identical as the optics inside are identical anything other than that does not matter and is not "fundamental" when it comes to lenses.
Click to expand...

What utter rubbish.

They have completely different bokeh characteristics due to the 9-blade vs 14-blade iris in the CP2s, and if you think mechanics of a lens don't inform the image quality, then try repeatedly and accurately pulling focus wide open. If I recall correctly CP2 have a different coating than the ZFs/ZEs as well.

If what you said was true everyone would be shouting for Zeiss Otus instead of Master Primes.

The mechanics of a cine lens are of the absolute utmost importance.
 
Ben Scott said:
What utter rubbish.

They have completely different bokeh characteristics due to the 9-blade vs 14-blade iris in the CP2s, and if you think mechanics of a lens don't inform the image quality, then try repeatedly and accurately pulling focus wide open. If I recall correctly CP2 have a different coating than the ZFs/ZEs as well.

If what you said was true everyone would be shouting for Zeiss Otus instead of Master Primes.

The mechanics of a cine lens are of the absolute utmost importance.
Click to expand...


Check post #16
 
The coatings are as important as the glass. The iris is as important as the glass. The mechanics are as important as the glass.

Not to say the ZFs aren't a great low (or mid-beginner) budget option. I've owned plenty of them. But they are not a set of CP2s.
 
The problem these days is that a lot of people learned to shoot on the 5d and all of the sudden everyone who can blur out backgrounds is automatically a cinematographer. Nobody who has worked with cine lenses would ever want to work with anything else. Moving the focal plane with precision is a key element.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top