Re: Zeiss ZF vs Canon L-Series? Which offers best primes?

E

ectobuilder

Veteran
Re: Zeiss ZF vs Canon L-Series? Which offers best primes?

Which do you think is better optically overall? Zeiss ZF or Canon L-Series?

ZF's have the advantage of having an aperture ring which is why I am leaning towards them.
 
ZF have an aperture ring and amazing focus control, very smooth and long. Plus, id say the zeiss are much better for video hands down.
 
Do you find that Zeiss ZF lenses are at a disadvantage because they are slower than the Canon L-Series? i.e. their 25mm F2.8 vs 24mm F1.4L
 
ectobuilder said:
Do you find that Zeiss ZF lenses are at a disadvantage because they are slower than the Canon L-Series? i.e. their 25mm F2.8 vs 24mm F1.4L
Click to expand...

With the FS100 it really does not make a difference, the camera is so sensitive, you can get away with shooting a little slower. I am keen to invest in some ZF glass, just wish they made zoom's.
 
Do all ZF Lenses have hard stops at the extreme ends of the focus throw?

Are the focus marks on all ZF lenses calibrated properly? I think some of the Canon L-Series focus ring is tied to the motor so it can easily be uncalibrated?

And also, optically which one is purely better?
 
I prefer Zeiss for function and sharpness. Yes, the Canon is faster but I would give it up for what I gain with Zeiss.
 
The ZFs are fully manual, that alone makes them a much more sensible for video work. The added bonus of having relatively long focus throws puts them even further ahead of the Canon glass (for video applications).

Personally, given the results I've been seeing out of the Rokinon/Samyang 35mm and 85mm f/1.4 lenses (soon to be joined by a 24mm f/1.4 too) I'd say they look hard to go past for the sorts of video applications we all want them for.
 
Before I bought my cinema glass, I was a Nikon ZF man for productions which did not have a budget to rent cinema lenses.

I really liked the Nikon ZF's. Never liked L-series, but my opinion of them is a little bias because of my putrid dislike for their use on Canon DSLR's due to the obnoxious super shallow DoF people do. Ugh. It looks like everything was composited and the compositor didn't do the DoF correctly. Unnaturally shallow. I'm also an all manual guy... so ZF's win in that category too. If you are interested in the autofocus capabilities of lenses, which I'm very much not, you may consider Canon's.
 
ectobuilder said:
Do all ZF Lenses have hard stops at the extreme ends of the focus throw?
Click to expand...
All the ZFs are purely mechanical, with hard stops and luxurious focus action. The most cinema-like of all stills lenses that I've used.

Are the focus marks on all ZF lenses calibrated properly?
Click to expand...
Well, that's a bit of a leading question -- they're calibrated well for stills lenses, but they're stills lenses and no stills lens is truly calibrated properly. They don't have witness marks, they're not bench-tested to guarantee perfect accuracy, etc. They're not cinema lenses, and I wouldn't trust tape-measure focusing with any ZF or any stills lens. If you need perfect calibration and witness marks, that's what the Compact Primes are for.

And also, optically which one is purely better?
Click to expand...
Only test I know of between the two was this one done by Ben Horton:
http://photocinenews.com/2010/10/22/nat-geo-shooter-ben-horton-compares-canon-glass-to-zeiss-glass/
 
Both sets of lenses offer great resolution, contrast, etc. There are several big things to think about:
1) the look of the lenses: to me at least the Ziess lesnes are much colder and harder (if that makes sense) than the Canons. Maybe just a touch sharper, but either are going to be good enough to resolve on a 1080P camera.
2) the lack of hard stops or external aperture ring on the Canon lenses is a HUGE negative. Be prepared to make sacrifices (time is the main one, or changing ISO instead of aperture) I used the ZE primes on an FS100 shoot and not being able to just reach up and change the aperture is very annoying, to say the least.
3) future-proofing: ziess have a better reputation, and with the nikon F-mount it is easier to adapt to a majority of cameras (more so than EF mount at least)
4) no aperture ring sucks.

There are other options as well though. Nikon AIS or Canon FD lenses used.
 
Barry_Green said:
I wouldn't trust tape-measure focusing with any ZF or any stills lens.

Yes and no. All pro AC's perform a tape/eye test on a lens before it goes on camera. the barrel is taped with clean tape,
and a slate is held at several lengths that are measured with tape to focal plane against sharp focus by eye- this is compared against the lens "witness" marks and if not perfect- the AC's marks are the ones used and trusted.

So with a piece of tape and a 5 min test- most any mechanically geared lens can be "trusted". (non servo)
Click to expand...
 
Of course, but Caleb, would you trust that on a lens like an L-series or any focus-by-wire lens?

I think a ZF is more likely to hold accurate than most stills lenses, because of the pure mechanical nature and because of the generously long focus throws, but even then they're not really designed to that degree of precision. Will the marks hold up through a day of exterior shooting after the sun comes up and heats up the lens barrel? That's the kind of thing that I trust the CP's and other cinema-engineered lenses for, but on stills lenses they were never built to that degree of precision and tape-measure focusing on a 35mm sensor does require precision.
 
I see what you mean Barry. yes a lot of lenses are not at all right for focus work. As I said tho, any mechanical lens you are using should be eye/tape tested anyway. And after a test drive you'll know if it is useable or not. it really boils down to the script more than anything. if you are shooting a theatrical script - I dont want to focus with still lenses at all. And I agree the ZF's are pretty good and useable where nikons are often not. (just too little throw) That said- it's general good practice too always tape test and it can save you with marginal glass you HAVE to put to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top