FS7: Under $5K Cinema Lens Test - XEEN, Canon CN-E, Tokina Cinema, Zeiss ZF2, and Leica R

Chris Langer

Chris Langer

Well-known member

Link - https://vimeo.com/139046904

Hello everyone,
I wanted to share this with everyone on the board. I just finished a whole weekend of shooting with seven lenses. I think the Sony FS7 is a very capable camera but I am always trying out new lenses with it and experimenting. I put together a test using 50mm lenses ranging from $5000 to $500. Here are the lenses listed below.

1. Rokinon Xeen 50mm T1.5 Lens for Canon EF Mount - $2500
2. Canon CN-E 50mm T1.3 L F Cine Lens - $4950
3. Tokina Cinema 50-135mm T3.0 with Canon EF Mount - $4500
4. Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens - $1899
5. Zeiss Planar T* 50mm F/1.4 ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F-Mount Cameras - $625
6. Leica Summicron-R 50/2 - $500-700
7. Sony FE PZ 28-135mm f/4 G OSS Lens - $2500

Shot on:
Sony FS7
Metabones EF to NEX Mark IV Lens Adapter
Sony XDCA Extension Unit - RAW OUT
Odyssey 7Q+ - FS RAW > 4K ProRes 422 HQ

Let me know what you think! Hopefully this helps you in deciding what lenses you want to use on the FS7.

Thanks,
Chris
 
Great test, Chris. Thanks so much.

I am surprised at how well the Xeen's perform. Would love to see a head to head of the Xeen's and the Rokinon.

Very informative comparison.

Ned Soltz
 
Of the budget cine primes CN-E's are my favourite but I must admit for half the price the Xeen 50mm did a damn good job. I really like the added warmth of both brands.

I have no doubt that the Xeen 50mm & 85mm will be great lenses as they are strong performers of the Rokinon line also. The 24mm (soft) is the one I am most concerned about. Same goes for the 35mm and its terrible breathing.

The Tokina breathing surprised me. I had a hard strong look at that Tokina 50-135 (I have the stills version) as a good all purpose interview zoom and had hoped for a lot more breathing control for me to plunk down the money. The breathing and flare are what kill the stills 50-135 for me but the range is very nice.
 
Thanks for the tests Chris. I have a couple of questions about them.

- why not compare the fast primes XEEN, Canon and Zeiss wide open. To me the point of owning fast primes is to be able to use them for speed or super low DOF, but that's a;also where some of them fall apart. At f 2.8 or especially at 4 pretty much all of them look good.

- As a general question, how much importance should we place on the color of a lens these days. After all its a tiny tweak in post to give a cool lens some warmth . Is there any difference between what you would do in post or what the lens itself provides? Of course if you are intercutting various lenses it could be a PITA. but is there a difference between owning a set of cooler Zeiss or warmer XEEN's. Maybe if you are burning in a LUT but even then there is plenty of room for a slight touch up of warmth even in old fashioned 8 bit color.
I don't have an opinion about this - just curious what other people think. I used to try to keep my lenses (zooms and primes) relatively close but honestly haven't even checked recently - which is kind of lazy on my part.
 
There is a major difference between color of a lens and color in post. The world is infinite, and the moment you begin to capture it you lose information. At the point of it going through the lens you have the most. After the sensor, then the processing and then especially the recording there is considerably less. So your adjustments in post are based of much less information.

Likewise a warm lens accentuates flesh tones. It allows more of that color through to the sensor. This enriches the skin tones and makes humans appear more attractive and alive. Some cameras and codecs lose much of this information, making skin appear plastic and dull, so it is best to get as much of that info into the image as possible.

For every technician who claims they can reproduce the effect in post I can produce a number of talented craftspeople who can absolutely see the difference.
 
Thanks Mitch,
That was beautiful, Its making me look at those tests more carefully. Just being warm wouldn't necessarily be what we're after though if it makes everything warm the same amount though would it? Wouldn't you want a lens that brought out flesh tones without tinting everything the same color? I noticed the Tokina in those tests just looked more saturated altogether and the Leica- a very well rated lens was the flatest and least saturated.
 
The thing that jumped out most to me was the jumpy focus pulls on the canon zoom - the reason i find most AF stills glass 'unworkable'

It would have been interesting to see a FD 50 or a nikon 50 in the mix - $50 lenses

Also 50 seems an odd lens to test - really lenses tend to be challenged by the widest in a set - nearly everyone makes acceptable 50s and 85s - 18? well that is another matter.

S
 
I'd also like to see a run of the mill Nikon 50 in the mix, along with the lower priced ($550) Rokinon 50 to see how they stack up
 
nsoltz said:
Great test, Chris. Thanks so much.

I am surprised at how well the Xeen's perform. Would love to see a head to head of the Xeen's and the Rokinon.

Very informative comparison.

Ned Soltz
Click to expand...

Thank you for the kind words Ned. I did a test with the Rokinons at 35mm on the C100 last year. Found similar results but I still feel like the extra blades and polish job they give the elements might make a difference. I wish I rented the Rokinons for side by side comparisons.

FrameFarmMedia said:
Of the budget cine primes CN-E's are my favourite but I must admit for half the price the Xeen 50mm did a damn good job. I really like the added warmth of both brands.

I have no doubt that the Xeen 50mm & 85mm will be great lenses as they are strong performers of the Rokinon line also. The 24mm (soft) is the one I am most concerned about. Same goes for the 35mm and its terrible breathing.

The Tokina breathing surprised me. I had a hard strong look at that Tokina 50-135 (I have the stills version) as a good all purpose interview zoom and had hoped for a lot more breathing control for me to plunk down the money. The breathing and flare are what kill the stills 50-135 for me but the range is very nice.
Click to expand...

Tokina was the biggest letdown. I was really excited about this lens since it covers the full 50-135 range. Not to mention they have a nice 16-28 T/3 I tested as well. Both of them were very unexciting. I could achieve better results with my already owned Canon 24-70. Regarding the Xeen's, I was really happy about their performance. I look forward to seeing more footage with the wider angle lenses. I should rent that one for the weekend and compare it to the Canon 24.

Lenilenapi said:
Thanks for the tests Chris. I have a couple of questions about them.

- why not compare the fast primes XEEN, Canon and Zeiss wide open. To me the point of owning fast primes is to be able to use them for speed or super low DOF, but that's a;also where some of them fall apart. At f 2.8 or especially at 4 pretty much all of them look good.

- As a general question, how much importance should we place on the color of a lens these days. After all its a tiny tweak in post to give a cool lens some warmth . Is there any difference between what you would do in post or what the lens itself provides? Of course if you are intercutting various lenses it could be a PITA. but is there a difference between owning a set of cooler Zeiss or warmer XEEN's. Maybe if you are burning in a LUT but even then there is plenty of room for a slight touch up of warmth even in old fashioned 8 bit color.
I don't have an opinion about this - just curious what other people think. I used to try to keep my lenses (zooms and primes) relatively close but honestly haven't even checked recently - which is kind of lazy on my part.
Click to expand...

Wide open - I wanted to test all of the lenses across similar aperture ranges. If I only did a wide open test, I would be comparing the Canon CN-E with the Xeen lens. I really only use my lenses around f/2 - f/2.8 most of the time. I didn't really want to shoot any wider than that. I did shoot some random flower footage wide open from my first test but the background fell off way too quickly for my liking so I didn't include it into the test.

Color - I agree with Mitch, I think color is important in the lens. Anything I can do to simply my post-processing, the better. I think naturally I have always loved my Canon glass because it gives a certain warmth that is really pleasant in the image. Zeiss is always my least favorite with it's clinical, cooler vibe to the image. I wasn't really happy with my Leica in this test. Kinda considering switching over to some Xeen's with a PL mount so I can put a robust follow focus on it for rack focusing. I did most of the focusing on this test by hand to cut down on weight and time. Having seven different focus positions to change on each test would get annoying really quick. Which lenses do you own currently? I know you asked Mitch about which lenses give a warmth to them.

morgan_moore said:
The thing that jumped out most to me was the jumpy focus pulls on the canon zoom - the reason i find most AF stills glass 'unworkable'

It would have been interesting to see a FD 50 or a nikon 50 in the mix - $50 lenses

Also 50 seems an odd lens to test - really lenses tend to be challenged by the widest in a set - nearly everyone makes acceptable 50s and 85s - 18? well that is another matter.

S
Click to expand...

You have no idea how much I hate focusing traditional SLR lenses. So frustrating to get a clean rack. Regarding my choice for the 50, it is one of my most used focal lengths besides a 35mm. Since I already did a 35mm test, I wanted to test the 50mm range. Also, they don't make a 35mm Xeen...yet... so that kind of pushed me towards the 50mm selection for all lenses.
 
I like your test.

But, for cinema...
Isn't the way to test the most important aspects of cinema lenses in a Theater with the footage projected on a big screen?

I think the differences will be more visible then, now I am watching on al tablet or a notebook.
 
Last edited:
Publimix said:
I like your test.

But, for cinema...
Isn't the way to test the most important aspects of cinema lenses in a Theater with the footage projected on a big screen?

I think the differences will be more visible then, now I am watching on al tablet or a notebook.
Click to expand...

You can download the original file and watch it on a bigger TV if you wish. I uploaded a 4K file.

Bern Caughey said:
Thanks Chris!
Click to expand...

Thanks Bern! What was your favorite lens?
 
Chris Langer said:
Tokina was the biggest letdown. I was really excited about this lens since it covers the full 50-135 range. Not to mention they have a nice 16-28 T/3 I tested as well. Both of them were very unexciting. I could achieve better results with my already owned Canon 24-70. Regarding the Xeen's, I was really happy about their performance. I look forward to seeing more footage with the wider angle lenses. I should rent that one for the weekend and compare it to the Canon 24.
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to do these tests. It is really appreciated.
 
Thanks for doing and sharing this test. Confirmed my impression of the Xeen. Tempted to buy them down the line. But the DS line is tempting too as they are cheaper and smaller. Can always rent pl when needed
 
If I was to buy the Xeen's I would get them in PL and get a sturdy PL adapter. I had too many problems with the Metabones adapter flexing using a follow focus system with a few of the lenses I tested. I even tried a lens support but it still wasn't the best setup. I was checking out the Wood Camera PL adapter, it is built nicely and screws into a plate that sits on top of the FS7. Of course, PL mount means I can't shoot with certain cameras but there is always trade offs. Can't win!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top