What happened to Schneider Cine-Xenar lenses?
- Thread starter skimmel
- Start date
They didnt sell well. They are very weird. Quirky doesnt quite cut it as an adjective.
Imagine a lens designed by engineers that have NEVER been on set in their lives. Thats what they are like. IT accomplishes some nice things, relatively fast, no focus breathing, amazing bokeh, relatively sharp.... but the way they get to that point baffles the mind. From an ergonomic stand point.
i was gung ho for them last year when i was shopping for lenses. Then i tested them, and hated them. Bought panchros instead. Never looked back.
Imagine a lens designed by engineers that have NEVER been on set in their lives. Thats what they are like. IT accomplishes some nice things, relatively fast, no focus breathing, amazing bokeh, relatively sharp.... but the way they get to that point baffles the mind. From an ergonomic stand point.
i was gung ho for them last year when i was shopping for lenses. Then i tested them, and hated them. Bought panchros instead. Never looked back.
The second version of the Cine Xenar has great mechanics, and they cover 5k. The focus and iris gears stay in the same position (it should've been like that from the beginning).
So, great mechanics and great optics. 30 grand for 5 lens set, doesn't seem like a bad deal.
The panchros are more expensive, but you can also add a 135mm to your set. For now, this is not possible with the cine xenar (range 18-95).
So, great mechanics and great optics. 30 grand for 5 lens set, doesn't seem like a bad deal.
The panchros are more expensive, but you can also add a 135mm to your set. For now, this is not possible with the cine xenar (range 18-95).
And if you want to get a good deal... look what I found on reduser.
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?68619-For-Sale-Schneider-Cine-Xenar-II-Primes-Set
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?68619-For-Sale-Schneider-Cine-Xenar-II-Primes-Set
Thanks. Do you mean that the focus gear doesn't travel forward and backwards? Also, do you know if the lens still extends with focusing?
They still travel forward and backward, thats why no one liked them. what that means is the gears are in the same position as a lens set should be... its just them trying to make people think theres something special about them... Pretty much every cine lens set has their rings in the same position now anyway.
Hey man... to answer to that. No. The lens itself does not extend in the 2nd version of these lenses. So, using a mattebox is not an issue.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Well, I wouldn't say no one liked them. I have had my set of 5 lenses for almost a year now and they are by far my favorite lenses. Quirky? Yeah, but who cares because the image is gorgeous. Once you get used to them they are no harder to use than any other lens. Infact, they are much easier to use than Zeiss CPs. And yes, I always use them with a matte box. It's no big deal at all. I would buy them again without hesitation.
Doug, what do you like about using them over the Zeiss lenses?
Also, to clear up some of the info on this thread, I emailed Schneider and here is what they said:
"The MKI and MKII lenses are very similar. Schneider decided to add a brass key way inside the MKII
lenses that adds stability at close focus for steadicam work and other situations where the camera is
moving at extreme close focus. That's it.
Both the MKI and MKII versions are external focus so the physical size of the lens extends when you focus.
In "normal" focus ranges, ie infinity to 3 feet, the extension is less than one 1 inch making it acceptable for
most any matte box with a flexible light ring. These lenses focus very close so beyond the normal range
down to 10 inches there is quite a bit of extension (around 3" on the 95mm lens)."
Also, to clear up some of the info on this thread, I emailed Schneider and here is what they said:
"The MKI and MKII lenses are very similar. Schneider decided to add a brass key way inside the MKII
lenses that adds stability at close focus for steadicam work and other situations where the camera is
moving at extreme close focus. That's it.
Both the MKI and MKII versions are external focus so the physical size of the lens extends when you focus.
In "normal" focus ranges, ie infinity to 3 feet, the extension is less than one 1 inch making it acceptable for
most any matte box with a flexible light ring. These lenses focus very close so beyond the normal range
down to 10 inches there is quite a bit of extension (around 3" on the 95mm lens)."
ajhill
Member
Hey,
Not sure if you're still interested, but I happen to like the Cine-Xenars so I thought I write an update.
The Mark I version of these lenses were just that, a first attempt. They were optically great, with a "telecentric" design, which means the light travels straight thru them and they don't exhibit very much (like hardly any) breathing while rack focusing. Also some market BS about light striking the sensor more evenly. But I think that may be marketing hype...
Two things turned people off about these lenses. One, the housing physically extends when you focus, i.e. the lens gets longer and shorter. There was a matte box (Chroizel I think) that was made special for these lens that let the lens extend into the matte box. The biggest gripe that I heard about this telescoping issue was that people would not be able to use them on Steadicams because of the extension of the housing throwing off the dynamic balance on the rig. The only real problem with that complaint is that every other lens out there is also moving mass (albeit inside the housing) to achieve the focus pull. So in all lenses you do have a mass shifting when you pull focus. Extreme pulls mean farther weight shift. In practice this weight change on you average Steadicam shot from a focus pull is probably very slight and not worth worrying about. Even if you housing doesn't extend, the elements inside the lens is still shifting. Most Steadicam operators and studs and can deal with this slight weight shift in their sleep. Hey, there's a reason they're well paid...
The other thing that people didn't like was that the iris ring was on the outboard side (closest to subject being photographed) and the focus ring was on the inboard side (closest to the camera body). This is backwards from just about every other lens out there, so it confused, scared people. (1st ACs get startled easily, and don't like change ;-) ). In defense of 1st ACs everywhere, this arrangement also put the focus know back very close to the camera body, which is not ideal. Optically they were excellent.
The Mark II version of the lens was rumored to have taken care of some mechanical weaknesses in the original design. (This is from what I have heard and is definitely unofficial). Still they have the iris ring and focus ring position wrong. Still excellent optical design and results.
The Mark III lenses (Just released recently 6/1/12) are a complete housing redesign that no longer extends. Also they put the iris rings and focus rings in the same order as all the other lenses out there in the field, so the ACs will no longer be spooked. Still have the same excellent optics. Their size is similar to Red Pro Primes (1st Gen). And their breathing (or lack of any real breathing) characteristics are reported to still be excellent.
HOWEVER, now that Schneider has gone to a more conventional, no extending housing, they have upped the pricing and they are now in the 48K range, almost $52K with tax. Which puts them past the price of a used Zeiss super speed Mark III range, which are faster lenses by more than a stop. Also in this neighborhood would be the Cooke Panchro sets at T2.8 and a similar price, but at a slower stop, T 2.8
Hope this helps. It's an exciting time to be alive, what with all these great toys to play with and actually get paid for doing it!
Alan
Not sure if you're still interested, but I happen to like the Cine-Xenars so I thought I write an update.
The Mark I version of these lenses were just that, a first attempt. They were optically great, with a "telecentric" design, which means the light travels straight thru them and they don't exhibit very much (like hardly any) breathing while rack focusing. Also some market BS about light striking the sensor more evenly. But I think that may be marketing hype...
Two things turned people off about these lenses. One, the housing physically extends when you focus, i.e. the lens gets longer and shorter. There was a matte box (Chroizel I think) that was made special for these lens that let the lens extend into the matte box. The biggest gripe that I heard about this telescoping issue was that people would not be able to use them on Steadicams because of the extension of the housing throwing off the dynamic balance on the rig. The only real problem with that complaint is that every other lens out there is also moving mass (albeit inside the housing) to achieve the focus pull. So in all lenses you do have a mass shifting when you pull focus. Extreme pulls mean farther weight shift. In practice this weight change on you average Steadicam shot from a focus pull is probably very slight and not worth worrying about. Even if you housing doesn't extend, the elements inside the lens is still shifting. Most Steadicam operators and studs and can deal with this slight weight shift in their sleep. Hey, there's a reason they're well paid...
The other thing that people didn't like was that the iris ring was on the outboard side (closest to subject being photographed) and the focus ring was on the inboard side (closest to the camera body). This is backwards from just about every other lens out there, so it confused, scared people. (1st ACs get startled easily, and don't like change ;-) ). In defense of 1st ACs everywhere, this arrangement also put the focus know back very close to the camera body, which is not ideal. Optically they were excellent.
The Mark II version of the lens was rumored to have taken care of some mechanical weaknesses in the original design. (This is from what I have heard and is definitely unofficial). Still they have the iris ring and focus ring position wrong. Still excellent optical design and results.
The Mark III lenses (Just released recently 6/1/12) are a complete housing redesign that no longer extends. Also they put the iris rings and focus rings in the same order as all the other lenses out there in the field, so the ACs will no longer be spooked. Still have the same excellent optics. Their size is similar to Red Pro Primes (1st Gen). And their breathing (or lack of any real breathing) characteristics are reported to still be excellent.
HOWEVER, now that Schneider has gone to a more conventional, no extending housing, they have upped the pricing and they are now in the 48K range, almost $52K with tax. Which puts them past the price of a used Zeiss super speed Mark III range, which are faster lenses by more than a stop. Also in this neighborhood would be the Cooke Panchro sets at T2.8 and a similar price, but at a slower stop, T 2.8
Hope this helps. It's an exciting time to be alive, what with all these great toys to play with and actually get paid for doing it!
Alan
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I'm still loving my first-generation Cine-Xenars. They create a beautiful image with close focusing, no breathing, and great bokeh. Both the focus ring and the iris ring are smoother and easier to use than the CP2s which I find take too much torque.
I actually prefer the reversed order of the lens rings and wish all lenses were designed that way. For one thing, It puts the focusing closer to the camera body which is easier for me to reach and it keeps the weight of my O'Connor FF closer to the center of gravity of the camera. The FF is at least a couple of inches closer than it would be if focusing was on the front end of the lens. And since I'm using a FF, it doesn't really matter what order the rings are in because I'm not reaching for the barrel of the lens to focus anyway. I'm reaching for the FF. But an advantage that you can't really appreciate is how much easier it is to change the exposure when the iris ring is out beyond the FF and in the clear. I don't to squeeze my fat hand between the FF and the camera body to change exposure with the Cine-Xenars. It may not sound like a big deal, but once you've worked with the lenses, it feels like a step backwards when I use "normal" lenses now.
As for the telescoping length during focusing. No big deal. I have a rubber donut (Red Rock) that seals the gap around my O'Connor matte box and flexes more than enough to handle the full range of travel -- which is only about one inch if you go from extreme close to infinity -- and how often are you doing that? I mean it's only one inch! What's the big deal? The rubber donut works with all the lenses since they have the same diameter.
Great lenses. And I paid less than 1/2 what they cost now.
I actually prefer the reversed order of the lens rings and wish all lenses were designed that way. For one thing, It puts the focusing closer to the camera body which is easier for me to reach and it keeps the weight of my O'Connor FF closer to the center of gravity of the camera. The FF is at least a couple of inches closer than it would be if focusing was on the front end of the lens. And since I'm using a FF, it doesn't really matter what order the rings are in because I'm not reaching for the barrel of the lens to focus anyway. I'm reaching for the FF. But an advantage that you can't really appreciate is how much easier it is to change the exposure when the iris ring is out beyond the FF and in the clear. I don't to squeeze my fat hand between the FF and the camera body to change exposure with the Cine-Xenars. It may not sound like a big deal, but once you've worked with the lenses, it feels like a step backwards when I use "normal" lenses now.
As for the telescoping length during focusing. No big deal. I have a rubber donut (Red Rock) that seals the gap around my O'Connor matte box and flexes more than enough to handle the full range of travel -- which is only about one inch if you go from extreme close to infinity -- and how often are you doing that? I mean it's only one inch! What's the big deal? The rubber donut works with all the lenses since they have the same diameter.
Great lenses. And I paid less than 1/2 what they cost now.
Last edited: