Who owns or has shot with the XEEN primes?

Lenses matter.

How much they matter will always be up to the individual, but we can hope that the people who’s job it is, care a little more than the average person.
 
Last edited:
All good feedback guys, much appreciated. I've shot with the CN E primes a lot and like them. I only need a set of three primes as I see zero reason for me to own anything over 50mm as I am in love with my EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and see little advantage in that focal length area.
I'm thinking a 16mm, 24 and 50mm. I should check out the SLR Magics, I have never seen those in person. For me, I like the extra size and weight for handheld operating and I like a 200 degree focus throw.
 
puredrifting said:
All good feedback guys, much appreciated. I've shot with the CN E primes a lot and like them. I only need a set of three primes as I see zero reason for me to own anything over 50mm as I am in love with my EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and see little advantage in that focal length area.
I'm thinking a 16mm, 24 and 50mm. I should check out the SLR Magics, I have never seen those in person. For me, I like the extra size and weight for handheld operating and I like a 200 degree focus throw.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a sweet setup!
 
John Brawley said:
This is a bit old but here you go.

https://vimeo.com/johnbrawley/review/246930283/9d6d30c5d2

JB
Click to expand...

If i had to pick a favourite based on the test, i’d choose A as my top pick. B was not what i like in terms of lens flare. The contrast and colours were nice, but wasn’t my preference for this setup. Interestingly enough, the Zeiss Supreme Radiance lenses when blasted, also have that sort of lens flare as B. A bunch of reflected surfaces. Makes all those circles.

C felt like it had the least spectacular flare. Had noticeable CA on the xmas string lights. Seemed to breathe the most. But i still liked it somehow. Felt neutral in a way.

They are all pretty distinct from each other, but also all seem to exhibit personality over perfection in a good way. Would be curious to know which is which.

No matter what B is, i could live without it, but i do think it could be something i’d use, if i had more time with it. A was just so immediately likeable in this test, that it made it tough for B. C just one me over, as i liked the whitish flare, and the neutral feel at t2.5 reminds me of lenses from the 80’s.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
Thanks for the suggestion.

1. Widest is 25mm and I need a 16mm
2. Focus throw is 150 degrees, much prefer 200 for HH operation.
Click to expand...

Hi.

Couple of things, there is an 18mm and 135mm planned next in the SLR magic road map, but they haven't been fast coming....

The APO's are 300 degrees. The microprimes are half this, but that's the only concession between the APO's and the microprimes, they're the same lens otherwise. These days the focus throw is less relelvent for many because you can expand this using a modern remote focus system.




James0b57 said:
If i had to pick a favourite based on the test, i’d choose A as my top pick. B was not what i like in terms of lens flare. The contrast and colours were nice, but wasn’t my preference for this setup. Interestingly enough, the Zeiss Supreme Radiance lenses when blasted, also have that sort of lens flare as B. A bunch of reflected surfaces. Makes all those circles.

C felt like it had the least spectacular flare. Had noticeable CA on the xmas string lights. Seemed to breathe the most. But i still liked it somehow. Felt neutral in a way.
Click to expand...

A is SLR Magic APO's
B is Panavision Primo
C is Zeiss CP 2/3

JB
 
John Brawley said:
A is SLR Magic APO's
B is Panavision Primo
C is Zeiss CP 2/3

JB
Click to expand...

C being Zeiss CP.2-3 makes sense. I like their look, despite their flaws. EDIT: i learned how to shoot on ZF and CP.2, so my style developed a little bit around that look early on. Would compare shots i did with Canon L glass, and i typically liked my shots on the ZF. Had an inky rich look stopped down and a soft/sharp look opened up. But fighting CA, breathing, and unflattering contrast on some talent, cold colours and i had to move away for work related things. But personally, i’d still use them.

The Primos, or B, it was the subtle contrast on the subject’s face that wasn’t particularly fond of. Though, as a whole the contrast felt solid. And while i dislike that type of flare, it seemed a nice lens when not flaring. More engaging colours than C or A, but just didn’t do anything for this scene for me. Were the Primos Zeiss or Leica based? And what decade? I’d probably never put them on a BM, because of the two combined characters.

Overall, i am now very interested in the Slr magic! A great look! Very characterized vintage flare, warm colors, like everything that is ‘wrong’ is so right, is so perfect. And everything that is right, is so right. For the most part. How’s the build quality? I stay in the 25-75mm most of the time. although plenty of directors request 16Mm and 85mm, and sometimes even more extreme.
 
Last edited:
John Brawley said:
Hi.

Couple of things, there is an 18mm and 135mm planned next in the SLR magic road map, but they haven't been fast coming....
The APO's are 300 degrees. The microprimes are half this, but that's the only concession between the APO's and the microprimes, they're the same lens otherwise. These days the focus throw is less relelvent for many because you can expand this using a modern remote focus system.
Click to expand...

After shooting a lot of without XT-3 with the XF18-55 f/2.8-4.0 OIS and the our XF16mm f/1.4 WR, 18mm wouldn't be my preference at all, I use the 16mm about 80% of the time. On the wide end, those 2mm, especially handholding or gimbal shooting, make a huge difference to me. Same with the focus throw, I'll NOT be using FIZ
controls, it'll be handheld and manually focusing with my hand, 300 degree throw definitely doesn't work and 150 is okay but not the "feel" I like with the 200 degree. Maybe I'll rent the 18mm when it comes out. As you know, until you try a camera or lens out, it's all just talk.
 
puredrifting said:
After shooting a lot of without XT-3 with the XF18-55 f/2.8-4.0 OIS and the our XF16mm f/1.4 WR, 18mm wouldn't be my preference at all, I use the 16mm about 80% of the time. On the wide end, those 2mm, especially handholding or gimbal shooting, make a huge difference to me. Same with the focus throw, I'll NOT be using FIZ
controls, it'll be handheld and manually focusing with my hand, 300 degree throw definitely doesn't work and 150 is okay but not the "feel" I like with the 200 degree. Maybe I'll rent the 18mm when it comes out. As you know, until you try a camera or lens out, it's all just talk.
Click to expand...

18mm is one of my least favourite focal lengths. Mainly because it is too wide to do anything normal, and *not wide enough to give that over sensational ultra wide look on s35.

I’m sure an 18mm is fine, but i’d just rather use a 21 and deal with the crop. Then i’ll jump to a 16mm or wider for effect. Sports doc or music video tends to ask for wider. Make it look special as quickly as possible. 18mm on s35 doesn’t have much bang for buck. Still, it comes in handy on a zoom, say 18-35 or 18-55, but only because that is what the wide on the zoom is. I’d be curious tonhear how others use it for s35?
 
Last edited:
Ah, see, here I am thinking in terms of Full Frame 35mm and the 25mm SLR Magic APO HyperPrime Cine lens is somewhat wide, and an 18mm would be quite wide. But, yes, on S35 the SLR Magic lenses aren't wide enough.
 
Jaime Valles said:
Ah, see, here I am thinking in terms of Full Frame 35mm and the 25mm SLR Magic APO HyperPrime Cine lens is somewhat wide, and an 18mm would be quite wide. But, yes, on S35 the SLR Magic lenses aren't wide enough.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm with James, 18mm on S35 is meh.

I'll never shoot FF again, I despise it for video/cinema, it's completely counterintuitive for DOF and FOV for a DP like myself who has spent decades shooting S35 film and S35 digital cinema cameras.
For stills, FF can be helpful. If I bought the C500 MKII or the FX-9, I would never shoot FF with it, I would always shoot cropped.
 
I had the same sentiment until recent project arrived.

For this project, CN-E 20 on FF is economically viable replacement for MP 14 on s35.

Price of MP is equivalent to price of fully kitted FF body and CN lens and ...

Renting MP for the duration of the project doesn't make sense.

I'm open to suggestions that would lead to solve requirements of 84° at T1.5 on FF.

It looks like I'll have to let go one of C200, just don't know if it will be the B variant or not.

As I said, would like to hear what is an alternative for this type of situation.
 
laverdir said:
I had the same sentiment until recent project arrived.

For this project, CN-E 20 on FF is economically viable replacement for MP 14 on s35.

Price of MP is equivalent to price of fully kitted FF body and CN lens and ...

Renting MP for the duration of the project doesn't make sense.

I'm open to suggestions that would lead to solve requirements of 84° at T1.5 on FF.

It looks like I'll have to let go one of C200, just don't know if it will be the B variant or not.

As I said, would like to hear what is an alternative for this type of situation.
Click to expand...

If you can live with the 2/3 stop difference, the Sigma 14mm T2 is only about $780 more than the Canon 20mm T1.5. So then you have a reasonably fast lens that is wide on s35 and really wide on FF.
 
Just watched a Xeen vs CN-E shoot out. Seems the Xeens all slightly barrel distort. The Canon 50mm barrel distorts too. But most of the Canons are pretty straight.

That actually makes me interested in the Xeen line. That distortion would really pull forward the subject. I rarely shoot architecture or straight lines, and even then, there is something about curved lines that i like sometimes.

The Canon CN-E lenses are technically/aesthetically designed well, but i have never spent enough time with them.

Anyway, i’ll have to find a copy of the Xeens to mess with. Although barrel distortion isn’t for everyone.

Here is the comparison:
 
Last edited:
I'd rather buy used CP.2's than new Xeens. The prices of used CP.2's are roughly that of new Xeens.

I'd rather be a Zeiss-guy than a Xeen-guy, as far as such things matter to yourself or to any clients.
 
JPNola said:
I'd rather buy used CP.2's than new Xeens. The prices of used CP.2's are roughly that of new Xeens.

I'd rather be a Zeiss-guy than a Xeen-guy, as far as such things matter to yourself or to any clients.
Click to expand...

I actually like CP.2, as well. Probably the most underrated cinema lenses at this time.


Problem for me, is clients wanting: faster, less contrast, and warmer.... and that is essentially what Xeens are to CP.2

So, maybe i should put another name brand on them. ;)

But you are spot on. Zeiss ZF is what i learned s35 on, and then CP.2 just has fantastic mechanics and size for a small camera crew. On smaller lenses, sometimes a mattebox will get in the way. And many better lenses are just heavier.
 
The Xeens on Christmas special seem like an amazing value, barely more than good still lenses. That was the main thing that caught my eye.
If I had had a better year financially I would just buy a set for the year end write off but 2019 was a crappy year money wise.
 
puredrifting said:
The Xeens on Christmas special seem like an amazing value, barely more than good still lenses. That was the main thing that caught my eye.
If I had had a better year financially I would just buy a set for the year end write off but 2019 was a crappy year money wise.
Click to expand...

If the sale is still going on next year, i may jump too. We could exchange lenses till we get a really good matched set, haha.

What’s your preference for 95mm vs 114mm front diameter? I go back and forth. 95mm tends to be more versatile, but the extra size of 114mm makes onset work less cramped.
 
James0b57 said:
If the sale is still going on next year, i may jump too. We could exchange lenses till we get a really good matched set, haha.

What’s your preference for 95mm vs 114mm front diameter? I go back and forth. 95mm tends to be more versatile, but the extra size of 114mm makes onset work less cramped.
Click to expand...

95 is the big thing that bugs me about the otherwise excellent Sigma's. All my "cine" glass(full set of CN-E's and 17-120) is 114mm, so when I finally get around to ponying up for the Sigma 105mm, I'll have to swap rings on my MB's when I use that lens. Not exactly difficult, but just "one more thing" that you have to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top