Zeiss Compact Prime CP.2 question(s)

G

GanEdenVideo

Carbonite Member
For those who use CP.2 lenses with their AF100's, which Zeiss CP.2 lens would be a good recommendation as a general "all rounder". 21mm? 28mm? 35mm? 50mm? 85mm?

I could only afford one lens so would want to get an idea of what focal length would be good.

Also, would you get a CP.2 with an EF (and use a EF>M4/3 adaptor) mount or M4/3 mount? (or does Zeiss provide mounts to change yourself?) I ask as I'd also use such a lens on my Canon DSLR as well.

Also who is doing sales on Zeiss CP lenses in Australia?

Cheers
 
If you already own a Lumix zoom, the AF100 will display its focal length in the LCD/EVF. Set your zoom to a few of these lengths and find out yourself which is most useful for your shooting style.

If you want to use these lenses with other cameras, then definitely do not buy it in m43 mount. F, EF, or PL are your best bets.
 
Tough call. The 85mm makes nice compressed backgrounds with shallow depth of field. I use it all the time for that but its hard to say for you since I don’t know what your shooting.

I went with PL mounts because my next camera or any I rent have PL mounts. Do you plan on owning another MFT camera or a Canon EF?

PL mounts are solid on the AF-100. he Vocus is very good and comes with a lens support. You wont need to support the CP.2’s since they aren’t heavy.

The mount kits are expensive at $390 per lens so I would think ahead on what your most likely goring to use in the future.
 
The Canon 85mm f1.2L is a stunning lens. That with a Redrock EOS adapter and I think you'll be pretty
happy with what you see through the AF100. The good news about the Canon L glass is that it's
been holding value well. And the 85mm is particularly popular among wedding photographers .. so
you can probably rent it out regularly (if you want to get into that).

Going with PL / Cine lenses is an expensive road .. and one you may not need to take for
a while. If you get a RED (like Erik), it makes a lot of sense. But for the AF100, not so much
(IMHO).

jeff
 
jmarkham said:
The Canon 85mm f1.2L is a stunning lens. That with a Redrock EOS adapter and I think you'll be pretty
happy with what you see through the AF100. The good news about the Canon L glass is that it's
been holding value well. And the 85mm is particularly popular among wedding photographers .. so
you can probably rent it out regularly (if you want to get into that).

Going with PL / Cine lenses is an expensive road .. and one you may not need to take for
a while. If you get a RED (like Erik), it makes a lot of sense. But for the AF100, not so much
(IMHO).

jeff
Click to expand...

Thanks Jeff, but the CP's seem to have far better quality of imagery and DoF. I'll check out that L lens though.
 
You really need to figure out what you see yourself shooting with in a year or more to save money on the right mount. I wouldn't want to spend $2400 on new mounts for six lenses in a year if I picked the wrong one. PL is versatile. Maybe just getting a set of cineized Zeiss ZF's (Nikon mount) now see how you like the look. Then buy a CP.2 later.

The 85mm is pretty long on the AF-100. Equivalent to a 170mm due to the crop.

The 28mm would be closer to a normal lens. Equivalent to a 56mm due to the crop.

If you do intend to shoot with Canon DSLR's as well then don't bother with PL. You cant use them on a 5D. EF mount would be the choice and use a MFT adapter for the AF-100.

I dont have a RED and I never have shot with one before but I would like to try one. I rented the Sony F3 last week with PL mount so I could use my set of PL lenses. Worked very well!
 
Last edited:
groveChuck said:
How was the F3, Erik?
Click to expand...
Great! Low light shooting with it was really nice. 12db was a non issue. Really clean. Also getting that little extra field of view from the S35 sensor is nice.
I love my 85mm and it really pops wide open. It really is a good camera and now with slog included on new versions it's a better camera than the C300. Ouch! Did I just say that.
Dont get me wrong. The AF-100 is great for the price range it sits in.
 
GanEdenVideo said:
Thanks Jeff, but the CP's seem to have far better quality of imagery and DoF. I'll check out that L lens though.
Click to expand...

Image wise the Canon 85mm/1.2, & for that matter the 50mm/1.2, kill their Zeiss counterparts, especially wide-open, but mechanically the CP(s) are vastly superior to the "L"s.
 
Last edited:
GanEdenVideo said:
Thanks Jeff, but the CP's seem to have far better quality of imagery and DoF. I'll check out that L lens though.
Click to expand...

The CP.2's are great lenses .. and come with an MFT mount option. I love Zeiss glass even though some think they're a little
cold looking.

jeff
 
GanEdenVideo said:
Ive read that they provide mounts with the EF/PL lens but does that include an MFT mount?
Click to expand...
The CP.2's have an interchangeable mount system. You can choose among MFT, PL, EF, Nikon, etc. Interchanging the mounts isn't really something you want to do frequently, but if you had a set of MFT CP.2's and someone wanted to buy them in Nikon mount, you could easily interchange the mount. You just have to re-shim the lenses whenever you change the mount, so it's not something you want to do often.
 
Well, nothing "cheapo" is okay ever, especially when you're talking about hanging $4,000 lenses off it! =:O

Would it function? Probably. Would I do it with my CP's? No way. Not some $30 adapter off ebay. If you have EF-mount CP's and want to use them on an MFT camera, get the very best MFT->EF adapter you can, one that has the capability to be rails-mounted, and use 15mm rails under it to support the lens. Technically the AF100's lens mount is strong enough to support 2.2 pounds, but -- I wouldn't, I'd have support under them.
 
Barry_Green said:
the only comparison test I've seen, came to the opposite conclusion. Where have you seen a test where an "L" is tested against a ZF and came out on top?
Click to expand...

Barry,

These were test we did, but it was the ZE(s) against "L"(s), not CP(s), & only one example of each lens was tested. The comparisons were done with full frame stills (5D2 @ 24×36 mm), not S35, & we were looking at the performance wide-open.

We were comparing the look, not absolute resolution, & all involved preferred the Canon's. But as much as I love the 85mm/1.2 wide-open for FF stills, it's focus ring is troublesome for filming even on the C300.

This was a couple years ago, & if I can find the RAWs I'll send them along, but it might be wiser to re-test with wider parameters, & for S35.

Best,
Bern
 
Last edited:
At absolute wide open the ZFs do get flatter and a little softer and can have some chromatic aberration.  Might be one reason the CP.2's limit the 50mm and 85mm to f/2 instead of the ZF version's 1.5.  But the only other comparison I've seen was this one: http://photocinenews.com/2010/10/22/nat-geo-shooter-ben-horton-compares-canon-glass-to-zeiss-glass

I would certainly be interested in seeing how L glass compares to CP's in a general test (it does sound like the parameters of your test were quite specific). I definitely agree that the Zeiss lenses lose a little when used at full wide open, and if the Canon doesn't, that's certainly a point in their favor, but I just adore the mechanicals and I try not to use any lens at fully wide if it can be avoided, so I've been pretty happy with the CP's.
 
Barry_Green said:
I just adore the mechanicals and I try not to use any lens at fully wide if it can be avoided, so I've been pretty happy with the CP's.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I love the fast "L"s wide-open for FF stills, but usually try to film at least f/2.8-4 on the AF100. Sometimes wider looks good, but often just odd.

30% of my work is stills, & traveling with double sets of lenses is problematic, so I'm holding off on PLs right now until I decide if a C300, or other camera, is in my future, but am leaning towards the CP2s for their interchangeable mounts. If the Optimo DP 16-42 had this option I'd likely bite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top