Zeiss Compact Prime CP2 50 mm

Hey Barry , am not such a lens freak but I read some article that some primes can not do tha and others do ?
What I wish to know is with the 25 prime if can can shoot any object from my closest range the lens allows untill infinity meaning any object
on any distance and get it in focus? I liked the zoom lens you presented but I cant find any reviews anyware about the quality.
So Carl zeiss is still my favorit
 
I just bought a set of Compact Primes (the original). They work quite well with the AF100. You just have to understand, which has been stated above, that a 50mm lenses is quite tight.

I have a 21mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm. I think it's a bit overkill to be honest. My dream focal lengths for this camera would be a 14mm,25mm,50mm. I could have gotten those with the Canon glass, but then I'd be dealing with non-cine lenses, which I'm sick of doing.

I like moving the camera instead of zooming for the shot. If you're like me, you can get away with 2 primes.

I'd probably go with the ZFs if I were you. The only reason I went with the CPs was because of their ease of use during production (sick of pulling focus on canon EF and FD). You shouldn't just buy a lenses based on reviews alone either. The fact of the matter is, all these lenses look quite good. Just good to find the ones that fit your budget.
 
Isn't a CP version of the 50 Macro coming out soon?

Wait for that, the other 50 sucks (at least in ZF guise, I haven't used the CP. Supposedly the same glass, but I notice they stopped the CP version down one stop, so who knows).

my?illu said:
Also, what happens if you use the ZF lens on a 4K camera like a RED?
Click to expand...

Nothing. It's the same glass minus cine gears and the nicer 14-blade iris for 1/4 the price. Buy a Redrock focus gear for $45 and don't shoot at f/22 and you're good.
 
Kindredmachine said:
If you're shooting for lower res (2k = bluray etc...) and just want the same sharpness and color of a CP.2 then get the much cheaper Zeiss ZF
Click to expand...

This is the first I've heard of them not being exactly the same glass (except that the CP's are "hand-picked" for better consistency, which is marketing).

Where'd you hear this?
 
What happens if you shoot at f22?

Also, can someone explain to me why the ZF's are limited to only 2K rez?

Thank you!
 
my?illu said:
What happens if you shoot at f22?

Also, can someone explain to me why the ZF's are limited to only 2K rez?

Thank you!
Click to expand...

All of the modern Zeiss lenses are able to resolve much more than 2k. They're even fine for 22 megapixel stills, though that's not the best comparison due to the crop factor.

I don't know how well they perform wide-open, frankly because I use the optically superior EOS 50/1.2, but due to diffraction no lens is at it's best when stopped down all the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction
 
Lee Saxon said:
This is the first I've heard of them not being exactly the same glass (except that the CP's are "hand-picked" for better consistency, which is marketing).

Where'd you hear this?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're insinuating but please re-read my original post though it may have been worded oddly. The point was that the ZFs and CP.2 are the same and a great fit for shooting in 2k over more expensive cine glass. The CP.2 only added benefit is the rehousing. In regards to other posts, the point wasn't that the Zeiss ZF's are limited to 2K or use different glass than the CP.2's, it's that if you're shooting on an AF-100, using top of the line cinema lenses may be considered overkill on a 2k camera since you 'may' not see the added fidelity.
 
Last edited:
Thanks dude! Hefty read. Way too technical for me...

But to summarize; ZF lenses can shoot more than 2K. It's even good enough for 4K. And when you stop down all the way, diffraction happens... which is some sort of image distortion or interference.
 
weixiang623 said:
if the lenses are able to shoot 5k RAW STILL PHOTOS, shouldn't they also be able to be able to record on 4K?
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people are missing the simple point here. I can shoot on a 5k Epic with a $300 Lumix lens no problem (lets forget about sensor sizes for a moment). After all, doesn't my Lumix lens produce 5k still photos? Doesn't mean it's going to provide me with the best image compared to shooting on a $20k cinema lens from cooke. But if you're going to use that ultra pricey Cooke lens on a 720x480 video camera, is it going to look much better than using a Lumix in regards to sharpness etc.... probably not.
 
Last edited:
I learn a lot from this posts and I think that I will stick with ZF lenses course indeed I oversaw that they are shooting 5k on DSLR's so its will be a great picture anyway's, I just tought that a CP lens
could give me the maximum quality and a but a more cine feel, but as some said before the difference might not be noticable so don't want to spend useless money
 
It's only noticeable in the way they operate. Before it would take me 2 or 3 tries to do an accurate focus pull. Now, with the witness marks, and the 300 degree rotation I usually hit it every time. So instead of doing 3 takes with only the last one being useable, I now have 3 takes that are all useable. CINE lenses are made for production. Still lenses look great, but they're a pain in the ass to use.

Still useable though. Absolutely. And you save tons doing so!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top