FS7: Zeiss CP.3's

[JPNola]

Surprisingly I see no mention of the Zeiss CP.3's on the forum. ( maybe I missed it? )

Thoughts on the CP.3's?

I read that the non-macro 50mm CP.2 is a bit of a dog, the claim being that it has a "busy" and ugly bokeh compared to the 50mm macro CP.2. I wonder if this is also the case with the 50mm CP.3.

As of now no "superspeed" CP.3's. I am curious if Zeiss will stick with that or eventually cave and release Superspeed CP.3's.

Being that I only shoot and don't do post, I selfishly don't have much use for the CP.3 xD's- the yet to come version with the "eXtended Data" provision. I could see where for an owner of a set of CP.2's who rents them out, the release of the CP.3's is a bummer. While the improvement in optical performance of the CP.3's is reportedly negligible, there will still be DP's who request CP.3's and won't accept CP.2's in substitute. The whole "latest, greatest" thing and all. Suddenly a set of CP.2's are second best in the Zeiss CP world.

I like the shape of the CP.3's. The "bell" shape of the CP.2's was never to my liking. I was always a fan of the more cylindrical shape of the storied Standard Speeds and Superspeeds of old. To me the CP.2's seemed like a lot of housing for the size of the actual glass. The CP.3's have a front diameter of 95mm compared to the 114mm fronts of the CP.2's.





*photo courtesy of Premium Beat:

https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/nab-2017-zeiss-announces-new-lenses/

 

[Run&Gun]

I like the shape of the CP.3's. The "bell" shape of the CP.2's was never to my liking. I was always a fan of the more cylindrical shape of the storied Standard Speeds and Superspeeds of old. To me the CP.2's seemed like a lot of housing for the size of the actual glass. The CP.3's have a front diameter of 95mm compared to the 114mm fronts of the CP.2's.

Well, the CP.2's are just rehoused still lenses.

 

[JPNola]

Well, the CP.2's are just rehoused still lenses.

As are the CP.3's. And?

Where do we go from dismissing them as "just rehoused still lenses"?

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

Supposedly they are using the Milvus glass.

If true that would be fantastic as the EF Milvus set we use at work is excellent.

 

[Run&Gun]

As are the CP.3's. And?

Where do we go from dismissing them as "just rehoused still lenses"?

I wasn't dismissing them, just saying that's part of the reason for the "lot of housing for the size of the actual glass", because they are trying to keep them all the same front diameter, gear/ring location, etc. By most all accounts, the Canon CN-E primes I have are all based on their still counterparts and on some, there is a lot of "extra" housing that isn't necessary except to keep the sizes the same/better suited to "cine" production, as opposed to stills shooting on a still cam.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[JPNola]

I wasn't dismissing them, just saying that's part of the reason for the "lot of housing for the size of the actual glass", because they are trying to keep them all the same front diameter, gear/ring location, etc. By most all accounts, the Canon CN-E primes I have are all based on their still counterparts and on some, there is a lot of "extra" housing that isn't necessary except to keep the sizes the same/better suited to "cine" production, as opposed to stills shooting on a still cam.

Sorry for the confusion.

No worries.

And I think you misunderstood my statement. Or I was unclear. I meant that the bigger bell shape of the CP.2 always seemed to me a lot of unnecessary housing. And the shape of the CP.3 has it more "right", imo. The shape of the CP.3's also evidences that the bigger bell-shaped housing wasn't necessary. I prefer the smaller size and more cylindrical shape of the old standard speeds and superspeeds. I get that a larger diameter housing makes for a longer focus pull that aids in pulling focus. I just always found the shape of the CP.2's a bit goofy looking and prefer the more svelte silhouette of the CP.3's.

I love the size and shape of the Xenon FF's.

 

[Run&Gun]

No worries.

And I think you misunderstood my statement. Or I was unclear. I meant that the bigger bell shape of the CP.2 always seemed to me a lot of unnecessary housing. And the shape of the CP.3 has it more "right", imo. The shape of the CP.3's also evidences that the bigger bell-shaped housing wasn't necessary. I prefer the smaller size and more cylindrical shape of the old standard speeds and superspeeds. I get that a larger diameter housing makes for a longer focus pull that aids in pulling focus. I just always found the shape of the CP.2's a bit goofy looking and prefer the more svelte silhouette of the CP.3's.

I love the size and shape of the Xenon FF's.

Gotcha now. All good.

 

[Wes.]

Have they mentioned a Macro 50mm? Or just the standard non-macro 50mm?

The size looks like they will be well suited for gimbal use - i like that.

 

[Clermond]

is there already any information about pricing?

 

[JPNola]

is there already any information about pricing?

non-Xd CP.3's are listed on several seller sites for $4390.00 for most of the set. The 18mm T2.9 is listed at $5290.00

Someone said that the CP.3's are the Milvus line in a cine housing- I don't know that to be the case. For one thing, the Milvus specs say the Milvus line have 9 iris blades, the CP.2 / CP.3 specs say that they have 14 iris blades.

Often these different lines from the same lens maker- Batis, Loxia, Milvus, ZF, CP - are just the same glass in different iterations. Iterations that have slight improvements over past ones, iterations that are hand-picked glass, iterations that are in a "cinema" style housing- but all or at least most of the different lines using some of the same optics. Rarely does any lens maker come out with a truly "new" line of lenses. Canon FD, EF, and CN-E share more in optics than they differ.

My experience is that in the mid-range production market the CP.2 is the most requested prime and the most-owned prime. It is the only prime that I have ever had a client specifically request. Shooters from out of town to hire me and my package for B-camera most often have CP primes and want a second set of CP primes to mate with the set they own. If you are looking to fulfill client requests and match what other shooters have, the CP's are the way to go. I know of several owner / Ops who own Compact Primes. I don't know of a single owner / Op who owns Canon CN-e's, Xeens, or Schneider Xenons.

 

[Run&Gun]

non-Xd CP.3's are listed on several seller sites for $4390.00 for most of the set. The 18mm T2.9 is listed at $5290.00

Someone said that the CP.3's are the Milvus line in a cine housing- I don't know that to be the case. For one thing, the Milvus specs say the Milvus line have 9 iris blades, the CP.2 / CP.3 specs say that they have 14 iris blades.

Often these different lines from the same lens maker- Batis, Loxia, Milvus, ZF, CP - are just the same glass in different iterations. Iterations that have slight improvements over past ones, iterations that are hand-picked glass, iterations that are in a "cinema" style housing- but all or at least most of the different lines using some of the same optics. Rarely does any lens maker come out with a truly "new" line of lenses. Canon FD, EF, and CN-E share more in optics than they differ.

My experience is that in the mid-range production market the CP.2 is the most requested prime and the most-owned prime. It is the only prime that I have ever had a client specifically request. Shooters from out of town to hire me and my package for B-camera most often have CP primes and want a second set of CP primes to mate with the set they own. If you are looking to fulfill client requests and match what other shooters have, the CP's are the way to go. I know of several owner / Ops who own Compact Primes. I don't know of a single owner / Op who owns Canon CN-e's, Xeens, or Schneider Xenons.

So, you're denying that you know me, now..? Kidding. I'd say it depends on the market. Counting myself, I know of at least five sets of CN-E primes in-town and that's just "friends" I know personally. I'm sure there are others and I may have some other friends that have them and it's just never come up. And lots more if you wanna muddy the waters and throw the CN-E zooms in, too. I'd say I rent/get calls for my CN-E primes often enough. If they were available in PL, or better yet, swappable mount like the cp's, the CN-E's would be even more popular. Possibly surpassing the cp2's in the range that they both sit, but the cp2's do have more focal lengths, though, so there is that.

Zeiss could easily change the iris blades. The Canon primes are based on their still equivalents, but The CN-E's had more blades added, they have 11 rounded blades. None of the still versions have that many.

 

[Bern Caughey]

Zeiss could easily change the iris blades. The Canon primes are based on their still equivalents, but The CN-E's had more blades added, they have 11 rounded blades. None of the still versions have that many.

+1

If I remember correctly Zeiss' ZE/ZF lenses have 9 iris blades & the CP versions have 14.

 

[LennyLevy]

Have many of you compared the Zeiss to the Schneider Xenons

 

[JPNola]

Have many of you compared the Zeiss to the Schneider Xenons

Fairly or unfairly, the knock on the Xenons is that they have horrific CA. Enough to put most people off from owning them.

 

[chancenorris]

As of now no "superspeed" CP.3's. I am curious if Zeiss will stick with that or eventually cave and release Superspeed CP.3's.

I had the same question since I recently bought a set of CP.2 Super Speeds 35, 50, 85 and CP.2 15mm. While at the Zeiss booth at NAB, I asked if they are planning on releasing CP.3 Super Speeds. I was told there were going to keep selling the CP.2 Super Speeds.