Other: ZEISS LWZ.3 21-100mm/T.2.9-3.9 T Announced

Donny 123 said:
Its a bit odd that people are comparing how Roger Deakins or this or that BSC/ASC DP would use their lenses ..or Stanley Kubrick .. (in that clip the actress even say that John Alcott wanted to use a 50mm) .. they are on another planet from us.. they are on sound stages with fly away walls..they have art depart.. cranes/dollies.. they have 5 days to cover a few minutes.. or in Kubrick,s case a 5 months.. :).... When Roger Deakins shot doc,s he was not using only using one prime.. he had a 10-1 zoom.. like Chris Menges and Barry Ackroyd.. what they do in $100m feature films is not how they would shoot a doc.. content is king.. and the good dp,s get that content .. and make it look the best too..

Its not just how wide, minimum focus is just as important .. you pay for that too..
Click to expand...

It's not weird at all. It's just a methodology and one that I much prefer - to pick a focal length and move with it. Not everyone shooting has to use a 20:1 zoom and capture ALL the things inside 5 mins.

And of the docs I have worked on, story is king, not content. And we plan. Scattergun blanket coverage overshooting just leads to more problems in the edit.

Back on topic, it's with narrative work that I see this lens shining more than anything else.
 
Ben Scott said:
It's not weird at all. It's just a methodology and one that I much prefer - to pick a focal length and move with it. Not everyone shooting has to use a 20:1 zoom and capture ALL the things inside 5 mins.

And of the docs I have worked on, story is king, not content. And we plan. Scattergun blanket coverage overshooting just leads to more problems in the edit.

Back on topic, it's with narrative work that I see this lens shining more than anything else.
Click to expand...


Yes by content I mean story.. same thing isnt it ?.. of course anyone can shoot anything anyway they want.. my point is that just how the quoted DP,s or any DP , shooting your average feature film.. is very different to not having any control over the what you are shooting in an op doc.. or many corp shoots I found myself on.. ships,ports,airports,factory lines .. families having a row.. thats all.. very simple really

And of course there is a big difference between the people on this forum who are producing and shooting on their own or a completely start to end product.. and those that are freelance camera op,s only.. who have directors with them who have no choice over the style,that often has to fit in with other footage .. except not wanting to do shots they feel are totally crap.. and yes as you say the noble art of making it look like their idea rather than your..
 
Last edited:
As you say, we're not all in here shooting ob docs.

'Content' for me means something very different. In the past I've done tons of work for people who want 'content' who don't care at all about quality. They just need more 'stuff' and it needs to keep being pumped out. Microsoft/MSN was a good example of this.

In this context 'content' is disposable throwaway video to be replaced the following day with more of the same.
 
I think the banter on this thread brings up various things.

Firstly why no 2/3 or S16 camera with log and 200+ mbs+ND and XLR?
Why all 2/3 camera 6kg monsters?

Id love a small chipped S16+ND+XLR+log+200mbs(?) camera.

Even the Canon XC10 with a reasonable lens!

Secondly producers choosing cameras.

I think at the moment there is a huge trade off between 'the look' - that they all want - and the reality once you hit the ground with a director desperate to gther content.
So they book a camera that gives 'the look' but leave the 'poor bloody operator' jugling lenses and 'slowing' the shoot - frustrating for the director

I think Zeiss should not lower them selves to get into this most likely temporary debarcle.

If Zeiss want to make a low mass 'sports' lens for projects where a normal cine zoom or set of cine primes is not practical for elements of the shoot (helicopters, mountaineering, jibs and steadicams) then that is fantastic..
 
Last edited:
JPNola said:
This is what I also do for a living and I am wondering how the hell it is you shoot much variety of work and so rarely need anything wider than a 24mm. ( that is meant to be humorous and not aggressive ).


For any handheld shots where you walk with the camera a 24mm makes it difficult to maintain a steady traveling shot. And, imo, the for of a 24mm is uncomfortably narrow compared to the for of human vision, a for that viewers expect to see in walking shots. Far easier to be smooth with a 16mm or better yet a 12mm. Exteriors of buildings / homes- 24mm is rarely wide enough. Not when the intent of the shot is to show the entirety of the structure. Shooting a group of 3 or 4 people in close proximity to the camera- 24mm isn't wide enough. Not if you want any shot that includes the entire group at once, that is. ( sure, you could ping-pong back and forth with singles and leave individuals off camera when they speak ).

I do a wide variety of types of work and in much of that shooting there is a Director / Field Producer overseeing the shots. They request framing from time to time. "No, go wider than that. Include the entire building." They would be frustrated were I unable to give them anything wider than a 24mm or reluctant to give them anything wider than a 24mm. I probably wouldn't get hired again and would risk becoming known as "that shooter who really never, ever sees any need for anything wider than a 24mm. Don't hire him. He's ridiculous."

"I really never, ever have need for anything wider then 24 mm."

Then you must have clients who never, ever have any need for anything wider than 24mm. That is, if your work is aimed at meeting the needs, wants, and likes of your clients.
Click to expand...


Well, first off i am talking aboput FF/VV 24 here, not S35.

I have never had a "client" who really cares much about wich lens I use. Only once I believe there was a request for 16mm, then we rented it. That´s the way I usually do it if I need or want a wide angle. Most of my work is my own work, and no clients. I shoot and direct a lot myself, and sometimes shoot for other directors. Most of the directors I´ve worked with seem to share this idea.

In my opinion people use Wide angles and ultra wide angles way to much. Because it´s easy and like someone says it looks "epic". However, there is a thin line between "epic" and "tacky". It´s unnatural and in my opinion often looks wrong. I hate to watch shots, specially docs when people follow action on a super wide. It distorts the people, anfd in many ways creates an unnatural look. I have never experiences the limitations of following people around on a 24 mm. I never really want to get close to people on anything wider then this. It´s just because I think it looks horrible.

I also do a lot of stills-work. Also documentary. 90% of my work is in the range of 40-75 mm. Of course, stills are different. The rest is mostly shot on my 28mm Voigtlander.

"Exteriors of buildings / homes- 24mm is rarely wide enough."

??? - What?!? Just move the friggin camera. Ok, I see whta you mean in SOME situations on a cramped location, but again. This is rarely a problem for me.

Don´t misunderstand. I love wide angles if they have a purpose. I just don´t like using them when there is no clear motivation behind it. It is never my standard, but a specialized lens. However, we are all different.
 
morgan_moore said:
I think the banter on this thread brings up various things.

Firstly why no 2/3 or S16 camera with log and 200+ mbs+ND and XLR?
Why all 2/3 camera 6kg monsters?

Id love a small chipped S16+ND+XLR+log+200mbs(?) camera.

Even the Canon XC10 with a reasonable lens!

Secondly producers choosing cameras.

I think at the moment there is a huge trade off between 'the look' - that they all want - and the reality once you hit the ground with a director desperate to gther content.
So they book a camera that gives 'the look' but leave the 'poor bloody operator' jugling lenses and 'slowing' the shoot - frustrating for the director

I think Zeiss should not lower them selves to get into this most likely temporary debarcle.

If Zeiss want to make a 'sports' lens for projects where a normal cine zoom or set of primes is not practical for elements of the shoot (helicopters, mountaineering, jibs and steadicams) then that is fantastic..
Click to expand...


S16 is a film format .. no log/XLR,s or Mbps..

The later 2/3 inch camera,s.. like the PMW500 were very light weight and very well balanced .. no where near 6Kg

Personally I think its all down to fashion.. the s35mm Shallow DOF.. originally it was a look that the public just associated with up market.. it looked like a movie or commercial.. all corp people wanted this look .. cheap way to look expensive.. and I dont blame them.. most corps still look better shot on a s35 sensor.. and most interviews too .. you can still get a non s35 look on a s35 camera.. if you want.. the problem is the physics of the lenses and that the camera is a small box.. they still sell 2/3 inch camera,s .. and alot of stuff still shot with them I guess.. but corps and surprisingly for me 100% of doc,s seem to be firmly in the s35 world never to go back I guess... I loved my PMW500 and had barely had it a year and a half.... but no work for it at all.. fell off a cliff..
 
The 500 seems like a monster to me... put it on a gimbal? :)

My FS7+Vlocks is quite enough.. I aspire to a smaller camera than that

Also 50mbs XDcam is not to me a fat codec that will take a deep grade.

I value fat codecs above big chip area.

S
 
morgan_moore said:
I think the banter on this thread brings up various things.

Firstly why no 2/3 or S16 camera with log and 200+ mbs+ND and XLR?
Why all 2/3 camera 6kg monsters?

Id love a small chipped S16+ND+XLR+log+200mbs(?) camera.

Even the Canon XC10 with a reasonable lens!

Secondly producers choosing cameras.

I think at the moment there is a huge trade off between 'the look' - that they all want - and the reality once you hit the ground with a director desperate to gther content.
So they book a camera that gives 'the look' but leave the 'poor bloody operator' jugling lenses and 'slowing' the shoot - frustrating for the director

I think Zeiss should not lower them selves to get into this most likely temporary debarcle.

If Zeiss want to make a low mass 'sports' lens for projects where a normal cine zoom or set of cine primes is not practical for elements of the shoot (helicopters, mountaineering, jibs and steadicams) then that is fantastic..
Click to expand...


Producers want the path of least resistance to delivery. So a single bad experience with say, a Red Epic in the early days before firmware was ironed out - means no matter what happens Red = bad and Alexa & C300 = good because they never caused them any problems, headaches or downtime.

Likewise nowadays the FS7 is a lightweight inexpensive to rent camera capable of 150+ fps so that ticks a lot of boxes because they have saved money and know they have a tool that can do a job. They don't care about a slight degradation of the image going past 72fps. When it comes to Lenses/Wireless/additional grip equipment, that's the point where their cost savings can very quickly become a 'you' problem instead of a 'them' problem and you need to raise it immediately. To a Producer it doesn't matter if you're shattered or your back is breaking if they get everything they need.

So that's the point where camera department needs to be gentle but firm about what is possible and what positive steps they could take to improve it. It's not being weak or negative to flag this stuff. It's our job, to raise it and make it a 'them' issue again to work on instead of a 'you' issue.

Zeiss made an inexpensive cine lens. If people want to use it for other things too that's great. But it's going to find favour in the market it was designed for in addition to sundry various other ones. I could have shot 90% of my work from the last 12 months with it if I was so inclined.
 
I guess I also struggle with these lenses coming off the camera at all. (I guess most 2/3 just stick with the one lens)

Their fragility, length, etc cause so many problems like seeing the rods if you switch to a small wide prime.. once one is 'swapping' then it just seems simpler to work with 3 unsupported primes.. apart from when 'swapping' is a problem.. in choppers, up mountains (desert, clean rooms etc)


S
 
Donny 123 said:
S16 is a film format .. no log/XLR,s or Mbps..
Click to expand...

Come on Donny it was obvious the point he was making.

There is a huge gap in the market for a small 1" 4k sensor camera with SLog3 and high bitrate codec.

Shooting on S35 or even FF doesn't make any production look expensive unless the trained monkey holding the camera understands when to shoot with a shallow DoF. I'm seeing overuse of shallow DoF on a regular basis, it's like these camera ops have decided that they've got a fast lens and large sensor and nothing is going to stop them producing as much bokeh as humanly possible. It looks amateurish and not in the slightest bit cinematic, epic or high end.
 
Nirv said:
Come on Donny it was obvious the point he was making.

There is a huge gap in the market for a small 1" 4k sensor camera with SLog3 and high bitrate codec.

Shooting on S35 or even FF doesn't make any production look expensive unless the trained monkey holding the camera understands when to shoot with a shallow DoF. I'm seeing overuse of shallow DoF on a regular basis, it's like these camera ops have decided that they've got a fast lens and large sensor and nothing is going to stop them producing as much bokeh as humanly possible. It looks amateurish and not in the slightest bit cinematic, epic or high end.
Click to expand...

I wasn't meaning to have a dig at all.. re s16.. apologies Morgan if taken that way.. from what i read thats how it looked.. ? again all relative .. the PMW500 was considered a small light weight camera for those not using 5D,s etc.. compared to a Digibeta or F900.. Sure any camera in bad hands will look crap and visa versa .. but really in a small grey room I,d much rather have a s35mm camera with a 2.8 lens to shoot an interview.. you would rather be with a 2/3 or 1/3 ?.. and I do think initially anyway.. there was a perception of that "look" being up market.. come on.. before the C300 /5D .. the only way to get that look was 35mm film camera ..
 
Last edited:
icarusfilm said:
Doug what's your take on the lwz3 that's the one I gravitate towards.
Click to expand...

The 21-100 looks like a real winner in my book but it's a lens I'll definately want to demo for a couple of days before spending the money. I think the real question for me will be, if I get this lens, will I even need to keep my LZW15.5-45 around anymore?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top