Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Expensive, heavy monster lenses!

  1. #1
    Senior Member RichA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Expensive, heavy monster lenses!

    Well, not as expensive as top video lenses which can cost five figures, but pricey and a question, would you hang one of these off a current 4/3rds body??

    http://dpreview.com/news/1103/110330...eissemount.asp

  2. #2
    Senior Member simonclivehughes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,168
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Expensive, heavy monster lenses!

    No, you hang the body off the lens!

    Cheers,

  3. #3
    Senior Member RichA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Expensive, heavy monster lenses!

    Quote Originally Posted by simonclivehughes View Post
    No, you hang the body off the lens!

    Cheers,
    Yes, that's a contentious issue. I maintain that having to support a camera by the lens more than the other way around causes things like focusing to be awkward since weight is being applied directly to one side of the lens rather than evenly as would be the case when most of the combo weight would be supported by camera or camera and lens.

  4. #4
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Expensive, heavy monster lenses!

    Most of those are less than a kilogram. One of my most used lenses on the GH1, the Zeiss CY 85/1.4 is already 600g. If I could afford, and needed, lenses like any of the CP.2 varieties, I wouldn't hesitate for a second.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Expensive, heavy monster lenses!

    I remember phillip bloom saying how he was on set once up a crane and they wanted him to switch 40k cine lenses . He wouldn't do it unless they lowered him down first =)

    I love my Zeiss 85/1.4 too =)
    Last edited by MRfanny; 31st March 2011 at 17:18.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Tesselator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Expensive, heavy monster lenses!

    Yup, lens supports the camera. And if you're intending to hand-hold such a lens then as Rich is alluding to, it's fairly important to have a lens with no dampening on the zoom or focus rings. Then focusing and zooming is only a finger-wiggle and easily accomplishable.

    I have 8 or 9 such lenses. I shot once hand-held with one. All of mine have their own tripod mounts mounts tho - and besides that once I've always used a tripod with them. I've seen some sports shooters using monopods - so I guess that'll work too.

  7. #7
    Senior Member RichA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Expensive, heavy monster lenses!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    Most of those are less than a kilogram. One of my most used lenses on the GH1, the Zeiss CY 85/1.4 is already 600g. If I could afford, and needed, lenses like any of the CP.2 varieties, I wouldn't hesitate for a second.
    I don't doubt many would like to. Might be interesting to see just how good they are relative to "lowly" $1000-$1500 camera lenses like the CY 85mm or Nikon's 85mm f1.4.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Expensive, heavy monster lenses!

    Quote Originally Posted by RichA View Post
    I don't doubt many would like to. Might be interesting to see just how good they are relative to "lowly" $1000-$1500 camera lenses like the CY 85mm or Nikon's 85mm f1.4.
    All those Zeiss CPs are just rehoused stills lenses. Originals cost a fraction and much better suit a stills camera than the cinema monsters. Performance is exactly the same.

  9. #9
    Senior Member kds315's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Weinheim, Germany
    Posts
    1,442
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Expensive, heavy monster lenses!

    Sorry, but wrong - check the Zeiss site before posting assumptions.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Expensive, heavy monster lenses!

    Quote Originally Posted by kds315 View Post
    Sorry, but wrong - check the Zeiss site before posting assumptions.
    Assumptions...of Vincent Laforet, Zeiss lover/tester.

    http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/...-party-part-i/

    "
    Today Zeiss showed the very first “Compact Prime 2″ Cine Lenses that will mount on HDDSLRs. In fact these are quite versatile in that they come ready to accept both and EL (Canon mount) and PL (Cinema standard) that can be switched on the field w a Tor-X screwdrivers. (Although Zeiss recommends you have them do this.)
    I’ve had chance to get my hands on this series and I immediately fell for them - I have also been promised a chance to test them out soon -I’ll be sure to share the test with you on this blog within the next few weeks.
    The optical quality is excellent. More empirical test coming on that soon. But the main reason pros and advanced filmmakers will flock to this series relate to the ergonomics and practicaliy of using this lens on a just about any production. You will find that the optics have been re organized in this lens – but that it will perform very similarly to your ZE set. The main difference is that only the very best optics are chosen for this series vs the ZE lenses. The second key point is that the aperture blades comprise of 14 blades vs the ZE series with 9 – therefore you can expect a much more beautiful focus falloff..
    At this point they are releasing a set of 8 Compact Primes at NAB 2010 and making them available for sale in May. A set of 6 will retail for less than $20,000. You can of course buy lenses independently at a higher price. Zeiss will be making the announcement as to which specific series of lenses they are releasing.
    So what’s the big deal? Well for once this is the first series of PL lenses that Zeiss has produced in history that covers the full 24mX36mm sensor – EVER…"

    Zeiss CP is the optics of the 20-year old Zeiss 36x24mm stills line (Distagon etc) supposedly selected for quality. So the rest of distagons are crap? Or do we tell marketspeak when we see it...They are rehoused in sturdy cinematic casings and apertures are changed into 14 leaf and de-clicked for cinema. The focus throw is suited for focus pulling. Cine ergonomics for cine-economics. 6 pieces for 20k or +3k a piece. What a deal....
    At least in PL mount they can hang off safely, m43 as on GH2 will not only look ridiculous but be plain unsafe.
    Now if you could link those Zeiss MTFs proving the optical superiority of the CP line over the ZF line.
    I found only this sales pitch at Zeiss.com/cine:

    "Q: What is the difference between the Compact Prime CP.2 lenses and the ZEISS ZF still lenses?
    A: The Compact Prime CP.2 lenses are based on the ZF optical design. However, the lens housing and internal mechanics are completely new and the manufacturing process is a cine style process, similar to the process used for the other ZEISS cine style lenses.
    When you hold a Compact Prime CP.2 and a ZF lens in your hand, you can immediately feel the difference. The Compact Prime CP.2 housing is rugged and robust to withstand the rigors of life on the set. Its solid design also helps when using lens motors. Fast and easy lens changes are ensured since all Compact Prime CP.2 lenses have the same dimensions, and all have focus and iris gears in the same position.
    Operating the Compact Prime CP.2 lenses is also vastly different from working with ZF lenses. For starters, the focus ring turns in the direction all other cine lenses turn – cine style rotating angle. Their purposefully chosen larger diameter provides a larger rotating angle for more precise focusing. The calibrated scales serve the same purpose.
    Optically, the Compact Prime CP.2 lenses have tighter mechanical and optical tolerances, a more precise optical adjustment during manufacturing and tighter quality control. Their unique 14 blade iris (not found in the ZF lenses) ensures precisely repeatable iris settings and organic, perfectly circular out of focus highlights and a pleasing bokeh. "
    Last edited by nugat; 1st April 2011 at 09:30.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Expensive, heavy monster lenses!

    And here "Zeiss vs Zeiss" by those who actually use CP and ZF.

    http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread...80%A2%E2%80%A2
    "
    RyanDeFranco
    11-23-2010, 08:17 AM
    Having worked with both, I can tell you there are only five "reasons" to shell out for the CP2s:

    A) You work with an AC who is used to focusing cinema lenses (ZF will focus the other way, and muscle memory is a big part of focus pulling). You can't handle the idea of focusing by eye or taping out and recording marks on the follow focus ring; you want WITNESS marks dammit!

    B) You shoot nothing but out of focus trees in winter and you absolutely have to have "pleasing" bokeh--as you can see above, the 7-blade ZF are just fine for most situations.

    C) Someone dupes you into thinking these are "cinema lenses," and you've always wanted to own a cinema lens! Nope. This is still glass re-housed, and though Zeiss claims to select the "best" for the CP2s.... you saw the two pictures above. Being Germans, they've designed some of the world's best coatings for lenses... being Germans, they probably reserved the cinema coatings for the cinema lenses.

    D) You need to be able to switch lenses in 10 seconds instead of 20, so having gear rings in the exact same place is key.

    E) You beat the hell out of your lenses, perhaps with a lens motor (which might muck up the ZF after a while), perhaps through sheer abuse.

    If none of these issues matter to you, get the ZF glass and spend the difference on a Blackbird steadicam and enough food to feed yourself for a few months.
    "

  12. #12
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Expensive, heavy monster lenses!

    Quote Originally Posted by nugat View Post
    All those Zeiss CPs are just rehoused stills lenses. Originals cost a fraction and much better suit a stills camera than the cinema monsters. Performance is exactly the same.
    For stills, I agree, but for serious video, the functionality of the CP.2 lenses is very important. Vincent Laforet's list that you posted yourself tells most of the story. Ever tried to change aperture in full stops during a video sequence?

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Expensive, heavy monster lenses!

    I don't shoot movies with DSLRs and don't shoot the kind of video that calls to change aperture during a sequence* . Maybe Laforet does but he is a photog and Canon 5d2 brand official "trendsetter"and I make films in controlled light as my profession. I do not question the ergonomics of CP2--they are cine lenses allright in that respect. I said they are rehoused stills glass and optically perform same as ZF's. I would spend the 20k for a used/smaller set of Cookes panchros any time over the CPs.

    When you want to do that (ENG, docus, TV reality etc) you also want the proper broadcast camera, shoulder mounted, zoom/servo, auto aperture, ND filters wheel etc etc.

  14. #14
    Senior Member RichA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Expensive, heavy monster lenses!

    Quote Originally Posted by nugat View Post
    Assumptions...of Vincent Laforet, Zeiss lover/tester.

    http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/...-party-part-i/

    "

    Zeiss CP is the optics of the 20-year old Zeiss 36x24mm stills line (Distagon etc) supposedly selected for quality. So the rest of distagons are crap? Or do we tell marketspeak when we see it... "
    This isn't hard to envision. Camera lenses as a group are not highly corrected compared to lenses used in other areas, like any science experiment, so I can see them selecting better corrected models to create a new price-point or application-specific item. Whether the difference amounts to much visually is another story.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    164
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Expensive, heavy monster lenses!

    Quote Originally Posted by nugat View Post
    I don't shoot movies with DSLRs and don't shoot the kind of video that calls to change aperture during a sequence* . Maybe Laforet does but he is a photog and Canon 5d2 brand official "trendsetter"and I make films in controlled light as my profession. I do not question the ergonomics of CP2--they are cine lenses allright in that respect. I said they are rehoused stills glass and optically perform same as ZF's. I would spend the 20k for a used/smaller set of Cookes panchros any time over the CPs.
    Agree on all accounts.

    I guess CP2s are not true cine like Zeiss Arri Mk1 or Super Speeds were. Did you see any official info/specs somewhere regarding older Zeiss Cine line? I have few SS and MK1 and the results from 16mm, 24mm, 50mm & 85mm are super nice in aberrations department, but I have not done any side by side testing against still lenses.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Warks, UK
    Posts
    550
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Expensive, heavy monster lenses!

    I have 2 big lenses:

    Kodak Aero-Ektar 24" (610mm) f6 for 9 * 18" format.

    and

    Wray 36" f6.3... this is a telephoto, as it had to fit in the fuselage of a spitfire, and only need about 24" of extension! (the front element is nearly 6 inches).

    Apparently you could buy a new Ferrari for the price of these lenses.

  17. #17
    Senior Member RichA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Smile Re: Expensive, heavy monster lenses!

    Quote Originally Posted by dick View Post
    I have 2 big lenses:

    Kodak Aero-Ektar 24" (610mm) f6 for 9 * 18" format.

    and

    Wray 36" f6.3... this is a telephoto, as it had to fit in the fuselage of a spitfire, and only need about 24" of extension! (the front element is nearly 6 inches).

    Apparently you could buy a new Ferrari for the price of these lenses.
    No free gamma radiation with the Ferrari like the Ektar though.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    164
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Expensive, heavy monster lenses!

    Quote Originally Posted by RichA View Post
    No free gamma radiation with the Ferrari like the Ektar though.
    True, I wouldn't keep them on my bed-stand as a paperweight

    Yes, you could probably buy a Ferrari for the price of those lenses in 1950, but today you'll be lucky if you trade them for one Pana 45mm

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •