Last time when I looked at the Zeiss web site, I also checked the cinematography lenses page. I noticed that one of the product lines has the same focal lengths as their ZF/ZK/ZE counterparts and that these lenses can also be used for up to 24x36mm.
I'm wondering what are the differences and how the best cine lenses optically compare to the Zeiss SLR ones and if cinematography has more demanding requirements than us photographers. Can anybody elaborate on that or point me to an appropriate resource?
I heard cine lenses are sharp from center to edge, because the film will be projected to a large screen. They are mostly large primes to keep shutter speed as high as possible. Also, the ghost flare and internal reflection are minimized to certain degree. And the result is $$$
Each one is listed as having 1.3 T-Stops. That's just Cine lingo for how much light is being pulled in (ala aperture) right? At first I had thought they were equal but I don't think so. Either way, these lenses are massive. I'm speaking of their Master Primes btw.
You are probably referring to the compact primes.
These are in fact the same optics as the ZF line but with different mechanics and of course in PL mount.
The cine lenses have geared focus and aperture rings and missing click stops on the aperture.
The T1.3 lenses are the Master Primes which are a whole different leage.
T-stops are f-stops corrected for transmission loss from the glass surfaces. So a T1.3 lens is an F1.2 lens with 0.1 stops transmission loss.
(1) Horizontal angle of view for an ANSI Super 35 Silent camera aperture (aspect ratio 1:1.33, dimensions 24.9mm x 18.7mm / 0.980" x 0.7362").
Ground glasses available for ARRICAM, ARRIFLEX 235 and all 435 and 535 models.
(2) Horizontal angle of view for a DIN Super 35 Silent camera aperture (aspect ratio 1:1.33, dimensions 24mm x 18mm / 0.944" x 0.7087").
Ground glasses available for ARRIFLEX 235 and all 435 and 535 models.
(3) Horizontal angle of view for a Normal 35 Academy camera aperture (aspect ratio 1:1.37, dimensions 22mm x 16mm / 0.8661" x 0.6299").
Ground glasses available for ARRICAM, ARRIFLEX 235 and all 435 and 535 models.
(4) Close focus is measured from the film plane....Show more →
Yes, I was referring to the Compact series. The Master series is faster, larger, more expensive and clearly different. But I am also wondering if the Compact lenses are optically the best lenses you can get from Zeiss and if not, how the best differ optically (sharpness, resolution, micro contrast, corrections etc.) from what we use as photographers...
The optical construction is said to be exactly the same as the latest ZF-series. No difference in optical performance.
-On the "Compact Primes"; that are nothing more than ZF-lenses with a lot better mechanical construction as you said.
The rest off the series (Master Primes and the others) are Super-35 specific, i.e. built for 32mm projection circles, or as the "DigiPrime" series for 2/3" sensors. They (and they are the INTERESTING ones!) cannot be used on FF/FX still cameras.
It would however be interesting to try some of the Master Primes on a crop-camera, but the prices start at 15.000$ for the longer lenses. You do get discounts for buying more than one at a time....!
Or a simpler, less accurate way to put it is the Master Primes are so fast because they're designed for "crop cameras." 35mm film is shot vertically, so the frame size is closer to APS-C than it is to full frame 24x36.
Same reason Olympus can design zooms a stop faster than Canon/Nikon. Bigger lens + smaller film frame = faster aperture.
Zeiss have announced a set of new CP.2 (compact prime) lenses in EF, F and PL mounts. They've also announced a zoom lens.
The compact primes are guaranteed not to vignette, no mention of price. They cover focal lengths from 18 to 85 (sound familiar?). T-stops (like f-stops but measured on light transmission not diaphram size) range from 2.1 to 3.6 so not incredibly fast but these could be great for general shooting as well as cinematography. Oh and the primes cover full frame, but the zoom lens does not.
Edit 1: Vincent Laforet is shooting with a 25/2.9 Distagon CP.2 it seems.
Edit 2:
Great discussion with Rich Schleuning from Zeiss at NAB 2010 showing the new Zeiss Cine CP.2 lenses with pricing and comparison with the previous Compact Primes and ZF/ZE lenses. Click the Zeiss Compact Primes option at the bottom of the player. Rich says the CP.2's are based on the ZE/ZF optics in a compact prime barrel... Which makes me doubt the dpreview comment that the CP.2's won't vignette.
Rich says the CP.2's are based on the ZE/ZF optics in a compact prime barrel... Which makes me doubt the dpreview comment that the CP.2's won't vignette.
I can imagine they won't vignette much on traditional cine frames, but 24x36mm is hard to believe.
They cover focal lengths from 18 to 85 (sound familiar?).
I was looking into datasheet of the 100MP the other day and Zeiss says that it is the first SLR lens with Master Prime optics. I wonder what they mean by that, because Master Primes are all f1.2 lenses and are not designed for 24x36mm.
Super-35 specific, i.e. built for 32mm projection circles
as theSuede says. This is because movie film is pulled through the film camera gates from top to bottom, and the images are exposed across the film, not along it as in a 135 stills camera.
FX requires a substantially bigger image circle than moving picture cameras do.
I see now that Michael T. made the same point—but having typed this much, decided to post anyway! cheers to all, kl
Mirek Elsner wrote:
I can imagine they won't vignette much on traditional cine frames, but 24x36mm is hard to believe.
I was looking into datasheet of the 100MP the other day and Zeiss says that it is the first SLR lens with Master Prime optics. I wonder what they mean by that, because Master Primes are all f1.2 lenses and are not designed for 24x36mm.
Hrmn interesting... I was using my 50MP and 100MP the other day to do sample footage with my DIY slider, and I was amazed by the results from the lenses for video (esp. I noticed the 100MP being just nice), they're fantastic.. Also come to think of it, I shot some footage of a baby Komodo dragon at the zoo, and was also very amused by the footage.. Maybe I'll post on vimeo sometime in the future.
I don't really know what to make of your comment on zeiss data sheets. But I will say the 100MP is my favorite lens.
The compact primes are the 'same' optics as the ZF lenses. Click on the FAQ section and Zeiss says so. I'm sure they are assembled more carefully, etc., but the optical design is the same. So they should cover 24x36. I think you are probably just paying extra for cine style housings (which I'd not want to use in a still setting) and probably higher quality control.
The Master and Ultra primes are different.
Cinematography does have different requirements. First of all, the real expensive primes have the same maximum aperture across the line to help give a consistent look. Also, they are probably sharper across the frame, less distortion, etc. But then again, at about $20k per lens for the Master primes, they should be. They are higher quality for two reasons probably - first giant enlargments (40x60 feet from a smaller negative than 24x36) - secondly, whats $20k when your movie cost $200 million to make?
The other requirement for cine lenses is consistent sizes. And larger isn't necessarily a bad thing. You hang a lot more stuff off a cine lens, like matte boxes, flags, and follow focus devices. You also often have multiple people working on the camera and lens; one guy pulling focus, one operating the camera, etc. So the extra size can be a good thing.
bluetsunami wrote:
Each one is listed as having 1.3 T-Stops. That's just Cine lingo for how much light is being pulled in (ala aperture) right? At first I had thought they were equal but I don't think so. Either way, these lenses are massive. I'm speaking of their Master Primes btw.
T stop is related to the light transmission of the lens, whereas f stop is the focal length divided by the maximum diameter of the front element. In theory the two numbers should be similar, but in practise many lenses with large number of elements have a lower T stop than f stop. Eg Nikon 70-200 f2.8 has something like T3.5. It is the T stop which matters in terms of how fast a shutter speed you can use, and if using a hand held meter you will get better results if you know the T stops rather than the f stops. I for one wish all lenses used T stops instead of F stops.
andrewd01 wrote:
I for one wish all lenses used T stops instead of F stops.
Think of the light loss that separates t-stop from f/stop as a fixed ND filter - hence the f/stop is still needed for determining DOF. Ideally one would have both, but in an auto-metering world the f/stop is probably more important.
