I have the EOS 6D and would like to record cinema style video using the 6D and using a
Zeiss Compact Prime CP.2 85mm/T2.1 Cine Lens (EF Mount)
I know everyone is doing cinema style video with the 5D Mark III but I don’t own one just the EOS 6D
Is there any reason I can’t use the Zeiss Compact Prime CP.2 85mm on the 6D and record cinema style video using the 6D?

Many thanks for any help you can give me!

I have the EOS 6D and would like to record cinema style video using the 6D and using a
Zeiss Compact Prime CP.2 85mm/T2.1 Cine Lens (EF Mount)
I know everyone is doing cinema style video with the 5D Mark III but I don’t own one just the EOS 6D
Is there any reason I can’t use the Zeiss Compact Prime CP.2 85mm on the 6D and record cinema style video using the 6D?

Many thanks for any help you can give me!

There is no reason why that lens wouldn't work except it cost $4,000 and you would be shooting everything at 85mm? (a short telephoto length?)

I would think it depends on what you define as "Cinema Style"?

Any of the modern Video DSLR's from Canon will shoot in 1080p at 24 frames per second and matched with a 1/50 shutter will give you that filmic look straight out of your camera with all the equipment you currently have.

Seeing your signature with your fastest lens being f/4---I think you are looking for the ability to do shallower depth of field so that you can have a lovely blurred background?

In that case, start looking for some "faster" lenses along with a Fader ND (Adjustable Neutral Density Filter).

I'm sure people will chime in here with better suggestions.

Of course, you can use a Zeiss CP.2 lens with the 6D. It's not necessarily needed though. The main advantages of cinema lenses is that they have very long, smooth focus throws and built-in gear teeth. They also have a smooth aperture control with a gear. To make use of it, one needs rails, a follow focus, a focus puller (1st Assistant Cameraman), and a process that allows measurement of focus distances. This is usually done with a tape measure before each take or with an electronic distance meter. Note that the cinema lens is calibrated and the focus distances are clearly marked.

You can get similar results with add-on gears and good still camera lenses. The main difference is that you will use the x10 preview to set focus for the various positions and then you mark the focus points with gaffers tape or pen markings. In the days of film shooting, there was no x10 preview so they needed to use the measuring tape method. With x10 preview, we can nail the actual focus of the lens without needing calibrated distance markings.

Other 85mm options include:
- EF 85/1.8 - this has a fairly short focus throw, breathes a lot and lacks hard stops. I sold mine.
- EF 85/1.2L II - this has electronic focus and no hard stops. It's difficult for video.
- ZE 85/1.4 - this is what I have at work. The focus throw is very smooth, long, and has hard stops. It won't focus closer than 1 meter though.

For my personal kit, I went with the EF 100/2.8L IS Macro. It's great! The throw is long. It doesn't breathe too much except for at very close focal distances. The image stabilization is often handy. It's only slightly longer than 85mm, allows very close focusing, and has excellent optics.

The lack of hard stops is more of an issue for solo, documentary-style filming. If you push past the end of the range, you offset the focus, and when you return your hand to the previous position, things have changed. For cinema-style, this isn't really a problem. You mark two or three positions, stay within that range, and very rarely (and accidentally) bump the focus out of whack.

The bottom line is that if you hit focus, the audience won't care which lens and method you used.

More important for a cinema look are the following:
1) Optimally capturing the range with correct exposure and proper picture style,
2) Good color grading in post,
3) The lack of aliasing, and
4) Appropriate filters.

Regarding aliasing, you don't need a 5D3. You can get this:
VAF-6D Optical Anti-Aliasing Filter (http://www.mosaicengineering.com/products/vaf/6d.html)

Regarding filters, note that with a CP.2 lens, you need a matte box and large square filters. With a still camera lens, you can generally use screw-on filters and a hood. The CP.2 setup will be heavier and might require heavier duty camera support gear.

For diffusion, I've been using GlimmerGlass filters. Recently, I saw some comparisons, and I would now choose Digital Diffusion filters. The filters hide blemishes while maintaining good contrast and causing a minimal amount of blooming from lights in the scene. Rather than a big, soft glow, lamps produce a subtle four-point star effect, which I find attractive.
Tiffen Digital Diffusion/FX Filters (http://www.tiffen.com/pressreleasedigitalfx.html)

CP.2 lenses might be what you want, but you can achieve a film look without them. Then again, if you want to outfit your camera to say "filmmaker" to people on set, the CP.2 and matte box is the way to go. And, yes, sometimes impressing those on set is at least as important as impressing the final audience. :)

Thanks for your nice reply !

I'm open to any lens that you guy's can Recommend .

I just thorough out the Zeiss CP.2 85MM as I was looking at this one but yes the price is high too.k th

So you think the EF 100/2.8L IS Macro is a good lens to start with for the 6D ?

Scott

In my opinion, since you are unsure of which lens to buy, I would suggest you invest in a couple of zoom lenses. Then once you are more familiar with which focal lengths you tend to use most, investing in prime lenses of the appropriate focal lengths.

Regarding focal lengths, I really like 35mm on a full frame camera as my "go to" lens. An 85 or 100 is my next most used lens. Next in line is an ultra-wide, where I use the 16-35mm f/2.8 II zoom. One approach is to get the 16-35 and 100 Macro. They're both f/2.8, so they aren't ideal for low light, but if f/2.8 is adequate, these lenses both pull double duty.

As I mentioned, 35mm is my favorite focal length. It's near the normal, 50mm view, but it has just a touch more attitude. As the camera and objects move through space, you get just a bit more perspective effect going on, so you get a greater sense of depth and motion. That said, it's subtle, so it doesn't feel forced, or like an effect.

85 or 100mm allows you to capture characters without having to get the lens too close (which would distort the face.) Unless you do highly intimate closeups or cinema verite (closeups in public situations from a distance), you likely don't need a longer lens. Of course, longer lenses are important for sports and nature applications.

A 16-35mm lens not only covers the main 35mm view, but it gives you an ultra-wide option. This is a "problem solving" focal length. It lets you get lots of coverage for establishing shots and lets you film in tight spaces, like cars and elevators. I prefer a zoom as you never know how tight the space might be and how you want it framed. No one ultra-wide prime will be right in all situations.

The 100 Macro also solves a problem. Not only can you use it for two shots and medium closeups but you can use it on small items like notes, photos, money, clues, etc. 85mm lenses don't often get close focus.

I just did a shoot at work that included an interview and b-roll. We used two lenses: the 16-35 and the 100. We had a Zeiss 21/2.8, 35/2, 85/1.4 available as well as a Canon 35/1.4L, 50/1.4, and 70-200/2.8L IS. Had there been less light or a need for extreme shallow focus, I would have used the primes. Had I needed more reach, I would have used the 70-200. Being able to cover all of our needs with just two lenses made everything simple. Also, we were able to use a similar position on the follow focus for both lenses, so swapping lenses was quick and easy.

After the 16-35 and 100, the next lens I would add is the 50/1.4. While 50mm isn't my favorite focal length, it's the cheapest option for a large aperture. The optics are reasonably good on this lens and it has a 180 degree focus throw; however, the focus ring has a fair amount of slop.

I should note that I also shoot some stills, so having lenses with autofocus is valuable for me. For a tighter focus ring, the ZE 50/1.4 would be a nice, low light option. Again, this is a problem solver: it plugs the hole between 35 and 100 and will bail you out in low light.

Anyway, at the wide end, I find a zoom to be important, since you can't always get the wide frame that you want by zooming with your feet. At the 85/100 end, I generally have enough room to move around and get the framing that I want.

I would think that with the 6d's high iso performance, that the 24-105 f4 would be a really versatile choice. Especially as it has IS, which for me is invaluable if you don't want to be chained to a tripod. Also, some ND filters to give more control over DOF/shutter speed in bright light. I use fixed NDs more often than my Singh ray variable filter for two reasons:
1. I was dumb and bought the 77mm Singh ray for the 77mm 24-105 and it has horrible vignette at 24 to about 36. Get the 82mm with an adapter if you go thi$ route.
2. Apparently the fixed NDs offer better quality overall (depending on the quality ($) of filter..).

I've filmed with the 24-105/4 IS. Either this or the 28-70/2.8L (which I haven't used) would be good, single-lens, solutions. Yes, the IS can be helpful, depending on your support gear.

My feeling with the 24-105 is that isn't bad at anything and isn't great at anything. The photos and video that I've shot with it were technically good but somehow lacked "magic". It might have been due to the project or my shooting. Still, if you want one lens and IS, this is a consideration. You'd definitely want a 50/1.4 in the kit for lower light stuff. F/4 is often good enough, but not always.

Speaking of those two lenses, I shot photos of people and their pets at an event two years in a row. The first year I used the 50/1.4. The second I used the 24-105. The people who received the photos (not photographers or artists) were visibly disappointed with the photos from the zoom. They found the shallow DOF photos from the prime to be compelling. The deeper focus photos were just snapshots.

For a film look, go for f/2.8 or faster. I find that the f/4 zoom looks more like TV.