EOS Cinema Lenses

[Jon Fairhurst]

Lost in all the talk about cameras are the lenses.

The new EF zooms are identical to the PL zooms, but with the new mount. They are more accurately EF-S zooms in that they cover Super 35mm and APS-C sensors, but not full frame.

The EF cine primes are more interesting. They cover the full 35mm frame. They include EF electronics, so they communicate traditional EOS metadata. Not only does that allow capture of lens information, but it enables peripheral illumination correction to reduce vignetting in-camera. These suckers are also L-prime fast. Initially they include a 24mm t1.5, and a 50mm t1.3 and slightly later next year we get the the 85mm t1.3. Those who know L-lenses know where the glass for these cine lenses is sourced.

In the words of Ron Popeil, "but wait, there's more..." According to Erik Allin of Canon, "There’s also two more of the Cinema Primes, one would be an ultra-wide and one would be a telephoto over and above what we have already announced so we have two more in the pipeline and from there we will see where the market tells us we need to go."

I can guess that the telephoto would be a T2.1 135mm, based on the EF 135/2L. For the ultra-wide, a T2.9 14mm would make sense, based on the EF 14/2.8L. (Yes. These are just a guesses.)

These primes give Zeiss a run for their money. Once all five are released, they'll be faster, wider, and longer than the Zeiss offerings and they'll have nice metal bodies with long throws, hard stops, gear teeth, and calibrated marks. Add the metadata and peripheral illumination correction, and these are an easy choice.

All they need is a big mechanical M/AF switch to disengage the long, heavy focus travel for photo mode and they'd be perfect. ;)

Oh, and a macro. Short focus distance is about the only thing lacking from the plan.

[Henry Coll]

There are many things that characterize a lens, for instance:

-Build
-Durability
-Resolution
-Bokeh
-Color rendition
-Breathing
-Speed (T stop)
-Weight
-Flare
-Constant dimensions for the set
..etc.

Cheap lenses fail at some of those points, while the expensive ones like Zeiss Ultras or Masters excel at all of them. But even among the best there are still differences, as some people prefer the tones from Cookes rather than the accuracy of the Masters.

Canon has been building very good lenses for photo and video for a long time, but has never done anything for the film market.

The announced Canon 30-300 PL zoom is priced just like Angenieux's excellent Optimo 24-290, but the french zoom is not only faster but has a fixed T.
Variable aperture zooms are a problem in the film world, and they're essentially considered at their slowest stop. Nobody changes a lighting setup just because some focal is faster. In the case of the Canon that makes the entire lens a T3.7, which is quite slow.

Anyway Let's just wait and see how these new ones perform. I wouldn't discard or praise ones or others before trying them first.


Which Zeiss do you think the Canons will give a run for the money?

[Brian Drysdale]

Canon have made cine lenses in the past, the K35 prime lenses are examples. They also made zoom lenses for 16mm & Super 16.

[Henry Coll]

I stand corrected.

All I've ever seen though are Arri/Fujinon/Zeiss, Cookes, Angenieux and Schneider.

BTW, I just found out the Canon is T2.9 till 240mm, so that essentially makes it a fixed aperture zoom.

[Jon Fairhurst]

On paper (and that's all we have right now), the Canon primes would challenge Zeiss as follows:

Canon T1.5/24 vs. Zeiss CP.2 T2.9/25 (Two stops faster.)

Canon T1.3/50 vs. Zeiss CP.2 T2.1/50 (1.3 stops)

Canon T1.3/85 vs. Zeiss CP.2 T2.1/85 (1.3 stops)

The 24mm lens is a clear winner as Zeiss doesn't have anything fast beyond the T2.1/28.

I'm assuming that Canon will create beautifully solid, metal lens bodies. We can already compare Canon's colors with their photo lens coatings to Zeiss'. In the world of heavy grading, this difference is subtle to my eye. Also, it's more of a personal preference than a good/bad comparison.

I haven't used the CP.2 lenses myself, but I use ZEs and some L-glass. Frankly, I think I lean towards L glass slightly, but I *strongly* prefer the feel of the ZEs for video use. Put the two sets of glass in similarly nice cine bodies, give me the metadata for in-camera correction, and give me the additional speed, and I give Canon the edge - on paper, of course.

Does anybody know the prices of the new lenses? This could tilt the field either way...

[Jean-Philippe Archibald]

3900$ for the Zeiss, 6800$ for the canons.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Ouch. Consider the field tilted back toward Zeiss.

Then again, it really depends on the rental price. Most of us buy ZE or L glass (if not just EF glass, vintage glass or whatever) and rent the cine lenses.

[Emmanuel Plakiotis]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

Lost in all the talk about cameras are the lenses.

The new EF zooms are identical to the PL zooms, but with the new mount. They are more accurately EF-S zooms in that they cover Super 35mm and APS-C sensors, but not full frame..

Canon CN-E14.5-60mm T2.6 L S - Cine Lenses - Canon Europe

According to canon Europe they are full frame. That explains the size weight and price of these beasts.
IMO they are a bargain.

Also it's now certain there will be a FF digital cinema camera, if not cameras, from CANON.

[Brian Drysdale]

It does say 35mm and Super 35 on that site, but everywhere else just says Super 35. The size does look pretty normal for a Super 35mm cine zoom lens and that is the bigger market, although that's not to say it doesn't cover FF35, but I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't. If you're shooting film using the standard 35mm motion picture frame, you'd just say 35mm, which is different to FF35 used in stills.

I'd tend to wait until Canon says FF35 before thinking that it does.

[Don Miller]

They're called "EF", not "EF-S". If it only covered S35/APS-C it would be EF-S, I think.

[Dylan Couper]

If it says EF it should cover full frame. However... I'd be happily surprised if it did (not that I'm in the market for one of these).

[Tim Kerigan]

All the reviews I've read have said that the primes are FF but the zooms are S35 only.

[Chris Hurd]

That is correct, the forthcoming primes will be FF but the two existing zooms are S35 only.

[Jon Fairhurst]

I can understand why Canon wouldn't want to call the zooms EF-S as that tends to be their budget line of lenses. Clearly, the cine zooms are not low-cost gear.

[Chris Hurd]

The "S" in EF-S simply refers to short back-focus, a design which is specifically
made for EOS bodies using APS-C sensors. The EF-S design enables wide angle
focal lengths (which are otherwise difficult to achieve on crop-sensor cameras),
and allows the lenses to be made smaller, lighter, faster and (generally speaking)
less expensive.

They are not necessarily "budget" lenses; they are simply optimized for APS-C
sensors. Consider the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens, which is built to L-quality
standards in terms of optical performance. It's also accordingly priced as an
L-series lens, with an MSRP of more than $1,000. It isn't nearly "budget line."

While it's true that many EF-S lenses are indeed less expensive than most
EF lenses, in certain cases EF-S lens models are indeed very, very good. I
would rate the aforementioned EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS as a better lens than
the EF 17-40mm f/4L, and a close contender to the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L
(obviously it's not as long, but it is stabilized, and you'd be hard pressed
to discern any difference in image quality).