Zeiss/Canon Cine vs Canon L lenses...

[Robert Thompson]

Has anyone done any image comparison using the FS700 shooting with a Canon 24-70 F2.8 L
vs either a Zeiss CP.2 35mm prime and or the equivalent Canon Cine lens?

Just curious as to image quality differences and/or differences in general...pros/cons etc.

I'm toying with a purchase and plan to rent a set of Zeiss next week but curious as to others experience...and if you have used both in conjunction w/ the 7Q all the better.

[Leonard Levy]

This may or may not be relevant to you. i own the Zeiss ZF 35mm f2 which should basically be the same optically as the CP.2 aside form the longer focus throw of the CP.2. ( closer match would be ZE of course) I almost bought the 1.4 but found it had markedly stronger longitudinal chromatic aberration ( green magenta fringing). The f2 has it also but less . All the still lenses have some aberration but I was told that the 35mm is a particularly hard lens to make.(?) I expect CP.2's would also have it , but when you get into the real cine glass it is much better controlled. Anyway just a heads up and something to look for. The 35mm f1.4 was the worst of the set for CA and I tried a few to make sure it wasn't just an off lens. Even the f2 wasn't great.

[Matt Davis]

FWIW, I'm a Canon-L lens slut, I have friends and colleagues who are Ziess hoarders, renters of lens sets. I have lived and died with zoom lenses and have sometimes had to shoot with primes - and was suitably gomsmacked and depressed in equal measures.

WIth a bit of patient Googling, I hope you find the lens shoot outs that put L-Series glass (well, photographic lenses per se) up against PL lens sets. The results are surprising and counter-intuitive until you analyse what you actually want from your crate of glass.

So, we understand from the outset that primes win over zooms. Agreed. Period. The end. If you need to alter framing with a prime, you dolly. You put the camera in motion, and that's the magic of cinematography. Parallax effects, and so on. Whoop.

So a few groups have put photo primes up against PL 'boxed set' primes. The bottom line is that if you shoot with a box of primes, you get consistent contrast, flare, colour and exposure. Cine lenses are calibrated and they all work the same. Photo lenses are a law unto themselves, and some are brilliant - they outperform one of the boxed set prime lenses. But if you need to go from 50mm to 85mm, you need to check exposure, you need to check focus, you need to understand what the lens will do with flare and you need to accept that the colour will change.

'Classic' lenses like the Canon FD 35-104 had lead glass in some of its elements, which put a lovely rich blue/magenta richness into the shadows. Nikkors have a coolness to the shadows that modern Canon Ls do not have. Lenses - photo lenses for digital videography - are the new film stock.

But hold on a moment...

If you shoot an event with 24, 35, 50 and 85 primes, you'll get some beautiful images of non-events. A series of moving photographs. If you get any candid moments, it's down to luck. Photo lenses may be a bit soft and lackluster on a 20 megapixel sensor, but 4K is 8 Megapixel. And HD is way less. Lesser photo lenses can still do a good job on video. However, you'll have to do more work in post to make them all balance up.

Depending on your shooting style, I'd ensure that money making lenses are a priority. I needed zoom lenses to start, now I'm investing in primes. Your needs may be the exact opposite - start with 24, 35, 50 and 85 and march on from there.

EIther way, you're going to have a lot of glass.

BTW, interesting note from the Zeiss guys at IBC2014 - talk of easily interchangeable mounts. You can start with EF-S for your e-Mount adaptor, and switch to Nikkor if you decide to go all F5/55. That could be worth a lot in the long term.