Schneider Cine Xenar, CP2 or Cooke Panchro Set for F3?

[Steve Kalle]

Its called Breathing where the focal length slightly changes with the focus.

Now I remember seeing a comparison of a prior generation Zeiss cine lens versus the Nikon Zeiss. The Nikon Zeiss did not breathe but the cine Zeiss did which was surprising. Breathing is one of my major dislikes while watching video. To me, it makes the production value look cheap.

How much do the Xenar's telescope? After watching the video below, I really like their look and bokeh.

I just found this video comparing the Xenar and CP.2.

Schneider Cine-Xenar vs Zeiss CP.2 Comparison on Vimeo

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Steve Kalle

What filter size are the Xenars(found it, 102mm) and what mattebox do you use with them?

I have three matte boxes (O'Connor O-Box, Redrock, and Chrosziel) that I move from camera to camera depending on what I'm shooting. I can use any of them with the Xenars, but I generally prefer to use the Chrosziel because it does not attach to my rods. It clamps on the front of the lens so it moves with the lens when it telescopes during focusing.

How much do they telescope" They only telescope about 1" if you rack focus from one extreme to another -- something that does not happen very often in real world shooting scenarios -- so it is not a big deal even if I am using a matte box clamped to rods. In my opinion, it is worth the little bit of extra hassle because the Xenars look great and I find them easier to work with. The bokeh is the best I have seen on any of the lenses at this price point and they have a much shorter close-focus distance than lenses. Almost getting to macro levels.

I would ask anyone who wants to bash the Xenars to be more specific about their complaints and to put up some sample video. You can't just take pot shots at something without explaining yourself.

I own the Xenars and I have a set of CP lenses . . . I know which ones I prefer.

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Henry Epstein

With all due respect to your comments...( by the way, I love your videos, specially Mastering the Sony PMW-F3... WONDERFUL Tutorial) I know you have, use and love these Xenars... but I have not read too many good reviews about them so far... There are some conflicting opinions at other forums about them.

Hi Henry, thank you for the compliments on my earlier videos.
Can you post some links to the bad reviews of the Xenars? I have not seen any and do not believe they could come from credible sources. I don't think it is right to spread unfounded rumors without quote the source. If there are bad reviews about the lenses, then let's see them so we can learn exactly what the complaints are and who is making them. Both of those things are important.

[Henry Epstein]

About the Schneider Cine-Xenars:

Just to be clear, I have never use them so I can't speak for them.
I haven't had the possibility to rent/try them because there's no chance so far in Latin America.
What I've said is based only on what you read at the forums in the internet...
Looks like they have important pros and cons... optically very nice with the mechanics on the opposite side.
These are not cheap lenses and they are also heavy.
There are posters that like them so much with love... and others that hates them so much with passion.
Schneider is a very well known name and respectable lens maker. I have owned and used many lens adapters and currently ALL my filters are made by Schneider. But as an owner/operator/rental facility which I am, I will prefer to put my money on either CP.2s or Pancros if possible... or to rent Ultras in the best scenario, if the budget allows. All of them for the rental market worldwide are future-proof.
Theses are just my personal views.

Here some of those links:

Schneider Cine-Xenar II

Schneider Xenar Lenses

Considering some Schneider Cine-Xenar lenses... anyone use them?

[Doug Jensen]

Hi Henry,

I would be very interested in hearing your opinion of the Cine-Xenars if you had actually used them. Otherwise, you are just spreading second-hand rumors. Even if you said you had heard great things aboout the Xenars, I still wouldn't care to hear your second-hand opinion. I think most of us are more interested in hearing hands-on appraisals from people who have actually used the item they are speaking about it. It is curious that even most of the comments posted on the links you provide have been made by people who have never actually used the lenses. So now we have non-users quoting other non-users. I don't think that is fair to anyone.

Sure the Xenars are heavy. That is a fact. Yes they telescope less than 1", that is also a fact. Yes the focus and aperature rings are reversed, so what? Once you've used the lenes, you quickly get over those quirks and fall in love with the look. They are my favorite lenses to use on my F3 and FS100.

However, I'm sure other people would disagree. Nothing is right for everyone. And I would totally respect the opinion of someone else who disagrees -- as long as they have actually used the Xenars for themselves. That's all I'm trying to say. Don't knock 'em, if you ain't tried 'em. :-)

[Steve Kalle]

At the moment, I am leaning towards the Cine-Xenars due to lack of breathing, gorgeous bokeh and great image.

Does anyone know if there is a F3 to Sony Alpha adapter yet? I would love to try a couple Sony Zeiss lenses.

EDIT: The Xenars are out of the running due to the focus ring moving forward with the entire lens, which I discovered via Doug's F3 demo video.

Anyone use the Zeiss LWZ.2? I am considering it in addition to the 85mm CP.2.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

Yes the focus and aperature rings are reversed, so what?

The old Zeiss Super Speed Distagons had this arrangement, it's no big deal.

Quite a few lenses telescope while focusing, you can get doughnuts/ rings that allow you to do so with a matte box.

[Steve Kalle]

I keep going back and forth between the Xenars and their amazing image/bokeh and the ease of the LWZ2 zoom. Lensrentals tested the RedRock FF and it stays on the Xenar all the way to infinity but I don't know about the RR Mattebox working with the Xenars.

Another question for you all: which would you rather use, the Zacuto Z-finder or a 7" Marshall 70XP HDMI monitor?

And does the HDMI work when S-Log is enabled? If so, can a LUT be applied to it?

[Timur Civan]

lets just say, in the world of film, you get what you pay for.

I was gung ho about the xenars ever since they were announced.

I tried em, hated em. Then i even gave em another chance. Still hated them.

They produce a decent picture, but the mechanics are a nightmare. And yes, maybe you dont pull focus from close to far that often, but we had to on the shoot, and the FF gear walked off the follow focus, and im stuck there looking like an a**hole while the gear blew a shot.

That said, they have the BEST BOKEH EVER, if you like super clinical clean bokeh.


Bought a set of Panchros, never looked back.

[Steve Kalle]

Originally Posted by Timur Civan

That said, they have the BEST BOKEH EVER, if you like super clinical clean bokeh.

Yes, their Bokeh is the best I have ever seen and very similar to my favorite stills lens - the Sony Alpha STF 135mm T4.5 / F2.8 (Smooth Trans Focus) with 10 aperture blades - absolutely tack sharp wide open and an amazing bokeh, which is the whole purpose of the lens.

Speaking about bokeh, I looked at the Illuminas but hate their bokeh which looks 'busy' and reminds me of cheap SLR lenses.

On a side note, has anyone used the Zeiss LWZ.2? It has only 9 iris blades versus 14 on the CP.2 lenses (and 18 on some Xenars). I could rent the Panchro set but the LWZ.2 would work better due to time constraints. At the very least, I want a set of lenses that are sharp at T2.8 so I can light to 2.8.

[Charles Papert]

The Optimos are great "lightweight" zooms. I've used the Zeiss LW and it performed well although I didn't get to test it exhaustively. I'm not preoccupied with bokeh myself so I can't speak to that characteristic--guess you could say I'm more interested in what the in-focus elements of a shot look like than the out-of-focus ones.

[Steve Kalle]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

The Optimos are great "lightweight" zooms. I've used the Zeiss LW and it performed well although I didn't get to test it exhaustively. I'm not preoccupied with bokeh myself so I can't speak to that characteristic--guess you could say I'm more interested in what the in-focus elements of a shot look like than the out-of-focus ones.

I should have clarified that I am interested to hear about all of its (LWZ.2) characteristics rather than just bokeh. Is it sharp wide open or does it need to be stopped down to T4 (at 2.8, both the Panchros & Xenars are sharp); does it breathe like the CP.2s; falloff; corner sharpness & vignetting wide open? At only 4.4 lbs, something had to be sacrificed.

[Ryan Avery]

Originally Posted by Timur Civan

lets just say, in the world of film, you get what you pay for.

I was gung ho about the xenars ever since they were announced.

I tried em, hated em. Then i even gave em another chance. Still hated them.

They produce a decent picture, but the mechanics are a nightmare. And yes, maybe you dont pull focus from close to far that often, but we had to on the shoot, and the FF gear walked off the follow focus, and im stuck there looking like an a**hole while the gear blew a shot.

That said, they have the BEST BOKEH EVER, if you like super clinical clean bokeh.


Bought a set of Panchros, never looked back.

Timur,

We here at Schneider have had a few reports about the gears "walking" off the focus ring due to the external focus design of the Cine Xenar lenses. I am curious if you tried the extra wide 19mm focus gear available for most of FF units (Chrosziel, Arri, etc)?

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

[Alister Chapman]

I had a long play with the Cine Xenar II's at IBC and they looked very nice. If you have the right follow focus gear (i.e. a big fat one) you should be able to use a follow focus all the way from end stop to end stop. It's amazing how quickly we forget about external focus lenses v internal focus. I used external focus lenses with moving focus barrels for the first 15 years of my career, it was normal and whats more the end of the lens rotated too The Cine Xenars don't rotate. The Cine Xenars are telecentric so have a very flat projected image which is better suited to a solid state sensor than film. This does give an extremely even image with almost no fall off in focus at the edges or vignetting. This may be what some people don't like as a traditional film lens will have more fall of at the edges giving an almost imperceptible vignette that tends to draw the eye into the centre of the image, that's just a thought/opinion of mine. Of course if you have a very flat/even image adding a slight vignette is easy in post. The amount of baffling in the Cine Xenar's is amazing and the 12 to 18 blade iris system is what gives them their amazing bokeh. I am hoping to get a few for an in depth review soon.

Just a note regarding tripods. The newer Sachtlers are made in Costa Rica and I am hearing many tales of a significant drop in build quality. I believe that O'Connor, vinten, manfrotto are now all made in countries where the labour is cheap. O'connors are great heads but they are prone to leaking fluid.

[Timur Civan]

Originally Posted by Ryan Avery

Timur,

We here at Schneider have had a few reports about the gears "walking" off the focus ring due to the external focus design of the Cine Xenar lenses. I am curious if you tried the extra wide 19mm focus gear available for most of FF units (Chrosziel, Arri, etc)?

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

I have tried the wider gear, it does solve the issue, but i invested in Cookes instead.

Best of luck with the new design, cant wait to try them out!