After doing a post recently about the differences between lenses, I think it is important here to note the difference between the popular cinema choice of Zeiss ZF.2 vs CP.2. One is a lot more expensive that the other and sometimes this causes a lot of confusion about the differences. The ZF and CP.2 lenses share exactly the same glass so will give you the same image results on any camera. The CP.2 are however considered as Cinema lenses because of some features it comes with that make it much more user friendly on set for cinematographers.
It should be noted here that the Zeiss ZF’s are the Nikon mount photo lenses. The ZE are the same but for Canon however the Canon mount version are fairly useless for filming because they do not have the manual iris/aperture setting that the Nikon ZF mount does. So for filming, users should grab the Nikon mount and grab an adapter to attach to your camera if necessary.
A video can often says 100 words so check out the video below:
The details below outline some features of each lens so its easier to see where the CP.2′s shine out. This is looking at standard ZF lenses without a cinemod.
-
Zeiss CP.2
- 14 bladed iris/aperture which is geared.
- Cinema housing
- Internal Focus housing (when changing lenses you wont have to reposition your follow focus)
- Cine-standard 32-pitch gears for focusing - Focus rotates nearly 300° for precise focusing
- Focus’s what we normally consider ‘the right way’ – infinity is clockwise when looking at front of the lens.
- Iris is click-free
- Interchangeable mounts
- Much larger than the ZF’s
- Limited to f/2 (T2.1)
- Around £3000 a piece
-
Zeiss ZF.2
- 9 bladed iris/aperture (not geared just gridded)
- Photography-like housing (which is the main ascetic different between the lenses)
- Focusing differs from 90° to 275° depending on the lens.
- The ZF’s are Nikon mount meaning they rotate ‘the wrong way’ – infinity is counter-clockwise when looking at front of lens. However many follow focus’s can be inverted which would correct this. The ZE version (Canon mount) do not focus the ‘wrong way’ but lack an iris ring.
- Iris clicks every 1/3 of a stop
- Fixed mount -
- ZF – Nikon mount
- ZE – Canon mount - Compact in size.
- Go down to f/1.4
- Around £800 a piece
Here are some links to known cinemod’s
Duclos Lenses – http://www.ducloslenses.com/collections/zeiss
Prime Circle (by Lock Circle) a bit more expensive – http://www.lockcircle.com/primecircle_xt_lenses/
So which is better?
I cannot say which is better for you better because it completely depends on your budget. If you have the budget for CP.2′s and you know the features will benefit you and the crew then you should go for the CP.2′s. However if you dont have £3000 to spend on each lens then maybe grab some ZF’s with the possibility of cinemod-ing them.
[via matthewduclos]
I have a full set of Zeiss ZE (Duclos Cinemod) glass. There is a consistent online argument that you need to have the Zeiss ZF for the manual aperture correction.I just want to add my opinion. I’ve shot one feature indie film and hundred of hours of footage on the ZE set. Other than needing to do a drastic change of iris on the rare occasion there is no real benefit in the manual iris. Manual iris is just a preference based on previous experience. I’ve become accustomed to having no manual iris control and really don’t miss the manual ring. In fact I prefer not having to deal with a manual iris ring on a DSLR. I’m hoping in the future, camera firmware updates could further smooth out the iris steps you might see in a live electronic iris change and even add live auto iris. At times, I wish the Zeiss ZE glass had focus motors just like the Canon L lenses do. The benefit in having the ZE glass is electronic control of the iris at the back of the camera, and the ability to use the lens in action still photography and exposure controlled time lapse. So when you comment in your article that the ZE are useless is really not an accurate statement but really a biased opinion. I fully endorse using ZE lenses for cinema work and prefer it. Moving to the look, in doing comparison tests between ZE, CP2′s and Master Primes most viewers couldn’t tell the difference in look between all three. On one project, everyone was applauding the look of the Master Primes on a multi camera (Red and Canon) format edit, the editor turned to the director and said the footage was actually ZE glass on a 5Dmk2. Now if money wasn’t an issue I would have both the Zeiss ZE and Zeiss CP2 set with both PL and EOS mount. On some sets having the focus marks is important. On others having the lite weight ZE on a stripped down camera is more important. There is a definite difference in weight and handling when you stick a CP2 on a Red Scarlet set up for hand held work.
Bob, because lenses are an investment and when you buy lenses like this you want them to be suitable for any camera setup, I am saying they are useless as they are not versatile. The ZE’s aperture will only be functional on setups that can read the chips so if you wanted to change your camera type then you are going to run into a few issues, not issues that cant be fixed but issues that can be avoided if you go with the ZF’s.