LENS TEST: Zeiss Super Speed (MK3) VS Zeiss ZF SLR's (Shot on RED)

[Ryan E. Walters]

http://www.ryanewalters.com/downloads/ZeissTest/RED-ZeissTest.jpg
INTRODUCTION
On May 12, 2008 I met up with fellow cinematographer, and RED owner Hunter Richards (www.hunterhampton.com) and we headed over to Lyon Films (www.lyonfilms.com) where we met with directors Devon Lyon and Kevin Curry. Later, we were joined by Owen Stephens, SOC & inventor of the Pampalite (www.pampalite.com) who got in on the action, and showed us his great line up of florescent lights. The purpose of this get together was two fold, first Hunter updated everyone on the developments that had been made on the RED camera as well as demonstrated the workflow and post process of using the RED in a production environment. Secondly, Devon & I used this opportunity to test out two sets of lenses. Both of us wanted to see how big of a difference there actually is in-between a lens designed for cinema use and for SLR use. The RED can mount both PL lenses and Nikon SLR lenses with a simple change of the lens mount. My cinematography has taken me around the world, and being able to use small, lightweight lenses on a camera capable of shooting raw 4K intrigues me. If the SLR lenses are able to perform at the levels needed for the RED, this would enable me to have a smaller profile and a lighter load to carry when traveling. Scheduled to begin production in the first quarter of 2009, the documentary Walking Through Worlds (www.walkingthroughworlds.com) will take director Joel McEwen and I to remote locations in Asia, and being able to use the SLR lenses on the RED may enable us to get the images we need for the production while keeping down the form factor and weight.

For the last two years I have been using a set of Zeiss ZF SLR lenses and various 35mm adapters on projects that have smaller budgets, but still want the cinematic look of film. For the projects that can afford it, I have been renting the cinema lenses. Having used both styles of lenses I have seen the mechanical differences between the two, and now with this opportunity with the RED I had a chance to see how big of a difference, if any, there is in the image quality of each set of lenses.

To highlight the potential differences between the lens sets I settled on the following tests: sharpness, color, breathing, vignetting, and the mechanics. To keep the results consistent I decided to shoot both charts as well as a real world test. Charts are helpful for consistency and measurements, where as the real world test will show you what you actually get. The cinema glass used for this test was a set of Zeiss Superspeed Lenses (MKIII) with a T-stop of 1.3 and the SLR lenses were the Zeiss ZF lenses with a T-stop of 1.4. To keep as many of the variables out of the equation as possible, the footage was all processed through RED Alert using the same settings. See the picture below for the settings used. The only change made to the real world footage was a change to 709 Gamma in the Output LUT.

http://www.ryanewalters.com/downloads/ZeissTest/RedAlertSettings.jpg

All of the still frames have been left unprocessed and have not been graded, while the sample footage has been graded using the same settings in each set of clips in Color. You can download the Color project files, as well as the sample images and footage at my web site, by going to the resource page: www.ryanewalters.com. In the download you will find this review in PDF form as well as the setup notes for the tests which details out the various settings used, and lighting setups. So lets take a look at what the tests yielded. (I should also mention that the RED we were using was having problems with its CF drive, which ended up corrupting some of the files. We checked the files on site in the camera to see that they recorded ok, but there were a couple that although seemed fine in camera, RED Alert was not able to process them. So there are a couple of missing frames. The people at RED ended up overnighting a replacement drive for Hunter, which was great customer service for him, but too late for this test.)

DOWNLOADS: (Right click - Save As Please)
Just the RESULTS PDF (http://www.ryanewalters.com/downloads/ZeissTest/REW-ZeissLensTest-Results.pdf) (4MB)
Just the SETUP PDF (http://www.ryanewalters.com/downloads/ZeissTest/REW-ZeissLensTest-Setup.pdf) (3MB)
Just the QuickTime Movie (http://www.ryanewalters.com/downloads/ZeissTest/REW-Zeiss-Breathing-H264.mov) (9MB)
ALL PDFs MOVs, & STILLS (http://www.ryanewalters.com/downloads/ZeissTest/ZeissTestDownload.zip) (102MB)

EDIT: If for some reason these links are not working, please check my blog at my web site: www.ryanewalters.com - I have all of the same information, pictures, and downloads available there.

[Ryan E. Walters]

The first test I performed was using a resolution chart that I had made at my local Kinkos using their high quality black and white laser printer. While the chart may not be “the standard” chart for testing resolution, it does meet my needs of helping me to see overall sharpness as well as edge to edge sharpness. This test was done at both wide open and at T4 on all of the lenses. I have organized the resulting images into the charts below. (These images have been compressed, for the best viewing experience, download the full frame stills.)
http://www.ryanewalters.com/downloads/ZeissTest/Charts-01.jpghttp://www.235studios.com/downloads/Charts-02.jpg
The first thing I noticed when processing the resolution chart, is that both the cinema and the SLR lenses felt soft when they were wide open (T1.3 & T1.4). This is true of any lens, as lenses tend to perform best when they are stopped down about 2 – 3 stops, so this was not much of a surprise to me. However, what was a surprise to me, was that while filming the charts, it felt like the SLR lenses were sharper then the set of cinema lenses that were used. When I processed the footage, I was able to confirm that the SLR lenses were a little sharper then the cinema lenses. This was most apparent in the corners of the image, especially in the wide-open tests. The blown up portions of the charts above comes from the lower left corner of the charts. While the difference is not night and day, the SLR lenses do feel sharper to me. The SLR lenses are more then adequate to resolve enough detail to be used on the RED, and further more, they feel a little sharper then their cinema counter part.

[Ryan E. Walters]

Now on to the next test- is there any vignetting in the image? For this test I flipped the chart around and but a black cross in the center of the white card, and then filled the frame with the card. From the charts below, you can see that I did a better job at keeping the cross at relatively the same size with the cinema lenses, then I did with the SLR lenses. I did not see any vignetting in either set of lenses.

http://www.ryanewalters.com/downloads/ZeissTest/Charts-03.jpg

[Ryan E. Walters]

The next test I lined up was to see how well each set of lenses are matched to each other. If there is a color shift between the lenses this can make it more difficult to match shots when editing- especially when the shift if dramatic. So having a matched set of lenses is key in keeping the image consistent. For this test, Hunter brought along his Macbeth Color Chart, which provided a great sampling of colors to shoot. After processing the clips with RED Alert, I opened them up in Color, and then used the Geometry room to isolate just the color chart in each clip. After reviewing the files, I was again surprised to find that the SLR lenses are as well matched to each other as the cinema lenses are. In fact, both sets of lenses are so extremely well matched that the SLR lenses could be intermixed with the cinema lenses and there will be no noticeable difference in the color rendition.

http://www.ryanewalters.com/downloads/ZeissTest/Charts-06.jpg

[Ryan E. Walters]

Shooting charts is a nice was to have consistent results, but in reality charts are never shot, and they do not help you to see how a lens will perform in an actual production environment. They can help you to spot the weakness, and differences of a lens, but for me, seeing a lens in action is the only real way to determine if I like how it performs. So now it is on to the real world tests. For this next series of tests, Devon and Kevin graciously let me invade their office as they worked away on the days business at their computers. If you are interested in seeing the lighting setup notes they can be found in the Setup PDF that is included with the download of the still frames. In that same download you will also find a QuickTime file that shows the results of the breathing test done with each lens.

http://www.ryanewalters.com/downloads/ZeissTest/Charts-04.jpghttp://www.ryanewalters.com/downloads/ZeissTest/Charts-05.jpg

[Ryan E. Walters]

After processing and reviewing the results from the real world test the results confirmed what the charts had already told me. All of the lenses are well matched to each other, and in-between sets. The lenses are soft when wide open, and perform better when stopped down. And that the SLR lenses feel a little sharper then the cinema lenses I had been using. The final test that I did was to see how much each set of lenses breathed. In the QuickTime file you can see the results of this test for yourself. And while I admit I should have done a better job at getting an exact matching framing for each shot, the tests are a good sample of how each lens breaths throughout the range. From the results of the clips, as well as from playing with the lenses on set, the cinema lenses had more breathing in them then the SLR’s did- which surprised me, as I thought that the cinema lenses were going to beat them in this test. As far as performance goes, I would feel comfortable using either set of lenses on a production, with deference going towards the SLR lenses due to the increased sharpness and decreased breathing.

The results of this series of tests was very surprising to me, and it was very welcome news as well. It was great to find out that the set of SLR lenses that I have will be able to get the job done. My only hunch as to why the lenses perform as well as they do on the RED, is that the film plane on the SLR is larger then the film plane on the RED. So the SLR lenses have to be able to resolve a larger image, and due to the increased image, the breathing in the lenses is probably falling outside of most of the RED’s sensor.

So what does a good set of Zeiss Super Speed lenses costing well over $20,000 get you that a good set of Zeiss ZF SLR lenses costing just under $6,000 can’t get you? Cinema style mechanics. The last series of testing that I did related specifically to the mechanics of the lenses, and this is where the rubber meets the road and the differences really stand out. And it is these differences that will be the deal breaker for many- especially those who have been around for a while. (Detailed notes of the mechanics can be found in the Setup PDF provided in the download.)

The first major difference in is the size and weight of each set. The cinema lenses weight almost a full pound more then their SLR counterpart, and they are about twice the size as well. The second difference is the most important difference in my opinion- the SLR lenses rotate backwards. On the cinema lenses, to focus close to the lens you turn the lens counter clockwise, and for the SLR lens you turn it clockwise. The reason this is such a big issue is that an AC (Assistant Camera) has learned their trade very carefully and precisely in order to do there job well. A good AC is worth their weight in gold. Having learned their craft on cinema lenses, if they were to use an SLR lens, all of their natural reflexes will now be backwards, making their job much more complex. To further complicate the issue the third major difference between the two sets of lenses has to do with the degrees of rotation to get from one end of the lens to the other. On the cinema lenses the shortest throw was on about 300 degrees on the 35mm lens, where as on the SLR lens it was about 115 degrees. That means that there is less movement between distances on the SLR, making the AC’s job that much more challenging. The last mechanical difference is in the aperture. On the cinema lenses the aperture rolls smoothly all the way through the range, allowing for smooth transitions. On the SLR lens, there are hard stops at each half and full stop, with no smooth adjustments possible.

In the end, having a set of SLR lenses may save you a chunk of change on buying lenses, but it may end up costing you more in the long run depending on the application you are using them in. For myself, I’ll be hanging on to my SLR’s to use in applications where small form factor, and lightweight portability are needed. And then I’ll continue to rent the cinema lenses for the projects that require them. Either way I can see a need and application for both sets of lenses.

Hope this was helpful, or at least mildly amusing. :)

MECHANICS UPDATE:
(I received the following question via email, and wanted to put the answer here for all to see.)
What was the tension like / is there a large difference between the focus tension of the Zeiss SLR's and the Zeiss Cinema lenses?

There was no noticeable difference between the set of SLR's and cinema lenses that I was using. Both focused as smooth as butter, and are very well crafted lenses. When I first bought the SLR's this was the first thing that I noticed in comparison between the Nikkors I had and the Zeiss. Now this is not to say that you can't find a smooth operating Nikkor- you can. But it is less likely if you buy a used Nikkor. I didn't realize how smooth and SLR could be until I got the Zeiss. SLR lenses were not designed with a shifting focus in mind, where cinema lenses are. So having a smooth SLR lens is great for pulling focus, as you get a smooth consistent response from the lens- which may or may not be the case for that $99 Nikkor lens.

[Babu Kantamneni]

thank you

[richard peterson]

awesome! great info.

I really wish the 35mm zf shot would have made it.

[Tai Wah Lim]

Thanks Ryan for posting the test.

[Steve Murray]

The second difference is the most important difference in my opinion- the SLR lenses rotate backwards. On the cinema lenses, to focus close to the lens you turn the lens counter clockwise, and for the SLR lens you turn it clockwise. The reason this is such a big issue is that an AC (Assistant Camera) has learned their trade very carefully and precisely in order to do there job well. A good AC is worth their weight in gold. Having learned their craft on cinema lenses, if they were to use an SLR lens, all of their natural reflexes will now be backwards, making their job much more complex.

The main reason I'm using Canon FD lenses on my RED instead of Nikon.

.

[hunterrichards]

Thanks!

[Pawel Achtel]

Thank you for a great review! Very informative.
It would be interesting to make a similar comparison with more modern cine lenses, such as Cooke, Ultra Primes and Master Primes.

[Mitch Gross]

You can get an "idler gear" on an arm which goes between the follow focus gear and the lens which will therefore reverse back the direction of focus turn. P+S Technik showed a dedicated followfocus unit at NAB that had this built in, but it is easy enough to rig this off a small armmature. If people are interested I can see if I can locate some for sale. We have them in Rental at Abel to solve problems, but I'd have to source them if anyone was interested in a purchase. They wouldn't be very expensive.

[ATF]

Hello,

Great review! That was very helpful as I intend to spend a lot of time using my new Canon gear.

Now if Birger will ship this year, we'll be all set.

Best,

ATF

[Nicholas Shields]

Great post!

[Ryan E. Walters]

You can get an "idler gear" on an arm which goes between the follow focus gear and the lens which will therefore reverse back the direction of focus turn. P+S Technik showed a dedicated followfocus unit at NAB that had this built in, but it is easy enough to rig this off a small armmature. If people are interested I can see if I can locate some for sale. We have them in Rental at Abel to solve problems, but I'd have to source them if anyone was interested in a purchase. They wouldn't be very expensive.

Count me in- I would buy one in a heart beat. If you make them available for sale let me know! :)

[Mike Prevette]

OMG. THAT TEST WAS AWESOME!

I'm such a f*ing nerd for this stuff. I've been having a blast with the Nikon's as play around lenses. Getting a full set of these ZF lenses has been on my list for a while. Now you just force me into it ;)

Of course on paying jobs I only trust the cine lenses, and there really is no great substitute in the SLR world for something like an Optimo. But for shooting tests, or short personal projects I would have zero fear about pulling out the ZF's.

They are also very well built for SLR lenses, and feel nothing like their modern counterparts in the AF world. Cosina did a top notch job designing them, much like their Voigtlander line of Leica lenses.

[Ryan E. Walters]

I'm glad you are all finding this test helpful

It was fun working with Hunter, and being able to see the lenses in action. He was a great sport in changing out the lens mounts. I'm sure he could do it in the dark by now! :)

[Ryan E. Walters]

OMG. THAT TEST WAS AWESOME!

I'm such a f*ing nerd for this stuff. I've been having a blast with the Nikon's as play around lenses. Getting a full set of these ZF lenses has been on my list for a while. Now you just force me into it ;)

Thanks, I'm with you on that, as I enjoy these kind of tests. :)


Of course on paying jobs I only trust the cine lenses, and there really is no great substitute in the SLR world for something like an Optimo. But for shooting tests, or short personal projects I would have zero fear about pulling out the ZF's.

They are also very well built for SLR lenses, and feel nothing like their modern counterparts in the AF world. Cosina did a top notch job designing them, much like their Voigtlander line of Leica lenses.

Those are my thoughts exactly. I'll be filling out my collection of ZF Lenses for personal use, and then rent the big stuff for the paying gigs.

[Andrew M.]

Ryan, good and very methodical test.
Thanks for sharing it with us.

Andrew

[richard peterson]

I just ordered the ZF 35 f/2. The crop factor brings it up to a 50 mill. Great standard lens; light, fast and sharp.

I wish there was ZF ultra wide.

[Gino Papineau]

Great thank you very much !

Real test not only expactation !

[Stephen Williams]

Hi All,

Bear in mind that Zeiss Super Speeds are nearly 40 years old design wise & are no longer made. The last ones were sold off at half price to buyers of a 235 body. Sets used to to sell slowly around $15k as better glass is made.

I would expect a modern Zeiss to be far better, no surprise at all.

Stephen

[Matt Uhry]

Thanks, this is a great test - did you notice much subjective difference when looking at whole frames ? ( traveling right now and can't tell anything on my laptop )

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Sanjin Jukic]

Very nice and methodical test.

Maybe Stephen Williams is right that should be one comparable test between Zeiss Master or Ultra Primes and Zeiss ZF.

"The second difference is the most important difference in my opinion- the SLR lenses rotate backwards."

BTW, you can use another still lens set (with a help of PST IMS and Birger EF on RED) and even get very fast still lens set on your RED for example:

- Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L USM (T1.5)
- Voigtländer-M Nokton 35mm f/1.2 (T1.3)
- Voigtländer-M Nokton 40mm f/1.4 (T1.5)
- Leica Noctilux-M 1,0/50mm (T1.1)*
- Voigtländer-M Color Heliar 75 mm f/1.2.5 (T1.3.5)
- Leica Summilux-R 1,4/80mm (T1.5)
- Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM (T1.3)

*Leica Noctilux-M 1,0/50mm (T1.1) is the fastest lens available on the market.

All lenses above can be purchased as a new and also as a vintage.

Also they all rotate like a cine lenses or to focus close to the lens you turn the lens counter clockwise.

[M.Halsell]

Ryan- kudos dude. That was way awesome. Thank you for the time and detail you put into the lens review. It covered most bases for people that have 'still lens' gear in their kit. We've all be thusly warned. The rest up to imagination and talent I suppose!

Mitch- I would be interested in the 'idler gear'.

Has anyone used P+S Technik Clipgear Focus Rings? Or can recommend an equivalent? Thanks.

[David W. Jones]

Great job.
Like you, I have also put together a Zeiss SLR kit for smaller budget projects, and rent cinema lenses when budget allows.
The difference being, I put together a Zeiss Contax set, as opposed to the Zeiss ZF lens set.
As you pointed out, the Zeiss ZF lenses are Nikon mount, and focus bassakwards.
The Zeiss Contax lenses have a C/Y lens mount, to which I have added an inexpensive C/Y to Canon EOS mount adapter.
And they focus in the same direction as the cinema lenses we rent.
I have been contacted numerous times by folks in line for the birger mount wanting to purchase my kit.

[Michael Hastings]

Great job.
Like you, I have also put together a Zeiss SLR kit for smaller budget projects, and rent cinema lenses when budget allows.
The difference being, I put together a Zeiss Contax set, as opposed to the Zeiss ZF lens set.
As you pointed out, the Zeiss ZF lenses are Nikon mount, and focus bassakwards.
The Zeiss Contax lenses have a C/Y lens mount, to which I have added an inexpensive C/Y to Canon EOS mount adapter.
And they focus in the same direction as the cinema lenses we rent.
I have been contacted numerous times by folks in line for the birger mount wanting to purchase my kit.

David:

I have been using Zeiss C/Y lenses on my red for several months. I have a prototype version of the birger EOS mount - it has to be controlled by a computer - so most of my shooting has been with the C/Y lenses using an adapter to the EOS mount. Somewhere on REDUSER is a thread with the Space shuttle launch we shot with the Zeiss C/Y 300mm.

The lenses perform great and as you say they focus in the "right" direction.

One of the interesting things about these lenses is if you look at the reviews from SLR people they complain that you have to turn almost a full turn to go from near to infinity - of course that's what we cine folks want!

A couple of Zeiss c/y F1.4 primes and a $20 c/y to eos adapter makes a great low light (and emergency backup) for you Birger mount.

I believe many of the ZF lenses are the same optical design as the the C/Y lenses - just a nikon mount and reversed focus direction.

Did you make a C/Y mount for the RED or are using them on some other camera?

[Paul Hazlett]

thanks for posting. These tests are really great to have as a resource

[Brian Valente]

Nice work Ryan -

I wanted to add a couple points about the comparison (Brian Valente private citizen talking here). The Zeiss ZF lenses are somewhat unique in the still world because they are designed to be color matched - I don't think you'll see that in any other still lens set because that was never an important criteria.

Also, to highlight this point (which others referred to) it's just lenses on nikon and pentax mounts that rotate the "wrong way". All other still lenses - canon, minolta, etc. - rotate the same direction as cinema lenses.

I have always felt at HD resolutions that the primary differences between still and cinema lenses are primarily in the operation and mechanical aspects (who doesn't love an AC with their own glass and who is intimately familiar with their lenses). I would have expected 4k to show a lot more differences and I think the post earlier that more modern cinema lenses would probably bear that out.

Also, I would not expect any still lens to perform as well as the zeiss (that used 50mm f1.4 manual focus nikon bought off eBay that a lot of people start with). Zeiss lenses are great an inexpensive, but not cheap: it's still $3-4k for a set.


Brian

[Ryan E. Walters]

I wish there was ZF ultra wide.

Me Too! Unfortunately the widest they currently go is 25mm .... I would love to be able to get a 14mm.

[Ryan E. Walters]

Thanks, this is a great test - did you notice much subjective difference when looking at whole frames ?

Overall the SLR glass felt more crisp / sharp to me - subjectively speaking. The Charts show that there is not a huge difference between the two, but it definitely felt like there was.

[Ryan E. Walters]

Nice work Ryan -

I wanted to add a couple points about the comparison (Brian Valente private citizen talking here). The Zeiss ZF lenses are somewhat unique in the still world because they are designed to be color matched - I don't think you'll see that in any other still lens set because that was never an important criteria.

Thanks- That is a good point indeed. These lenses are very well matched. When I used to have a set of Nikon glass I would sometimes see a substantial color shift from one lens to another. (Especially in a used or rented SLR) Not the case with these lenses. :)


I have always felt at HD resolutions that the primary differences between still and cinema lenses are primarily in the operation and mechanical aspects (who doesn't love an AC with their own glass and who is intimately familiar with their lenses). I would have expected 4k to show a lot more differences and I think the post earlier that more modern cinema lenses would probably bear that out.

I was expecting to see a larger difference between the cinema and SLR. The comments regarding the modern cinema glass would probably bear that out more. It definitely would be interesting to test that one out at some point. (I'll have to add that to the list of things to do- but it will be a while before I can do that...)

[Shawn Nelson]

Ryan, great test! I am curious about Stephen William's comment, is he basically saying you compared brand new SLR lenses against antique cine lenses and that a more proper demo is new SLR vs new cine?

Either way, a very excellent and thorough test.

[Siva Kollipara]

Also, I would not expect any still lens to perform as well as the zeiss (that used 50mm f1.4 manual focus nikon bought off eBay that a lot of people start with). Zeiss lenses are great an inexpensive, but not cheap: it's still $3-4k for a set.
Brian

This brings up the question, how Nikon 50mm 1.4D flares up against Zeiss 50mm 1.4 on RED
We always thought Birger solution could resolve some of still lens issues as they are electronically controlled for Nikon than manually controlled for ZF lenses.
Wish our Nikon supporter Evin Grant could do some tests in this regard.:sorcerer:

[Ryan E. Walters]

Ryan, great test! I am curious about Stephen William's comment, is he basically saying you compared brand new SLR lenses against antique cine lenses and that a more proper demo is new SLR vs new cine?

Either way, a very excellent and thorough test.

I think he is saying that the differences between a cinema lens and a SLR lens would be more noticeable if a more modern lens was used. (Which is a good point.)

I selected the Superspeeds because of their popularity, and because I have a set of Zeiss SLRs. I wanted to keep the brand the same for testing consistency. Ever since the 2/3" chip cameras came out and the 35mm adapters, (And now add the RED) the Zeiss superspeeds have become very popular- so much so that it is hard to find them for sale, and people are paying top dollar for them when they do come up for sale.

I am interested in doing a comparison with the newer Master and Ultra Primes, but that will have to wait for another day. :)

[Ryan E. Walters]

This brings up the question, how Nikon 50mm 1.4D flares up against Zeiss 50mm 1.4 on RED
We always thought Birger solution could resolve some of still lens issues as they are electronically controlled for Nikon than manually controlled for ZF lenses.
Wish our Nikon supporter Evin Grant could do some tests in this regard.:sorcerer:

I don't think that the electronic control will effect / improve any of the optics. (This is just a guess) Rather it will allow for control of the lens via the camera (If I understand the mount correctly.) You can get a good nikon lens- but it is harder to do when buying off of ebay, as you never really know what you are going to get until it arrives. Further more, it probably will not be very well color matched to the other lenses you have. (As pointed out by Brian, only Zeiss went the extra step and color matched all of their lenses.)

[Joel Kaye]

Also, I would not expect any still lens to perform as well as the zeiss (that used 50mm f1.4 manual focus nikon bought off eBay that a lot of people start with). Zeiss lenses are great an inexpensive, but not cheap: it's still $3-4k for a set.

The color matched set may be unique, but the sharpness has been tested for the 50mm lens revealing a $99 Nikon in the same category for sharpness as the Zeiss ZF. Ken Rockwell also claims the Zeiss is actually made by Cosina and not Zeiss.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5018daf.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/index.htm

Not knocking the Zeiss as it's clearly terrific, but I'm not going to be surprised to find many lenses to be sharp enough to work with RED.

Also, the http://www.viewfactor.net/ follow focus will allow the focus direction to be reversed and the focus range to be re-calibrated to be much more usable. So that solves the main issues this review brought up.

Will AC's warm up to that combo? I don't know. But I bet many will make it work.

[Sanjin Jukic]

(As pointed out by Brian, only Zeiss went the extra step and color matched all of their lenses.)

If you buy set of new Leica M or R lenses they are all and ALWAYS color matched.

Leica was always taking care of it for years.

[Ryan E. Walters]

Also, the http://www.viewfactor.net/ follow focus will allow the focus direction to be reversed and the focus range to be re-calibrated to be much more usable. So that solves the main issues this review brought up.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I do not see where they mention that you can reverse the direction of the follow focus? From what others are saying, it sounds like you have to add an additional gear...

[Ryan E. Walters]

If you buy set of new Leica M or R lenses they are all and ALWAYS color matched.

Leica was always taking care of it for years.

Nice! I had no clue, glad to see that others have been doing this- as that does open up the options.

[Evin Grant]

Nice review Ryan. I have tested the ZFs myself but not in a controled environment. They are sharp, but no sharper and not really any better color matched than equivalent Nikkors. As you have pointed out still lenses have plenty of resolution for Red 4K, it's the mechanics that really drive the price differences. The biggest drawback to the ZF line as it stands is the lack of a wide option. I would suggest the 17-35mm Nikkor as a good companion lens to a ZF set. As well as a future proof investment for when the Birger Nikon mount ships.

[Ryan E. Walters]

Nice review Ryan. I have tested the ZFs myself but not in a controled environment. They are sharp, but no sharper and not really any better color matched than equivalent Nikkors. As you have pointed out still lenses have plenty of resolution for Red 4K, it's the mechanics that really drive the price differences. The biggest drawback to the ZF line as it stands is the lack of a wide option. I would suggest the 17-35mm Nikkor as a good companion lens to a ZF set. As well as a future proof investment for when the Birger Nikon mount ships.

Thanks- glad you liked it. :) Also thanks for the suggestion on the wide lens. I've used it before on other projects in the past, but I've never combined it with the Zeiss. It is a great lens, so it will be good to see how it integrates with the rest of the package I have.

[Joel Kaye]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I do not see where they mention that you can reverse the direction of the follow focus? From what others are saying, it sounds like you have to add an additional gear...

The Viewfactor Follow Focus is electronic and the motor direction is reversible. I've asked Curt directly about that. It's also possible to configure the sensitivity to make a SLR lens be more "human usable". The Birger mount currently maps the focus range of a Canon lens to one revolution of the FF wheel. In the future it will be more configurable. Hopefully.

BTW - thanks for posting a great review.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Development of PST IMS will be also soon finished.

Also I'm going to ask PST to put Birger EF in a sort of adaptor shell that can be also used with IMS mount adapors.

Then comes an option like this one on RED:

PUT A LENS ON RED THAT WOULD COVER YOUR SHOOTING or BUDGET NEED(S)!

PL all types, PV Anamorphic lenses all types, HAWK Anamorphics, Nikkor-F, Nikkor-G, Canon EF, Zeiss ZF, Leica-M, Leica-R, Contax, M42...

[Ryan E. Walters]

The Viewfactor Follow Focus is electronic and the motor direction is reversible. I've asked Curt directly about that. It's also possible to configure the sensitivity to make a SLR lens be more "human usable". The Birger mount currently maps the focus range of a Canon lens to one revolution of the FF wheel. In the future it will be more configurable. Hopefully.

BTW - thanks for posting a great review.

WOW, that is impressive, thanks for the info, great to know. :) Sounds like the follow focus and the Birger mounts are very handy tools!

[Ryan E. Walters]

Development of PST IMS will be also soon finished.

Do you have a link to the PST IMS, or is there not one yet since it is not out?

[Sanjin Jukic]

Do you have a link to the PST IMS, or is there not one yet since it is not out?

All info is still under NDA.

But is coming up for sure in June as it advertised.

[Andrew Benz]

Do you have a link to the PST IMS, or is there not one yet since it is not out?

Ryan, thank you for the tests...

Below is a link to P+S Technik with four more links that explain the system. FYI, Jarred Land has stated that IMS system voids your warranty-- one Owner has had his warranty voided. However, communication between P+S Technik and Red is ongoing in this matter. I am hopeful that all can be resolved so we can have the option for those that need it and that the owner whose warranty was voided can be restored.

http://www.pstechnik.de/en/optics-ims.php

I hope this helps Ryan.

Cheers,

Andrew

ps- there is a bonus link for an optical viewfinder that can be used with the IMS mount. I think this would be helpful knowledge for gdv, Nova Invicta and others who want this feature. Cheers.

[Sanjin Jukic]

PST IMS is a great lens mount system.

A unique lens-mount-efficiency in the same time.

RED Team should be aware of it very serious.

[Steve Sherrick]

a handpicked set of Nikons will serve you well, as will these ZF lenses. The key to me is adding a cool tool like the View Factor into the mix. Now you start to explore the mechanical side and see if you can make it work closer to a cine lens. I'm looking forward to trying out the VF with my Nikons which already have cine style focus gears, aperture hard stops removed and 80mm fronts.

[Ryan E. Walters]

Ryan, thank you for the tests...

Below is a link to P+S Technik with four more links that explain the system. FYI, Jarred Land has stated that IMS system voids your warranty-- one Owner has had his warranty voided. However, communication between P+S Technik and Red is ongoing in this matter. I am hopeful that all can be resolved so we can have the option for those that need it and that the owner whose warranty was voided can be restored.

http://www.pstechnik.de/en/optics-ims.php

I hope this helps Ryan.

Cheers,

Andrew

ps- there is a bonus link for an optical viewfinder that can be used with the IMS mount. I think this would be helpful knowledge for gdv, Nova Invicta and others who want this feature. Cheers.

Thanks, that is great. Looks like a great way to get all of the mounts you need in one unit! P&S has always impressed me with what they come up with, and their craftsmanship is great.

[Ryan E. Walters]

aperture hard stops removed and 80mm fronts.

Although I wouldn't do this, as I'd prefer to leave it to someone with more skill then myself- I have heard that you can remove the front of the lens and that the ball bearings that make the aperture stop will fall out easily. Then it is just a matter of reassembling the lens. Again, nothing I would attempt, but for the more mechanically inclined, it sounds like an easy enough "fix"....

[Steve Sherrick]

Mine came that way. RP Lens.

[Warren Kommers]

I'm hoping that either the Birger system or even Redrock wireless focus system could solve the main cine mechanics problems of SLR glass.

1)reverse the direction(easy)

2)expand the focus scale from 30 degrees to 300 er something. (should be possible)

[Mitch Gross]

I'm hoping that either the Birger system or even Redrock wireless focus system could solve the main cine mechanics problems of SLR glass.

1)reverse the direction(easy)

2)expand the focus scale from 30 degrees to 300 er something. (should be possible)

Wireless focus systems like the Bartech have done both of these for years.

[Evin Grant]

Wireless focus systems like the Bartech have done both of these for years.

Yes, but not at SLR lens pricing.:red_bandana:

Still I think the Birger mount will really be the answer for low budget lens lust. One of my biggest issues with using the Red for stock is transport.
If I could travel with the Red One/Birger my D3 and three Nikon Zooms, the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 all f2.8 I'd be very happy.
And these lenses are all optically up to the quality of the best cine lenses in the world.

[Emanuel A.]

Fully agreed, Evin. Actually, why not the Tokina 11-16mm as well? Have you read the last from Rockwell's findings?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm

Better than the Nikkor 12-24mm -- and he's a nikonist... :huh: Really impressive. I'm wondering about the compatibility with the Birger's mounts. I second the motion.

[Warren Kommers]

Wireless focus systems like the Bartech have done both of these for years.

I figure if you've got a Bartech or Preston then you probably aren't worrying about SLR glass in the first place.

[Michael Hastings]

Yes, but not at SLR lens pricing.:red_bandana:

Still I think the Birger mount will really be the answer for low budget lens lust. One of my biggest issues with using the Red for stock is transport.
If I could travel with the Red One/Birger my D3 and three Nikon Zooms, the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 all f2.8 I'd be very happy.
And these lenses are all optically up to the quality of the best cine lenses in the world.

Agreed, although I use the same range in Canon. I think in about 3 months people are going to see that the Birger mount is as revolutionary as the RED itself.

[Ryan E. Walters]

I figure if you've got a Bartech or Preston then you probably aren't worrying about SLR glass in the first place.

Yep, good point. :)

Those Prestons sure are fun to work with. :)

[Filipo]

I realy wanted to see zeiss super speeds against SLR lenses on the Red!

thanks !

[Ryan E. Walters]

I realy wanted to see zeiss super speeds against SLR lenses on the Red!

thanks !

No problem, glad you liked it. :)

[Kholi Hicks]

Nice review Ryan. I have tested the ZFs myself but not in a controled environment. They are sharp, but no sharper and not really any better color matched than equivalent Nikkors. As you have pointed out still lenses have plenty of resolution for Red 4K, it's the mechanics that really drive the price differences. The biggest drawback to the ZF line as it stands is the lack of a wide option. I would suggest the 17-35mm Nikkor as a good companion lens to a ZF set. As well as a future proof investment for when the Birger Nikon mount ships.

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon1740_nikon1735/c1740vn1735a.html - 17-35 Nikon vs 21/2.8 Zeiss Contax Distagon

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_21mm/nikon1424_21mm1.html - 14-24 nikon vs 21/2.8 Zeiss Distagon.

Just in reference to the sharpness and color matched equivalent thought. The infamous Nikon zooms seem to be the kings of sharpness in the Nikon realm, but they do get ... for the lack of a better word... thrashed by a few Contax Zeiss lenses in side-by-side comparisons.

Take that 21/2.8 Distogon comparison for example.

Someone also mentioned the turn-the-right-way feature of the Contax lenses, I'd like to say that "for the money they're awesome" but they're pretty much awesome regardless. As well, the long focal throw on the Zeiss C/Y lenses is pretty nice. Add to that the performance is shot for shot with "new" Z-Series (A, M, K, etc) and you got yourself a deal. Although I'm sure Nikkor glass is fine and I perosnally would like a 28-70 ED riding shotgun. 'Spensive!

All around, if you can find a good set and even score the hyper-expensive 21mm lens you'd have an incredible set of glass.

Unfortunately my set only consists of the second best: 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.4, 60/2.8 Macro, 85/1.4, 135/2.8 and a 28-70 3.5~4.5 for Exterior Daylight work. Gonna try to trade that one out for the 28-85 or 35-70.

The only other Wish-I-Could-Get would be the Contax Zeiss 17-35/2.8. Contax N though. Arg.

Thanks again Ryan for going through all of this trouble to show the value in great still lenses. Makes me feel a lot better about my C/Y purchases.

[conrad gaunt]

Great test, very interesting. thanks a lot.

[Brian Valente]

Not knocking the Zeiss as it's clearly terrific, but I'm not going to be surprised to find many lenses to be sharp enough to work with RED.

Zeiss 35mm still lenses are already working on DSLRs which are more than 4k of resolution.


Ken Rockwell [says] the sharpness has been tested for the 50mm lens revealing a $99 Nikon in the same category for sharpness as the Zeiss ZF

Ken Rockwell's biggest knock against them was also that they are manual focus lenses. He also thinks the nikon 18-200 vr zoom is the greatest lens on the planet. He is clearly in a different place when it comes to lens evaluation. Sure, you may find one nikon lens that they developed some time ago that is killer sharp, and people have since forgotten about or don't know the value and you can get it for a song and a dance (I have some of these myself). But you won't find a color matched set of similar or the same speed, and you risk widely varying conditions. It's possible, but it's difficult to do.


If you buy set of new Leica M or R lenses they are all and ALWAYS color matched.

I didn't know that, and it's great to know. The zeiss color matching is through identical coatings, which means you can buy one now, and others later, and they will match. To cinema lens' benefit, Cooke matched lens sets (and I'm sure others) are matched by cutting from the same hunk of glass. I am not qualified to comment on what if any significance that is.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Leica uses the best glass and has an excellent lens product control.

Not so many lens brands make their own glass today (Canon makes its own calcium fluorite crystals).

Schott, Hoya, Sumita, Ohara, Cargille or Lightpath to name a few, all produce quality glass that is supplying a main lens brands worlwide.

"Leica has always claimed that high quality optical designs with a special focus on excellent performance wide open need special glasses, special surface treatment, accurate mounts, very tight tolerances and a careful manual assembly with copious quality control and individually machined parts that can be matched pairwise.

It is certainly true that it is more difficult to ensure extremely tight tolerances when the production runs are small and a high level of manual control is required."

LINK>>> (http://www.imx.nl/photo/viewpoint/40_leica_summarit-m_lenses.html)

[Ryan E. Walters]

I received some questions via email, and I thought that I would add the answers here as well, as I think they are beneficial to know about:

What was the tension like / is there a large difference between the focus tension of the Zeiss SLR's and the Zeiss Cinema lenses?

There was no noticeable difference between the set of SLR's and cinema lenses that I was using. Both focused as smooth as butter, and are very well crafted lenses. When I first bought the SLR's this was the first thing that I noticed in comparison between the Nikkors I had and the Zeiss. Now this is not to say that you can't find a smooth operating Nikkor- you can. But it is less likely if you buy a used Nikkor. I didn't realize how smooth and SLR could be until I got the Zeiss. SLR lenses were not designed with a shifting focus in mind, where cinema lenses are. So having a smooth SLR lens is great for pulling focus, as you get a smooth consistent response from the lens- which may or may not be the case for that $99 Nikkor lens.

[Ryan E. Walters]

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon1740_nikon1735/c1740vn1735a.html - 17-35 Nikon vs 21/2.8 Zeiss Contax Distagon

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_21mm/nikon1424_21mm1.html - 14-24 nikon vs 21/2.8 Zeiss Distagon.

Just in reference to the sharpness and color matched equivalent thought. The infamous Nikon zooms seem to be the kings of sharpness in the Nikon realm, but they do get ... for the lack of a better word... thrashed by a few Contax Zeiss lenses in side-by-side comparisons.

Take that 21/2.8 Distogon comparison for example.

Someone also mentioned the turn-the-right-way feature of the Contax lenses, I'd like to say that "for the money they're awesome" but they're pretty much awesome regardless. As well, the long focal throw on the Zeiss C/Y lenses is pretty nice. Add to that the performance is shot for shot with "new" Z-Series (A, M, K, etc) and you got yourself a deal. Although I'm sure Nikkor glass is fine and I perosnally would like a 28-70 ED riding shotgun. 'Spensive!

All around, if you can find a good set and even score the hyper-expensive 21mm lens you'd have an incredible set of glass.

Unfortunately my set only consists of the second best: 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.4, 60/2.8 Macro, 85/1.4, 135/2.8 and a 28-70 3.5~4.5 for Exterior Daylight work. Gonna try to trade that one out for the 28-85 or 35-70.

The only other Wish-I-Could-Get would be the Contax Zeiss 17-35/2.8. Contax N though. Arg.

Thanks again Ryan for going through all of this trouble to show the value in great still lenses. Makes me feel a lot better about my C/Y purchases.

Thanks for those links and info- those C/Y lenses do solve the rotation issue, and from the results of the lens tests, it looks like they do out perform the other lenses! :)

[Brian Valente]

you know we might take these 16-9 lens tests with a grain of salt - they are comparing nikon lenses *adapted* to a canon still camera. I'm not sure how much of an impact if any that has.


Brian

[Ryan E. Walters]

you know we might take these 16-9 lens tests with a grain of salt - they are comparing nikon lenses *adapted* to a canon still camera. I'm not sure how much of an impact if any that has.


Brian

Great point. I wonder what kind of impact that has on the lens?

[Phil Bates]

I'm glad you are all finding this test helpful

It was fun working with Hunter, and being able to see the lenses in action. He was a great sport in changing out the lens mounts. I'm sure he could do it in the dark by now! :)

I'll echo everyone else in thanking you for the great test! I have a couple of questions.

Do you have any idea how the Red 18-50mm zoom would stack up in this test (sharpness)?

Also, did you change your mount in a "clean" room? Were you concerned about that?

Thanks again,
Phil
Artbeats Stock Footage
http://www.artbeats.com

[Kenn Christenson]

Agreed, although I use the same range in Canon. I think in about 3 months people are going to see that the Birger mount is as revolutionary as the RED itself.

3 MONTHS! SHEESH! Hope I get mine sooner than that!

[Kholi Hicks]

you know we might take these 16-9 lens tests with a grain of salt - they are comparing nikon lenses *adapted* to a canon still camera. I'm not sure how much of an impact if any that has.


Brian

The Zeiss lenses are also adapted to the canon, though. Still apples to apples. I don't think the impact on either lens is significant enough to discount the images as the adapters still allow for accurate infinity, marks and flange distances. Could be a bit of haywire goin on, but not so sure.

[David W. Jones]

The adapters I use for Nikon to EOS, or Contax to EOS for example, are mechanical, not optical, and do not affect the image quality.

[hunterrichards]

I'll echo everyone else in thanking you for the great test! I have a couple of questions.

Do you have any idea how the Red 18-50mm zoom would stack up in this test (sharpness)?

Also, did you change your mount in a "clean" room? Were you concerned about that?

Thanks again,
Phil
Artbeats Stock Footage
http://www.artbeats.com

I was being as careful as I could when changing the mount. The room was fairly clean... There were a few donut crumbs and coffee that splattered around the camera but other than that.

Honestly, its not that big of a deal for me (or at least it hasn't been) I just "check the gate" and blast some air around the mount. No dirt/hair problems so far.

[Pawel Achtel]

Zeiss 35mm still lenses are already working on DSLRs which are more than 4k of resolution.


What do you mean by "already working", Brian?

[Joel Kaye]

SLR lenses were not designed with a shifting focus in mind, where cinema lenses are. So having a smooth SLR lens is great for pulling focus, as you get a smooth consistent response from the lens- which may or may not be the case for that $99 Nikkor lens.

The biggest problem I've found is the mechanics of the focusing part of the lenses. It can vary quite a bit lens to lens and the Zeiss may very well be the best overall.

I'm personally still skeptical that after shooting 1/48th of a second on a movie camera that the last gnats ass of sharpness matters that much. I think you're going to see more people tossing on a promist than fretting that their RED images aren't sharp enough. The softest RED stuff we seem to see is on older semi-expensive PL glass. We used to have a lot "seems soft" comments around here. Don't see that too much on the SLR threads. (Though I do have some wider angle SLR glass that seems soft :-) Certainly your comparison lives up to that.

I think things like the Birger and the ViewFactor products are where we're going to find out how usable SLR solutions end up being. I imagine having a set of the Zeiss is a real timesaver though as finding the gems in other lenses might be a pain.

I'm also a bit skeptical about the benefit of color matched lenses given the amount of grading in any RED shot. I could be wrong here because copying grades from one lens to another might be faster and easier on a matched set, but it sure seems to me that other variables like changes in lighting, exposure, skin tone etc. from shot to shot are going to require that different setups be tweaked anyhow - even lens changes on the same setup. And a lot of guys will be using zooms as a variable prime so that eliminates some of that issue.

[Ryan E. Walters]

I'll echo everyone else in thanking you for the great test! I have a couple of questions.

Do you have any idea how the Red 18-50mm zoom would stack up in this test (sharpness)?

Also, did you change your mount in a "clean" room? Were you concerned about that?

Thanks again,
Phil
Artbeats Stock Footage
http://www.artbeats.com

Thanks, glad you liked it.

as for how the RED lens stacks up, I cannot comment directly on that, as we did not have it with us for the test, and I have only worked with it a couple of times, so I do not feel comfortable basing a judgement on it. Anyone else?

[Ryan E. Walters]

The biggest problem I've found is the mechanics of the focusing part of the lenses. It can vary quite a bit lens to lens and the Zeiss may very well be the best overall.

Yep, that has been my experience- it was night and day when I switched over to the Zeiss SLR's.



I'm personally still skeptical that after shooting 1/48th of a second on a movie camera that the last gnats ass of sharpness matters that much. I think you're going to see more people tossing on a promist than fretting that their RED images aren't sharp enough. The softest RED stuff we seem to see is on older semi-expensive PL glass.

Agreed- many cinematographers shooting on film will throw a promist, or a net in front of the lens to soften things up some. And I've seen this done with some of the RED footage too. But before softening things up, I want to be sure that the lens can do its job. But your point is well taken. :)


I'm also a bit skeptical about the benefit of color matched lenses given the amount of grading in any RED shot. I could be wrong here because copying grades from one lens to another might be faster and easier on a matched set, but it sure seems to me that other variables like changes in lighting, exposure, skin tone etc. from shot to shot are going to require that different setups be tweaked anyhow - even lens changes on the same setup. And a lot of guys will be using zooms as a variable prime so that eliminates some of that issue.

Hmm, interesting point. While there are changes in lighting from one setup to the next - say from a wide to a medium or a close up, the changes in lighting usually are not that drastic- at least not so much as to completely change the color grade - Finesse it some sure, but not a complete change. (At least this has been my experience anyway.) And exposure should be the same as well- even if I'm going from a 35mm to an 85mm, I try to keep my lighting to the same T-stop. Unless for some reason I just can't make it work. Then I'll light it so that it feels the same as in the wide shot. So while you could fix the color cast in post, why not shoot it with matching lenses in the first place and avoid the hassle in the first place?

But with the ability to shoot RAW you are given that added flexibility to correct the cast in post...

Using a Zoom as a variable prime would definately solve the color cast issue of non matching lenses. :)

Good thoughts, thanks for sharing. :)

[Brian Valente]

I'm also a bit skeptical about the benefit of color matched lenses given the amount of grading in any RED shot.

I'm not! color correcting two shots that don't have the same white balance is a nightmare that is easily avoided with matching lenses. The alternative is to use the camera to auto white balance (forgive me ignorance here, but I don't even know if Red camera provides this function - I never thought to look) on a card, but not having matching white balanced shots - dang, that is on of my pet peeves for how you can waste hours in post when you could fix it with a few seconds in production


Brian

[Mitch Gross]

Yes, and it is not just white balance. It is contrast and color fidelity. Some cheaper, older lenses or lenses with poor optical coatings for whatever reason mayskew the color reproduction of the lenses. You may not be able to match the two lenses in post. It smacks of the old adage, "We'll fix it in Post." Well, sometimes you can't. And even if you can, as Brian says, it can be a small nightmare of wasted time trying to match out your color correction just to take care of mismatched lenses, then having to perform the actual artistic color correction of getting the image you want.

I see this as yet again an example of trying to fix poor mechanicals with expensive and/or time-consuming electronics. Much better to get it right the first time.

[Brian Valente]

Mitch - couldn't have said it better. We agree on something! :)

[Mitch Gross]

Whole lotta love, baby!

[Kholi Hicks]

If I recall correctly, even white balancing to a card on set that often can really throw things off and it's not exactly something you want to ever do while you're shooting until you've moved to an entirely different room/lighting setup.

Am I wrong? Of course that's even more the reason to grab a set that's better matched out of the gate.

[Pawel Achtel]

3 MONTHS! SHEESH! Hope I get mine sooner than that!


Agreed, although I use the same range in Canon. I think in about 3 months people are going to see that the Birger mount is as revolutionary as the RED itself.

3 Months for Birger?

[Ryan E. Walters]

Yes, and it is not just white balance. It is contrast and color fidelity. Some cheaper, older lenses or lenses with poor optical coatings for whatever reason mayskew the color reproduction of the lenses. You may not be able to match the two lenses in post. It smacks of the old adage, "We'll fix it in Post." Well, sometimes you can't. And even if you can, as Brian says, it can be a small nightmare of wasted time trying to match out your color correction just to take care of mismatched lenses, then having to perform the actual artistic color correction of getting the image you want.

I see this as yet again an example of trying to fix poor mechanicals with expensive and/or time-consuming electronics. Much better to get it right the first time.

Well said. Thanks. :)

[Paul Moss]

I guess you guys all know that P&S rehoused these ZF's with more cine like mechanics......(they are Nikon mount still)
After reading Ryan's review these rehoused ZF's are even more tempting....
http://www.pstechnik.de/en/optics-lensset.php

Paul

[Mitch Gross]

P+S Technik does not actually rehouse the lenses, but instead wraps them with bigger housings with gearing and more detailed markings. The mechanics remain the same.

[Antoine Fabi]

I'm trying to find P+S Technick price list on their site for Zeiss Nikon mount cine lenses...

Do you have any idea ?
thanks

[Jaime Vallés]

I'm trying to find P+S Technick price list on their site for Zeiss Nikon mount cine lenses...

Do you have any idea ?
thanks
When last I checked those were around $2000 each lens.

[Mitch Gross]

For purchase in the US you can go to www.zgc.com.

[Antoine Fabi]

thanks Mitch!

[Antoine Fabi]

When last I checked those were around $2000 each lens.

thanks Jaime,

I wonder how much easier it is to focus with these...

[Steve Sherrick]

I did a quick test to check to see how my lenses were matching. A couple of disclaimers, as this was a very quick, very unscientific test. In fact, call it worse case scenario.

1. There was some actual daylight sneaking in from a window which means light may shift.

2. I lit this with Home Depot flourescent light which is supposed to be 5000K and CRI of 92. This is no Kino, I can assure you of that.

3. I kept the camera pretty much in the same place, rather than moving it to re-frame. There were logistical reasons for this.

So, not sure how much this helps anyone due to the crude nature of it, but if anyone is interested I can post the TIFFs. These are all snapshots from the R3Ds, no processing whatsoever. They were resized in Graphic Converter and saved as JPEGs for viewing here.

Nikkor 24mm @ F2.8
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/161_1211660502.jpg

Nikkor 35mm @ F2.8
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/161_1211660549.jpg

Nikkor 50mm @ F2.8
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/161_1211660596.jpg

Nikkor 85mm @ F2.8
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/161_1211660628.jpg

[Steve Sherrick]

Nikkor 105mm @ F2.8
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/161_1211660657.jpg

Nikkor 17-35 Zoom @ 20mm @ F2.8
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/161_1211660682.jpg

[Matt Garrett]

There're pretty discernable differences in contrast and color in those lenses. It could be all contrast but looks like some are cooler and some are warmer.

[Joel Kaye]

I think Steve's shots put the color matching in some real world perspective. Yes, there are some variations there but we're not talking about anything that's even close to a problem matching very quickly. Heck, you could cut a real scene between any of those right now with no corrections and it would still work. Nobody would be "out of the movie".

It would be fun to see a similar test with the Zeiss. It's fun to talk about this stuff but these real world tests are what's more interesting to me. Ultimately we all have a different level of comfort and assign different levels of value to different things.

[Ryan E. Walters]

I did a quick test to check to see how my lenses were matching. A couple of disclaimers, as this was a very quick, very unscientific test. In fact, call it worse case scenario. ... So, not sure how much this helps anyone due to the crude nature of it, but if anyone is interested I can post the TIFFs. These are all snapshots from the R3Ds, no processing whatsoever. They were resized in Graphic Converter and saved as JPEGs for viewing here.

I think having Molder hold up the chart invalidates the test. ;)

Thanks for posting and sharing, it is interesting to see the differences between the lenses even in this worst case scenario.

[Ryan E. Walters]

It would be fun to see a similar test with the Zeiss. It's fun to talk about this stuff but these real world tests are what's more interesting to me. Ultimately we all have a different level of comfort and assign different levels of value to different things.

I've got the stills available form the Zeiss for download on this first post if you want them. However, the stills are not "the worst case scenario", but they are real world.

[Ryan E. Walters]

For purchase in the US you can go to www.zgc.com.

Thanks-

I just checked their pricing and each lens comes in at $2,700, and the 85mm is $3,100- I wonder if they reversed the way the lens focuses? I couldn't find any notes saying such on their site.... If they still focus the "wrong" way, then this would make any sense to me- especially since I can get the complete set of lenses for around $2500 from Redrockmicro ...

[Mike Prevette]

They still focus the wrong way. As Mitch said before the didn't rehouse the optics, they just put a "Puffier" body around the old one. IMHO a waste of money, but they look cool.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Get Birger EF mount and Leica-R-to-EF adapter.

Buy some new Leica-R or vintage and you'll be safe.

BTW all Leica's focus the "cine" way.

Color matched and accurate measures feet and meter.

Excellent metal housing and smoothness.

Leica's high-performance lenses are all made, by hand,

at Leica's main factory in Solms near Wetzlar, Germany.

Guaranteed outstanding Leica picture quality.

[Ryan E. Walters]

They still focus the wrong way. As Mitch said before the didn't rehouse the optics, they just put a "Puffier" body around the old one. IMHO a waste of money, but they look cool.

Yep- just to get a "cool" look, and the standard cine pitch gear, that is a waste of money- especially when you can get the gears from redrock....

[Ryan E. Walters]

Get Birger EF mount and Leica-R-to-EF adapter.

Buy some new Leica-R or vintage and you'll be safe.

BTW all Leica's focus the "cine" way.

Color matched and accurate measures feet and meter.

Excellent metal housing and smoothness.

Leica's high-performance lenses are all made, by hand,

at Leica's main factory in Solms near Wetzlar, Germany.

Guaranteed outstanding Leica picture quality.

Great suggestion- sounds like a good way to go. Solms, huh? I'll have to make a stop by there the next time I come by. I love that German design and engineering. :)

[Mitch Gross]

Btw, Abel sells the Zeiss ZF lenses as well.

[Brian Valente]

ZGC definitely sells at a premium for the services they offer. Abel offers them, BHphoto offers them, and of course we (Redrock) have a version that includes our film pitch lens gearing zeiss lenses as well. Lots of options to find exactly what you need.


Brian

[ATF]

Hello,

I just wanted to thank you for the thread, Mr Walters. I went over to B&H on Monday with my RED and tested out a few of the lenses. Decided to go with the Makro-Planar 100mm T2 ZF ($1,582) and the Planar 50mm T1.4 ZF ($517). I'll probably go back next month and get the wide angle 35mm F2 as well.

These lenses are _fantastic_. Haven't had the proper test yet, but we walked about the East Village in NYC for a few hours just testing different light conditions and were terribly impressed.

Bring on build 16!

Thanks again for the review.

ATF

[mick doyle]

"Scheduled to begin production in the first quarter of 2009, the documentary Walking Through Worlds (www.walkingthroughworlds.com) will take director Joel McEwen and I to remote locations in Asia, and being able to use the SLR lenses on the RED may enable us to get the images we need for the production while keeping down the form factor and weight."

Very interesting thread and very good work on the tests.so what lens set will you be taking on your documentary? Does the mechanical function difficulties with the stills lenses mean you wouldn't use them on such a production?

thanks

[Ryan E. Walters]

Very interesting thread and very good work on the tests.so what lens set will you be taking on your documentary? Does the mechanical function difficulties with the stills lenses mean you wouldn't use them on such a production?

thanks

Thanks, glad it was helpful to you.

In regards to what lenses I'll be taking with me- I'm going to take the SLR lens due to their compact and light weight nature. I'll be filling out the collection I have with the rest of the lens set, and then I need to find a wide angle (wider then 21mm) and a couple of long lenses (200mm or 300mm range). The tough part there is finding lenses that will match the Zeiss- I may have to go the Leica route to get a complete set of matched lenses in the ranges that I want, so we'll see what happens. But as for the wrong way of the lens movement, I've been looking into getting an idler gear for my follow focus- once I do that it will solve that issue. (But if I went with the Leica lenses, that would also solve the issue, from what it sounds like.)

Anyway- all that to say, I was comfortable enough with the SLR lenses to use them on the documentary. :)

[Jean Wallez]

Where to get an idler gear for an old ARRI FF-1 (15mm rods,60mm spacing)?

[Mitch Gross]

I think we may have an idler gear solution. Will post more soon.

[Ryan E. Walters]

I think we may have an idler gear solution. Will post more soon.

AWESOME! I look forward to seeing what you've come up with. Thanks!

[Mark Pedersen]

Ryan- kudos dude. That was way awesome. Thank you for the time and detail you put into the lens review. It covered most bases for people that have 'still lens' gear in their kit. We've all be thusly warned. The rest up to imagination and talent I suppose!

Mitch- I would be interested in the 'idler gear'.

Has anyone used P+S Technik Clipgear Focus Rings? Or can recommend an equivalent? Thanks.

I had my set of ZF lenses modified with really nice pressed-on gears and 80mm step up rings by RP Lens. Mitch, I'd be interested in the idler gear as well as I'm still using these on my mini-35 rig with a Chroziel MB and FF.

M

http://www.reduser.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5289&stc=1&d=1212300206

http://www.reduser.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5290&stc=1&d=1212300459

[Thor Wixom]

Development of PST IMS will be also soon finished.

Also I'm going to ask PST to put Birger EF in a sort of adaptor shell that can be also used with IMS mount adapors.

Then comes an option like this one on RED:

PUT A LENS ON RED THAT WOULD COVER YOUR SHOOTING or BUDGET NEED(S)!

PL all types, PV Anamorphic lenses all types, HAWK Anamorphics, Nikkor-F, Nikkor-G, Canon EF, Zeiss ZF, Leica-M, Leica-R, Contax, M42...

Sanjin,

I'm glad to see you have asked for this. I am getting the Birger first. Then, if PST makes IMS mount compatible with the Birger, I will get it as well.

It's the PERFECT combination of all worlds! PL, Canon, Nikon, Leica, Birger!

Viva la lens revolution!

-Thor

[ATF]

Hello,

May I ask how much you spent having each lens modified with the 80mm rings, Mark? I have two Zeiss ZF lenses I just bought and a third I am going to purchase as well.

Thanks!

ATF

[Ryan E. Walters]

I had my set of ZF lenses modified with really nice pressed-on gears and 80mm step up rings by RP Lens. Mitch, I'd be interested in the idler gear as well as I'm still using these on my mini-35 rig with a Chroziel MB and FF.


I'd be interested to know what it cost to have the Zeiss modified- any details?

[Sanjin Jukic]

Sanjin,

I'm glad to see you have asked for this. I am getting the Birger first. Then, if PST makes IMS mount compatible with the Birger, I will get it as well.

It's the PERFECT combination of all worlds! PL, Canon, Nikon, Leica, Birger!

Viva la lens revolution!

-Thor

Thor,

PTS IMS is very soon going to be finished.

Stay tuned.

[Kholi Hicks]

Hello,

I just wanted to thank you for the thread, Mr Walters. I went over to B&H on Monday with my RED and tested out a few of the lenses. Decided to go with the Makro-Planar 100mm T2 ZF ($1,582) and the Planar 50mm T1.4 ZF ($517). I'll probably go back next month and get the wide angle 35mm F2 as well.

These lenses are _fantastic_. Haven't had the proper test yet, but we walked about the East Village in NYC for a few hours just testing different light conditions and were terribly impressed.

Bring on build 16!

Thanks again for the review.

ATF

The 100/2 Makro-Planar is SUCH a nice lens. Good choice in purchase!

[ATF]

The 100/2 Makro-Planar is SUCH a nice lens. Good choice in purchase!

Yea! Totally digging both of the lenses. Now I just want to pick up the 35mm/F2 sometime next month. Curious to see what the RP Lens fellows would charge for proper rings and how long it takes them to put together.

Guess I should just email them.

Best!

ATF

Edit: I tried to email them, but it just bounced. Will give them a call on Monday.

[Mitch Gross]

Don't know in this case, but these types of Delrin rings and fronts usually cost $100-$200/lens.

[Mike Prevette]

HINT: A normal step up ring to 77mm will give you a 80mm OD for the front of the lens, and let you use 77mm screw on filters ;)

[Rick Darge]

I believe he charges $350+ for each lens.



Yea! Totally digging both of the lenses. Now I just want to pick up the 35mm/F2 sometime next month. Curious to see what the RP Lens fellows would charge for proper rings and how long it takes them to put together.

Guess I should just email them.

Best!

ATF

Edit: I tried to email them, but it just bounced. Will give them a call on Monday.

[Mark Pedersen]

Hello,

May I ask how much you spent having each lens modified with the 80mm rings, Mark? I have two Zeiss ZF lenses I just bought and a third I am going to purchase as well.

Thanks!

ATF

Gears were $135 per lens. 80mm Step Up rings and Zeiss Lens cap was $62 per lens. http://www.jsinteractive.com/sensor/
Peter Sensor I believe is the owner. Very nice, standup guy. You can probably figure our your own step ups if you want to save a few bucks. I went for convenience ;)

M

[ATF]

Heya,

Sweet! Thanks for the info. Think I'll buzz them up when I get back from a gig next week.

Best,

ATF

[Ryan E. Walters]

HINT: A normal step up ring to 77mm will give you a 80mm OD for the front of the lens, and let you use 77mm screw on filters ;)

Perfect- I think I'll be headed over to the camera store later today. That would be great, as I already have the cine-pitch rings from Redrock.

Thanks for the tip. :)

[Ryan E. Walters]

So I went to my local camera store and was able to get what I needed- thanks for that. :) I just brought them the lenses and they set me up- couldn't have been better.

If anyone else wants a set, I can get it to you. The set includes a 77mm step up ring, and a lens cap. PM me for payment details (Paypal).

Zeiss SLR Conversion to 80mm fronts via step up rings:
Prices are as follows:
One (01) ring and cap: $40
Three (03) rings and caps: $105
Complete Set (07) rings and caps $210

Shipping: (Via USPS)
Domestic: Express= $17 Priority= $5
International: Express= $26 Priority= $12

[Mitch Gross]

So a quick note on reversing/idler gears. I already mentioned that Chrosziel makes one for their little DV follow focus (that's a nice, inexpensive option). Arri manufactures a reversing gear (aka idler gear) which fits the FF-3, FF-4, and FF-5 (and possibly the LFF-1- I need to check.). We'll try to have one of these at our booth at Cine Gear next week but the picture below should give you a good idea of what we're talking about.

[Antoine Fabi]

Price...and weight !!!!!

Two VERY good reasons to go SLR lenses.

Perfect for small crews.

plus...you dont sacrifice quality. :)

[Shane Kelly]

Mitch,
do you have the Chrosziel gear in stock at abel?

[Mitch Gross]

Not in stock as it just was released but we can fulfill any order within a few days.

[Scott Webster]

Mitch,

Is the Chrosziel reverse idler also compatible with the Studio Rigs?

[Mitch Gross]

Mitch,

Is the Chrosziel reverse idler also compatible with the Studio Rigs?

No, it only fits the little DV unit. The idea is that most people who want to use these lenses are budget-driven so they made it for their least-expensive unit. Arri's design works for several of their models. This is why I'm still looking into a universal model. But these items do exist if you have these follow focuses and a universal unit would definitely be more expensive, so I can't devote too much effort to it.

[Ryan E. Walters]

So a quick note on reversing/idler gears. I already mentioned that Chrosziel makes one for their little DV follow focus (that's a nice, inexpensive option). Arri manufactures a reversing gear (aka idler gear) which fits the FF-3, FF-4, and FF-5 (and possibly the LFF-1- I need to check.). We'll try to have one of these at our booth at Cine Gear next week but the picture below should give you a good idea of what we're talking about.

Great, thanks for finding that, much appreciated. :)

What does this cost? What kind of play does it introduce to the follow focus? Lastly, it looks like it will only work with the Chrosziel, is that correct? I've got the Redrock FF, and I'd need it to work with that FF.

[Joel Kaye]

I've got the Redrock FF, and I'd need it to work with that FF.

You can flip the gear box on the REDROCK and get the focus going the proper direction. It's a bit of a kludge because the focus marker ends up on the bottom. But it works. It'll get you going the right direction.

And here's another thing I just figured out - you can screw the RR FF through a RED universal mount if you buy a longer bolt. That mounts your FF on RED's 19mm rods and you get a free adapter to 15mm rods via the RR FF base at the same time. Kinda spiffy. I haven't mounted a 15mm mattebox yet to verify I can get it to line up but the FF works mounted that way.

[Brian Valente]

joelnet - that sounds really great. Can you post some pictures on how this works?


Thanks

Brian

[Ryan E. Walters]

You can flip the gear box on the REDROCK and get the focus going the proper direction. It's a bit of a kludge because the focus marker ends up on the bottom. But it works. It'll get you going the right direction.

Thanks for the idea. I've tried that solution, as well as just mounting the FF on the other side of the camera, both of these work, but neither of which I am very happy with ... I think the solution I'm looking for is some kind of idler gear.... When the RR FF is mounted on the opposite side of the camera the gear box blocks the matte box ...


And here's another thing I just figured out - you can screw the RR FF through a RED universal mount if you buy a longer bolt. That mounts your FF on RED's 19mm rods and you get a free adapter to 15mm rods via the RR FF base at the same time. Kinda spiffy. I haven't mounted a 15mm mattebox yet to verify I can get it to line up but the FF works mounted that way.

As Brian said, I'd be interested to see pics of this set up, and to know if you get it to work with the matte box.

[Joel Kaye]

joelnet - that sounds really great. Can you post some pictures on how this works?


Here's a pic. Obviously the 15mm rods aren't in there. I think I'd have to flip the unit back to normal or over to the other side of the camera to get a mattebox to work. That would put the gearbox behind the lens. (if I left it flipped to correct for Nikon as it is in this picture)

[Mitch Gross]

The Arri unit only works with Arri followfocuses (almost all of 'em) and the Chroszeil unit only works with the Chro. DV followfocus. Still no universal unit, but it wouldn't be the cheapest if I commissioned it.

As for their performance, I just got the Arri unit today and it is a solid and simple design. Didn't have a chance to mount it to one of our FF4s, but I'll try tomorrow. There is enough room for adjustment that I don't think it will introduce any significant play. All I've seen of the Chros. unit is a photo, but in concept it is about the same as the Arri so I expect performance to be equal (if limited to a single model followfocus).

There is a bit of a revalation coming in simple but versatile mattebox and followfocus units. We sneak peaked Arri's new prototypes for the EX1 at NAB, and I just got the first production models in my hands today. We'll have them at CineGear and let me tell you, you're all gonna want a set for your REDs. Sweet!

[Jean Wallez]

Does it fit this one? http://cgi.ebay.fr:80/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230250272287

[Ryan E. Walters]

The Arri unit only works with Arri followfocuses (almost all of 'em) and the Chroszeil unit only works with the Chro. DV followfocus. Still no universal unit, but it wouldn't be the cheapest if I commissioned it.

As for their performance, I just got the Arri unit today and it is a solid and simple design. Didn't have a chance to mount it to one of our FF4s, but I'll try tomorrow. There is enough room for adjustment that I don't think it will introduce any significant play. All I've seen of the Chros. unit is a photo, but in concept it is about the same as the Arri so I expect performance to be equal (if limited to a single model followfocus).

There is a bit of a revalation coming in simple but versatile mattebox and followfocus units. We sneak peaked Arri's new prototypes for the EX1 at NAB, and I just got the first production models in my hands today. We'll have them at CineGear and let me tell you, you're all gonna want a set for your REDs. Sweet!

Thanks for the heads up Mitch, much appreciated. :)

[Mitch Gross]

Does it fit this one? http://cgi.ebay.fr:80/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230250272287

Don't know -- that's one of the very old models that would have to be checked.

[Ryan E. Walters]

So I have just spent the morning figuring out how to make an idler gear for the redrock follow focus that I have, and I now have a solution! So now the Zeiss ZF lenses that I have rotate correctly when using the follow focus. And All it cost me was $4.76 in home depot materials.

What I did is as follows:

HOME DEPOT PARTS:
Post Base: $3.78 (Part# 707392228301)
6-32 x 1.5" Screws & Nuts (6 pack): $0.98 (Part# 030699283514)

Extra Redrock Parts:
Extra drive gear
Extra drive box
(You'll have to talk with Brian at RR to see about pricing on these)


1. Disassemble the RR drive box, you will now have two shafts and gears.
2. Cut down the post base, and drill holes in the base to mount it to the follow focus. You can use the plate as a guide.
3. When cutting the post base, make sure to cut around the big hole in the plate, as this will be where you will mount the drive shaft & gear. If you mess up do not worry, you can use the other side of the plate, as there are two holes.
4. Mount the drive shaft in the big hole. It will be a VERY tight fit, but if you mount it with the small black gear end in, first, then it will fit. If you try the reverse, it will not work.
5. Once the gear is in the mount, reassemble everything. Except use the 1.5" screws instead. the head of the screw will need to mount in the upwards direction.
6. After putting the screws in, add the new gear mount you just made. Then add one nut on to each screw. (This is to raise the height of the original gear box.) Then add the original gear box and cover.
7. Once it is reassembled, now you can add the final nuts on top to hold it all in place.
8. Lastly, attache the extra drive gear to the shaft and you are ready to go.

Enjoy!

Here are some pix showing what I'm talking about. (I know it is not mounted on the RED, but the idea is to get it to work with the SLR lenses.)

[Brian Valente]

Nice work Ryan - I love the specificity of $4.76!


Brian

[Rick Darge]

Awesome, I wonder if this rig will work with other FF units like the ARRI or a Chrosziel..

[Joel Kaye]

Nice work Ryan - I love the specificity of $4.76!



Brian, package all that up and sell it.

[C.H.Haskell]

Well done Ryan, nice rig...I think this is def something for Brian to look into as still lenses are becoming more of a player in the AC world.

[Kholi Hicks]

Pretty nice man. Now if only the ZF prices would come down some. ;B

[Ryan E. Walters]

Awesome, I wonder if this rig will work with other FF units like the ARRI or a Chrosziel..

The idea / concept will work, however this specific design will not. I made this to work with the follow focus that I have- Redrock.

I have been asked if there is any play / slop in the unit, and there is none- which was one of my requirements. However, since I was making this by hand, I had to make 4 of them and get rid of the three that didn't measure up. If I was using precision tools, like a drill press, saws, etc. I'm sure the tolerances would have been easy to meet.

The basic idea is to get an arm that will extend the free spinning gear in-between the follow focus gear and the lens gear ring.

[Ryan E. Walters]

Well done Ryan, nice rig...I think this is def something for Brian to look into as still lenses are becoming more of a player in the AC world.

Thanks. I agree- I've encouraged Brian to look into this, as I'm sure it would be a seller, especially since they sell the ZF lenses and the follow focus already. The R&D has been done, now it is just a matter of the build....

[Ryan E. Walters]

So I've posted a more detailed how to on my blog for those of you that are interested in making your own idler gear for the Redrock Follow Focus. You can find it here:

http://www.ryanewalters.com/Ryan_E._Walters_-_Cinematographer/Blog/Entries/2008/7/4_Idler_Gear_-_DIY_for_Redrocks_Follow_Focus.html

or HERE (http://www.ryanewalters.com/Ryan_E._Walters_-_Cinematographer/Blog/Entries/2008/7/4_Idler_Gear_-_DIY_for_Redrocks_Follow_Focus.html)

[Tonaci Tran]

Looks like you can add an 18mm to the zf set..though it is f/3.5. Still an option nonetheless:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/06/zeiss-introduce.html

[mick doyle]

posted by Ryan walters

Thanks, glad it was helpful to you.

In regards to what lenses I'll be taking with me- I'm going to take the SLR lens due to their compact and light weight nature. I'll be filling out the collection I have with the rest of the lens set, and then I need to find a wide angle (wider then 21mm) and a couple of long lenses (200mm or 300mm range). The tough part there is finding lenses that will match the Zeiss- I may have to go the Leica route to get a complete set of matched lenses in the ranges that I want, so we'll see what happens. But as for the wrong way of the lens movement, I've been looking into getting an idler gear for my follow focus- once I do that it will solve that issue. (But if I went with the Leica lenses, that would also solve the issue, from what it sounds like.)

Anyway- all that to say, I was comfortable enough with the SLR lenses to use them on the documentary.

thanks for that and goodluck with your lenses.

[Shane Kelly]

pstechnik are making a reverse gear for their rehoused zeiss's. Looks like it goes onto the rods. Does anyone have one of these?
http://www.zgc.com/zgc.nsf/product/2031A885FD32C263852572C70059AF71 (http://www.zgc.com/zgc.nsf/product/2031A885FD32C263852572C70059AF71)

[Vico Martin]

Wow!, what a post, thanks a lot Ryan, I love SLR glass.

Thanks, really!

[Ryan E. Walters]

Thanks glad to help. Now that they have an 18mm, that solves the wide end of the spectrum... but that doesn't really help my bank account :( .....

[Peter Moretti]

Thanks very much for the test. But like one person before said, Super Speeds are older lenses.

If anyone could do an Ultra Prime or Master Prime comparison to the ZF's, that would be great. I'm assuming the new cine lenses would at least = and in many cases be > their SLR counterparts. Or course the price difference is huge.

[Mark Pedersen]

I have a set of ZF lenses that we've used on a canon XLH-1 and mini-35 adapter. Nice lenses, and I think sharper than SuperSpeeds, but to get a more contemporary comparison to Zeiss glass, you should test them against Ultra Primes or Master Primes. And yes, mechanics are a major reason why you want them on a digital cinema camera.

[Ryan E. Walters]

Updated and corrected the links on the first page. :)

[Ryan E. Walters]

I have a set of ZF lenses that we've used on a canon XLH-1 and mini-35 adapter. Nice lenses, and I think sharper than SuperSpeeds, but to get a more contemporary comparison to Zeiss glass, you should test them against Ultra Primes or Master Primes. And yes, mechanics are a major reason why you want them on a digital cinema camera.

Yeah, I am interested in doing a test with the UP or MP lenses- as soon as I get some time, I'll be back with those tests. (But it will probably be a while, as I'm swamped right now.)

[diglloyd]

I just ordered the ZF 35 f/2. The crop factor brings it up to a 50 mill. Great standard lens; light, fast and sharp.

I wish there was ZF ultra wide.

There is now: the ZF 18/3.5. I just received an evaluation unit a few days ago. Some initial impressions are posted in my August 22 blog (http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2008-08-blog.html#_20080822ZeissZF18) and I'll have more coming, as well as a full writeup in my Zeiss ZF Lenses review (http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/ReviewInfo.html) (covering all 8 ZF lenses). To be clear: I am not a RED user or cinematographer (yet!).

Image sharpness and contrast is very high, and for the RED camera, shooting wide open at f/3.5 should yield outstanding results, based on what I'm seeing so far.

Vignetting is strong (2+ stops on full frame) and could be an issue even on the RED; f/5.6 still shows some vignetting on full-frame, f/8 is needed for even results. I think part of the issue is the sensor, so results could vary by camera (I tested on the Nikon D3).

Alas, flare (ghosting) is disappointing compared to the Nikon 14-24--just don't let direct sunlight strike the optics. However, veiling flare is essentially non-existent with the typical Zeiss contrast.

Color rendition seems consistent with the other 7 ZF lenses, which seem to be perfectly matched, much more consistent than the Canon and Nikon lenses I use. To be fair though, Nikon and Canon have both changed their coatings over the years, so one can't expect the same results for lenses made 20 years apart.

Another interesting "change" with the 18mm is that its focusing seems to be the nicest of all the ZF lenses (I have the full set). I don't know if Zeiss changed the lubrication or it's just the copy I have, but the 18mm is really smooth and nice focusing. In practice perhaps it won't matter as the other ZF lenses are also excellent, but it does seem to be a bit smoother, with a bit less resistance than the rest of the ZF line.

[diglloyd]

Me Too! Unfortunately the widest they currently go is 25mm .... I would love to be able to get a 14mm.

The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is absolutely outstanding--I have yet to see any lens outperform it, and that includes Canon's 14m f/2.8L II, the Zeiss 18/3.5, the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II, the Nikon 17-35 and others.

But being a "G" lens, I don't know if it can even be used on the RED. Perhaps an adapter is or will be available for the Nikon "G" lenses.

See my Aug 16 Lenses I Like (http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2008-08-blog.html#_20080816LensesILike) blog entry for a bit more on the 14-24.

[diglloyd]

Fully agreed, Evin. Actually, why not the Tokina 11-16mm as well? Have you read the last from Rockwell's findings?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm

Better than the Nikkor 12-24mm -- and he's a nikonist... :huh: Really impressive. I'm wondering about the compatibility with the Birger's mounts. I second the motion.

I had to go through four (4) samples of the Nikon 12-24 to get one that I considered acceptable. Nikon wouldn't even fix mine; they just kept sending me refurbs! Given that, perhaps the Tokina is indeed a better choice! But it also means that the Rockwell comparison might have been with a dud. The results don't look consistent with what I've seen from the 12-24 (I've now sold mine, shooting full-frame only).

Sample variation is also a huge issue. When I tested the ZF lenses for my review, I used 2 copies of each lens, and I found (minor) variation in a few cases. Yet with Nikon and Canon it's far worse. I've had brand-new Nikon lenses that were visibly blurry in the viewfinder (the 17-35 for example). In most cases the factory can rectify the issue.

So when choosing a lens, if you want the best, realize that the best bet is to obtain 2 or 3 copies, and compare them (even with brand new lenses). Lens optical design and lens assembly tolerances are two different things! Chances are that you'll find at least one bad copy. See my article Brand-new Blur (http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/BrandNewBlur/index.html). Making conclusions on a single sample is downright silly unless the lens exhibits consistent symmetrical performance on carefully chosen subjects to reveal problems. That is what *I* do when testing a lens.

[Ryan E. Walters]

By the way- if anyone hasn't checked out diglloyd's EXTENSIVE review of the whole series of Ziess ZF Lenses, I highly recommend that you do so. You can get it here:

http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/infos/ZeissZFLenses/index.html

[Andrew Benz]

Headed there now... Thank You Ryan!

I just read diglloyd wonderful posts as well, Thank you. When I am ready to buy this set it is fairly obvious I need to go somewhere were they will allow me to test, test, test for the full set. Would this be BH Photovideo or elsewhere... Any advice would be great.

Thanks for any help or advice everyone, I am settling down to watch "Mutant Chronicles" from the lens of the the man---Geoff Boyle... it's been a great day.

Cheers,

Andrew Benz

[diglloyd]

Headed there now... Thank You Ryan!
I just read diglloyd wonderful posts as well, Thank you. When I am ready to buy this set it is fairly obvious I need to go somewhere were they will allow me to test, test, test for the full set. Would this be BH Photovideo or elsewhere... Any advice would be great.

Well, I certainly would appreciate anyone buying ZF lenses to use the links on my page at diglloyd.com. It's not a big commission, but it sure helps support my efforts, and it costs the buyer zero.

Although I've seen some minor sample variation, the ZF lenses have been far more consistent than the N or C brands, and the variation I've seen has required very careful testing on a resolution chart to distinguish, and full-frame (36X24). I detail the differences in my review.

By comparison, the N or C brands can be really bad out of the box (see Brand-new Blur (http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/BrandNewBlur/index.html)).

In short, I think you can have very high confidence in the ZF lenses.

Now with used lenses, all bets are off. It doesn't take much to turn precision optics into "fair" from "excellent", so any used lens should be carefully tested. This is best done not as an absolute test, but as a focus-matched comparison with an equivalent reference lens (eg a 50mm against a 50mm).

A few more notes that might be useful—

First, the ZF lenses have remarkably pleasing color rendition (in addition to superb color matching). Only the very latest Nikon nano-coated lenses are like this. This is subjective of course, but I see it over and over. I have 3 Leica APO lenses in addition to a large number of Canon and Nikon optics, older and modern. The ZF line is my favorite for color.

Second, the ZF lenses have the uncanny ability to hold fine highlight detail when other lenses might blow it. Blown is blown, but "at the edge", the ZF coatings deliver.

Third, the ZF lenses aren't "perfect". I consider them "artist" lenses because they offer rendering qualities that are frequently abandoned in favor of a flat field. Some of the ZF line like the 28/2 offer quite strong field curvature (not so much of an issue on RED).

[marasco ivan]

hi
this is a first test of zeiss 18mm zf:
http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=184878

[Gary Ploj]

Link didn't work...

[John Godden]

Link didn't work...

The Cafe is down on Sunday. They're working a DNS problem. :angry03:

JohnG

[Roberto Lequeux]

Excellent! Thank you so much for performing the tests and for taking the time and having the diligence for putting it all together. This is just the test I wanted to see... I am in luck and I thank you for your hard work.

I am sure it was asked and I'll make sure and comb through the thread looking for it... but were the FOV the same or was there any difference on the SLR's FOV? I got worried when I saw the framing of your friend working on the laptop but later noticed differences between different aperture frame grabs of the same lens leading me to believe you were doing this hand held... you later confirmed this on your impressions. I believe they will be but better to ask than to be sorry.

Also have you used the 18mm 28mm and the 100mm ZFs?

[Roberto Lequeux]

I think having Molder hold up the chart invalidates the test. ;)

:sarcasm: Awww.. come on! That is Neo and to the left it is obviously an agent taking over some human's residual image in the Matrix.

[Ryan E. Walters]

Excellent! Thank you so much for performing the tests and for taking the time and having the diligence for putting it all together. This is just the test I wanted to see... I am in luck and I thank you for your hard work.

I'm glad it helped you out. :) It was a fun test to do.


I am sure it was asked and I'll make sure and comb through the thread looking for it... but were the FOV the same or was there any difference on the SLR's FOV? I got worried when I saw the framing of your friend working on the laptop but later noticed differences between different aperture frame grabs of the same lens leading me to believe you were doing this hand held... you later confirmed this on your impressions. I believe they will be but better to ask than to be sorry.

Unfortunately this was not one of the tests that I completed. As far as the framing and FOV goes on the laptop shot do not read anything into that. That test was just to see a real life sample of the lens performance. As this was done in a working office, and not an empty studio, the tripod and indislider had to be moved to allow people to enter and return to the office. So things got moved, and it was not, nor should it be used to evaluate FOV. But that is something I'd like to do on my next set of testing.


Also have you used the 18mm 28mm and the 100mm ZFs?

I have yet to use those lenses. Digilloyd has an extensive review of them on his site, and they seem like good lenses, I would love to add them to my collection sometime soon. However, I have heard that the front element of the 100mm lens does move when you focus it, so that may be an issue. But I do not have any hands on experience with that lens.

[Roberto Lequeux]

I just got a hold of that very nice fellow that works at RP Lens (talked for 30min!) and he did mention that the 100mm moves quite a bit. He mentioned a very wide lens gear which made it sound like he has a way of dealing with it though... but he was trying to talk me out of it a it. He was also a it worried about how big of a jump it would be if I got the 50mm and the 100mm next up. He has a point... that could be troublesome in certain rooms and other situations. However he then mentioned that the with of the frame for a macro shot would be about 3/4th of a n index finger and that made me go bananas. :)

He did also mention that he can get the 18mm and the 28mm.

I also asked him quite extensively about the focus throws but he wasn't in the studio so he said he'd get back to me about that. I sent him an e-mail later and he said he'd reply to that with a quote for the 18, 28, 50, 100. I'll make sure and ask him if he can hopefully give me the angles of focus travel which would be something to consider adding to the review Ryan (unless I missed it).

Finally, he mentioned a few other lenses that would be much faster than the 18mm. He seemed to really like this zoom which was something like 11-25mm or something like that... but I forgot the details as I really like the idea of having a color matched set. I do my color correction.

OK... I have a headache, not so much from the learning but from lack of sleep... but the learning too I bet. :)

[Ryan E. Walters]

I just got a hold of that very nice fellow that works at RP Lens (talked for 30min!) and he did mention that the 100mm moves quite a bit. He mentioned a very wide lens gear which made it sound like he has a way of dealing with it though... but he was trying to talk me out of it a it. He was also a it worried about how big of a jump it would be if I got the 50mm and the 100mm next up. He has a point... that could be troublesome in certain rooms and other situations. However he then mentioned that the with of the frame for a macro shot would be about 3/4th of a n index finger and that made me go bananas. :)

Yeah I would get the 85 first, if you have to choose inbetween the 100 or the 85. Going from 50 to 100mm is quite a jump. The 50mm also comes in a macro, so you can get that one and be fine.


I also asked him quite extensively about the focus throws but he wasn't in the studio so he said he'd get back to me about that. I sent him an e-mail later and he said he'd reply to that with a quote for the 18, 28, 50, 100. I'll make sure and ask him if he can hopefully give me the angles of focus travel which would be something to consider adding to the review Ryan (unless I missed it).

I didn't post the focus throws for the 18/28/100 since I didn't have them, but I did make mention that the throws on the SLR's are a lot shorter then their PL counterpart. (You can read my comments in the Results and conclusions section.) All of the PL lenses had a throw of 300 degrees or more. The SLR glass is as follows (Roughly): 35mm- 115 degrees / 50mm- 225 degrees / 85mm- 270 degrees.



Finally, he mentioned a few other lenses that would be much faster than the 18mm. He seemed to really like this zoom which was something like 11-25mm or something like that... but I forgot the details as I really like the idea of having a color matched set. I do my color correction.

OK... I have a headache, not so much from the learning but from lack of sleep... but the learning too I bet. :)

Yeah, I was disappointed by how slow the 18mm is - especially with the Nikon 17 - 35mm ZOOM lens being faster then it - go figure... However, something to keep in mind with SLR zooms is that they are not made for zooming while recording- the focus tends to drift as you zoom the lens. So you are better off to use it as a variable prime lens.

[John Wee]

OK... I have a headache, not so much from the learning but from lack of sleep... but the learning too I bet. :)

USLatin,

You are everywhere arent ya ?? :) you were obsessed with the Hpx200a, the Hpx170, the sgpro blade, the Scarlet and now the Red One ?? That is great bro, I am as obsessed about technology and camera myself but its time to commit to one and concentrate on that.

Often I have to sit back and really rethink my situation. If you want to be a director, you dont even need a camera. You get a camera crew, sound crew ...etc. In fact, earlier on this week a dear filmmaker friend of mine also pointed out a good DP that doesn't even own a camera. Director directs, DP plays with lighting to make sure the set looks great.

Now, everyone in the micro Indie land has been going on merrily, being content with their Zeiss slr or nikon slr lenses, until RED throws in the 18-85mm t2.9 monkey wrench. Before the RED 18-85mm, you either pay ridiculous amount of $$$$ for 30 yr old lens or spend $ 50k for modern PL lenses.

Now, for a set of 28mm , 50mm , 85mm and 100mm Zeiss SLR , you only have to add $5000 more and get a 18-85mm t 2.9 true cine PL lens. Within, 2-3 jobs and you will get that $5000 back in a heartbeat. You would also wont have to lose bids on jobs that requires "real cine lens"(yes the problem is how many ppl in the industry that knows the Zeiss Nikon SLR is almost as good as Zeiss Cine lenses? they judge you based on what you have on that camera).

Lastly, PL lens is also more flexible and can be used or rented out to different pro cameras. Enough headache yet ?? what about ? the RED 18mm - 85mm being limited on the range ?? What about the Zeiss being speedier at f1.4 and f2 vs the RED 18-85mm ?? :devil: :devil:

[Roberto Lequeux]

yea I was talking on an other thread about the speed of the ZF's vs. the Red zoom where we talked about the difference in speed and weight vs. the versatility pro-feel and action of the zoom... I also mentioned that the zoom might very well outperform the ZF glass at 2.9f

I don't have an unnecessary obsession, I am learning the things I need to learn cause at the end of the day I am also the line producer for my feature, until we get on set where the director hat pushes all other responsibilities aside and over to a UPM. Talking in forums I can learn many aspects of the current cameras we can afford for the projects for which I am ultimately responsible for. I know that people tend to get worried when they someone learning a lot of different things, but at the end of the day I am better suited to make the decisions that I am still forced to be making. Also, understanding everyone's job I can think several steps ahead as I direct, getting more out of the day. I want to be better able to weigh my options than all other Directors. I want to understand everyone's job so that I know what I can ask from them and what would piss them off or make their jobs harder... and how that would impact the shots we would get on the time we'll spend on the next setups. Remember that a story telling is 90% done before you get on set, in the writing casting and rehearsal. Do I wish I had a bigger budget to hire a line producer? Sure, I want a pro crew of 50. But I am not there yet, neither have I found someone I trust that much... yet.
I will continue to learn more every day till I don't know anyone that knows more than me. If that ever happens I'll shoot myself in the head and REALLY go crazy.Well, I'll go crazy first, then shoot myself. :)

EDIT:
We are likely to shoot this feature in the winter with a 170 + SGblade...
...I can't commit to any given camera, only projects. :watsup:

Back on topic: Ryan, what's the exact model of that zoom? the numbers ring a bell... I am sure he was speaking of the same one.

[Ryan E. Walters]

Back on topic: Ryan, what's the exact model of that zoom? the numbers ring a bell... I am sure he was speaking of the same one.

That Nikon Zoom is this one: Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S

However, the Nikon Zoom performs nowhere near like what a PL lens does. If you do go with a Nikon zoom, only use it as a variable prime.

[Roberto Lequeux]

Ohhh... one of those new zooms! Would be sweet for when you got a DSLR! Ouch at the price but you get so much more lengths and speed!

Don't worry man, I completely know not to consider it a zoom... besides if I were to do any zooming it would only be a minuscule imperceptible push-pull like on the library scene in Atonement (on Keira Knightley) and I would be able to do that on the camera since it would be so very small. I am thinking about doing one maaaaaaaaaaybe two on this horror movie. And I plan to shoot an option without it.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

is there anyway of making an slr lens hold focus through a zoom?
shimming? anything

[Evin Grant]

Some do but there is no way to "modify" one that doesn't. It's a design thing.
You could just use a deeper stop.

[Ryan E. Walters]

is there anyway of making an slr lens hold focus through a zoom?
shimming? anything

As Evin said there is no way to do it- it is how the lens is designed - it was never a need for and SLR. The only way I can see getting "around" that issue is to pull focus while you zoom - which will get tricky, but that may be a possible solution. (However, if you are going to be doing a lot of that it would be better to just rent cine glass.)

[Jose Poernomo]

Is there anyone who has direct contact or is working with Zeiss ?

Checking out whether they are going to make the 15/2.8 Distagon for Nikon or not...

I believe this one is still made in Germany.




José

[Antoine Fabi]

Ryan and Evin,

I didn't try the Nikon 17-35mm nor the Nikon 80-200mm, but the Nikon 28-70mm hold focus very well through the range though...

What do you think ?

Antoine

[Zakaree Sandberg]

Just got my new zeiss zf's in the mail today.

28mm 35mm 50mm 85mm
working on finding a good wide prime or zoom that is faster than 3.
also looking for a long range zoom.

these lenses are beautiful.
just did some quick testing and it looks amazing.

they will be going to duclos on monday for a cine mod (gears, declick, 80mm front)

[Ryan E. Walters]

Ryan and Evin,

I didn't try the Nikon 17-35mm nor the Nikon 80-200mm, but the Nikon 28-70mm hold focus very well through the range though...

What do you think ?

Antoine

If it works, that is great. :)

I would recommend against relying on a SLR to hold focus through the zoom. Some of them do, and that is great, however they were not designed to and there for not all SLR lenses will hold focus.

[Samual Murman]

Best to think of the SLR short zooms as variable primes. But some are indeed very sharp.

[Nick Morrison]

http://www.ryanewalters.com/downloads/ZeissTest/RED-ZeissTest.jpg
INTRODUCTION
On May 12, 2008 I met up with fellow cinematographer, and RED owner Hunter Richards (www.hunterhampton.com (http://www.hunterhampton.com)) and we headed over to Lyon Films (www.lyonfilms.com (http://www.lyonfilms.com)) where we met with directors Devon Lyon and Kevin Curry. Later, we were joined by Owen Stephens, SOC & inventor of the Pampalite (www.pampalite.com (http://www.pampalite.com)) who got in on the action, and showed us his great line up of florescent lights. The purpose of this get together was two fold, first Hunter updated everyone on the developments that had been made on the RED camera as well as demonstrated the workflow and post process of using the RED in a production environment. Secondly, Devon & I used this opportunity to test out two sets of lenses. Both of us wanted to see how big of a difference there actually is in-between a lens designed for cinema use and for SLR use. The RED can mount both PL lenses and Nikon SLR lenses with a simple change of the lens mount. My cinematography has taken me around the world, and being able to use small, lightweight lenses on a camera capable of shooting raw 4K intrigues me. If the SLR lenses are able to perform at the levels needed for the RED, this would enable me to have a smaller profile and a lighter load to carry when traveling. Scheduled to begin production in the first quarter of 2009, the documentary Walking Through Worlds (www.walkingthroughworlds.com (http://www.walkingthroughworlds.com)) will take director Joel McEwen and I to remote locations in Asia, and being able to use the SLR lenses on the RED may enable us to get the images we need for the production while keeping down the form factor and weight.

For the last two years I have been using a set of Zeiss ZF SLR lenses and various 35mm adapters on projects that have smaller budgets, but still want the cinematic look of film. For the projects that can afford it, I have been renting the cinema lenses. Having used both styles of lenses I have seen the mechanical differences between the two, and now with this opportunity with the RED I had a chance to see how big of a difference, if any, there is in the image quality of each set of lenses.

To highlight the potential differences between the lens sets I settled on the following tests: sharpness, color, breathing, vignetting, and the mechanics. To keep the results consistent I decided to shoot both charts as well as a real world test. Charts are helpful for consistency and measurements, where as the real world test will show you what you actually get. The cinema glass used for this test was a set of Zeiss Superspeed Lenses (MKIII) with a T-stop of 1.3 and the SLR lenses were the Zeiss ZF lenses with a T-stop of 1.4. To keep as many of the variables out of the equation as possible, the footage was all processed through RED Alert using the same settings. See the picture below for the settings used. The only change made to the real world footage was a change to 709 Gamma in the Output LUT.

http://www.ryanewalters.com/downloads/ZeissTest/RedAlertSettings.jpg

All of the still frames have been left unprocessed and have not been graded, while the sample footage has been graded using the same settings in each set of clips in Color. You can download the Color project files, as well as the sample images and footage at my web site, by going to the resource page: www.ryanewalters.com (http://www.ryanewalters.com). In the download you will find this review in PDF form as well as the setup notes for the tests which details out the various settings used, and lighting setups. So lets take a look at what the tests yielded. (I should also mention that the RED we were using was having problems with its CF drive, which ended up corrupting some of the files. We checked the files on site in the camera to see that they recorded ok, but there were a couple that although seemed fine in camera, RED Alert was not able to process them. So there are a couple of missing frames. The people at RED ended up overnighting a replacement drive for Hunter, which was great customer service for him, but too late for this test.)

DOWNLOADS: (Right click - Save As Please)
Just the RESULTS PDF (http://www.ryanewalters.com/downloads/ZeissTest/REW-ZeissLensTest-Results.pdf) (4MB)
Just the SETUP PDF (http://www.ryanewalters.com/downloads/ZeissTest/REW-ZeissLensTest-Setup.pdf) (3MB)
Just the QuickTime Movie (http://www.ryanewalters.com/downloads/ZeissTest/REW-Zeiss-Breathing-H264.mov) (9MB)
ALL PDFs MOVs, & STILLS (http://www.ryanewalters.com/downloads/ZeissTest/ZeissTestDownload.zip) (102MB)

EDIT: If for some reason these links are not working, please check my blog at my web site: www.ryanewalters.com (http://www.ryanewalters.com) - I have all of the same information, pictures, and downloads available there.

Not to resuscitate an ancient post, but I stumbled on this and I had to! Ryan I love all your findings here. As a Contax Lens collector, this was all very comforting (as the Contax Zeiss designs are 95% the same as the ZF's). To find out that the SLR lenses were sharper and breathed less than the Super Speeds is amazing news. Do you remember if the Zeiss SLR lenses had any image shift? That all the lenses color matched between them is amazing news too.

My one question to you is regarding cinema-mechanics. What if the lenses in question were the Contax Zeiss, cinemodded at Duclos? The Contax Zeiss lenses, as opposed to the ZF's and ZE's, focus the right way and have a manual aperture. Once declicked, given a focus ring, and a constant 80mm front, these could have all the mechanics you need right? Knowing this now, would this alter any of your opinions regarding still zeiss vs Super Speeds?

Love your thoughts.