Zeiss T2.1 Standard Speed Lenses with RED [Archive]

Stephen Williams

10-13-2007, 07:59 AM

Hi Rory,

There have been various discussions here & elsewhere, the 16/24/32 will slightly porthole until T4 with those lenses. Quite noticeable on a plain light coloured background.

Stephen

roryhinds

10-13-2007, 08:02 AM

Hi Stephen

What do you mean by "slightly porthole"?

Do you have any images of this.

I'm just about to buy a set some am anxious...

Columbus

10-13-2007, 08:24 AM

Hi Stephen
I can't seem to find anyone who was having a problem with these lenses. Can you remember which thread this was discussed on. I remember you saying you got a portholing effect on the image when using a phantom hd camera but that has a slighly larger sensor area than red. In another thread Jarred said they were using a 14mm arri stanard in the studio with no problems.

Michael Lindsay

10-13-2007, 08:40 AM

Rory

A lens projects an imaging circle. Light intensity falls off the further from the center you go.. Some lenses (tilt or shift for example) have huge imaging circles.. Others like some of the standard Zeiss range have imaging circles that do not extend much beyond a 35mm (4 perf) imaging plane and therefore the light fall off can be very noticeable.. Since lens make round (hole like) images the darkening is round... I believe this is what Stephen is referring to with the term 'porthole'.

regards

Michael

PS I believe you met a friend of mine 'Brendan McGinty' the other day?

roryhinds

10-13-2007, 08:46 AM

Hi Michael

Sorry I should have worded my question better... I understand what the porthole effect is I just want to understand to what degree it does it as I'm about to spend on a set of Standard Speeds.

What Brendan at the RED UK meeting?

Columbus

10-13-2007, 08:52 AM

Hi Rory
Check out this thread there doesn't seem to be any problems with these lenses from people who have used them with red.
Cheers Colm

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=75779&highlight=zeiss+standard+2.1+portholing#post75779

Stephen Williams

10-13-2007, 09:02 AM

roryhinds

10-13-2007, 09:02 AM

HI Colm

That thread just mentions that "as far as he could see" there was no porthole effect..

I'm always wary of statements like these as I tend to have a critical eye that picks up everything.

Would be good to get solid confirmation from RED or someone with Standard Speeds to clarify.

Stephen Williams

10-13-2007, 09:04 AM

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4937

Stephen

Volker Ehlers

10-13-2007, 09:16 AM

Columbus

10-13-2007, 09:58 AM

Hi,

This thread is not about a 14mm lens.

StephenSorry didn't read it clearly. Thanks for posting link. Being an owner of some zeiss standards that I was hoping to use with camera, I do hope the effect is only minimal.
Cheers Colm

Stephen Williams

10-13-2007, 10:08 AM

Hi Rory,

Zeiss Standard were design for 35mm field illumination and NOT S35mm.
Hence the wider angles are not covering S35mm field with even illumination and will result in porthole effect...

Therefore Zeiss VarioPrimes were released when S35 became a choice.

Thats also why they are cheaper than any S35mm lenses. You can use longer lenses and have good results.

Cheers

Hi,

The issue is not Vignetting it's Portholing! If they did not cover due to vignetting as you stopped down the problem would get worse, not go away alltogether.

The problem they were designed to work with film & not a digital sensor.

Stephen

Stephen Williams

10-13-2007, 10:14 AM

Your describe vignetting. The lenses porthole because the light does not hit the sensor in the right direction, film is not bothered how the light hits it.

P+S adapters have the same problem, thats why Super Speeds cost far more than Standards.

Stephen

Rory

A lens projects an imaging circle. Light intensity falls off the further from the center you go.. Some lenses (tilt or shift for example) have huge imaging circles.. Others like some of the standard Zeiss range have imaging circles that do not extend much beyond a 35mm (4 perf) imaging plane and therefore the light fall off can be very noticeable.. Since lens make round (hole like) images the darkening is round... I believe this is what Stephen is referring to with the term 'porthole'.

regards

Michael

PS I believe you met a friend of mine 'Brendan McGinty' the other day?

Greg M

10-13-2007, 02:46 PM

Ben Feuer

10-13-2007, 03:30 PM

If you can find Super Speeds at all...

Sanjin Jukic

10-13-2007, 04:26 PM

Hi,

The problem they were designed to work with film & not a digital sensor.

Stephen

Is there somebody who already were using Zeiss Standard 35mm lenses on RED???

I do not believe in this stories like "designd to film & not for a digital sensor".

What does it mean compared to the still 35mm film & digital photography???

I Bloom

10-13-2007, 05:01 PM

Your describe vignetting. The lenses porthole because the light does not hit the sensor in the right direction, film is not bothered how the light hits it.

P+S adapters have the same problem, thats why Super Speeds cost far more than Standards.

Stephen

Ah... very good info. Duly noted Stephen. Why is it that the 2.1s send light at the sensor from a different angle than the 1.3's.

Is this a classification that extends to other popular cine and still glass?

IBloom

I Bloom

10-13-2007, 05:09 PM

Is there somebody who already were using Zeiss Standard 35mm lenses on RED???

I do not believe in this stories like "designd to film & not for a digital sensor.

What does it mean compared with still 35mm film & digital photography???

I think what he's saying is that the angle that the light is hitting the sensor affects its exposure. Imagine that the photosites are in a little hole, behind a IR/LP filter and tiny red green and blue filters. So even if the lense isn't built for film or digital, some are better suited for this reason.

IBloom

I Bloom

10-13-2007, 05:22 PM

I wonder how the RED primes will fair in this regard, as I believe they are also T2.1.

Evin Grant

10-13-2007, 05:58 PM

The Red primes will be T1.9 I believe. I really doubt portholing will be much of an issue. It might be there but will be invisible in 90% of the stuff we shoot unless you're a studio shooter working on white seemless all day. Even then you probably have the light to stop down to f4 or 5.6 where it dissapears. As far as being optimised for digital that has more to do with Chromatic abberation control, focusing all the colors to the same plane. Film lenses are designed for film which spreads out the colors in three dye packs at slightly different distances. Digital lenses focus all light to the same plane. In practice there are advantages to digital lenses but some film lenses still do just as good, some even better. Choose the lens by teasting it, not by it's designation. I have full confidence that the Zeiss standards will be fine lenses, at least till we have Red, Nikon and Canon lenses to fill the gap.

Michael Lindsay

10-13-2007, 06:10 PM

Your describe vignetting. The lenses porthole because the light does not hit the sensor in the right direction, film is not bothered how the light hits it.

Stephen

Sorry for the bad info that wasn't needed anyway!

I sent my post earlier and while eating lunch realised I made a mistake... The clue was the stop effecting in an inverted way... Are the standerd speed lenes not retrofocal till wider? Surely the 16 and 24 are retrofocal?

thanks

Michael

Stephen Williams

10-14-2007, 03:44 AM

I do not believe in this stories like "designd to film & not for a digital sensor".

Hi,

Thats very sad for you then. They were designed 30 years before digital sensors existed, so the requirements for flat digital sensor where not a concern.

Telecentric lenses are what is idealy required for a digital sensor.

FWIW film in the gate is never totally flat, & has a slight curve, a digital sensor is totally flat. Also the direction the light hit's the sensor is important.

Stephen

Stephen Williams

10-14-2007, 03:46 AM

Sorry for the bad info that wasn't needed anyway!

I sent my post earlier and while eating lunch realised I made a mistake... The clue was the stop effecting in an inverted way... Are the standerd speed lenes not retrofocal till wider? Surely the 16 and 24 are retrofocal?

thanks

Michael

The 3 problem lenses are retrofocal, however is the small exit pupil of the lens that is the issue here.

Stephen

Volker Ehlers

10-14-2007, 11:36 AM

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for that info! Was very confused myself about results the Zeiss Standards showed on our P+S (in terms of the effect DISAPPEARING when stopped down!)

Cheers

Sanjin Jukic

10-14-2007, 12:21 PM

Hi,

Thats very sad for you then. They were designed 30 years before digital sensors existed, so the requirements for flat digital sensor where not a concern.

Telecentric lenses are what is idealy required for a digital sensor.

FWIW film in the gate is never totally flat, & has a slight curve, a digital sensor is totally flat. Also the direction the light hit's the sensor is important.

Stephen

Hi Stephen,

sorry for my nervous question and thanks for the explanation.

Jim McKinney

10-22-2007, 07:35 AM

I have a set of standard speeds and Ultra primes and will test both as soon as my camera arrives next week. The standard speeds do porthole on the Pro35, but it is very slight and only noticable if you are looking for it. As Stephen stated this is the reason they are 1/2 the cost of the Super Speeds.

Not to jump on you too soon, DigitalFX, but have you had a chance to compare the standard speeds with the ultra prime on your Red yet?

Greg M

10-22-2007, 10:00 AM

Not to jump on you too soon, DigitalFX, but have you had a chance to compare the standard speeds with the ultra prime on your Red yet?

No, sorry...it is slow going. I have only used the Ultra Primes so far. I shot some footage this weekend by myself, and as expected focus is a big issue w/o help- especially handheld. If I was on sticks it would have been easier. Also I'm sure the EVF will help tremendously.

StephenCook

10-25-2007, 07:05 PM

Shooting with Zeiss standards right now. We've noticed nothing in the form of portholing or vignetting. We get super speeds in on friday. Will shoot a comparison.

Álex Montoya

11-13-2007, 12:14 AM

Hi, Stephen. Did you shoot the comparison? How did it go?

roryhinds

11-13-2007, 04:54 AM

I went for the Zeiss Standards and must say they look fantastic on RED.

Álex Montoya

11-13-2007, 05:21 AM

Did you notice any of the problems that we talked here?

I am at the verge of buying a set myself and would like as many opinions as possible.

Petros Nousias

11-13-2007, 05:32 AM

Hi, since there's been too much talk about the 2.1, could someone answer with certainty whether the wide angles have any portholing issues?
I own an almost complete set(16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 40, 50, 85, 100, 135) and I'd like to know if I need to purchase a different set.

roryhinds

11-13-2007, 07:48 AM

I have a 16, 24, 32, 50 & 85 and have no portholing issues at all.

If the lenses cover Super35 you will be fine.

Álex Montoya

11-13-2007, 07:59 AM

Hey Rory, have you posted any footage? If not, are you planning to post some?

Best

Stephen Williams

11-13-2007, 10:44 AM

I have a 16, 24, 32, 50 & 85 and have no portholing issues at all.

If the lenses cover Super35 you will be fine.

Hi Rory,

Have you shoot a white piece of paper full screen wide open with your lenses?

Stephen

roryhinds

11-13-2007, 11:14 AM

Hey Stephen

No I still need to do this but I can say I have shot Grey London skies and its all okay.

Dan Blanchett

11-13-2007, 12:52 PM

The two RED zooms will set me back $15,000, assuming the 50-150 comes out in the near future. For about that price, give or take a grand, I can get a 5-piece set of these Zeiss Standard primes. For narrative filmmaking, what do you think I would be happier with?

Seems like the pros for the primes are a) faster and b) sharper.
Pros for the zooms (which I will treat as variable primes) are a) convenience, b) newer tech and c) greater focal length range.

Opinions?

Steve Sherrick

11-14-2007, 07:03 AM

Keep in mind the standard primes have been tough to come by recently. A lot of people jumping on them and other sets.

Steve

Steve Sherrick

11-14-2007, 07:10 AM

Just spoke with Visual Products, Zeiss primes gone baby gone.

Steve

Michael Schrengohst

11-14-2007, 07:21 AM

I have talked to several companies, no one has used Zeiss Prime sets.
They all want them because they can turn them around. I will be waiting
for the RED primes. In the meantime I am getting friendly with
some lens rental houses.

Álex Montoya

11-14-2007, 08:20 AM

Luckily we got our set of Zeiss Standard: 85, 50, 40, 32, 24 and 16. Watching the Rid Dirt Rising grabs I coudn't be more happy.

Scott Webster

11-15-2007, 09:32 AM

Just so you don't fell like a voice in the wilderness Stephen, the Zeiss Standards do porthole as you describe and your simple test is a quick way to see the effect.

Greg M

11-15-2007, 09:39 AM

I have a friend that has a few sets of zeiss lenses for sale.
PM my if interested w/ your name/number and I'll get him in touch with you.

Stephen Williams

11-15-2007, 10:02 AM

Just so you don't fell like a voice in the wilderness Stephen, the Zeiss Standards do porthole as you describe and your simple test is a quick way to see the effect.

Hi Rocketeer,

Thanks for that. I was specifically looking for the problem when I tested the lenses. I am sure they will be fine for many people most of the time.

Stephen

Eric Trageser

11-16-2007, 12:32 AM

Hey all: Evin set me on the right track--- the info I put up recently re: lenses for sale can now be found in the "Jobs / Equpiment for Hire" forum. Thanks Evin.

Eric Trageser
trageser1@mac.com