Thread: Zeiss Supreme Prime series

Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 29 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 285
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Patrick O'Hara View Post
    Just to add to the discussion... unless the mounts are interchangeable, why would you want LPL mount on these? Unless there are two distinctly different designs for the sets, this means they were more-or-less designed for PL/EF and the LPL is just a mount change. So if there is going to be a PL to LPL adapter, wouldn't just getting these in PL cover all PL and LPL cameras? If you got these in LPL, they would not be able to be used on PL, even though they were designed to. Just throwing out some food for thought.

    One reason might be that lens adapters degrade the image and are less than ideal. Ideally you do not use a lens adapter and instead use a lens that mounts directly to the camera's lens mount.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member Michael Lindsay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    2,645
    I can think of 2 potential reasons..

    Using with a native LPL camera (I expect to see more of these coming)..

    The LPL mount is, as well as being shorter, quite a bit wider and performance (especially for a fast lenses as this leak suggests) could be better without the restrictions of the PL .. 62mm is wide and welcome.

    i seem to remember ARRI shared some tests where a MP65mm covered more of an LF sensor when the LF didnt have PL mount.. the PL mount is a restriction when it comes to big format and that is why both PV and ARRI are trying to move on and it is not just the flange depth issue but the width that is a issue..

    Just some more food for thought:-)


    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Patrick O'Hara View Post
    Just to add to the discussion... unless the mounts are interchangeable, why would you want LPL mount on these? Unless there are two distinctly different designs for the sets, this means they were more-or-less designed for PL/EF and the LPL is just a mount change. So if there is going to be a PL to LPL adapter, wouldn't just getting these in PL cover all PL and LPL cameras? If you got these in LPL, they would not be able to be used on PL, even though they were designed to. Just throwing out some food for thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Senior Member Jacek Zakowicz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Lindsay View Post
    I can think of 2 potential reasons..

    Using with a native LPL camera (I expect to see more of these coming)..

    The LPL mount is, as well as being shorter, quite a bit wider and performance (especially for a fast lenses as this leak suggests) could be better without the restrictions of the PL .. 62mm is wide and welcome.

    i seem to remember ARRI shared some tests where a MP65mm covered more of an LF sensor when the LF didnt have PL mount.. the PL mount is a restriction when it comes to big format and that is why both PV and ARRI are trying to move on and it is not just the flange depth issue but the width that is a issue..

    Just some more food for thought:-)
    I don't see how PL is any restriction to FF if the clear diameter is 54mm and Monstro FF- the biggest sensor now has 46mm diagonal.
    Jacek Zakowicz, Optitek-dot-org, jacek2@optitek.org
    Professional Broadcast and Digital Cinema Equipment
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by John David Pope View Post
    One reason might be that lens adapters degrade the image and are less than ideal. Ideally you do not use a lens adapter and instead use a lens that mounts directly to the camera's lens mount.
    A solid lens adapter, if made correctly and with enough tight tolerances, will not degrade the image. Think of all the Sony cameras with FZ native mounts + professional adapters, such as the F55. When Arri said the LPL mounts will have PL mount adapter possibility, I assumed it was to professional quality.


    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Lindsay View Post
    I can think of 2 potential reasons..

    Using with a native LPL camera (I expect to see more of these coming)..

    The LPL mount is, as well as being shorter, quite a bit wider and performance (especially for a fast lenses as this leak suggests) could be better without the restrictions of the PL .. 62mm is wide and welcome.

    i seem to remember ARRI shared some tests where a MP65mm covered more of an LF sensor when the LF didnt have PL mount.. the PL mount is a restriction when it comes to big format and that is why both PV and ARRI are trying to move on and it is not just the flange depth issue but the width that is a issue..

    Just some more food for thought:-)

    The PL mount will not be a restriction to these lenses because they seem to be designed for PL. You are correct about benefits of LPL, but only when they are designed to be for LPL.

    I was just saying if the mount is the only thing that is different between LPL and PL versions, why not get the PL's which would be vastly more universal at the moment. Just because it has a LPL mount doesn't mean it benefits from LPL optical design.
    Thank you Red Team for unlocking/correcting the i/data technology. Cooke lenses are reading correctly and all his happy in Cooke/Epic land. Thanks!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Senior Member John Marchant's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Normandy, England
    Posts
    2,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacek Zakowicz View Post
    I don't see how PL is any restriction to FF if the clear diameter is 54mm and Monstro FF- the biggest sensor now has 46mm diagonal.
    It's not a restriction to the primary rays but it could possibly impact bokeh rendering?

    If you want image-side telecentricity like Arri tout on the Signatures, then you leave almost no room for the housing on PL... barest coverage on Monstro leaves only ~3mm around the rear elements with a PL. Realistically that would vignette or give mechanical design issues.

    Image-side telecentricity is not common or essential however.
    KipperTie - Authorised RED Rental, Pinewood Studios, UK
    Ready to hire: Monstro 8K VV | Gemini 5K | Helium Monochrome 8K
    Check out our Revolva ND solution, OLPFs and other products
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member Jacek Zakowicz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,308
    I think this is more of a general future centric transition. PL was made that way because of the space needed for the spinning mirror. That went away. It is definitely easier on the lens designers to have more space to place components in the back of the lens. The mount is also beefier and has larger opening. There is no optical reason for it but there are plenty of mechanical reasons....
    BTW I just saw a PV35 to PV70 adapter at the J.L. Fisher event on Saturday.. I wonder if they coordinated with ARRI haha....
    Jacek Zakowicz, Optitek-dot-org, jacek2@optitek.org
    Professional Broadcast and Digital Cinema Equipment
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member Michael Lindsay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    2,645
    Thank you John...

    No cine lens i know of is actually 100% image side telecentric and the full Ray trace for all the different parts of the out of focus portion of a fast lens is pretty crazy.. those simple 2 rays diagrams for the in focus plane do oversimplify what is actually going on in real images with real lenses.. I care about everything projected..

    Ps

    This is interesting

    https://www.arri.com/largeformat/

    Scroll to the Q: Can I attach the existing 54 mm PL lens mount to the ALEXA LF

    And check out the 2 projected circles
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by Karim D. Ghantous View Post
    EF? For goodness sakes. Oh well, whatever.
    Is a bit odd for a €15,000 lens to be offered in EF mount.

    However I'm all for having more flexibility in options for mounting! Especially if they're doable in the field.
    http://IronFilm.co.nz/Sound/ (Sound Recordist based in Auckland, NZ. Happy to travel too)
    https://www.youtube.com/c/SoundSpeeding
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Announcement:

    https://www.cinema5d.com/zeiss-supre...inues-to-grow/

    https://www.newsshooter.com/2018/05/...-large-format/

    And some promo videos shot on RED Monstro and Sony Venice.

    Hometown Deja Vu (Shot on RED Monstro):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfF-G3GIUrY



    Farm (Shot on Sony Venice, Red Monstro and Phantom 4K):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=Dq0CAf51dR4



    Ties (Shot on Sony Venice)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=hqOqDzznMgc



    Tsunageru (Shot on Sony Venice):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itEhA661oP4



    ZEISS Supreme Prime Lenses Reel:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=sf5ws1aHj-M

    Last edited by Chuks Ude; 05-24-2018 at 07:01 AM. Reason: Added Reel
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    These are the modern day Master primes. Looks like they are built with Otus glass characteristics and CP3 mechanics with the added benefit of XD. These lenses will see a TON of work on many different types of productions... would love to get my hands on them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts