Zeiss CP2 Versus High speed

[Thibaut de Chemellier]

Hi there,
Is anyone have experienced both Zeiss CP2 and HS T.3 ?
What are the main differences in terms of color rendition, sharpness, flares...
What I do know is that the CP 2 have different appertures between lenses.

[Ryan De Franco]

The superspeeds and the compact primes have different characteristics.

Both are significantly softer and miliker when wide open compared to closed down 1 or 2 stops. This is true for most any lens excepting Master Primes and Cookes, but because these are older (ss) / cheaper (cp) lenses, it's more pronounced here.

The standardspeed Zeiss are generally sharper than the superspeeds. By f/ 5.6 or f/8 they're comparable but standards are sharper and have fewer lens aberrations (Chromatic aberration, coma, etc) at just about every stop before that. That's the cost of the T/1.3 option. Many DPs prefer one over the other, it is entirely an aesthetic decision--do you like to shoot at T1.3, do you like the look of one over the other? There are also huge differences between the Mk1, Mk2 and Mk3 version of each, most crucially aperture blades, the cheaper MK1 series have triangle bokeh.

The compact primes are larger and somewhat easier to pull focus on, but lack engraved witness marks (they're painted on). You can use a small follow focus gear or a wireless to expand the rotation of any lens. Compact Primes are rehoused still glass--no matter what their owners say, even Zeiss admits that the optical design and glass are the same. The glass might be "handpicked," but the coatings and optical formula (the two most essential elements) were designed for photographs, not cinema.

Aesthetically, the photographic origin makes compact primes more crisp and contrasty, sometimes brutally so. The coatings were designed to make a stunning punchy still photo, not make a face look human on a 40' screen. This doesn't mean the lenses don't produce great images, they do--landscapes or contrasty scenes look awesome--just that you have to test the lenses and filters before shooting. A slight change in aperture or filter strength makes a huge difference not apparent on your 5.6 screen. Test and see if you like the compact prime flavor of the Zeiss look, much of which is defined by the T* coatings.

The T* coatings on the older superspeed, standardspeed, and Contax lenses use rare earth elements Zeiss is no longer allowed to mine. Each series is subtly different but across the board the look is softer, more prone to flare, and kinder to human skin. I like this because it allows me to add contrast in post, and 4K has so much detail already I don't need the lens to be excruciatingly sharp to match. Other people would say the exact opposite. Certainly the compact primes look more modern, and they are, but that may or may not be a good thing.

This really comes down to a personal decision. You should find a model or a friend willing to stand in front of the camera with a lighting setup you like to use; go to a rental house you work with and throw the compact primes and superspeeds on side by side.

Everything I just wrote will mean nothing compared to your immediate aesthetic impression when looking at the results.

[Ryan De Franco]

Timur Civan also posted an excellent breakdown on the CP.2s, covering the pros and cons of every variable you could ask for.

http://timurcivan.blogspot.com/2011/...arl-zeiss.html

He points out the advantage to an inconsistant look, which is actually pretty great if this is going to be the only set of lenses you shoot with:

That said, it can also be a blessing. Shooting them wide open is like a built in promist, want it clean and sharp? add a light and stop down to a T4, and you will have a super rich, contrasty, razor sharp image. Want it Soft and ethereal? put in a scrim and open up.

Not surprisingly, the original optics give similar results: Zeiss Contax and Zeiss ZF behave similarly. The cost of optimizing an optical system for every aperture is a big part of the difference between a $4,000 and $20,000 lens.

[Thibaut de Chemellier]

Thanks a lot Ryan.
I will try to make a side by side test with the Alexa Next week, I will post pictures here...if it's good enough and significant.

[Shane Kelly]

Timur Civan also posted an excellent breakdown on the CP.2s, covering the pros and cons of every variable you could ask for.

http://timurcivan.blogspot.com/2011/...arl-zeiss.html

He points out the advantage to an inconsistant look, which is actually pretty great if this is going to be the only set of lenses you shoot with:

That said, it can also be a blessing. Shooting them wide open is like a built in promist, want it clean and sharp? add a light and stop down to a T4, and you will have a super rich, contrasty, razor sharp image. Want it Soft and ethereal? put in a scrim and open up.

Not surprisingly, the original optics give similar results: Zeiss Contax and Zeiss ZF behave similarly. The cost of optimizing an optical system for every aperture is a big part of the difference between a $4,000 and $20,000 lens.

That's the CP1's that Timur reviewed, the CP.2's are not as fast and so do not have the same softness wide open. They limited the fastest stop in the CP.2's so that they would not be perceived as soft wide open. (Cooke did the same thing with the Panchro's)