RED Pro Primes vs Zeis CP2

[PatrickFaith]

Zeiss CP.2's have a much nicer bokeh and better overall colour reproduction than the RPP set. There's something about the Zeiss that I can't quite put my finger on, but nonetheless the image it produces just seems of better quality than the RPP's.

I've been struggling with cutting between RPP and CP2 ... and I think you hit the nail on the head with the bokeh. I believe the RPP is 7 blades and the CP2 is 14 blades, and with shallow depth of field with a T setting of around 4 ... the bokeh difference is catching my eye (but in a way I can't give a "scientific" value to). At T1.8 the blade value goes to infinite on the RPP, giving nice round bokeh as the blades completely retract into a circular aperture thingy - so I find myself shooting at T1.8 using ND filters most of the time now.

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

This is a straight, ungraded image right off the R1 MX sensor.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/51913995/A057_C003_1203KD.jpg

I shot this at ISO 800, on the Zeiss 50mm CP.2 at T2.8.

It looks decently sharp at that T stop range, but note the absolute buttery bokeh in the background. We had cars passing by in that scene and it just looked absolutely wonderful. These lenses really do come alive when you stop down.

I shot a few things at wide open on some of the lenses and really never noticed a big difference in image sharpness. The best example of both sharpness and bokeh is the one above that I found.

[Brigham Edgar]

Ahhh no...these people have used and tested both...they prefer the look mostly, the second being the lack of good focus marks on the RPP's and size weight especially. The RPP's are great, if they were much smaller and lighter I would have bought them, but they're not. Besides, I prefer the images from the CP2's and have no issues with breathing or any of that...I like them, they're nice.

As another note...before I bought them I quizzed Zeiss about the glass. From the horses mouth in Germany the glass elements are from the ZF/ZE family but are the cream and pick of all the glass. They are then coated differently, then housed, built and assembled differently and with a completely different look and bokeh. So i don't see any value in the argument in saying its stills glass as a negative because in the beginning it comes from the same batch then from then on its different.

If your buying to use, buy the ones you personally like and happy to use. If your buying them for rental etc i think you are going to struggle with the RPP's...just saying...and in my part of the world.

The RED 18-85mm is a great great zoom...it's just a beast, but I would never sell it, worth every cent of $10K.

[Brigham Edgar]

Not really - It's just name recognition.

Today, 03:16 PM
Ahhh no...these people have used and tested both...they prefer the look mostly, the second being the lack of good focus marks on the RPP's and size weight especially. The RPP's are great, if they were much smaller and lighter I would have bought them, but they're not. Besides, I prefer the images from the CP2's and have no issues with breathing or any of that...I like them, they're nice.

As another note...before I bought them I quizzed Zeiss about the glass. From the horses mouth in Germany the glass elements are from the ZF/ZE family but are the cream and pick of all the glass. They are then coated differently, then housed, built and assembled differently and with a completely different look and bokeh. So i don't see any value in the argument in saying its stills glass as a negative because in the beginning it comes from the same batch then from then on its different.

If your buying to use, buy the ones you personally like and happy to use. If your buying them for rental etc i think you are going to struggle with the RPP's...just saying...and in my part of the world.

The RED 18-85mm is a great great zoom...it's just a beast, but I would never sell it, worth every cent of $10K.

[Joel Mielle]

I like them both, and they both have ups and downs. I chose to buy the CP2's as I actually like the image more than the RPP's and for their size and weight with my epic, and being able to cover full frame where the RPP's will not so if RED eventually go bigger and bigger with their sensors as they are they will not cover it. Either way the RPP's are stunning sharp glass, they both have pros and cons from build to imagery... I just prefe the Zeiss look.
As another thought...I also rent some gear to people I know and no one chooses the RPP's over the Zeiss CP2's...interesting don't you think?

I've also heard that using full frame glass can be a disadvantage (if using cropped sensor) as you're not using the whole part of the glass where the quality is. Where the RPPs give you the full circle of glass. I'd be curious to hear comments on that too.

[Shane Kelly]

I've also heard that using full frame glass can be a disadvantage (if using cropped sensor) as you're not using the whole part of the glass where the quality is. Where the RPPs give you the full circle of glass. I'd be curious to hear comments on that too.

Well, with "full frame glass" you Are using the part of the glass where the quality is as lenses tend to drop in resolution towards the edges.

[Brigham Edgar]

I have read that but never seen it and have a variety of Nikons I use that are both for APSC and full frame and I don't see any difference, anywhere. The RPP's resolve better than most cine lenses, I don't think anyone will argue that, but are you shooting charts or real world. In the end you should by what you personally like and prefer and the only way to know this is to use both and check them out. I just prefer the look of the Zeiss glass, I wanted smaller and lighter lenses for my epic and f3, and I wanted them to be future proof as sensors get larger and larger...just like RED are doing with their sensors and then the RPP's won't cover the best their sensors have to offer.

As a tip of 20 years...tests are great for pixelpeeping and table discussions and they don't lie...but real world tests are where its at.

[Karim D. Ghantous]

My 2 grams worth:

This is a straight, ungraded image right off the R1 MX sensor.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/51913995/A057_C003_1203KD.jpg

I shot this at ISO 800, on the Zeiss 50mm CP.2 at T2.8.

It looks decently sharp at that T stop range, but note the absolute buttery bokeh in the background. We had cars passing by in that scene and it just looked absolutely wonderful. These lenses really do come alive when you stop down.

Thanks for posting that frame. It was a bit soft (obviously you hadn't applied sharpening) so I sharpened it up a bit with a simple image editor and it did look nicer (which brought up the noise more but that can be mostly eliminated anyway). But at this resolution I expected it to be sharper. I do like the bokeh though!

From the horses mouth in Germany the glass elements are from the ZF/ZE family but are the cream and pick of all the glass. They are then coated differently, then housed, built and assembled differently and with a completely different look and bokeh. So i don't see any value in the argument in saying its stills glass as a negative because in the beginning it comes from the same batch then from then on its different.

I love the fact that these cover more area than you'll need. That means they can be used with shift adapters - if anyone makes them. But I'm not a fan of some of their wides because they have distortion (the 18mm has uncorrectable distortion). And I don't like the RPZs for that reason, at least at the wide end. For stills it's kind of okay for most uses, but for motion it is not. So do you just run optical correction on every frame then?

[PatrickFaith]

85MM Compact Prime Super Speed come out this August btw ... looks perty sweet.

[Erik Naso]

I have the Duclos 11-16, Red Pro Zoom 17-50 and a Zeiss CP2 85mm. Love them all, and I basically have a full set with three lenses. The poor mans version of course. I'm very happy with all three and have no issues cutting between them.