# Any suggestion before buying Zeiss lens or Canon L* lenses



## ssrdd (Apr 27, 2011)

hi everyone,

First of all i would like to say my ''thank you'' to administrator, for running such a useful website.

here, i am buying few lenses in near future combination of zeiss and canon L series.
major usage is video. so pls any one share ur experience about these lenses :-


Canon EF14mm[L2.8 II USM] 
Canon EF24mm[L1.4 II USM] 
Zeiss 35mm[ZE2Distagon ] 
canon 85mm[L1.2 II USM] 
Zeiss 100mm[ZE2MAKRO PLANAR FOR CANON] 
Canon EF135mm[L2 USM] 
Canon EF200mm[L2 IS USM] 

pros and cons?
any practical experience and or opinion can be appreciated. thank u.


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 27, 2011)

Look at the Zeiss Compact Prime video lenses, they are setup for video, and work properly with a focus puller. Canon EF lenses with full time manual focus have a slip clutch to accomplish this. This means that you must be extremely carefull with a focus puller, if that clutch slips, all the focus marks you have setup are worthless and may result in a serious misfocus. 

The Zeiss lenses are pricey, about $4K each, but a whole different level from EF "L" lenses as far as use for video. It depends on what you can afford to spend. The CP lenses are aimed a studio video, so they do not come in telephoto lengths over 100mm.

http://www.zeiss.com/compactprime

You can also rent them from many places, including Lens Rentals, and get just what you need for a job. http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/specialty/zeiss-cp.2-25mm-t2.9-ze

They are pricey, but so is that list of lenses you have posted.


----------



## LFG530 (Apr 27, 2011)

Pros: these are all great lenses and you're rich
Cons: I'm jealous. And if you don't think using the 135 L for action shots you might reconsider having a 100 and 135 since you won't want to detach the zeiss from the body once you'll see the colors and contrast it produces... Since money doesn't seem like you biggest problem you could consider the zeiss 35 1.4 (or not if you prefer the compact size of the 2). 

Personal opinions: I've tried the 35 zeiss and it was good altought not mind blowing, I've tried the 85 1.2 and it's worth every penny, I've tried the 100 zeiss and I feelt like I was going to cry when I had to remove it (simply magic, no canon lens can do this), I've seen a lot of results from the 135L and it's obviously a great lens too. 

If you can get your hand on a 200 1.8 used instead of the 2 it could be an idea, from what I've heard and seen there's a little something special (a bit like with zeiss lenses) with the 1.8 that just isn't there for the 2. 

Ooops, I missed the part where the major usage is video, in this case you might wan't to consider going nearly all zeiss since the manual focus is just wonderful... And a zoom can come in handy while doing video, the 70-200 IS II is great for this since the is is really effective.


----------



## ssrdd (Apr 27, 2011)

Mr. Scalesusa
Mr. LFG530

i agree with you on CP2 lenses over canon lenses. the main problem is they r too expensive,
plus in india they r even expensive( double as per dealer) to buy them, in the end i wanted take that heck for the quality sake, the main problem is they cant delivery them not before the least 6 months !!!

renting is not an option in india, that to in south india.
besides, i have a project to start immediately.

what about ur opinion on zeiss SLR lenses instead of canon L series( i had the focussing thing in my mind), apart from it?

i appreciate it man.
bests
ssrdd


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 27, 2011)

ssrdd said:


> Mr. Scalesusa
> Mr. LFG530
> 
> i agree with you on CP2 lenses over canon lenses. the main problem is they r too expensive,
> ...



Right now, HDDSLR's are manual focus, but that is going to change. While Zeiss Compact Cinema lenses are, and will be professional grade choice. 

For someone with a more limited budget, the Zeiss Manual focus lenses are great, and many professionals do very well with Canon EF lenses, as long as they learn to work around the focus clutch issue.

The final version of House was filmed with a 5D MK II, and primarily a Canon EF 24-70 lens last spring. They can afford the best of the best, but chose the Canon lens, so it will do just fine.

Do not forget that Audio is 50% of the final product. The finest and most beautiful images will be spoiled by poor or noisy audio. You should have a audio person who knows his thing doing the audio with a external recorder. The on-camera audio is not up to professional quality.

Then, there is the matter of tripod. Pro grade ones are incredibally expensive, $30K, so you will have to compromise there, but get or rent a good model. You cannot get professionally smooth pans with a low end tripod, so get the best you can afford.

Lighting is the same, you can spend big bucks, or do it fro a few hundred, but do pay attention to lighting, one of those little on-camera video lights might be fine for home videos, but you will want better if your wanting a professional result.

As you are beginning to see, the Camera part of the system is so cheap as to be almost free, iits the video accessories that pile on the dollars.

So, don't put all your money into lenses, make do with a couple, and save some for the sound, tripod, lighting, and other accessories.


----------



## Nick Gombinsky (Apr 27, 2011)

I would suggest you to take a look at Samyang lenses. I am a DOP and I am about to buy them. They are completely manual lenses with Canon L grade optics. They are even doing some lenses now with gears included in the rings for focus pulling. They are very cheap, right now on eBay you can find the 85mm for 270 USD and the 8mm for something similar. Look around the web, you'll find reviews that say the same that I do. They rock.

The choice of lenses right now are 85mm, 35mm, 14mm and 8mm (fish eye 180 degrees). The 85mm and 8mm have their "VDSLR" versions for focus pulling, and the 35mm has just been released but its nowhere to be found because of Japan's natural disaster affecting their factory.

eBay is your best bet for these, take into consideration that Samyang manufactures them under different names, so you can find them by Samyang, Rokinon, Bower (they are in BH), Polar and Vivitar.

Cheers,
Nick


----------



## NormanBates (Apr 27, 2011)

* even if the camera has autofocus for video, you wouldn't use it in most "pro" situations

* the glass on the zeiss CP2 lenses is exactly the same as in the standard ZE/ZF lenses; if you think the standard size and built-in gears are worth the extra cash, then the CP2 are for you; if not, I'd go for the ZF with fotodiox pro nikon-to-canon adaptors (they have iris ring, so they'll work on your next camera too, be it nikon, canon, panasonic, sony, whatever)

* I don't like the look of the zeiss images too much: sure, it's sharp as hell, but sometimes it's too contrasty; some people prefer leitz (leica) glass (I have a bunch of vintage leitz lenses from the 60s and 70s and they rock; you can get 35+50+90+135+180 for under $2K; for ultrawideangle they're not so great, I want to go canon 24mm f/2.8 plus tokina 11-16 for APS-C, or tokina 16-28 if I go full frame)

* before spending this big amount of money, you should carefully read all of these, including the comments (especially in the hurlbut blog):
http://philipbloom.net/2010/05/11/why-i-recommend-the-zf-2-lenses-for-canon-dslrs-over-the-ze-2/
http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/02/06/still-lenses/
http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/07/03/leica-r-mount-lenses-for-the-canon-hdslrs/


----------



## LuCoOc (Apr 27, 2011)

Maybe you should take a look at the ZE lens set offert by Carl Zeiss

https://photo-shop.zeiss.com/en/Products/1930-446

Following is a quote from the Link

Attractive offer for filmmakers and photographers
The five Carl Zeiss SLR-lenses come in a special waterproof and robust case. Special inlays ensures that each lens fits perfectly inside the suitcase and protects the lenses from shock and vibration. The SLR Lens Set is IP67 waterproofed.

Included lenses:

Distagon T* 2,8/21 ZE (Canon EF-Mount);
Distagon T* 2/28 ZE (Canon EF-Mount);
Distagon T* 2/35 ZE (Canon EF-Mount);
Planar T* 1,4/50 ZE (Canon EF-Mount);
Planar T* 1,4/85 ZE (Canon EF-Mount)


----------



## te4o (Apr 27, 2011)

There is smith very strange in the style of this thread: someone with nonchalance collects two thirds of the best Canon lenses available and asks about opinions... I can't see the point of this lens array for video. AF lenses are currently impractical, the two Zeiss are illogical. They are good stills glass but wouldn't be my first choice for video. There is no 50 mm, many ultrawides... I don't get it. Looks like a bit of exaggeration. Scalesusa is absolutely right, even with these stellar lenses you still need a lot of gear and skills...
There is a forum thread about alternative gear on fredmiranda.com. You can read the Zeiss sections, here we post opinions and samples about Zeiss lenses. They need a lot more to make a photo/clip than just signing the check. This gear sample is hugely demanding be sure you read exactly what you're buying. Otherwise it'll be a waste. 
IMO I'd use only Zeiss for video - the focus pull is magnificent and there are focus enlarging rings to assist with nervous fingers...
People who find them too contrasty probably find honey too sweet. We are a democracy.


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 27, 2011)

Nick Gombinsky said:


> I would suggest you to take a look at Samyang lenses. I am a DOP and I am about to buy them. They are completely manual lenses with Canon L grade optics. They are even doing some lenses now with gears included in the rings for focus pulling. They are very cheap, right now on eBay you can find the 85mm for 270 USD and the 8mm for something similar. Look around the web, you'll find reviews that say the same that I do. They rock.
> 
> Cheers,
> Nick



Samyang has "L" grade Glass?? I fell for the hype and bought a 14mm for my 5D MK II and 1D MK III which could really use a wide lens like that. The first thing that caught my eye was the disclaimer on the printed instruction sheet saying that the lens was optimized for APS-C sensors and might not do well on Full Frame. That was a understatement!

Other users had complained about it, but even more loved it, so I ordered it

The entire left side of the image was distorted, while the right was only fair.

I setup my camera at the same exact place, and compared my used Canon 15mm FE that I bought for $300.

The Canon non L was far sharper and had much better contrast.

Back it went. 

I decided not to fall for the hype ever again from a certain Polish Lens testing site about a Polish Branded lens.

Samyang






Canon 15mm FE


----------



## gene_can_sing (Apr 27, 2011)

I think it's strange that you don't have a 50mm listed. That's essential.

I use both Zeiss and Canon L's for video. I have a 60d and had a 7D.

I use the Zeiss ZF Nikon mounts because it will work on any camera. I would NOT suggest the Zeiss 100mm macro. It's the best lens Zeiss makes, BUT it is not good for video because of it's really long focus and macro oriented focus throw, it will not work with follow focus. Also, because it extends really far, you cannot use it with a matte box. Zeiss makes great macro lenses, but they are not very good for video because of the mechanics.

The regular Zeiss lenses are great for video because of the amazing mechanics. Mechanically, I prefer them over my Canon lenses because of the smooth focusing and good focus pulling from the mechanics.

I would suggest from my kit. This is a great range.

1) Tokina 11-16 (works with both APS-C and Full frame. But will be 15-16mm on full frame)
2) Canon L 24mm (I want this lens)
3) Zeiss 50mm f1.4
4) Zeiss 85mm f1.4
5) Canon 100 mm f2.8 macro (This lens almost makes the Zeiss 85mm redundant. If I had to pick between the Canon 100mm macro or the Zeiss 85mm, I would take the Canon. More versatile, but the Zeiss is 2 stops faster but has a lame minimum focusing distance of 39 inches. Not so good. But really nice IQ.
6) Canon 70-200 L IS II (One of my most used lenses. So versatile for everything for filming surfing to portraits. I use this lens for some many portraits). A MUST have
7) Canon 2x extender for the 70-200 L IS II

For zooms.
1) Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS (Best zoom lens I've ever used) for the APS-C

or 

2) Canon 24-70 f2.8 if you go 5D2 fullframe.

I just can't wait for the 5D3! Trying to only buy Full-Frame lenses for future proof.

Here's a great article Philip Bloom wrote on lenses. This will help A LOT

http://philipbloom.net/2010/08/20/which-lenses-to-buy/


----------



## ssrdd (Apr 27, 2011)

gene_can_sing
te4o.....................thank u for ur opinion.

this is the list i already had.
5dmkII
50mm L 1.2
marshal 7'' monitor
video tripod

plus i have been in video industry for a while, had a panasonic hpx500, a 720p cam.
as some of my advisers mentioned above about having a gear and then lenses, u r absolutely right.
thing is i had video tripod 12k worth, and focus accessories. i have tried them to work on my new 5d, they works fine.
so i think i have the partial video gear. few bolts and nuts to be invested further....

all this time i have been using my old canon usm lenses, bought them when i am collage 6 years ago.

now i wanted go for an update from using fujinnon-lenses and old USM to new canon L series or zeiss lenses.
all i need is now, u r best advises for the whole kit.( i can not really afford CP2's).

for samyang guy... i really thank u for ur time, but i am not into other lenses than canon and zeiss, 
(if i can find lieca for 5d that would even more awesome.)

and finally the zoom lenses....i am not very impressed by them including the great canon L 24 to 70/2.8 and 
L 70 to 200/2.8. 

thank u for ur time everyone.
bests
ssrdd


----------



## sdrose (Apr 27, 2011)

To Gene -- And anyone else

I am looking to get a zoom lens for my Canon 7d. Wanted to get a 24-70; am waiting a couple months for any release of a 24-70 II. Must have the lens by 1 August 2011. 

I want to know if there is a compelling reason to get the 17-55 over the 24-70 aside from the 8mm FL.

Gene- you said the following:


> For zooms.
> 1) Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS (Best zoom lens I've ever used) for the APS-C
> 
> or
> ...



Can you elaborate on the 'why' of these statements a bit please? Why do you feel the 17-55 2.8 IS is the best zoom lens you've ever used? Why do you prefer the 24-70 only on the FF camera?

I primarily want the best image quality possible from my 7d for portrait-style photography. I am about to have my first child, and -- as I've said to my wife -- we only have a very small window of time to take photos of little hands / feet / fingers / toes. For those photos, I want the best image my lens can capture. The rest is on me. ;-).

I want the lens for the 2.8 for low-to-mid levels of light, as well as best image possible for images / video taken.

thanks to all for any advice!
-dave


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 27, 2011)

sdrose said:


> To Gene -- And anyone else
> 
> I am looking to get a zoom lens for my Canon 7d. Wanted to get a 24-70; am waiting a couple months for any release of a 24-70 II. Must have the lens by 1 August 2011.
> 
> ...



I owned five 24-70 lenses and found none of them to be spectaculer on my 40D. I did try one of them on a 5D and it was noticibly better.

My experience with out of spec 24-70 lenses is not uncommon, find a good one and they are wonderful.

Another Issue is the balance with a smaller body. Unless you have the grip, the front heavy lens is difficult to hold stable, and since it has no IS, using it at slow shutter speeds and handheld results in fewer keepers, at least, for me, that was the case.

I also had the 17-55mm EF-s. It is lighter and balances nicely on a 7D sized body. Since it has IS, shake blur at slow shutter speeds is minimal, and its just plain easier to get sharp photos, and more fun to use.

Field curvature is also noticible with the lens, read about it here. http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/528-canon2470f28ff

Now that I have moved to FF, I use the 24-105mm L as a general purpose outdoor lens, but indoors, I use primes due to the lower light levels. I avoid using flash, but sometimes, its the only way.


----------



## gene_can_sing (Apr 27, 2011)

To FDRose

The reason why the 17-55mm range is best for APS-C 7D, 60D, etc... is because they are 1.6x crops which is different than the 1x crop of the 5D2 fullframe.

A 50mm Field of view on a 5D which look like 80mm Field of View on a 7D because of the 1.6x crop.

So the 17-55 takes into consideration the 1.6x crop of the 7D and is the perfect range for those cameras

The 24-70 is a similar field of view to the 17-55, but on a Full frame camera like the 5D. That is why the 24-70 is the idea range for Full Frame cameras.

hope that makes sense.


----------



## sdrose (Apr 27, 2011)

Does the 17-55 produce (on an APC-style camera) an image of equal high-quality to the 24-70?


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 27, 2011)

sdrose said:


> Does the 17-55 produce (on an APC-style camera) an image of equal high-quality to the 24-70?



In my experience it does, but if you are lucky enough to get a really good 24-70mm L, it will be equally good.

However, if you are holding the camera by hand, the 17-55mm IS makes it a better choice for slow shutter speeds.


----------



## sdrose (Apr 28, 2011)

Ok, so I understand that the 24-70 on a smaller sensor camera is effectively going to be a 38-112. Whereas the 17-55 is effectively going to be a 27- 88. And, those numbers are only in regards to 'distance', and not perspective. Nonetheless, I wanted to know the image quality of the 17-55 was equal to the 24-70. I don't expect that I'll be looking to go too wide on this lens. 

Thanks!
-dave


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 28, 2011)

sdrose said:


> Ok, so I understand that the 24-70 on a smaller sensor camera is effectively going to be a 38-112. Whereas the 17-55 is effectively going to be a 27- 88. And, those numbers are only in regards to 'distance', and not perspective. Nonetheless, I wanted to know the image quality of the 17-55 was equal to the 24-70.



How do you define image quality? When comparing the 24-70mm f/2.8L to the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, with both used on a crop body, the 17-55mm delivers better resolution (i.e. is sharper) than the 24-70mm L, across the frame. The 17-55mm also has less chromatic aberration than the 24-70mm L. Since the 24-70mm projects a full frame image circle, the edges are cropped away on an APS-C sensor - that means compared to the 17-55mm, the 24-70mm has less distortion and vignetting. 

Distortion, vignetting, and lateral CA are pretty easily and efectively corrected in post-processing of RAW images. However, post-processing cannot effectiely restore resolution that was never captured in the first place. So, overall I'd say that when comparing the 24-70mm f/2.8L to the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, with both used on a crop body, the 17-55mm delivers _better_ image quality, plus, it has IS (and incidentally, the 17-55mm also beats out the 24-105mm f/4L IS). 

Obviously, if you compare the 17-55mm on APS-C with either the 24-70mm or the 24-105mm on FF, the L lenses will deliver better IQ, because of the greater resolving capacity of the sensor sampling a FF image circle.


----------

