Zeiss CP.2 are sorely overpriced...

B

brokeandbroken

Just wanted to rant about the, imo, robber-baron'esque overpriced Zeiss CP.2 lenses. I'm so new to cine equipment, so I've been reading up a little on lenses... and discovered that the Zeiss CP.2 lenses are just Zeiss ZE lenses that have been repackaged as "cine" lenses.

The positives that Zeiss hypes for the CP.2, like the focus and aperture rings' standardized placement across all lenses, are great... and the "cine" style metal housing "looks professional" and gives a longer focus throw... and the interchangeable mounts, etc... all of that makes for an easier, more versatile workflow...

BUT THE LENSES' PERFORMANCES ARE THE SAME!

And still, a ZE lens runs anywhere from ~$1300 -$1900.
While a CP.2 lens runs anywhere from ~$4000 - $5700.

So a repackaging and user-friendly interface makes for a 2x or 3x markup?
A little empty on the performance for that heavy of a margin, imo.

It seems like the CP.2 lenses (aka ZE) do show sharpness and contrast, but show measurably less performance than the ultra or master (I guess that's a given)... so the CP.2 is really just an entry-level lens, with good, but still, entry-level performance. More than that, it seems like this product isn't made on behalf of the consumer, or a CONSUMER NEED-- it's made on behalf of ZEISS'S NEED for a product to fill a gap in the digital cine-camera market... so they repackaged a lesser lens and basically cranked out an up-sell brand extension, and are charging 3x more... for exactly the same performance...

Instead of producing a higher quality, made-for-digital-cine-camera lens (I would've preferred that, even with fewer features; even if it cost more, at least I'd be paying more for SOMETHING), they built a product from a mid quality lens, with added "cine" features.

Also, from what I read, I gather that even the super-speed CP.2s are just regular T2.1 CP.2s that have had their aperture limit widened. I'm thinking that means that there isn't really a usable T1.5 performance on the super speed 35/50/85. If true, why buy a speed-lens at T1.5 and pay the premium if, really, it's just the T2.1 with a widened aperture?... what's the point of the "speed-lens" label if it doesn't PERFORM like a speed-lens? If you like soft, I guess it doesn't matter; but when something says "speed" I expect it to be sharp as a standard... not "speed, but only if you like soft at wide aperture."

I know some of it's subjective lens preference, but I've read comparisons showing that the CP.2s still show CA and distortion at the edges, albeit not anything terrible... actually seemed like very little ca and distortion... but my point is that the ZE shows THE SAME PERFORMANCE!... b/c they're the SAME LENS.

AND! A set of 6 ZE costs ~$6000.
While a set of 6 CP.2s costs ~$21,000 (and that's just for the T2.1, no speeds)

Come on, Zeiss...
Stop banking on your brand, and put something out there that's competitive, something that's worth my money! (of course, something less costly than UP or MP). I want a CINE LENS, not a ZE. Give me better performance than a ZE for 3x the price, something I can put confidence in, something I know will PERFORM BETTER than a ZE-- which costs 1/3 the price... something that will hold me over until I can actually afford UP... something that will keep me competitive until then.

I'm SO disappointed to find that the CP.2s are just repackaged ZEs. As of now, I'm seriously considering going cheap, all the way to Rokinon or Samyang... they offer the same "cine" housing look, ~if that's what's important... and though their performance is noticeably lacking at wide-open compared to the CP.2, above f/4 or so, the difference narrows... and oh yeah, they cost even less than the ZE, SIGNIFICANTLY. I think a set of 6 Rokinon would cost less than one CP.2 super speed. Yes, I concede that my work would suffer though... but considering the cost analysis for an entry level lens-- ie, a set that won't be a "lifer," but rather a one'n'done set, just to get started... in that light, Rokinon starts to make sense.

I ALMOST bought into CP.2. I feel so deceived by the CP.2 hype from Zeiss. Being new to all this, I thought CP.2 was a step towards ultra, a transition for beginners to work their way up... but really, they're just a run around on the same tier as the ZE... not a step closer to ultra at all. For all the esteem that Zeiss carries as the benchmark brand, the CP.2 is so obviously an easy-margin product for them; no new tech or new performance, no updates to the lens... just the user interface. I'm so glad I did the research.

I don't mind paying extra, but I want substance, not hype, not packaging. All I'm saying is, imo, the CP.2 is sorely overpriced. I'll pay for the housing and the cine features... but not at $4000 to $5700 per lens. So like I said, if I have to swallow that pill, I'll spend ~$6000 on ZE (or even less on Rokinon), and save myself $15,000... which I can put towards building an ultra prime set, piece by piece... or maybe even a w/a zoom Canon or Zeiss... or even the new Sony primes... basically, that ~$4000 was a starting price-point I was willing to enter, and Zeiss totally lost me.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Firstly, IMO CP.2s outperform ZE's slightly, even though they're essentially the same glass. To my eye CP.2s will be slightly contrastier and sharper, and have slightly better wide open performance (on the non-super's).

Secondly, CP.2s have sold like hotcakes since they came out, so there is definitely a 'consumer need' as you might put it. Many people can't afford Ultra Primes at $12,000+ per lens (let alone Master Primes or Cooke S/4's, S/5's etc. at $30,000-$50,000+ per lens).

Superspeeds are older and no longer available new, so they're difficult to find for purchase, but many owner/operators (as well as many rental houses) have them. CP.2s have a much more modern look, compared to the older Superspeeds (though I prefer the SuperSpeeds, honestly). The CP.2 Superspeeds have also sold pretty well.

They're not my favourite lens set in the world, but they're relatively cheap - they're cheaper than Cooke's mini S4/i's.

These are aimed at the cine professional who can't afford to own or rent Ultra's or better, but still needs a good set of lenses that resolve well and perform like a cine lens should.

They're all weighted slightly differently, the 35mm Superspeed is slightly longer than the rest of the set, and the 50mm non-super is slightly shorter, and much lighter than the rest of the set. Their apertures are mismatched across the set.

But, at the end of the day, I'd take a set of these over a set of ZE's any day of the week. As a DP, with a better (manual) aperture, and definitely when I AC, as I can then pull focus accurately, without trying to guess and screw up 60% of the takes on a still lens, because there's simply no focus throw.

They have a look about them (which I'm not a huge fan of, especially open past ~2.8 on the Superspeed versions), some like it some don't. But they sell really well, and get used on a lot of productions. They're really the only cinema-style lenses with decent resolving power available for use on still lens mounts. And they're cheap.

They're expensive for someone who's used to buying still lenses, but for someone who's used to cine lenses, these are averagely priced for their place in the market, and cheap compared to their bigger, better brothers and sisters.

You don't have to buy them if you don't think it's worth it - certainly if you're only working on SLRs or similar (and have only ever worked on similar cameras) and/or are not working with ACs, by all means.

By means of comparison, Canon Cine Primes (as far as I'm aware) are essentially rehoused L lenses, and also cost ~$4,000-$5,000 per lens. If you wanted to look at it a different way, Zeiss SuperSpeeds Mk II or Mk III can be picked up for a similar price per lens, and many would consider them optically inferior, as they're not as sharp, especially edge-to-edge, and not as contrasty. But they're still a great lens, and IMO have more character than any current still or rehoused still lens currently available. They're also faster, but they're much softer wide-open (though I'd take softer over the CP.2 Superspeed's wide-open milky White Pro-Mist type look).

There's a large market out there, and people will pay money for it. I've been on heaps of sets this year where we've used CP.2s; I know of one major Australian television production that is just going into production of their next season, that will be shooting on Alexa with CP.2s because the DP loves them. The rental house has had to buy a new set.

I can certainly see where you're coming from, and if you don't feel it's worth it then don't buy - realistically there's more to an image than just the lens, and as a DP you often have to work within budgets.

It's great when you've got the budget to get the lenses you want, but you know that you'll still be able to make the images look good on different/cheaper lenses, even if it's not quite as good as you'd have hoped with better ones.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top