What difference does a lens make?
I recently completed a workshop tour where I was asked to talk about why I use Zeiss lenses and so as part of this I decided to do a very quick side by side comparison. ** N.B. This is NOT a scientific , controlled environment, apples for apples test. It’s a comparison in it’s simplest form using the glass that I own. Lens choice is as much about look as is one sharper than another. Please bear this in mind before blowing a gasket in the comments 
**
I put Zeiss ZF.2 and CP.2 up against some Canon L-series and EF lenses because I wanted to see the difference.
The main objective was too satisfy my own curiosity as to what are the differences between these lenses. I know Zeiss are generally sharper edge to edge but what about contrast. It’s been my experience that the Zeiss are warmer in tone and have a tad more contrast than the Canon’s. Also from and operational perspective I prefer working wit the Zeiss because they have on barrel aperture control and a smooth 270 degree focus rotation.
It is not an exact test rather a simple side by side to highlight the subtle differences.
But back to my wee comparison film.
I shot this on the Blackmagic Cinema Camera and the footage is un graded for maximum accuracy. I shot ProRes Video and monitored exposure using a Marshall V-LCD 90MD using the Waveform monitor to maintain exposure.
I used:
Canon
- L series 24mm f1.4
- Canon L -Series 16-35mm f2.8 9 to cover focal lengths from 18mm and 35mm
- Canon L Series 70-200mm f2.8 to cover focal length of 85mm
- Canon EF 100mm macro f2.8
Zeiss
- 18mm ZF.2f3.5
- 25mm ZF.2 f2.0
- 35mm ZF.2 f1.4
- 85mm CP.2 T2.9
- 100mm ZF.2 f2.0
Here it is so you can make your own mind up.
Conclusions
I prefer the warmth and resolution of the Zeiss lenses. I think they manage to retain detail particularly when the image is zoomed in even at 400%. They seem top hold more contrast also. To be completely fair I did not put every focal length up like for like as I don’t own the full set of Canon Primes but if you are looking for a great set of affordable cine primes then the Zeiss ZF.2 will give you a lot of bang for buck. Just bear in mind that the Zeiss lenses do not have any IS options and so if Image Stabilisation is an important factor then these will not give you that - otherwise lenses rock.
209 days ago
Great , test , answers a very important question , Both great glass , but seem just different . In some cases , I think the Zeiss maybe easier on the pocket as well ?
208 days ago
Hi Charles, it is just that – no lens is ‘best’ only more or less appropriate for the job and budget. Also this is not really a test, rather a comparison based on the glass i own
209 days ago
He Den,
Great test thanks! I should have done that myself allready.
Did you use all the same f-stops? Because I do see such a big difference in the bokeh, especially with the 21mm.
The difference in sharpness is really remarkable.
Mario
208 days ago
Hi Mario, unfortunately the BMCC does not display f-stop so it was impossible to set to an exact value. Generally the Canon’s were wide open …perhaps I’ll do a more controlled test based in the interest in this video
209 days ago
I must admit that my eyes kept drifting towards the Zeus lens split screen. Definitely looks beautifully richer and more contrasted than the Canon and even at 400% the Zeus seemed to be sharper even at the edges. I guess it’s a cost issue in owning a good lens kit. I would definitely buy the Zeiss 85 mm though.
209 days ago
Interesting, but its obvious that this is no contest, the Zeiss lenses are much sharper and retain detail much better. Question would be, why not stick to the CP’s since they seem better fit for the new cameras and their higher resolution chips? Keep it going Den.
206 days ago
Size mate, when I travel I take the ZF.2′s so I have a range of 6 primes in that I can carry in my pockets
209 days ago
A good comparison, but I think it is a better example of primes versus zoom lenses rather than Canon vs. Zeiss. The only Canon prime wasn’t an L glass, so poor Canon never had a chance!
That said, there was definitely a lesson to be learned here if sharpness and contrast are important.
208 days ago
I agree it was a comparison and not a test but I found it a useful way to understand how my lenses differ in look.
209 days ago
You used zoom lenses to cover 3 prime focal lengths. Of course it isn’t going to look as sharp on camera. The Zeiss lenses have more contrast but that is not always desired especially if you are shooting on dslrs and want the widest dynamic range
208 days ago
Correct, but as I have clearly stated, this was never supposed to be a test rather a comparison of the glass I own. Also the dynamic range of a DSLR is set and cannot be extended due to a flat camera profile or indeed a lens- what can be affected is the ‘perceived’ dynamic range which is different.
209 days ago
Zeiss CP.2 are definitely gorgeous. My understanding is these are same optics as the Zeiss still lenses, but rehoused in vastly superior mechanics. Question: are gear rings for focus and aperture across CP.2 range identical in position and diameter to make for easy lens changes in follow focus systems? Not that any of this matters to me in the least right now. A comparison of Canon EF and Rokinon Cine would be more in line with most DSLR budgets.
209 days ago
Zeiss is the clear winner here but not for the reasons I would have expected. It’s the contrast man! Sharpness was better too but it’s the contrast that was the obvious seller.
Of course I’ll never be able to afford Zeiss glass but it’s nice to think about.
And..you have chickens..or a chicken. Quaint brother! Is she a pet or eggmaker or (if it were me)–both?
208 days ago
If budget is constrained you can pick up some nice used Zeiss Contax on ebay. I had a number of these before upgrading to ZF.2
209 days ago
Great test, Den.
I love Zeiss lenses! Clearly superior to Canon.
208 days ago
http://www.the-digital-picture.com
Take a look at the above link, there are quite a few Zeiss & Nikon comparisons to mull over.
A fair Canon zoom comparison would be the new Canon 24-70 f/2.8 ll, I’d say it’s the best corrected Canon lens I’ve ever owned and almost into the 85L territory.
208 days ago
Thanks for that Chris, I’ll check it out.
207 days ago
If you try the new Canon 24-70 ll you’ll be buying it mate! (:-)
I was shocked how nice it is on the wide-end, way better than my 24L mark ll. At the 50mm setting it is VERY clean, virtually zero fringing and it just shamed my 50L in the resolution department (my favorite lens before this). It makes for a very decent portrait lens wide-open too, obviously nowhere near my 85L mark ll but the 85L is kinda crap for video with its wonky electronic focusing.
As for the 16-35, its my most used stills lens, but for video it seems to be somewhat of a pain in the arse as its loaded with “quirks” read distortions & fringing here!
208 days ago
Devil’s advocate here, but if you’re shooting for the grade then isn’t less contrast better?
There’s a clear difference in sharpness here but I’d also like to see if there is such a difference when shooting with lower bit rate codecs ie. native C300 and a DSLR. Are the differences then less notice-able? The question I’m driving at is “Are better lenses only worth it when you’ve got the rest of the kit to capture the detail?”
Terry
208 days ago
Hi Terry, that is entirely dependant on the subject matter, lighting conditions and overal desired look for the project. I don’t subscribe to the wildly common notion that everything should be shot flat. On an overcast day then extra contrast recorded at source can help greatly. Conversely if you are shooting in bright high contrast sunshine , you may want to use contrast reduction filters or choose a lens with lower contrast. Decisions on what lens to use should always be made based on lighting and subject matter.
208 days ago
Really!? You call this a test?
If using Zeiss PRIMES, then why use Canon ZOOMS instead of PRIMES? You are comparing apples to oranges here… sure prime lens can look better, it is a specialized custom tool for that focal length. You also didn’t mention the aperture used, f/8?
Also I haven’t done the research on the Zeiss lenses, but how new and expensive are they compared to the old Canon lenses used?
Canon L Series 70-200mm f2.8 [to cover focal length of 85mm] — version 1 (2003, $1200 or $2000 with IS) or version 2 (2011, $2100 with IS)? There are also notes that that f/4 version (2003, $630 or $1100 with IS) of lens is sharper than the f/2.8 from 2003 . Why not test the Canon 85mm f/1.2 L ver 2 (2003, $2000) PRIME?
Canon EF 100mm macro f2.8 (2003, $500) or with IS (2009, $900)?
From amazon researching the Zeiss lenses:
18mm ZF.2 f3.5 (2003, $1400)
25mm ZF.2 f2.0 (2012, $1700)
35mm ZF.2 f1.4 (2001, $1800)
85mm CP.2 T2.9 (2003, $4000)
100mm ZF.2 f2.0 (4003, $1850)
208 days ago
Actually no, if you re-read the post it’s not a TEST at all…
208 days ago
Also agree with @Chris Gibbs on the Canon 24-70 ver 1 (2003, $1400) or ver 2 (2012, $2300)
208 days ago
I agree with previous comments, a zoom lens is always less sharper and richer than a prime and when comparing pro lenses with some less quality lenses, it’s not a test.
Also some lenses perform very well on certain apertures, it would be fair to compare pro prime Canon lenses only.
Would you possibly do another test taking the comments into account, comparing a prime with similar.
Thank you very much
206 days ago
I am considering doing one yes but it’ll be Christmas before I have time.
208 days ago
I think the thing to take away from this comparison is that zeiss and canon have slightly different ‘looks’, one is more punchy, one less punchy, neither of those is bad or good unless you’re not touching your recorded image. Having a more or a less contrasty image will not affect how contrasty or not contrasty you can make the image in post as it won’t affect the recorded dynamic range.
I’m not sure I agree that ” On an overcast day then extra contrast recorded at source can help greatly”, I don’t think you could tell the difference on a graded shot but I would love to see a test on that.
206 days ago
Hi Toby, thanks for your input. I agree with you and lens choice is subjective. That is why many Hollywood DP’s choose lenses depending on subject matter because the different manufacturers grind glass in different ways this resulting in a different feel when put into different situations.
Ture that when grading most effect can be reproduced but if you are shooting DSLr at 8 Bit then there is simply not the latitude in the base image to push too far without increasing noise or other picture degradation.
Hence why selecting a lens and or filter combination in conjunction with a picture profile when using 8 bit formats can have a significant effect on the final recorded image before you take it into post and therefore stands a better chance of the final polish.
I know this from years of shooting betacam SP which was 8 bit SD and only 5 stops of dynamic range. Using filters was all we had and so it teaches you to work with the light in a certain way.
205 days ago
Ouch! 5 stops?! That must have been very tricky to use! I just don’t think the lattitude is realistically affected by Zeiss/Canon choice. Even on a poor codec 8 bit like the T2i/550D I doubt the file will break up if you add or remove a little contrast as it’s a minor, non lattitude difference. I think if you did a blind test of a shot on something with a poor codec like a T2i with canon and then zeiss glass, graded one of them heavily and then matched the second to it, a real stress test, I don’t think there would be a discernable difference and I’m sure there wouldn’t be a difference on a robust codec. If there is I would be genuinely fascinated in seeing it, I don’t have any zeiss lenses unfortunately to test that myself.
197 days ago
i feel that when i use a prime lens for a longer time i don’t have to cmopose with the camera to my face anymore. before i put the camera up i more or less know what i will see through the camera.therefore i feel it is a lot faster to use primes, however when i shoot sports of course, i need a zoom because it would be ridiculous to run back as fast as the players are coming forth
208 days ago
Good comparison test, this shows the importance of glass selection. So how about testing the Zeiss primes again against some older Nikon prime lenses. Like maybe a Nikon Nikkkor 85 mm 1.8 or a Nikon 50 mm 1.4. I have also found that some of the old m42 mount Pentax lenses have been a bit more contrasty than other lenses I have compared. With those old lenses you’re not paying for servos another crazy computer-controlled technologies in the lens. You’re actually paying for what the lens was designed to be. Correct that you wouldn’t have any control over image stabilization, however if we are cinematographers, why would we need image stabilization??? The older lenses also have an iris ring versus computer controls similar to the newer EF lenses. I have found the older prime lenses to be cleaner, sharper, clearer, higher contrast and to have a much more rich look than newer EF lenses. If the older AF style Nikon lenses will give the Zeiss primes a run for their money, then why spend thousands on a lens when you could spend hundreds?
208 days ago
Thanks for the lens comparison video, which convincingly and scientifically proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that most people don’t read the instructions before complaining about the results.
207 days ago
I would like to see someone test the Canon 85mm f/1.2 L II versus the Zeiss I think that would reveal a different story entirely. I have noticed when using the Canon 85mm on landscape images that it produces very sharp and high contrast images especially when focused manually on anything. the images appear almost 3D ish.
I’m asking because I’m thinking of using the best 85mm I can on my Canon 1DX when shooting in 1080p 24fps All-I mode
206 days ago
With moiré not being an issue with cameras like the 5D Mk III anymore, starting with sharper images generally yields better results than starting with softer images and adding sharpness in post.
Besides, contrary to adding sharpness with the camera settings, a sharper lens delivers flawless results, with no edge artifacts. Therefore, sharper lenses are, in most cases, better than soft lenses to generate ideal footage for post.
There are cases when softer may be better, such as in shooting portraits or closeups of people. But, in those cases, a ProMist filter added do the lens takes away the excessive definition. Because there are no sharpening filters, having a sharper lens rather than a soft one gives the photographer more options.
Certain portrait lenses, like the 85mm Jupiter 9 (a modified Zeiss design), purposefully soften the image at their widest aperture in order do hide skin blemishes, but sharpen up as soon as the aperture is stopped down.
Certain color grading tools, like DaVinci Resolve, also offer an electronic version of the ProMist filter, with the advantage that it may only be applied to operator selected ares, such as skin, while leaving other areas such as the the eyes fully detailed.
Lens choice depends on a series of factors. Sharpness is just one of them. Zeiss lenses do combine many attractive features, hence their desirability.
206 days ago
An interesting range of comments here. The things that should be picked out from Den’s useful test are not a pixel peeping obsession with sharpness, but the ‘look’ one gets from different lenses.
Ironically, Zeiss are not always the sharpest lenses out there, but their contrast and warmth give a very distinct image. Canon lenses tend to have less of a ‘bite’ out of the box, but detail is normally very good and in many cases will be superior to faster Zeiss lenses.
Canon lenses vary depending on their generations – for instance the much loved white 70-200 f/2.8L was first born in 1998 and comes in 3 different flavours – two with stabilisation and one without. The last version is the MkII with IS and it is markedly superior to other variants.
@chrisgibbs mentions the 85L – I’m guessing you mean the 85mm f/1.2L II? A good stills lens, though plagued by horrific CA and dodgy focus. The very cheap, but extremely sharp 85mm f/1.8 lens is actually the best for video and stills and only around $450 / £280.
Chris also mentions the (incredible) new 24-70 f/2.8L II zoom. Stunningly sharp and CA free, it is one of the best lenses around at this moment and only let down by minimal travel SLR focusing and a cranky zoom mechanism. I’m just back from shooting films for charity projects in E. Africa for two weeks. This lens hardly left my 1Dx during the trip and is almost as sharp at f2.8 as stopped down to 5.6
@photodeluxe the new 24-70 II is actually superior to most of the Zeiss CP.2 lenses in terms of sharpness, bokeh and Chromatic abberation – most usefully for DSLR shooters it has a filter thread (82mm), removing the need for bulky matt boxes that scream “I’m filming you!”
206 days ago
Thank you Nick, well observed. And very helpful input.
205 days ago
Hi Nick,
Yes I use the 85 L f/1.2 version ll.
My personal take (I’m a stills guy BTW) if I’m shooting colour, the 24L, 35L, 50L & 85L are all f/2 lenses as CA (as you rightly stated) can be quite severe at wider apertures. If I’m shooting for B&W output the CA/purple fringing (especially on the 85L @ f/1.2) becomes a non-issue.
So for all practical purposes, I’m only loosing a stop with the 24-70 (which is virtually free off aberrations wide-open at f/2.8) to my fast primes — unless I’m shooting for monochrome output that is.
Also, from a practical/monetary perspective the Canon 24-70 L mark ll is a very inexpensive lens for me replacing the need for a 24L, 35L & 50L. I’m happier with the 24-70 ll & 70-200 ll on two bodies. But I think that’s pretty standard for we stills guys! (:-)
Your comment about the 85 f/1.8 is interesting but I’ve yet to try it. My copy of the 85L is sublime at f/2, in some ways its too nice, too clean for portraits anyway.
An interesting topic, thanks to Den for bringing it up!
PS. Den will get this. (:-) I was raised in England on Cadbury chocolate and here in the states they sell locally manufactured Cadbury chocolate, its manufactured under license by Hershey — its not the same, no matter how hard they try, but to those who have no point of reference its better than Hershey branded! I’m thinking Zeiss here!
205 days ago
I have used Contax Zeiss for years in stills and now on the FS100. Without question, the 60/2.8 makro is astonishing – and it shows. From what I own, next in line, the 50/1.4, 180/2.8, 85 /1.4 and zoom 28-85. Next 300/4; 28/2.8. the vintage 70-210/3.5 is OK only. In all cases the color, clarity, warmth, boketh is beyond reproach, except the boketh in the 28 and a bit in the zoom. I have tried other stuff, but like this exercise, the results are similar.
I have come to the point, where I simply want good quality images and can’t afford to take a chance. And Zeiss wins pretty much each time. This confirms it.
Good test and a confirmation to what I have experienced.
167 days ago
[...] Comments FacebookDen Lennie från F-Stop Academy har jämfört Zeiss och Canons objektiv på en Black Magic Cinema Camera. Han har även gjort ett [...]
167 days ago
[...] Comments FacebookDen Lennie från F-Stop Academy har jämfört Zeiss och Canons objektiv på en Black Magic Cinema Camera. Han har även gjort ett [...]