Cooke/Zeiss primes vs. Nikkor primes

[Robert Edge]

I've been looking at the cost of Cooke and Zeiss primes compared to the cost of Nikkor primes. The former are astronomically more expensive than the latter, even at fairly short focal lengths. From previous posts on this forum, the argument for the Cooke and Zeiss primes over still photography lenses seems to come down to two main points:

 

First, the Cooke and Zeiss lenses have focus rings that make it much easier to change focus during a shot. Maybe so. For the price difference, I figure that I can live without changing focus during a shot. In fact, I find some of this focus change stuff fairly aggravating (such as changing focus from a face in the foreground to a face in the background).

 

The second argument is that Cooke and Zeiss primes are "matched" in terms of colour and contrast and Nikkor primes are not. I'd be interested in knowing when Cooke and Zeiss started saying that their lenses are "matched". More imporantly, I'd like to know how real this is. Is it noticeable or is this akin to Leica photographers going on about bokeh? Does anyone know of a film where the use of different lenses has led to an apparent mismatch on the screen. If it is real, is it something that is significant not just within a scene, but between scenes? How difficult would it be, during the post process, to "match" footage made with Nikkor lenses?

 

Parenthetically, why are Cooke and Zeiss primes so heavy compared to still photography primes?

 

Thanks.

[Rik Andino]

Well still photography primes are not created to withstand filmset conditions...

Zeiss and Cooke primes are constructed for filmmaking purposes

So they have different construction which makes them heavier

 

Real issues you'll come into shooting with SLR primes is:

 

1) None of them are wide enough--I think the widest Nikkor is around 14mm

Which is not wide at all for 16mm or S16--

you might need something closer to 10mm

To accomplish an angle-of-view comparable to a 20mm focal lenght in 35mm

 

2) They're not made for filmmaking, so you'll have to adjust them

If you want to be able to use a followfocus or other filmmaking tools

& they tend to breathe alot so a rack focus might be very noticeable

 

Of course you don't really care to rack focus much..

Personally I agree it's an overused tool (like many other cinema tools)

But there might come a time you'll need to rack focus

So keep in mind you might be limiting your options.

 

Now the fact that SLR lens are made for one camera

& that you don't need to match one picture to the next

Attributes to the fact that the lenses might not create

Matching color (or colour as you put it :) ) and contrast

However this is something you can fix in post through grading...

(If you can afford it) So it's not that big of a problem

 

If you can't get Cine primes than use the Nikkors

See how it comes out.

[Nathan Milford]

Parenthetically, why are Cooke and Zeiss primes so heavy compared to still photography primes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Cine primes usually need to be faster (as we have less shutter speed options) so the elements are typically larger and they tend to have larger barrels to make it easier for someone to pull focus during a shot.

[Rik Andino]

Doing some math and looking it over...

I don't see that much of an economic advantage buying Nikkors over Cine Primes

 

A Good Set of Nikkors will probably run you about $4000US

 

And the best set you can get is:

14mm, 16mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm

(That's if you can use AF lenses if not

The widest manual lens is 24mm which isn't wide at all for R16 or S16)

 

Meanwhile you can find a used MKI Zeiss prime set for at least $5000US

You'll get: 9.5mm, 12mm, 16mm, 25mm, 50mm

& you'll get two primes that are wider than the widest Nikkor

And you'll have Cine lenses that are better than Nikkors

 

 

If you shop around you most likely find

That Zeiss Primes aren't as expensive as you think

 

Personally I don't see the use of saving a few dollars

When you can spend a little more and get better quality.

 

 

Good Luck

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I shot a MV with Nikkor for the longer lenses and Zeiss for the shorter. I can tell you that the Nikkors were visibly less snappy in telecine. Not a catastrophe at all, just less sharp. And in 16mm every bit of sharpness helps, I think.

[Robert Edge]

I am very appreciative of the comments. The following is intended to generate discussion, not to be argumentative.

 

Nikon has made lenses as wide as 6mm. However, the 6mm is a beast and their 8mm would probably be the widest that would be usable. The company has also made lenses between 8mm and 14mm. At B&H in New York, the total cost of the 16, 24, 35 and 50mm lenses would be about US$1300. I already own the 24, 35 and 50. The 14mm is $1230. You can probably buy it second hand for about half that. Renting a wide lens, when needed, might also make sense. The foregoing prices are for AF lenses. Manuals would be more new (small market), but cheap used (little demand anymore). In any event, Nikkor AF lenses can be used manually. In comparison, the list prices for Cooke and Zeiss primes, which are set out on the ZGC and Arri websites respectively, are astronomical.

 

It doesn't surprise me that Cooke and Zeiss cine housings are made to withstand abuse. On the other hand, photojournalists have used Nikkors for decades to cover everything from scrums to riots to wars to natural disasters, and photographers have taken Nikkors everywhere from Everest to Antarctica. I've never heard of people complaining that their lenses are falling apart.

 

It's an interesting question about whether a current Nikkor is less sharp than a Zeiss first generation Superspeed or, for that matter, a Zeiss Ultraprime and, if so, by how much. I don't know if it's true, but a fellow named Mitch Gross said in an earlier thread that Contax was selling lenses for its cameras that were the same lenses as Zeiss Superspeeds. Anyway, I wonder if anyone has actually done tests to compare the performance of cine and still camera lenses.

 

I've compared the speed of Cooke/Zeiss and Nikkor lenses. The former tend to be faster, but not by much. In any event, given the current quality of film stocks and the range of ASA speeds available, I wonder whether this is really an issue. To me, the more interesting question is whether cine lenses are in fact sharper than still camera lenses at their first couple of stops. I've read suggestions to this effect, attributed to the Distagon design, but I've also read statements on this site that suggest that these claims are exaggerated. How often do cinematographers actually use cine primes wide open?

 

I have a question that Mr. Milford might be able to answer. The Aaton A-Minima comes in PL and Nikkor mount. Do you know what the market is for the Nikkor mount? What do people want it for?

 

Thanks again for the responses.

[Robert Edge]

Rik,

 

I just noticed that the 16mm you referred to is a fisheye lens. I've now looked at a book on Nikkor lenses to check which wide lenses are rectilinear. The book is a bit unclear, but it looks like the company has made rectilinear lenses at 13, 14, 15, 18 and 20mm. The current lineup is a 14mm f2.8, an 18mm f2.8 and a 20mm f2.8. The 24mm is f2. The 35mm and 50mm are available at a variety of speeds and vary quite a bit in price.

 

If one bought a 14, 18, 24 and the 35 and 50 at f1.4, the cost would be roughly what you suggested in your earlier post (i.e. $4000).

[andrewbuchanan]

A resolution chart and some short ends could bring this discussion to a swift and dramatic conclusion.

[Robert Edge]

A resolution chart and some short ends could bring this discussion to a swift and dramatic conclusion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm surprised that that kind of testing hasn't already been done, or, if it has, that the results aren't well known. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a variety of Cooke, Zeiss and Nikon primes to do the tests myself. Does anyone know if Cooke or Zeiss publish MTF charts for their lenses? I'd like to compare them to Nikon's charts.

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm sure the sharpness is fine -- Nikkors get used on VistaVision cameras for efx photography so they can't be that soft. Probably not modern Zeiss sharp but sharp enough. The problem is that they are not designed for motion pictures: the zooms don't track and they fall off in speed, the focus marks on primes and zooms are too close together and I believe the barrel rotation is opposite of a cine lens. Motion picture lenses are designed to not change image properties and exposure during focus adjustments, or at least, minimize those changes. Efx people using Nikkors on VistaVision cameras often are shooting at a deep f-stop, so focus-pulling is often less challenging.

 

It's silly to say "well, I just won't rack-focus the lens then..." Motion picture focus-pulling is quite complex, following actors from near to far using the focus marks as a guide, not pulling by eye, and the focus has to shift quite radically sometimes. It's unavoidable.

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

 

I have used Nikon Lenses for over 25 years on motion control cameras with a bellows focus.

They are fine for background plates and product shots. They look sharp until you do a back to back test with a modern Cooke or Zeiss lens. Then I have observed that they have more contrast but less resoloution, so the apparant sharpness is better than the reality, like crushing the black on video. The F stop can only be adjusted accurately in half stop's with a click. I would not use Nikon lenses for live action unless they were rebuilt as motion picture lenses. The cost would be so high I would recomend buying a second hand set of Zeiss lenses.

 

Stephen Williams DP

Zurich

 

www.stephenw.com

[Robert Edge]

David,

 

Your comments are extremely helpful and they greatly clarify the issue. If I reject Nikkors as an option, at least now it will be based on a demonstrably solid ground. I don't have any doubt that the focus marks on Nikkors are too close together to change focus during a shot. For what you do, I also have no doubt that focus pulling is essential. Sorry if I made light of it a little. I don't do what you do (regrettably), and for the application I have in mind, at least in the short term, there is a real issue about whether focus pulling will be necessary. I need to think further about this.

 

By the way, Nikon does make zooms that retain their speed throughout, but in my case it's beside the point because I'm not interested in using a zoom lens.

 

One question if you have a moment, more out of curiousity than anything. I gather from one or two previous posts that you are very familiar with the work of Nestor Almendros. Do you have a sense, off the top of your head, about how much Almendros used focus adjustments in the films he made with Rohmer? I re-read Almendros's notes for those films a couple of days ago, and he doesn't discuss the subject.

 

Stephen,

 

I wrote the foregoing before seeing your post. Thanks also for your comments. Interestingly, the application I have in mind includes still life subjects. Anyway, you've given me more to think about. If I reject Nikkors, thanks to you and David at least now I'll know why I'm doing it.

Edited April 28, 2005 by R. Edge

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't recall anything particular about Rohmer's use of focus, but I assume that if they wanted an actor to stay in focus, and the actor moved from ten feet away to three feet away, they changed the focus to match in most cases.

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

 

One other thing, Nikon lenses have more barrel distortion, than Zeiss /Cooke's. That won't be an issue for still life! You can pick up Nikon lenses very cheaply on E-Bay.

[Robert Morein]

I'm surprised that that kind of testing hasn't already been done, or, if it has, that the results aren't well known.  Unfortunately, I don't have access to a variety of Cooke, Zeiss and Nikon primes to do the tests myself.  Does anyone know if Cooke or Zeiss publish MTF charts for their lenses?  I'd like to compare them to Nikon's charts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have done some testing along these lines. I used a newsprint target, and the high magnification of a Kinoptic viewfinder. Differences were plainly visible.

At 24mm and above, the Nikkors are comparable to Zeiss and Cooke. Below 20mm, they are not, and, IMHO, unacceptably soft for any serious use. With autofocus lenses, element shift was plainly evident that would compromise everything dear to 16mm. The resolution requirements for 35mm full frame photography are relaxed compared to 16mm, and the lenses are made to a price point.

Even if the Nikkors were made as well, the short focal length lenses are challenged by the need to cover an enormous frame. All things equal, the lens designer has more freedom optimizing for a small frame than a large one. Hence cine lenses win again.

But performance jumped sharply at 24mm, and increased rapidly with increasing focal length. The 50mm F1.4 Nikkor is an exquisitely sharp lens, but so is an old Cooke 50mm Kinetal.

A viewfinder comparison between the Zeiss Superspeeds and the Cooke Kinetals is not as revealing. Proper testing with lens charts or a lens projector would be required. I get the impression, however, that the Kinetals may be closer to the Zeiss than generally stated. The Cooke 25mm seemed very sharp, possibly with one unsharp zone particular to the sample.

I would suggest use of old Arri-S mount lenses for short focal lengths in preference to Nikkors below 24mm. Good brands include Schneider Xenon, Cooke Kinetal, and, of course, Zeiss.