Previous news story    Next news story

Canon announces 14mm T3.1 and 135mm T2.2 Cinema EOS prime lenses

By dpreview staff on Jan 10, 2013 at 16:18 GMT

Canon has announced two additions to its range of Cinema EOS prime lenses, a 14mm T3.1 and 135mm T2.2. The CN-E14mm T3.1 L F and CN-E135mm T2.2 L F are both designed to be used on movie cameras with image sensors up to 35mm full frame in size, and include a range of features optimized for movie shooting. These include geared focus and aperture rings with markings designed to be read from the side of the camera, 11-bladed circular aperture diaphragms, and all-metal weather-resistant construction. The 14mm T3.1 will be available from April 2013 at an estimated retail price of $5,500, while the 135mm T2.2 will appear in May for $5,200.

Press release:

Canon U.S.A. Introduces Two New Cinema Prime Lenses, Expanding The Cinema EOS Prime Lens Product Line To Five Models

 Canon Cinema EOS CN-E135mm T2.2 L F

Designed for Film-Style Operation, Canon Cinema Prime Lenses Deliver Exceptional 4K Performance

LAKE SUCCESS, N.Y., January 10, 2013 – Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, announces the new CN-E14mm T3.1 L F and CN-E135mm T2.2 L F single-focal-length lenses for large-format single-sensor cameras employing Super 35mm or full frame 35mm imagers. These two new lenses join with Canon’s CN-E24mm T1.5 L F, CN-E50mm T1.3 L F, and CN-E85mm T1.3 L F primes to provide a broad line of five precision-matched, competitively priced EF-mount Cinema prime lenses that provide high optical performance levels and a choice of versatile focal lengths for a wide range of creative shooting choices. All five Canon Cinema prime lenses are part of the Canon Cinema EOS System of professional digital cinematography products, which include the EOS C500 4K/2K  Digital Cinema Camera, EOS C300 Digital Cinema Camera, EOS C100 Digital Video Camera and EOS-1D C 4K DSLR Cinema Camera, and four Canon Cinema zoom lenses.

"Since our introduction to the film and television production industry back in November 2011, we have brought to market five Cinema prime lenses, two top-end Cinema zoom lenses, two compact Cinema zoom lenses, and four professional digital cinematography cameras all within 18 months,” stated Yuichi Ishizuka, executive vice president and general manager, Imaging Technologies & Communications Group, Canon U.S.A. “This is a testament to the Company’s dedication to the needs of the growing and diverse universe of professionals creating 4K, 2K, and HD moving-image content for theatrical, television, and other high-resolution digital production markets. We look forward to continuing to serve these professionals with Canon Cinema EOS products designed to help them achieve their creative imperatives and commercial aspirations."

All Canon Cinema EOS lenses integrate advanced materials and coatings to meet high optical performance levels, including 4K (4096 x 2160) production standards. Each Canon Cinema lens is equipped with an odd-numbered 11-blade aperture diaphragm, which is ideally suited to achieve creative depth-of-field manipulation and pleasing “bokeh” effects of cinematographic quality. The Canon line of five Cinema prime lenses is precision-matched for consistent and solid optical performance that minimizes focus-induced changes in the angle of view. All feature a full-frame image circle in a lightweight, compact design, and they incorporate proven Canon lens elements designed to fulfill contemporary 4K production standards. All five primes also deliver color tone and balance that matches Canon’s top-end Cinema zooms and compact Cinema zooms. Canon Cinema prime lenses are also water-resistant for severe shooting conditions and deliver the operation and reliability required in professional film-style shooting environments.

All five Canon Cinema primes feature mechanical attributes specifically designed for motion-picture production, as opposed to still photography. These strategically integrated film-style characteristics include 300 degree rotation on the focus ring for precision focus control as well as large, highly visible engraved focus scales for convenient operation. These markings appear on the angled surfaces on both sides of the barrel, making them easy to both read and to adjust the stepless focus and/or aperture settings of the lenses from behind – or from either side – of the camera. Focus markings can be switched from standard labeling to metric, and control rings are engineered to maintain the proper amount of resistance with consistent operating torque and familiar tactile “feedback” for satisfying manual control. All Canon Cinema prime lenses also share the same uniform gear positions, diameters, and rotation angles, as well as front-lens diameters, making them compatible with matte boxes, follow focus gear, marking disks, and other third-party film-industry-standard accessories. Film crews can quickly change lenses without the need for accessory gear-position adjustments or other changes to the rig setup.

The new Canon CN-E14mm T3.1 and CN-E135mm T2.2 Cinema prime lenses – as well as the Canon CN-E24mm T1.5, CN-E50mm T1.3, and CN-E85mm T1.3 primes – are fully compatible with the Canon EOS C500, EOS C300, EOS C100 and EOS-1D C digital cinema cameras. The EF-mount design of all five Canon Cinema prime lenses provides communication with these cameras for such handy features as display of the f number in the electronic viewfinder, recording of focus/zoom position and f number, and Peripheral Light Compensation1 for more pleasing effects shots.

The versatility of image-capture options using Canon EOS digital cinema cameras can be further extended with Canon’s Super35mm top-end Cinema zoom lenses (the CN-E14.5-60mm T2.6 wide-angle and the CN-E30-300mm T2.95-3.7 telephoto) and compact Cinema zooms (the CN-E15.5-47mm T2.8 wide-angle and CN-E30-105mm T2.8 telephoto). All four are available in both EF- and PL-mount versions, as are the EOS C500 and EOS C300 cameras. Almost all of Canon’s EF Series photographic lenses can also be used with these Cinema EOS cameras, including Image Stabilized zooms, tilt-shift models, and macro lenses. All of these products are designed to contribute to the continued advancement of tools for visual storytelling and all express Canon’s continuing commitment to cinematic culture.

Pricing and Availability

The CN-E14mm T3.1 L F single-focal-length lens is expected to be available in April 2013 for an estimated retail price of $5,500. The CN-E135mm T2.2 L F single-focal-length lens is expected to be available in May 2013 for an estimated retail price of $5,200.


1The Peripheral Light Compensation Function will be available in 2013 and will require firmware upgrade for compatible cameras.

Further images

Canon CN-E135mm T2.2 L F  Canon CN-E14mm T3.1 L F

Comments

Total comments: 104
Kinematic Digit
By Kinematic Digit (Jan 18, 2013)

one thing is certain... little if any people in the (target) cinema industry will care about what is published in this forum let alone on this website.

I work in a film school and have associates at Lucas films, and in my own experience and what opinions are expressed here will not affect the real consumers of these lenses.

Regardless, most cinematographers will rent these lenses, and many cinema rental places will have them in stock. Whether or not you understand the price point or not, the people in the actually industry will only care about how it performs in the situations that they are faced with.

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
atlien991
By atlien991 (Jan 21, 2013)

If the comments were all glowing with praise, would you have said that?

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 23, 2013)

"... what opinions are expressed here will not affect the real consumers of these lenses."

That is correct, Kinematic, if only because the true "consumers" of these lenses will be the remaining few larger camera and accessories rental houses that, as a rule, buy a few copies of EVERYTHING that comes out. That is what they do.

Will these cost less to rent than the competing, well established Cooke, Angenieux, C. Zeiss, Fujinon, and Panavision lenses? if not, will the Canon lenses be higher quality than the brands I jsut mentioned? And if so, why?

Anyhow, this would take care of the "rental market." The recent trend is, however, for the workers (videographers and filmmakers) to actually OWN their means of productions -- cameras, lenses, accessories. For those "consumers," these pricey Canon lenses priced up to $48,000 for a single zoom lens will simply not be happening, IMO at least.

0 upvotes
maniax
By maniax (Jan 13, 2013)

Waste of money this digital moviemaking. In 10 years there will be probably some 20mpixel video mode and your 2k/4k old stuff will look crap. While something shot on 35mm film or higher could still have more details.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 14, 2013)

If Canon is marketing these pricey "cine" lenses of theirs as "4K capable," I guess you can toss them out to the garbage heap in about 8 years time, when the 8K resolution digital cameras are expected to hit our shores. Canon F65 will be able to record 6K resolution video this year already. A 4K-only lens -- not too smart for an investment in 2013, I would think.

If you are very careful, you can get a higher quality scan Lasergraphics from 35mm negative film at 8K than at 6K, i.e. the horozontal line resolution of Eastam Kodak Vision3 film is somewhere around 6 to 8 thousand lines per 4-perf 35mm film frame.

Shooting on 65mm film would quadruple this. So you are at least partially right. Unfortunately, we all can only shoot with equipment available today, and so far there are very few superior alternatives to 35mm motion picture negative film stock acquisition, followed by a 2K to 8K scan to DPX files for the Digital Intermediate.

1 upvote
G Davidson
By G Davidson (Jan 14, 2013)

4k isn't all that much resolution for a lens... I expect they'll work fine on 8k cameras as well, after all they work on 20mp+ DSLRs.

In terms of the video I agree though and thanks for your insight, 4k digital won't stand the test of time as well as modern film will, yet I expect it's a lot easier to deal with.

3 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 14, 2013)

"All Canon Cinema EOS lenses integrate advanced materials and coatings to meet high optical performance levels, including 4K (4096 x 2160) production standards."

I am not reading out of this Canon press announcement the same things as you do, I guess, namely that the same lens listed here by them and stated to be able to resolve for 4K = app. 8.85MP video will also be able to resolve for 8K = app. 35.4MP video.

Instead of actually stating the true maximum tested resolving power of these Canon "cinematic" lenses, all they state is that it will work w. 4K video -- big to-do, surely.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 14, 2013)

How is digital moviemaking a waste of money when Hollywood studios are making hundreds of million of dollars on blockbuster films shot on Arri Alexa and RED cameras? And filmmaking, whether it's film or digital is still a craft with techniques that are more similar than they are different.

All technology progresses. Does that mean we should ignore current tools and stop creating for some future promise of something marginally better? Of course not.

2 upvotes
Kinematic Digit
By Kinematic Digit (Jan 18, 2013)

At $4000 to $8000 per 30 minutes of film, digital makes far more sense these days.

No one I know in the cinema industry is sad to see the demise of film considering the cost.

1 upvote
Horshack
By Horshack (Jan 13, 2013)

Canon is snatching defeat from the jaws of DSLR video victory with their ridiculous pricing of underspec'd cine bodies and now lenses. It's almost like the 5D Mark II's amazing success in DSLR video was an undesired outcome for them.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 13, 2013)

Horsehack = you hit in right on the head. There is a perverse need to self-destruct with Canon for the past 3 years or so. Let's look at the value of these latest Canon lenses.

Canon 14mm/T3.1 Cinema Lens = US$5,500

Rokinon 14mm/T3.1 Cinema Lens = US$499

http://www.rokinon.com/product.php?id=218

Wow, so the Canon cine-lens costs a whopping US$5,001 MORE than what the Rokinon cine lens can be gotten for. That's quite a price spread for the same basic specification optic, isn't it though? I guess the additional $5,001 goes for the "Canon Name Surcharge" part?

Incidentally, these are both cine-style lenses, with substantial focus ring travel, de-clicked aperture ring, aperture openings measured in T-stops, etc.

With the ionospheric prices that Canon is demanding for their wares, they will have one heck of a time breaking into the cine-lens market ruled, on the high end, by Cooke, Angenieux, Carl Zeiss, and Panavision (rentals only, and on the lower end, by Rokinon & Co.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 14, 2013)

Are you really comparing a Rokinon 14mm, which is actually a converted still camera lens, to a proper Canon Cine lens that's designed to resolive 4K?

As far a Cooke and Angenieux, you are aware that the cheapest Cooke lens is $8000 and the least expensive Angenieux lens is a whopping $20,000, aren't you? So how do you figure it's a "Canon Name Surcharge" when their Cine lens prices are in line with other lenses like the Zeiss Compact Primes or dramatically less expensive than either Cooke or Angenieux Cine lenses?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 23, 2013)

Yes, I am comparing lenses to lenses.

In similarly priced cinema category lenses, these new Canon primes and zooms MUST BE COMPARED to such well established brand of high-end cinema glasses as Cooke, Carl Zeiss, Angeniux, Panavision, even Fujinon.

If Iw as tor ent a Canon EOS C300 or C500 camera from a rental house, the only reason I would rent Canon EOS Cinema lenses with it would be if the Canon lenses would be at least 20% cheaper out the door than these other, established makes.

Now, for the general readership of DP review (photographers and budding videographers), the Canon should be compared to the Rokinons and other cheap lenses to show what else one can get for a fraction of the cost than what Canon is selling their fancy new lenses for.

BTW, are you suggesting that a Rokinon lens, or in fact any other modern lens covering full-frame 135 sensor, will NOT resolve for 4K video? How come?

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 23, 2013)

"As far a Cooke and Angenieux, you are aware that the cheapest Cooke lens is $8000 and the least expensive Angenieux lens is a whopping $20,000, aren't you?"

Okay. You can still get a brand spanking new Cooke prime lens from ZGC in New Jersey for under $6,000, last I checked. For primes, word out there is that the Cookes of U.K. are probably the best optics out there, bar none.
As for Angenieux, these days they only make ZOOM LENSES, so it might be better to compare them to the $48,000 Canon EOS Cinema zoom, for example.

The problem for Canon is, they obviously cannot or will not compete on price, so their new EOS Cinema lenses must be indisputably higher quality than any of the other name brand, highly reputable, entrenched lenses are for the cinema and digital cinema cameras. That is one tall order to accomplish, I would think.

0 upvotes
acidic
By acidic (Jan 11, 2013)

What does "T" mean? As in T3.1 and T2.2. Is this Cine-speak for "F"?

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

More or less. It used to be rather useful back in the day of rather inefficient lens designs, when there was really a perceivable difference in a lens's performance when measured in F versus T. But those days are gone now. The better handheld light meters let you read off aperture in both F and T. Besides, with 12 to 14 F-stops of dynamic range, most DPs really do not fret over setting aperture 1/3rd F-stop above or below.

1 upvote
silyn
By silyn (Jan 11, 2013)

Wrong again. T-stops are f-stops adjusted for light transmission efficiency. F-stop is mostly a mathematical concept. T-stop is what happens in real life. The latter always was and still is extremely important in cinematography.

The reason is in consistency in output needed since (1)film consists of many "pieces" and (2) the nature of filmmaking where pieces/clips originate from different cameras, locations, light conditions, often shot by people who may not even know each other. Efficiecy of modern lenses not enough to use Fs

Because of this, cine lens designers try to facilitate production and post-production. It relates to both, optical and mechanical aspects. Example:you may have noticed the diameter (and not only) of new lenses is the same and consistent with previously released lenses by Canon. Otherwise, it would be a nightmare to change lenses connected to matte box, follow focus, etc. It is very difficult to design lenses following such strict requirements. Costs go up.

5 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 13, 2013)

T-stop of F-stop, makes not much difference on an actual shooting set. The T-stop of every F-stop lens can be easily calculated with a simple test.

"Efficiecy of modern lenses not enough to use Fs."

Quick, someone tell this important news to Canon, since the vast majority of their lenses are spec'd in F-stops, not in T-stops, correct? Lazy, lazy Canon-san....

0 upvotes
Rick Knepper
By Rick Knepper (Jan 11, 2013)

I'm always disappointed when Canon doesn't release products in the category I am interested in but I also understand that Canon has to throw the five companies in the world using Canon Cinema products a bone once in a while.

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Jan 11, 2013)

Hrrgh. Hrrrrghhhhhh. Hnnnnnnnhhhhh. Splat!

0 upvotes
Roberto Mettifogo
By Roberto Mettifogo (Jan 11, 2013)

very good for movie making, solid, precise focusing and follow focus ready, precise markings on the barrel, don't complain about price guys, this is not for the sunday photographers... it is a high end lens for digital cinematography, and most of the user will rent them, the price is good.

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

Hocus-pocus for movie making, you mean?

Look at the focus ring, for example,. A total joke with like 50 witness markings, what the heck for? You had to set focus using these witness marks back in the era of FILM cameras, and only because the OVF was so dark, you could not really see whether the subject was in focus by using the viewfinder. So, you had to measure the distance by tape from film plane to subject, and set the distance using the witness marks.

Not so today, when there are no more film cameras being made, and when in the digital world people can set sharp focus in a multitude of ways -- none of which would include relying on nothing but these old-school witness marks.

With a single focal lens mounted on a digital camera.... and provided you know what you are doing.... you do not need any of these fancy white and yellow witness marks with which Canon deemed to populate their "cine" lenses.

2 upvotes
ikinone
By ikinone (Jan 11, 2013)

What other ways - phase detection and in lens autofocus? Genuine question - I am curious.

2 upvotes
silyn
By silyn (Jan 11, 2013)

AF works well with photo. With video it does not work this way. There are situations when AF is needed, for example in ENG when you deal with events and cinematigraphic qualities of your footage are not a major concern.

Usually, in filmmaking, you never use AF because of the moving nature of everything you deal with. Only humans are capable of deciding what and how should be in focus. Focus pulling is usually performed by an assistant. Scenes are staged so that focus is set exactly how it's needed.

All sorts of aids are used. And yes, tape is still used with digital cameras as well as all sorts of markings including precise and calibrated markings on lenses and often, in addition, manual markings on follow focus rings so that when the actual scene is shot, you already know how to pull the focus. Even marks on the ground. Canon cine lenses are very high quality - watch this http://vimeo.com/56357604 to see how some of them compare with L lens - you may be surprised.

8 upvotes
julieng
By julieng (Jan 11, 2013)

@Francis

in video, speed of focus is not the same concept as in stills, where the faster the better rules.
You may want to focus at a precise speed, in sync with the actors and the punch lines. AF just doesn't won't for that.
Then, there is the issue of AF hunting. You don't really want to show that in video. well, It happens all the time on youtube, but seriously, you don't want to do that..
That said, with cropping and smooth transitions, you can get away with AF in many situations. Say, you are shooting a wildlife documentary with several cameras on different angle catching a fight of some sort. You might get like an hour of video to choose from for maybe 3 minutes of footage. AF hunting is easily cropped away and not really a problem here.
But trust me, on a movie sets, manual focus is extremely common practice.

4 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

@ ikinone: I was talking about MANUAL FOCUSING, since the lenses featured here do not do auto focusing. Most cinema-bred DPs are not friends of AF. Anyhow, for MANUAL FOCUSING you've got histograms and zebra patterns and instant zoom-ins and all sorts of peaking assistance techniques, not to mention just using a larger, high-rez monitor attached via SDI or HDMI and pull focus by looking at the image on that. You can see exactly when something is in focus that way. Day and night from the old film cameras with their rather dark optical VFs.

@ silyn: You are right, however, when you use dry erase markings on a follow focus disc for your in and out focus points, you do not usually correlate these with what is on the lens' focus ring witness marks, at least not during the actual take.

@ julieng: Since I never used AF for film/video in my life, I am not at all a proponent of autofocusing. For news events, the old trick is set distance at app. 2.5 meters, iris at F8, and just shoot.

0 upvotes
jackpro
By jackpro (Jan 13, 2013)

awesome in vimeo link these cinema lenses have the higher contrast not unlike zeiss but still that creamy look of canon top notch also see this http://vimeo.com/55985070 canon zeiss compare

0 upvotes
Steven Lungley
By Steven Lungley (Jan 17, 2013)

I can see you have never pulled focus on a film.

Focus pullers are frequently asked to focus for splits to carry focus between two people or things in the same shot. The working T stop might be T2.8 for all interior shots. If you know the near and far depth of field, to get both things in focus you have to set the distance mark somewhere in between the two items.

AF doesn't work because there is nothing to actually put an AF sensor on. You need accurate witness marks on the lens so you know where you are at in relation to the splits.

One of my friends once did a 7-minute take on a TV series with the camera on a dolly and the cast and camera in motion for the whole things. He needed 29 focus measurements to make all his splits along the way. He wrote them on tape and used the witness marks on the lens.

At T 4, everything would carry in focus, but neither the DP or director would go there. The look of their show was T2 and that was it.

Great shots and films require discipline.

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Steven Lungley
By Steven Lungley (Jan 17, 2013)

We were doing a big tracking shot in a nightclub. A crowd is at a bar and the whole back wall is a mirror. The camera starts wide and tracks in, coupled with a zoom in, to end up on a head and shoulders of two people at the bar, as a second person walks into the shot.

The focus gets closer as the camera moves/zooms into the bar, and then reverses into the mirror to focus on the reflection of the other cast member walking in. The shot goes from 90’ to 6’ and every point in between, several times, timed to the dialogue and the person at the bar spotting the person in the crowd. The camera and cast are in motion. We had tape beside the track for distance to the bar, plus set dressing on the floor at pre-set distances in case the walking cast member changed their speed in relation to the dolly (they did).

You think four witness marks on some rinky dink DSLR lens is going to get you through that one?

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 23, 2013)

@ Steven: Most of the stuff on TV today is not really all that good, so the general viewing public certainly would not give a flying hoot about T2 versus F2 and T4 versus F4.

As a focus puller, you either operate the wireless follow-focus transmitter, or else you are going to be marking up stuff in different color pens on the FF ring.

Checking all the distances using the witness marks on the focus ring made more sense in the old days, when you could really not pull proper focus through an optical VF. These days, with digital cameras and focus peaking methods and amazing external LCD/OLED screens, that is less of an issue.

Regarding the bar shot you are describing, it is sounds so over-complicated that probably even a Cooke prime with tons of metric and Imperial witness marks would not be much help. :-)

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

A lens is a lens.... now, the manufacturer like Canon may affix to the model name something fancy and smart-sounding, like "Cinema," but still... a lens is a lens. These would be interesting; although certainly not unusual single focal lenses if sold for around $1,000, well $1,500 maximum, but at the crazy prices alluded to in the press release, i.e. OVER FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS (!!!), you won't see many camera stores stocking up on them, will you now? Well, maybe in Riyadh and Zurich.

1 upvote
semorg
By semorg (Jan 11, 2013)

I have to disagree. From optical design you may be right and canon is reusing that. However, these lenses require a whole new set of assembly machining, etc. For a large company like canon these costs add up quickly and are passed on into the lens. Since they have limited quantity the portion of that additional cost is high compared to mass market lenses. This is not to say canon is not making a profit on these and they are pricing their lens lines based on the competitors , but this is a simple economics. And you're right your local camera store is not the market for these products and neither are you

6 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

I seriously doubt that Cooke of the U.K., Angenieux of France, and Carl Zeiss of Germany would as much as consider Canon a "competitor" when it comes to high-end cinema-class lenses.

Canon used to make some 16mm zooms in the past, but they never made anything for 35mm film cameras and Super 35 sensor digital film cameras AFAIK. AT the moment they are the odd man out, since their prices are neck to neck with those of the previously mentioned 3 mainline cine-lens makers. Breaking into Hollywood is not that easy, people. It took Sony over 20 years.

0 upvotes
RPJG
By RPJG (Jan 11, 2013)

If a lens is a lens, what's so great about "high end" Angenieux? Yes, I know.. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy and/or ignorance of cinema lenses.

Why can't you leave your Canon hatred at the door and just ignore these posts?

4 upvotes
JorgeLima
By JorgeLima (Jan 11, 2013)

I disagree, lenses for cinema have different requirements. Just to name one which is completely irrelevant for photography, the angular magnification must be constant across the focusing range. Then, being aimed at a niche market, even if, technically speaking, there was no reason to make them more expensive, the market rules dictates their price.

3 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

@ RPJG: What is great about Angenieux is that they make the world's highest quality cine ZOOM lenses today. At least as good as what Zeiss makes by way of zooms. Of course, back in the early 1960s Angenieux already had a constant T2.8 15-150mm zoom lens for film cameras. Thus, they are not the upstart in 33/S35 cinema lenses that Canon is.

With respect to single focals, I doubt you can mention a COOKE prime in the same sentence as a CANON prime, such as these two being introduced. Oh, and RPJG: why can't you just leave your unabashed love of all things Canon at the door?

@ JorgeLima: a lens merely has one function: to collect light and throw a recordable, in-focus image on a frame or film or digital sensor. End of story.

"the angular magnification must be constant across the focusing range."

No clue what you are talking about, JorgeLima. But you know these Canon lenses are simple single focals, right?

0 upvotes
Chris59
By Chris59 (Jan 11, 2013)

He does know what he is talking about. When you change focus with a prime lens, the focal length and hence angular magnification changes slightly. Not a problem for still photography by very noticeable in movie photography.

4 upvotes
silyn
By silyn (Jan 11, 2013)

And Francis so that you start learning something about cine lenses other than their names/manufactures, this is called "lens breathing"

3 upvotes
RPJG
By RPJG (Jan 12, 2013)

Poor Francis.. I have no unabashed love for Canon, I just prefer to read sensible comments here, i.e. not your continual boring bashing every time Canon announces something.

3 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 13, 2013)

@ Chris Age 59: All lenses "breathe." Some more than others, Come on, can't you live with it, really?

The rest of the professional Canon cine-lens defenders -- probably the ones who are not really going to be stocking up really good on these newfangled Canon cine lenses, primes,and zooms, I would venture to guess. Right?

0 upvotes
Daniel from Bavaria
By Daniel from Bavaria (Jan 10, 2013)

And Canon continous to fullfill little movie-makers dreams .... But does not bring competitive products for the stills photographer since long.

1 upvote
Infared
By Infared (Jan 10, 2013)

I absolutely no need for these lenses..but they sure are beautiful!!!!!

4 upvotes
thomas2279f
By thomas2279f (Jan 10, 2013)

Looking good, hope we see a few more good lenses from Canon, an update to 300 F4, 100-400 and 400 f5.6 would be most welcomed.

0 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Jan 10, 2013)

I laugh at all the whining about cine lenses and the prices. Since the 5D2 came out everybody thinks they're the next Spielberg. 99% of the people complaining about the price of cine lenses have never even touched one, let alone know anything about film making.

14 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

A cine lens is a lens, nonetheless. There are proper cine lenses being made today, that is true -- by the British company COOKE, by the French company ANGENIEUX, and even by the german outfit CARL ZEISS. The way Canon is trying to jump into the cine-glass game, however, is primarily by naming their lenses "Cinema-this" or "Cinema-that." Canon cinema glass is painfully short on pedigree as of now.

0 upvotes
RPJG
By RPJG (Jan 11, 2013)

Haha... pedigree is irrelevant, what matters is quality, price, being fit-for-purposes etc.

Why on earth would anyone get upset about a competent new competitor in any class of products? Even if they're not the best, the competition can only help.

Please take your pointless whining elsewhere.

5 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

@ RPJG: You obviously adore Canon so much, you have no ground left for being even semi-objective.

Okay, so do you know of ANYONE who bought one of these newfangled Canon "Cinema" primes or zooms? If not, I suggest you talk to someone at Abel Cine Tech or some other reputable vendor peddling these Canon glasses, and discreetly inquire as t how they are selling, okay?

Rental houses are already well stocked with Cooke, Zeiss, and Angenieuex optics, not to even mention Panavision, so why do you suppose they would need to buy these Canons as well?

Re. quality, are you seriously saying that one of these Canon primes is going to be delivering HIGHER optical quality than let's say a corresponding Cooke prime lens would. How so?

I agree with the "fit for purpose" part, though -- if the lens has an Arri positive Locking PL-mount, it is fit to be fitted on any PL-mount camera.

0 upvotes
RPJG
By RPJG (Jan 12, 2013)

Comprehension is clearly not your strong point, Francis. And it's interesting that you take my comments as being pro-Canon (which they aren't), when all I am doing is pointing out your repetitive and boring Canon-bashing - which is even worse when your comments make it clear that you don't even understand some of the reasons cine lenses aren't the same as film lenses.

5 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (Jan 10, 2013)

is indeed given almost?
who need's today?

0 upvotes
Simon97
By Simon97 (Jan 10, 2013)

Canon, how about some lenses for the M?

5 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (Jan 10, 2013)

Canon how about an M2 that gets it right this time.

6 upvotes
Michaels7
By Michaels7 (Jan 10, 2013)

I'd love to rock that 14 mm. Sony? What's up? We need primes like these.

2 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Jan 10, 2013)

The question is if they are better than Zeiss.

3 upvotes
Michal Rosa
By Michal Rosa (Jan 10, 2013)

It's not "the question", it's "a question" and a fairly unimporatnt one at that.

7 upvotes
solarsky
By solarsky (Jan 10, 2013)

It's really time SLR Magic, Cosina, Samyang came up with this grade stuff for a fraction. They'd PAWN that market in a flash... at least the lower segment...

5 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (Jan 10, 2013)

@solarsky

Who outside the pro-filmaking business actually needs dedicated cine lenses (that should somehow be great a cheap at the same time)?

Studios pretty much cherry-pick (and rent, not buy) the lenses they want to use for given film - do you really think they will get SLR Magic just to save a few thousand bucks?

Cine lenses are made to different standards and different needs than photo lenses - and also in much smaller quantity. The price is absolutely OK.

'Lower segment' shoots with DSLRs as (I guess) they hardly can afford a true cine camera to begin with.

1 upvote
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Jan 11, 2013)

The lower segment? Yeah, I would love to own the market where my clients scream for lower prices and blister you for not making top tier gear for $100.
If the project you are working on means nothing then cheap stuff is all you need.
If you need to put up the best possible work then you will never cut corners on your gear.

1 upvote
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Jan 11, 2013)

Every serious filmmaker is trying to put up his best possible work, but serious intent does not increase the budget. Corners get cut, films get made, some of them are excellent. Meanwhile, first class gear is being used to make beer commercials. They often have more money.

0 upvotes
maxnimo
By maxnimo (Jan 10, 2013)

Since my Canon 50mm prime lens died I'm done with Canon. A $380 prime lens should not die before the camera dies. Never again will I buy Canon camera equipment, and I most certainly won't spend $5000 for a prime.

1 upvote
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Jan 10, 2013)

My $400 50mm is 7 years old and counting....
Besides, do you honestly think this $5000 cine prime is even remotely in the same universe for build quality?? Dude, look at the pics of these lenses...they look awesome.

5 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (Jan 10, 2013)

So what's the name of camera company you are going to that has never had a single lens die in the companies history? I am sure they will give you a discount if you wear your tin foil hat.

4 upvotes
Michal Rosa
By Michal Rosa (Jan 10, 2013)

Yeah, nothing that costs over $100 should ever break down. Do you own a car? Just curious.

7 upvotes
xtoph
By xtoph (Jan 10, 2013)

The ef50/1.4 is notorious for its micromotor af breaking down, and it is a shame. But, optically it is an excellent lens well worth the money, and canon have fixed the af on mine (twice) for just over $100. Considering the use i gave it, not so bad.
Really has no bearing whatsoever on these new lenses, and we may even see a replacement to the venerable old 50 announced any day--i will be curious to see if they introduce something as useful as the new 35/2is in this focal lenght.

2 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

I love it how the global optical glass experts here decided early on that these two mis-priced Canon "Cinema" lenses must be really, really something... if for nothing else, then because they look so cool, Dude!

1 upvote
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Jan 11, 2013)

Might as well consider their looks, since none of us know whether they're any good as lenses, or likely ever will. They are untested products that may or may not be worth what Canon is asking. I'm sure Canon has their reasons for moving into this market, not the least of which is the potential profit.

2 upvotes
rrccad
By rrccad (Jan 11, 2013)

@Francis .. are you whining enough?

1 upvote
Retzius
By Retzius (Jan 10, 2013)

For film and television production the prices of these lenses are a non-issue. My wife does motion graphic design for film and television and these production companies spend money like it falls from the sky...

9 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Jan 10, 2013)

Well at least they are great optics indeed. :)

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

Retzius, since the majority of television reality shows are shot with 1/3-inch sensor camcorders having a fixed zoom lens on them, I guess your wife must have been working on "The Hobbit" with Mr. Jackson, correct? With Messrs. Spielberg or Cameron, perhaps?

1 upvote
Spoonboy
By Spoonboy (Jan 11, 2013)

My god you're annoying Francis.

Why do you feel the need to be condescending to people? You come off as an arrogant tw*t.

6 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jan 10, 2013)

Cine lenses always look awesome.

8 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

Wow, everyone: let's buy a whole bunch of these designer lenses from Canon because they LOOK SO COOL. Oh yeah, Dudes and Dudettes!

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Jan 10, 2013)

These lenses all have CCCCC. Canon's continuing commitment to cinema culture. Fot the level of consistency and number produced, prices seem reasonable.

1 upvote
solarsky
By solarsky (Jan 10, 2013)

Are you suggesting that production capacity would justifiy a rip off? Black Magic isn't selling their Cinema Camera for 30k, but for 3k...

2 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Jan 10, 2013)

These are very well made lenses, but in addition to the actual production costs (materials, labor, quality control), you also pay for the R&D costs, which are spread over the number of units produced.
These lenses are intended for a rather small market, and therefore Canon doesn't produce that many of them; hence the high prices. A lower price wouldn't increase sales significantly, like it would with regular consumer products.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

@ Revenant: that is Canon's problem, not ours. For what they are offering, a fair price for one of these -- certainly for the 14mm -- would be around $1,000, well $1,500, tops. But $5,500 and $5,200? Nay....forgetaboutit, Canon. You never gonna make it big in Hollywood this way.

0 upvotes
cd cooker
By cd cooker (Jan 10, 2013)

Canon, show some love to those poor photographers please. Lately, all we see are overpriced Canon lenses. I am not talking about these purpose built lenses, dpreview doesn't need to cover these lenses in the first place. I am talking about a $850 35mm IS F2, a $650 28mm IS F2.8 or 24mm IS F2.8. Is $600+ is the new standard of affordable? And $1K+ is the starting point for decent glass?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Jan 10, 2013)

Be happy you're not shooting Leica...then you would know what expensive is.

As for overpriced....if Canon is selling the lenses for these prices then they are not overpriced...you just can't afford them.

4 upvotes
Chez Wimpy
By Chez Wimpy (Jan 11, 2013)

But the question is... *is* Canon actually selling them? Dpreview is a self-selected subset of enthusiasts where the paucity of 24/28 IS photo samples (or interest) is telling. Unless these are being snapped up as kit-lens supplements by the masses...

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

Canon is NOT selling their "Cinema" cameras and "Cinema" lenses in spades. I mean, for prices that Canon is demanding, one can actually get a real cinema lens from Cooke, Angenieux, or C. Zeiss. Just ask someone you know personally who works at Abel Cine Tech in Burbank (or New York City).

0 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Jan 10, 2013)

Carping about the price by comparing them with any other still lenses is pointless. These are purpose-designed and built lenses for cine applications.
The total production run of any of these lenses is exceeded by the daily production of any of Canon's kit lenses.

These are used by people whose business is making motion pictures that even with the most frugal of budgets exceeds 5 figures.

These lenses are to hobbyist lenses what a 64" Epson is to your all-in one desktop.

2 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

The Canon "Cinema" lenses are really just hobbyist lenses. Don't let the Canon racketeering pricing scheme fool you. If you want REAL cinema glass -- you need to look over the line-up offered by Cooke, Angenieux and Carl Zeiss (in declining order of overall quality and performance-for-price).

0 upvotes
Nectar D Or
By Nectar D Or (Jan 11, 2013)

Blah blah blah. May I inquire how you got to this conclusion?

These lenses were announced today and were never tested against any of the competition.

Anyone can speculate with the same certainty that these lenses are much better than Cooke.

1 upvote
fierlingd
By fierlingd (Jan 10, 2013)

wow. 11 rounded blades? ... love to see some narrow depth of field samples.

2 upvotes
jackpro
By jackpro (Jan 10, 2013)

similar priced to Zeiss Compact Prime CP.2 135mm T2.1 Lens: $5,700.00
Additional Mount (Optional): $390.00

3 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Jan 10, 2013)

"... to meet high optical performance levels, including 4K (4096 x 2160) production standards."

Which Canon camera currently shoots 4K video? I suppose $5k for a 4k lens is not much, if one has $15k to buy a 4k display too. Really, high-spec / low volume articles must be priced rather rich to be worth the trouble to make. There is no advantage in price-cutting if the commercial market is very select and the production budgets are all seven figures and up.

0 upvotes
CarVac
By CarVac (Jan 10, 2013)

Uhh, the C500 and 1D C shoot 4k.

14 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (Jan 10, 2013)

More importantly, which lens do not resolve 4K?

2 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

Canon does not have ANYTHING at the moment that would shoot 4K resolution video. They MIGHT have something down the line, however. Red, Panavision, Sony, Vision Research, etc. all have existing cameras that shoot 4K rez video. Regarding a lens being good enough for 4K video... well, if the lens is good enough for shooting 8.8MP still, then the same lens is definitely plenty good enough for 4K video, since 4K video = 8.8MP video.

0 upvotes
silyn
By silyn (Jan 11, 2013)

@FrancisCarver At this very moment Canon has two 4k cameras c500 and 1D C. Both are in stock in several stores right now including B&H. Your arrogance does not know any limits.

2 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

No "4K cameras" from Canon yet, sorry, sily. But I assume you have both, and are shooting in glorious 4K with both, right?

Also, please do not confuse "4K capable" and "4K ready" cameras with actual "4K resolution" cameras, such as those made by Red, Sony, and Vision Research.

0 upvotes
silyn
By silyn (Jan 11, 2013)

(1) EOS 1D C can even "capture 4K (4096 x 2160), 24p (23.976) content directly to its on-board CF memory cards." Call it any way you want.

(2) Comparing Canon's 4K cameras to what other manufactures offer in this area is a different story. Switching topic? Have nothing more to add?

1 upvote
rrccad
By rrccad (Jan 12, 2013)

sooo Francis does that mean a camera that shoots 4K uncompressed RAW and records 4K internally via compression onto CF cards is indeed according to the world of Francis Carver .. not 4K .. but some other form because heaven forbid canon actually has out in production already a while ago .. 4K cameras?

1 upvote
3systermuser
By 3systermuser (Jan 10, 2013)

byt, why these Cine primes so expensive?

1 upvote
Dianoda
By Dianoda (Jan 10, 2013)

Low sales volume is part of it. Also, they're definitely a different breed compared to photo lenses - cine lenses are designed to eliminate focus breathing and other aberrations that would make them less ideal for video.

7 upvotes
StanRogers
By StanRogers (Jan 13, 2013)

The focus breathing aspect is a bit of a red herring these days; most recent lenses are internal (rear) focus and change focal length in order to achieve focus. Yes, you can still find unit-focus lenses in the wild, but they're older designs. (When was the last time you needed to recompose after focusing, then focus after recomposing, and so on until you reached a good compromise? That sort of thing was just par for the course when I was a youngster, and with macro-ish shots, it meant some pretty substantial changes.) Cine lenses have actually been behind the curve at this, so to speak—you don't have to go back too far in time to find a world of nothing but unit focus. The real differences are mostly mechanical—tighter helicoids, better-calibrated witness marks, and so forth—that make focus pulling and take-to-take exposure consistency easier. Using a cine lens for stills is just as annoying as using a stills lens for cine.

0 upvotes
mailman88
By mailman88 (Jan 10, 2013)

New lens for the Rich and Shameless!

1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Jan 10, 2013)

No, probably for media production firms that have several lean years for every fat one.

6 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

You have to give a "B" to Canon for trying to break into the cinema business and break down the gates of Hollywood. They will find it a mighty tough going indeed. It took Sony 20+ years and billions in losses to get to where they are now in Hollywood.

0 upvotes
Alberto Tanikawa
By Alberto Tanikawa (Jan 10, 2013)

Roll in the overpriced brigade in 3, 2, 1....

;-)

Hope this Canon addition will bring pressure on Zeiss and others to bring down the unattainable price of these cinema lenses, even if a smidgeon :)

2 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

Compared to some of the Cooke and Carl Zeiss lenses, these Canon jobs are a tad overpriced. Particularly considering their total lack of track record in this finicky cinematic area. I mean, Canon even has some "Cinema" zoom lenses now that they are trying to peddle for almost USD $50,000, for cripe's sake! For a CANON lens, come on, people....

You can buy all of these from Abel Cine Tech. I am just not sure if anyone does, actually.

0 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Jan 11, 2013)

If vendors are keeping them in stock, someone is buying. No one you know, Francis, but someone.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

@ MarkinSF: the gizmo industry in counting on folks with just this attitude. Still, that dopes not mean that too many folks and rental houses are actually BUYING these Canon lenses. What for, when they are already well stocked with Cooke, Angenieux, and C. Zeiss glass?

Unfortunately, if you just pick up the phone and call Abel Cine or Band Pro or B&H and ask them outright how many of one of these Canon "Cinema" lenses have they really, truly sold.... they probably would not tell you, what do you think?

I can see some Canon DSLR shooters might want to get them, though.

0 upvotes
Apfelbaum
By Apfelbaum (Jan 12, 2013)

Amazing how people that don't have much experience can sit and slam something they don't understand. Canon has been involved in the professional television broadcast industry for decades (established 1958). They have been making very expensive glass for TV cameras since then. Most of their lenses start at $10K and go up well past $100K. Their primary competitor has been Fujinon, who took the jump into cine lenses quite some time ago and offers a very similar range and pricing. This is not some jump into an unknown world for Canon. The vast majority of TV programming today is often shot with Canon glass. Oddly enough, only the remote control lenses offer any kind of auto-focus option.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 104