Zeiss has a much more clinical and technical correct look with 3D pop. But the canon is more soft and pleasing to the eyes and that is what I‘m looking for when it comes to film.
great comparison. Was about to say what it would look like if we match the color a bit but then saw you already did it. Next time if possible it would be nice to have some human model in the comparison, given how the skin looks is a crucial topic.
Well said! I can imagine the two looking pretty similar when colormatched, but the deciding factor will be which handles skin the better. And looking at this I have a feeling that the FD is the winner...
Cheers man, from an aesthetic point of view for narrative work the Canon has it, but for anything else probably the Zeiss.. I wish more of the Canon had the build quality of the Zeiss!
Nice work ! I bought the carl Zeiss contax series. Indeed, much more blue than the FD, 35 and 55 mm. In my opinion, The color is more beautiful on FD canon 😊. Unfortunately, prices have become untouchable! To obtain a 35 mm Canon concave F2 . You have to pay at least seven hundred dollars!
This debate is so tiresome. Yes, Canon FD has a “warmer” look - because the color science leans that way. Zeiss colors (as well as Nikon) aren’t “more blue”, they are more accurate to reality. Zeiss gives an objectively better overall image (in my head to head testing as well as seen here; except for the 135mm - the weakest Contax Zeiss), and if you still want a “warmer” look, you just shift color that direction in post!
First of all, thank you so much for doing this test. It's really helpful for other cinematographers. I have the FD set and was curious about the Zeiss set. I can see them being very useful in certain applications. I may pick up that 28mm to start with. Been using the FD set for the past 6 years and I love them very much. But it's nice to experiement with different glass. Ever tried the old Pentax stuff? I have a few nice old Takumars that are fun to use. I just wish all these old lenses were bigger.
Absolutely, I went down the FD rabbit hole and built a decent set and while the thorium variants are noticeably warmer in tone others really are as close as not telling a difference.. all I can say is the Contax Zeiss are physically better made in most cases. However the Contax I believe don’t utilise aspherical elements like some of the expensive FD which will help with CA.. either way a good set of Contax lenses will do anyone proud!
Zeiss has a much more clinical and technical correct look with 3D pop. But the canon is more soft and pleasing to the eyes and that is what I‘m looking for when it comes to film.
Great comparison thank you. Hope to see more like this in the future, also would love to see them wide open
great comparison. Was about to say what it would look like if we match the color a bit but then saw you already did it. Next time if possible it would be nice to have some human model in the comparison, given how the skin looks is a crucial topic.
Well said! I can imagine the two looking pretty similar when colormatched, but the deciding factor will be which handles skin the better. And looking at this I have a feeling that the FD is the winner...
great video mate! Thanks!
Which ones do you prefer?
Cheers man, from an aesthetic point of view for narrative work the Canon has it, but for anything else probably the Zeiss.. I wish more of the Canon had the build quality of the Zeiss!
Nice work ! I bought the carl Zeiss contax series. Indeed, much more blue than the FD, 35 and 55 mm. In my opinion, The color is more beautiful on FD canon 😊. Unfortunately, prices have become untouchable! To obtain a 35 mm Canon concave F2 . You have to pay at least seven hundred dollars!
This debate is so tiresome. Yes, Canon FD has a “warmer” look - because the color science leans that way. Zeiss colors (as well as Nikon) aren’t “more blue”, they are more accurate to reality. Zeiss gives an objectively better overall image (in my head to head testing as well as seen here; except for the 135mm - the weakest Contax Zeiss), and if you still want a “warmer” look, you just shift color that direction in post!
Great job !! i have a lot of lenses in the 2 systems, and it's usefull for me to watch your video. ^^
Great comparison!
CZ forever!
First of all, thank you so much for doing this test. It's really helpful for other cinematographers. I have the FD set and was curious about the Zeiss set. I can see them being very useful in certain applications. I may pick up that 28mm to start with. Been using the FD set for the past 6 years and I love them very much. But it's nice to experiement with different glass. Ever tried the old Pentax stuff? I have a few nice old Takumars that are fun to use. I just wish all these old lenses were bigger.
the canon is nowhere near as good as the zeiss
Hahaha canon beats the Zeiss many times
you are blind as a bat @@reginaldbowls7180
no it doesnt @@reginaldbowls7180
I agree. It just isn't as good.
@reginaldbowls7180 No it, doesn't...
Piss all difference really🫤
Absolutely, I went down the FD rabbit hole and built a decent set and while the thorium variants are noticeably warmer in tone others really are as close as not telling a difference.. all I can say is the Contax Zeiss are physically better made in most cases. However the Contax I believe don’t utilise aspherical elements like some of the expensive FD which will help with CA.. either way a good set of Contax lenses will do anyone proud!