Canon Announces 14mm T3.1 and 135mm T2.2 EF Cinema Prime Lenses

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=11072"></g:plusone></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=11072"></a></div>
<p><strong>Canon U.S.A. Aims To Expand The Cinema EOS System With The Development Of New EF Cinema Prime Lenses

</strong>LAKE SUCCESS, N.Y., August 29, 2012 – Further contributing to the evolution of the motion picture industry, Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, today announced the development of two new cinema prime lenses, the 14mm T3.1 cinema prime lens and 135mm T2.2 cinema prime lens, adding to the Cinema EOS lineup consisted of 11 EF Cinema Lenses.</p>
<p>Both the 14mm T3.1 and 135mm T2.2 cinema prime lenses will be engineered for exceptional optical performance for Canon’s latest large-format single-sensor 4K and 2K digital cinematography cameras. As part of the Cinema EOS System, the lenses will be compatible with standard sensor sizes including Super 35mm, the standard format in the motion picture industry, as well as HD-compatible EOS Digital SLR cameras using 35mm full frame, APS-H and APS-C image sensors.</p>
<p>“In November of 2011, Canon pledged to offer high-end professional solutions to filmmakers, cinematographers, and television production professionals. Our pledge included a commitment to this industry and a promise of future product development and solutions to meet industry needs. Today’s announcements prove that we intend to deliver on that pledge,” stated Yuichi Ishizuka, executive vice president and general manager, Imaging Technologies & Communications Group, Canon U.S.A.</p>
<p>The 14mm T3.1 and 135mm T2.2 EF cinema prime lenses are expected to be available in the first half of 2013, and will be showcased from September 6 – 11, 2012 at IBC2012 in Amsterdam.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[ssrdd]

14mm 3.1?????
135mm 2.2????????


and i assume they cost a lot of money.
if canon want money just go out and beg..

while zeiss offering 15mm 2.9 for 3000$, lets see how do u want to compete with world.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

14mm 3.1? ??? ?
135mm 2.2? ??? ??? ?


and i assume they cost a lot of money.
if canon want money just go out and beg..

while zeiss offering 15mm 2.9 for 3000$, lets see how do u want to compete with world.

The prices compete very well with $100k + cinema lenses. Zeiss offers a ordinary camera lens for $3000 mount not the same. Prices jump a huge amount for that extra sharpness needed for 4K video.

 

[Axilrod]

14mm 3.1?????
135mm 2.2????????


and i assume they cost a lot of money.
if canon want money just go out and beg..

while zeiss offering 15mm 2.9 for 3000$, lets see how do u want to compete with world.

That's not a fair comparison, sure the Zeiss ZE is $3000 but you have to compare that to the standard 14L II. The Zeiss CP.2 15mm T/2.9 is $5700. All of the Canon Cine lenses that have been released thus far are cheaper than that (50/85 are $4950 and the 24 is $5250).

 

[JasonATL]

Perhaps someone here an explain something and things that I've always wondered about. Just to be clear, I'm genuinely curious and uneducated about this and not at all trying to argue one side or another.

How can a lens be very good at taking a 22 megapixel still image, but not be good at an 8MP (4k) video image?

Accepting that a cinema lens would be better, then would that same cinema lens produce better 22MP stills?

In short, what is different about moving pictures that requires a different lens compared to stills (other than the mechanical operation - I'm thinking optics here)?

I appreciate in advance those who will tolerate my ignorance and try to explain this.

 

[neuroanatomist]

How can a lens be very good at taking a 22 megapixel still image, but not be good at an 8MP (4k) video image?

In short, what is different about moving pictures that requires a different lens compared to stills (other than the mechanical operation - I'm thinking optics here)?

I second the question.

I agree that the mechanical differences are significant - engineering out the focus breathing which is a problem for focus pulls, for example.

I can add that one optical difference is that the cinema lenses are rated in T-stops, vs. F-stops. An F-stop is a simple calculation of focal length divided by iris diaphragm diameter, whereas the T-stop compensates for light loss through the lens.

 

[KyleSTL]

Calibrated (transmitted) aperture, calibrated focal distance scale on the barrel, standard gears on the focus ring for a cinema rig, focus breathing. Distortion correction, maybe?

I don't think the premium for cinema lenses has anything to do with lenses not being able to resolve 2K or 4K or any other current resolution (maybe 8K, since that is 38MP).

 

[TrumpetPower!]

I'd also like to know what it is that makes cinema lenses so superior to still ones as to command a five- or ten-fold (or more!) premium. Or is it just that that's what the market is used to paying?

And...it'd also be nice if it were common to provide both T/ and f/ numbers for both types of lenses. For cinema lenses, it'd help give an idea of how shallow you can get the depth of field; for still lenses, it'd let you know how much light loss, especially when using a handheld light meter.

b&

 

[neuroanatomist]

... is it just that that's what the market is used to paying?

I expect that's a big part of it. 1D C vs. 1D X - virtually identical hardware, different target market, double the cost.

 

[paul13walnut5]

The other difference is that film productions tend to hire rather than buy gear.

From Panavision down. Thats just always been the way.

Other than that... cinema lenses have far lower production runs, lesser scales of economy to absorb R& D, and have to have different tolerances (a widescreen segment of the image circle is different from the 3:2 segment of a DSLR - goes much further into the extremes and is projected far far larger) where you have zooms they need hold back focus (my 70-200 f2.8 does not, major pain in the arris for quick zooming between answers in an interview context)

 

[Axilrod]

I'd also like to know what it is that makes cinema lenses so superior to still ones as to command a five- or ten-fold (or more!) premium. Or is it just that that's what the market is used to paying?

And...it'd also be nice if it were common to provide both T/ and f/ numbers for both types of lenses. For cinema lenses, it'd help give an idea of how shallow you can get the depth of field; for still lenses, it'd let you know how much light loss, especially when using a handheld light meter.

b&

They don't have breathing issues, they have accurate focus marks (and a much better throw), they have hard stops at macro and infinity, manual iris rings, built in gears for follow focus, and are uniform in size to make swapping them out easier. Generally they have many more iris blades for a much more round, smooth bokeh (for example Zeiss ZE's have a 8 or 9 blade iris, while the CP.2's have a 14-blade iris). As for the difference in price, I guess it's because they don't sell quite as many and the development costs are higher. I mean they do look a lot more solid than their photography counterparts.

I mean just look at them, they're beautiful and look like they should be more expensive:

 

[Axilrod]

Perhaps someone here an explain something and things that I've always wondered about. Just to be clear, I'm genuinely curious and uneducated about this and not at all trying to argue one side or another.

How can a lens be very good at taking a 22 megapixel still image, but not be good at an 8MP (4k) video image?

Accepting that a cinema lens would be better, then would that same cinema lens produce better 22MP stills?

In short, what is different about moving pictures that requires a different lens compared to stills (other than the mechanical operation - I'm thinking optics here)?

I appreciate in advance those who will tolerate my ignorance and try to explain this.

It's not at all that photography lenses aren't optically good enough, it's all about function and shooting motion has much different requirements than shooting stills. I listed the main reasons for the higher price in the above post.

 

[dr croubie]

I agree that the mechanical differences are significant - engineering out the focus breathing which is a problem for focus pulls, for example.

I can add that one optical difference is that the cinema lenses are rated in T-stops, vs. F-stops. An F-stop is a simple calculation of focal length divided by iris diaphragm diameter, whereas the T-stop compensates for light loss through the lens.

I've just always guessed that engineering out the focus breathing would double the cost of most lenses as it is, as well as the focus-shift from stopping-down.
Then there's field-curvature, vignetting, and all those other lens nasties. I'm presuming that cine-lenses don't suffer from any of these problems that us mere mortals (with budgets of 4-figures or less) encounter.
Or at least, for that pricetag I'd hope that they don't have any of those problems.

And just the simple economies of scale, compare the stills-lenses of Canon (high volume, lowest price), to Zeiss (mid, mid), to Leica (lowest volume, highest price).
Situations reverse for cine, Zeiss is the high-volume low (relatively) price, Canon is the newcomer with low volumes and higher prices (for now, at least, mabe they'll drop later).

And T-Stop vs F-Stop, they're both just engravings on the lens ring, that shouldn't add much to design cost should it? Just build a prototype, stick it on a calibrated light source & meter, measure the light coming out, and get out the engraver.

 

[JasonATL]

Thank you for the replies. Here is my compiled understanding of the factors that do, or at least probably do, contribute to much higher prices for cine lenses compared to still lenses.

- Uniform size
- Manual iris
- Number of iris/aperature blades
- Geared iris rings
- Continuous (or declicked) iris control
- Calibrated T-stop marks that account for light loss through the lens elements
- Geared focus rings
- Detailed calibrated focus marks
- Elimination of focus breathing
- Glass is optimized for cine circle of focus
- Minimization of distortion of field of view
- Economics of market (production scale, market size, price sensitivity of demand)

I might have missed some important or subtle reasons here, so feel free to add to the list.

These make a lot of sense. In some cases, I should have thought of them. For example, the breathing issue has bitten me in video that I've shot with my DSLRs. I'm no pro, so most issues aren't things that I would have run into, but I can see how important and valuable they would be in a production. I would classify nearly all of these as mechanical and not necessarily things that are related to superior optics (excepting, perhaps, the circle of focus, distortion, and breathing). But, I think I had been way too hasty to dismiss mechanical issues as trivial to both the cost and the resulting moving picture image. They are not. I can see how valuable they would be.

Thanks again for the education!