use of Zeiss CP.2 primes for still photography?

[jaredangle]

Not that I can afford any of the CP.2 primes, and I'm well aware that I'm probably crazy, but I was wondering if anybody has tried out any of the Zeiss Cine lenses made for the F/EF/PL mounts, but used them for still photography, especially on a film camera? I'm not sure if their rear element protrudes too much, so that they can only be used for mirror-up DSLR video, or if they can function as a still lens, on say, a Nikon F4?

 

[sper]

There is nothing special about them other than their non clickking t stops and other variations in design that works better for motion. Stick with the Zeiss primes for photo. If you feel limited by the ZF line, I recommend an 8x10 camera.

 

[Tim Gray]

Why would you want to? They are enormous.

It's useful to have largish lenses in motion work so you can attach the follow focus, etc., and to have enough room to be able to get another set of hands in there so the focus puller can do his job. It's also useful to have all your lenses standardize around some size so it's easy to swap them in and out with this equipment. These characteristics really don't have any benefit for stills photography. And remember, in motion, the camera is usually on a tripod, a steadicam, or some kind of shoulder rig, so it's more manageable to have a big lens.

The CP.2 primes might be hand picked, etc., so they might have slightly better performance than the Z* variants, but I think there are more cons than pros when it comes to stills shooting.

 

[jaredangle]

Just curiosity. I haven't seen either video or stills from these lenses (as far as I know, anyway) so I was just wondering what kind of look they had to them. The size would definitely be undesirable, or rather downright detrimental.