Ultraprimes vs. S4s vs. Superspeeds

[I Bloom]

Which would you choose for a dramatic feature and why?

I'm each seems to have their advantages and I'm having trouble deciding what to go with for an upcoming feature. Looking for opinions and experiences with these lenses per Red.

I was thinking of grabbing a few Superspeeds to get that extra stop.

Thanks in advance,
Ian

[Dylan Macleod, CSC]

Which would you choose for a dramatic feature and why?

I'm each seems to have their advantages and I'm having trouble deciding what to go with for an upcoming feature. Looking for opinions and experiences with these lenses per Red.

I was thinking of grabbing a few Superspeeds to get that extra stop.

Thanks in advance,
Ian

I swear by the Cooke S4's.

I think the extra stop you get with the Superspeeds comes at the cost of sharpness.

Some people feel the S4's are "too sharp"...preference really.

I have used the Superspeeds for Candlelight scenes on film and they can have a really nice look. The depth of field at 1.3 is pretty insane!

Dylan Macleod
Cinematographer
Toronto, Canada
www.dylanmacleod.com

[Greg M]

All 3 are great choices, personally I prefer the Ultra Primes...but this is very subjective.

[Jamie Metzger]

Agreed, this is super subjective on so many levels. I personally have used all three and I love the arri ultraprimes. You are getting 1 more stop with the superspeeds, but I have seen them used so much that I can differentiate the look of them. Personal opinion really.

[John Brawley]

Which would you choose for a dramatic feature and why?

I'm each seems to have their advantages and I'm having trouble deciding what to go with for an upcoming feature. Looking for opinions and experiences with these lenses per Red.

I was thinking of grabbing a few Superspeeds to get that extra stop.

Thanks in advance,
Ian

Why don't you test them all ?

If you want the extra stop then you have no choice really. And sure, it's not as sharp, but hey, you've got the extra stop right ?

Once stopped down it will improve and the gap will close. Personally, I think sharpness is overated.....

jb

[REDDER]

I agree with John. Sharpness is not all. A faster lens, though helpful in some respects, may also affect the quality of your image. When choosing your lens you may want to consider other factors as defocusing quality (bokeh), penetrance/absence of veiling glare (nukeh) as well as, geometry, roundness, chromatic rendition (less of an issue in digital) and close focus aberration. It all depends on your shooting needs. Once again as John mentioned in his reply, you may reach your own conclusion by testing them all though you might be surprised and end up taking all three sets!

[I Bloom]

Why don't you test them all ?

I plan to. I'm just looking for oppinions.
Especially between S4's and Ultras.

Ian

[Matt Uhry]

Hi Ian,

Those are all nice lenses, I tend to favor the cooke S4''s. I think the images look a little more dimensional and focus fall off is very nice.

Elite's Mk 3's might be worth taking a look at. They are T1.3 and much more modern than the Zeiss Super-Speeds in terms of design and
coatings.

Ultra-Primes lack dimension for me - they are technically very good, and the wider angles are better than the cookes and resolution at close focus is much better than the cookes.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Matthew Duclos]

Ian, your first post noted they would be used on a "dramatic feature".
I would choose the Cooke S4s for a less processed look. As many others have said, the Ultra Primes are very sharp, but you wont notice a difference in sharpness with the final product between S4s and Ultra Primes. You should be taking glass characteristics into consideration. Sharpness is overrated...
Cooke has a way with glass that provides a good breeding ground for dramatic footage.

[I Bloom]

Elite's Mk 3's might be worth taking a look at. They are T1.3 and much more modern than the Zeiss Super-Speeds in terms of design and
coatings.

That's tempting. My experiences trying to get Elites for productions have been very negative on the customer service side.
What in your estimation is the difference in the effects on the glass from the elites to superspeeds. Softness at T1.3

Ian, your first post noted they would be used on a "dramatic feature".
I would choose the Cooke S4s for a less processed look. As many others have said, the Ultra Primes are very sharp, but you wont notice a difference in sharpness with the final product between S4s and Ultra Primes. You should be taking glass characteristics into consideration. Sharpness is overrated...
Cooke has a way with glass that provides a good breeding ground for dramatic footage.
Can you explain why that is?

Ian

[Jamie Metzger]

Guys, first off, go here:
http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/index.php?showforum=93

2nd - Trust the guys at Cinemtatography.com. They are all seasoned experienced professionals with a much better understanding of lenses and their characteristics than us. They can give you a much better opinion based on your details (production and post format) than the above average user on this site.

[Matthew Duclos]

Cooke has, for a very long time, produced glass that has a slightly warm temperature to it. In my opinion, this renders a more organic look. Cooke uses an odd coating that almost looks hand polished upon very close inspection. From experience on a projector and collimator, the S4s and Ultra Primes are both very sharp, but in different ways. The S4s resolve just as well as the Ultra Primes but the S4s display a slight "ghost" around the projected image. This will never show up as a "flare" on film, only a dramatic softening while retaining superb resolution in focus details.
The reason I say the Ultra Primes, and even more so the Master Primes, look processed, is because they are sharp as well as acute. When projected they focus with the best possible resolution and that's it! No "ghosting or hazing" no flaring. Just sharp. As I said, this is all from a projected image. In my opinion, this offers a true rendition of a lenses characteristics. A controlled environment with precision tools.

Again, just my opinion. Try the lenses out for yourself and see what kind of results you get. Remember also, rental houses have sets that have been picked and switched and abused and probably been through more than you would want know. So take your findings lightly. :)

[I Bloom]

Guys, first off, go here:
http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/index.php?showforum=93

2nd - Trust the guys at Cinemtatography.com. They are all seasoned experienced professionals with a much better understanding of lenses and their characteristics than us. They can give you a much better opinion based on your details (production and post format) than the above average user on this site.

Yes but not in specific reference to Red.

[Jamie Metzger]

If you want specifics, you are going to have to test. Can't wait a life time for people to do the specific tests for you.

I've worked with the s4's and the red last week. They are nice, but I still like ultraprimes, but that's for a myriad of different reasons. You have your own reasons, so you should test ;)

Also, if you do test, try and make it a test that people can refer to, that is unbiased. This helps the community.

[Mitch Gross]

You're not going to like hearing this from the perspective of "what should I buy?" but I like the Ultra Primes for certain types of shooting and the Cookes for other. It depends on the content and style of the shoot, and what's the eventual look I'm going after. I've photographed movies where I insisted on one and then on the next job insisted on the other.

There is no better glass for flattering an actress' face than Cooke. For scenics and clear, accurate color rendition, the Ultra Primes are the tops. It is horses for courses.

[Harry Clark]

Ian,
I have shot a lot of film, HD with the Pro-35, and now quite a bit with my Red, with both my Superspeeds and my S4s. I've also done a couple of jobs with the Master Primes. I've also had extensive experience with my 18-100, 20-100, Angeniuex HR, and of course the Optimo line, but I will conifine my comments to primes because that's the gist of your thread.
I can tell you that overall, the differences are VERY slight for broadcast, even in HD. The Superspeeds do get a little mushy wide open, which I think was less of a problem for 35mm (for telecine) and Pro-35 work, both of which introduce an overall smoothness (not necessarily softness) that I think Red does not naturally have (Red images are very nice and pleasing but wickedly sharp) The Superspeeds are like two lenses in one; softer, more dated-looking below T.2.8, and more modern and indistinguishable from Ultraprimes when you stop down past 2.8. I think both Superspeeds and Ultraprimes render a nice, sharp, but somewhat clinical look. The Master Primes are razor-sharp and have snappy contrast no matter where the aperture is. Again, it's more of a clinical, perfect sharpness.
Which brings me to the S4s. Perhaps Matt Duclos has hit upon something here with his observation of the blooming on the lens projector. I always describe S4s as having the same apparent sharpness as the Zeiss glass, but with a certain "roundness", or "dimensionality" of light that the Zeiss lenses lack. The focus falloff is also more naturalistic than the Zeiss lenses, even at identical apertures. I have always also felt this way about the Panavision spherical Primos. I just think it's the slight differences in the way the glass is polished, the coatings, the mechanical design and anti-flare coating on the lens mechanics that all add up to these small but discernible differences in the look of the lenses. I also think that both S4s and Primos are a little more forgiving of focus pullers' errors because the focus falloff is not so clinical; that is, a slightly soft shot at T2.8 on an S4 might look acceptable, but a slightly soft shot at T2.8 on a Master Prime might not.
And YES to Mitch's comment that there is no current lens that flatters peoples' faces like the S4s.
Again, VERY small differences. But I suppose I'm a "Cooke man".
Cheers,
Harry