Lens Test, can you see the difference?

[XiaoSu Han]

Hi!

Today we tested three kinds of lenses, ARRI Highspeed, ARRI Standard and the Cooke S4 series.

We used the same minimum aperture on all of the shots, f2.0 (f2.1 standards but didn't matter) and same settings of course, basically the same focal lenght as well.

Can you tell the difference, and most importantly, tell which lens is which? I included JPEG's for reference here and 2K TIFF's straight out of REDALERT also.

I'm curious about the guesses.

http://dedicated13.nessus.at/red/1.jpg

http://dedicated13.nessus.at/red/2.jpg

http://dedicated13.nessus.at/red/3.jpg


http://dedicated13.nessus.at/red/1.tiff
http://dedicated13.nessus.at/red/2.tiff
http://dedicated13.nessus.at/red/3.tiff

[Ramesh Jai]

Just guessing -

1 is standard.

2 is superspeed.

3 is Cooke.

How far off am I?

[Michael Lindsay]

Using a laptop and only the Jpegs in the browser.. for Fun

1 S4
2 Super S
3 Standard S

Tests like this (both subject mater, frame and lighting) rarely help one differentiate between lenses. Charts or expansive architectural shot help with sharpness and geometry. Flare test are definatly a great way of separating lenses. Having said that maybe this test is like your project? If so it's a great test (as well as fun).

kind regards

Michael L

[Mitch Gross]

Just looking at the JPEGS, I agree with Michael. #1 has nice contrast and an even field (Coke S4). #2 has a loss of contrast and color depth (SuperSpeed). #3 exhibits darkening at the corners, unless that's just the lighting in the wider frame (Standard).

It would have been nice to look at something other than a blank wall behind you.

[XiaoSu Han]

I'll post flare grabs in a sec

[Robert Horwell]

s4
super
standard

[David Birdy]

Standard
S4
Super

Dave

[XiaoSu Han]

here are the flares, that's easy I guess.

A
http://dedicated13.nessus.at/red/a.jpg

B
http://dedicated13.nessus.at/red/b.jpg

C
http://dedicated13.nessus.at/red/c.jpg

[Tico Llaurador]

I agree with David's assessment.

[jimhare]

Regardless of which is which, I believe image 1 is the most pleasing to the eye.

[albert rudnicki]

S4
Super
Standard

So which one will it be?

[XiaoSu Han]

the majority was right, it's S4, HS, Standards

we're probably going to go for the standards, for the interesting flares and we can get more focal lenghts for the money. also the vignetting could be quite an interesting effect for our film...

flares are HS, Standard, Cooke though, I somehow don't like the Cooke flares at all...

I think that you can see the difference, but if I don't have the luxury of choice, it's not as bad as I thought after reading so many review about how good which lens was. In the end those differences are all quite subtle I guess.

[Ramesh Jai]

the majority was right, it's S4, HS, Standards

we're probably going to go for the standards, for the interesting flares and we can get more focal lenghts for the money. also the vignetting could be quite an interesting effect for our film...

flares are HS, Standard, Cooke though, I somehow don't like the Cooke flares at all...

I think that you can see the difference, but if I don't have the luxury of choice, it's not as bad as I thought after reading so many review about how good which lens was. In the end those differences are all quite subtle I guess.
Thanks for posting these. To the average eye the differences are very subtle. I guess lens are a personal choice. One can get great images with just about any decent lens. Why such a big price difference though?

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

I remember saying Standards would porthole on a Digital sensor when wide open back in May 2007. Most people denied the problem and bid up the price of Standards.

Stephen

Edit, I get the feeling that the sensor is not centered to the lens mount, rotating the lenses 180 degrees wold be an interesting test.

[JanneJansson]

Hi,

I remember saying Standards would porthole on a Digital sensor when wide open back in May 2007.

What is the reason for this?

[Stephen Williams]

What is the reason for this?

Hi,

The standards were designed for film, film does not care how the light hits the surface of the film, unlike a digital sensor. Lenses for digital should be telecentric, the light travels in a straight line.

http://www.edmundoptics.com/techSupport/DisplayArticle.cfm?articleid=261

Stephen

[Michael Lindsay]

flares are HS, Standard, Cooke though, I somehow don't like the Cooke flares at all...

The flares were interesting... What was your aesthetic objection to the S4 flare?

I once flare tested 2 MP's, with Red, and also didn't find the flare interestingly usable. That said I use a lens flare about once a year. Does your film use lens flares?

I find it, with my limited experience, useful to test lenses with a hard light out of frame pointing down the lens. Did you try that? I imagine the S4s may do quite well in this kind of test.


I think that you can see the difference, but if I don't have the luxury of choice, it's not as bad as I thought after reading so many review about how good which lens was. In the end those differences are all quite subtle I guess.

Lens choice is something that DP's often bring to the table. That said there is so many things more important to a film.

Good luck with your project!

Michael L

PS I believe the standard Speed to be the most blue of lenses. This may offer another small Red advantage.

[Mitch Gross]

Best creative use of lens flares = Blade Runner.

[Michael Lindsay]

Best creative use of lens flares = Blade Runner.

The orchestration of all the moving light sources is what intimidates me about that film. Easy enough on a promo but on a feature?

Michael L

[JanneJansson]

Hi,

The standards were designed for film, film does not care how the light hits the surface of the film, unlike a digital sensor. Lenses for digital should be telecentric, the light travels in a straight line.

http://www.edmundoptics.com/techSupport/DisplayArticle.cfm?articleid=261

Stephen

Ok, This is a major pice of info regerding lenses. A very, very expensive cine glass will be less good, then a much cheeper DSLR lens.

[Stephen Williams]

Ok, This is a major pice of info regerding lenses. A very, very expensive cine glass will be less good, then a much cheeper DSLR lens.

Hi,

Actually they are very cheap & old cine glass that nobody wanted 5 years ago. You could not give them away, a set for $8000 would sit on the shelf for years, then RED came along and a bubble was born. Once Zeiss came out with the Ultra Primes, they seemed very old, useful for handheld but that's about it. I am sure some owners will tell you I am wrong, those same people who said they don't porthole I would guess.

Stephen

FWIW Stopped down to T4 they are fine, 50 & 85mm fine wide open
About 2 1/2 years ago somebody on Ebay was selling New in a Box Standards, he was asking $2400 per lens, those lenses took a very long time to sell! It was a genuine auction as I know somebody who bought 1 lens.

[JanneJansson]

Ok, the "PL Lens Bubble" :)

[Michael Lindsay]

Hi,

Actually they are very cheap & old cine glass that nobody wanted 5 years ago. You could not give them away, a set for $8000 would sit on the shelf for years, then RED came along and a bubble was born. Once Zeiss came out with the Ultra Primes, they seemed very old, useful for handheld but thats about it. I am sure some owners will tell you I am wrong, those same people who said they don't porthole I would guess.

Stephen

FWIW Stopped down to T4 they are fine, 50 & 85mm fine wide open
About 2 1/2 years ago somebody on Ebay was selling New in a Box Standards, he was asking $2400 per lens, those lenses took a very long time to sell!

Stephen

I don't think he is talking about standard speeds but telectricity and cine lenses in general... taken from the article you posted the link to..

M

[Stephen Williams]

Stephen

I don't think he is talking about standard speeds but telectricity and cine lenses in general... taken from the article you posted the link to..

M

Hi,

The link was posted as an explanation. Sorry for any confusion.

Stephen

[XiaoSu Han]

Hey Michael!

Thanks for the good wishes, it's going to be tough but what isn't nowadays :)

I don't like the S4 flares because they are kinda indistinctive. If you want to photoshop-like flare take the High Speeds, they give a very classical lens flare, we want those classical 70s flares of old lenses which give a nice smear over the whole picture, so we take Standards, but with Cookes, I don't see a purpose yet :)

Yeah, we also don't really use flares so often, our film also does not require it, but at times, especially in winter, when the sun is low and we want a nice backlit picture, I'd rather have the flare than it blocked, especially if the flare has the "smearing" effect ofter the picture.

We panned through the light actually, if interest is here I can also convert them down and upload them for reference.

Janne, I think the high cine-lens prices are totally justified, having worked with photo lenses over a few years now, I'd take cine-lenses every time over photo lenses, it's just so much more suited for the work you have to do when shooting a movie. Also they are handmade (Cookes at least afaik and produced in such a low volume), I don't even want to know how many Nikon 50mm 1.4s have been sold.

Stephen, I was told the same thing by ARRI, they almost didn't want to give us the Standard Speeds :), what's interesting is, they have lots and lots of sets of BNCR Moviecam lenses, rehoused Olympus lenses that cover full 35mm, it's a set of 11 lenses I think (14, 17, 20, 24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 100, 135, 180), very similar to this: http://www.filmstarrentals.com/ccp0-prodshow/CANONk35PrimeLenses.html

I don't even want to start on the lens prices, I got offered a set of MK3 superspeeds for 60k USD, can you believe that??

They are not convertable though, but with a BNCR mount... the cost of the whole set is the same as a set of Zeiss HS for a day, but for a week! They could make a fortune out of that as soon as the FF35 cameras are rolling out...

Thanks for the comments so far! I'll post stills from the project :)

[Mitch Gross]

If you want some really beautiful organic flaring, try to find a set of ole Cooke Speed Panchros (aka Series 2 & 3). They were rehoused by a number of different companies and are very pretty glass even after the better part of a century.

I did a test with a Phantom for a show that was considering the camera for 24fps work as well as high speed, and the DP wanted to see how his rehoused Panchros worked with the camera. He did heavily backlit shots out doors in daylight and scenes lit with nothing but a single candle. Just gorgeous.

(The movie didn't shoot with Phantom for eveything for political reasons, but that's another story not for a public forum.)

[Robert Horwell]

If you want some really beautiful organic flaring, try to find a set of ole Cooke Speed Panchros (aka Series 2 & 3). They were rehoused by a number of different companies and are very pretty glass even after the better part of a century.

I did a test with a Phantom for a show that was considering the camera for 24fps work as well as high speed, and the DP wanted to see how his rehoused Panchros worked with the camera. He did heavily backlit shots out doors in daylight and scenes lit with nothing but a single candle. Just gorgeous.

(The movie didn't shoot with Phantom for eveything for political reasons, but that's another story not for a public forum.)

I have a set of Cooke SERII/III re-housed y century, your right mitch they are just gorgeous....1950,s glass. Many great films shot using this glass, they were good enough for Kubrik on spartacus.

[Steve Gal]

I have a set of these lenses for rental in NYC. Cooke S2/3 series 18, 25, 32, 40, 50, 75, 100, 135mm. All Century converted with 80mm fronts, focus & iris gears and PL mounted. Absolutely beautiful. the wider ones do porthole though. Some like it, some don't.

[Robert Horwell]

mine are in the UK and..for hire..all century re-housed Pl mount.

[XiaoSu Han]

wrote you a PM Bob, as I'm looking for them to rent at the moment...

[Ryan Hamblin]

I have never had my zeiss standards porthole, even the widest angle (16mm). Did I get freakishly lucky with my set or are the older standard speeds performing better than the new?

(r)yan

[Robert Horwell]

it's porthole madness....people keep telling me how my Cookes porthole aswell, but i have yet to see it?...amazing. I ask myself this question, have any of these people got a set of century cookes and have they had them on the RED, i woud like to see some frame grabs :detective2:

[Steve Gal]

I had a customer take the cookes and was shooting subjects against an all white backround. He called saying that the lenses had chromatic abberation. What he was seeing was the porthole effect on the wider lenses. He switched to the MK3 Superspeeds and those didn't do it. I saw the image and the corners were darkening and was changing to a magenta color which is why he thought they were chromatic abberation.

[Robert Horwell]

I had a customer take the cookes and was shooting subjects against an all white backround. He called saying that the lenses had chromatic abberation. What he was seeing was the porthole effect on the wider lenses. He switched to the MK3 Superspeeds and those didn't do it. I saw the image and the corners were darkening and was changing to a magenta color which is why he thought they were chromatic abberation.

I think on an all white background - worst case scenario - you might start to see some darkening, i will shoot some tests tomorrow and post some grabs of my 18mm.

[Ryan Hamblin]

Mine are standard mount standard speeds with PL adapters. Never seen a porthploe on a white background...I have very slightly with the cooke 18

[Stephen Williams]

Mine are standard mount standard speeds with PL adapters. Never seen a porthploe on a white background...I have very slightly with the cooke 18

Hi,

You need to be wide open to see the problem & at T4 they are fine. Only the 3 wider lenses of a standatd set have the issue.

Stephen

[Stephen Williams]

Ok, This is a major pice of info regerding lenses. A very, very expensive cine glass will be less good, then a much cheeper DSLR lens.

Hi,

FWIW the Nikon 18-70 that was packaged with my D70 portholes very badly.

Stephen

[Ryan Hamblin]

Still not seeing it even on the 16. I will have to put them through their paces just a bit more, but hell for under four grand, still can't beat that price.

(r)yan

[Alberto Caprioglio]

The standards were designed for film, film does not care how the light hits the surface of the film, unlike a digital sensor. Lenses for digital should be telecentric,

Were't the Arri superspeed and Cooke S4s made for film too?
I agree that a technical reason can be the lack of telecentricity in the Standards, but since all these lenses were all made for film, not sensors, then I don't know why they decided to make a telecentric design on the superspeeds and the Cookes, if we can say so.
mmm, I'm not totally satisfied with the explanation.


All Cooke S4 prime lenses are colour balanced to a specification within parameters approved by Kodak.
http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/secondary/s4prime

Aso the Arri were made a long time before Red and S35 sensors.

[Stephen Williams]

The small rear element is the problem.

What sort of explanation would satisfy you?


Were't the Arri superspeed and Cooke S4s made for film too?
I agree that a technical reason can be the lack of telecentricity in the Standards, but since all these lenses were all made for film, not sensors, then I don't know why they decided to make a telecentric design on the superspeeds and the Cookes, if we can say so.
mmm, I'm not totally satisfied with the explanation.


http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/secondary/s4prime

Aso the Arri were made a long time before Red and S35 sensors.

[Mitch Gross]

Designs come about for many technical reasons. Sometimes added benefits or artifacts can come about even if they were not initially part of a design concept. Panavision lenses by their nature are all fairly telecentric because they have a deep flange depth. Zeiss Standards and most 16mm primes have fairly small rear elements that are relatively deep behind the mount, which makes them less telecentric than lenses that have large rear elements near the mount. Pull the rear cap off a few different lenses and you'll see a basic physical shape difference between many of these lenses.

[XiaoSu Han]

to add to the comparison, i found a test done by a few students in germany, comparing optimo rouge and zeiss HS...

http://red1test.blogspot.com/

only sharpness, no looks

[Alberto Caprioglio]

well, my concern was probably due to language. Since you said the reason for the standards, unlike superspeeds and S4, for showing a porthole effect, was they were not made for sensors but for film, I just guess why there should be a difference from the other two on this aspect. All of them were made for films, so perhaps only Zeiss and Cooke know why they changed design. What did not satisfied me fully was the mere constatation that there was a change in design. This is what you barely said. But it's fine. No problem.
The important thing to know for a user standpoint is simply that the standard tend to porthole, while the super speed and S4 don't.
I have both standards and superspeeds, so I'm quite interested in things about them. Although I didn't notice portholing on the standard, but perhaps it's because I never looked for it. I'll try one day.
Not that a little portholing scares me, though. In the unfortunate cases where it is visible and annoying, a mask can solve it easily. The overall quality is extremely high.