OK.. sorry for delay.. heres my cooke 25-250 v zeiss zf test

[Zakaree Sandberg]

http://vimeo.com/12450732

[MichaelHalsell]

Thanks Zak.The Cooke definitely has a visual pleasantness.

[Joel J. Feigenbaum]

Great test. Many thanks.

Subtle differences between the two lenses. But to my eye, Cooke is a touch more cinematic.

[David Battistella]

nice.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

cooke is more cinematic... however.. with a low con filter.. maybe just a promist/classic soft.. you can get close with the zf's

[Zakaree Sandberg]

does anyone know if there is a filter that rounds the picture off?

sharper in a circle in the image, the curved sides fall off a little bit more?

this would be an amazing filter for when you want new glass to feel older...

[Maz Mawlawi]

Ironically I like the look of the ZF much better! Thanks for the test...I am going to be ordering our ZF set this summer and have them cine moded like you did....

[Jaime Vallés]

I'm all for doing an effect in-camera as opposed to during post, but I think the "falling off at the edges" look might be a good one for some post filtering, where you can experiment with the degree of fuzziness without baking it in.

Otherwise, some Vaseline on the edges of a clear filter, perhaps?

[Zakaree Sandberg]

ZF's are really great.. and like I said.. diffuse them a little with classic soft or low con to give them that more organic feel... (or if they have a filter like i mentioned above)

and your set..

zooms are still amazing though.. I really like the flexibility of being able to go from one focal length to the other in a split second.. or even using the zoom function in a shot sometimes. (80's 70's, comedy)

I just posted an OLD short I DP'd/operated..

it was shot with the older cooke 25-250 mk1 and also a red 18-50

http://vimeo.com/12463369

[Zakaree Sandberg]

jaime... true...

but sometimes as a DP.. If you want a look... (especially now days)
you need to bake it in before the post guy decides to change your look around...

[DCC Erickson]

The Zeiss looks more ... German (brighter/sharper). The Cooke looks more ... English (darker/smoother).

[Antoine Fabi]

Thanks Zakaree for the comparo :)

I own ZFs and i like them.

In this example, i much prefer the look of the Cooke.

...but maybe it just depends on two things, maybe...

1) For a given T stop, the Cooke is more optimistic :) ie T4 mark = real T4.5
…so the image appears a little darker

2) The color temperature of the Cooke is a little warmer to start with…

…maybe they could match if you set the color temperature a little warmer with the Zeiss.

The Cooke images reminds me so much the good old Canon FD's...really





Antoine

[Robert Frank]

Thanks for this test Zakaree.

I like the results from both the Cooke and the ZF's but think there is more flexibility to post-process with the images from the ZF's.

For my needs that's why I would prefer the ZF lenses.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

ps.. im happy to do any zf vs test...

optimo test?

send me an optimo for a few days hehe

[Cal Brunker]

Thanks man!

The Cooke looks gorgeous to me.

Cal

[Dan Hudgins]

does anyone know if there is a filter that rounds the picture off?

sharper in a circle in the image, the curved sides fall off a little bit more?

this would be an amazing filter for when you want new glass to feel older...

Just using a gauss blur may be too soft, but if you make two sets of frames, one normal or sharp and another with a guass or equal blur of maybe 3 to 5 pixels raidus then mix the two together (like double expose, you divide the brightness then at so the sum is 1.0, like sharp at 40% blur at 60%).

To get a ring with a spot like the Astro Berlin, you can make three sets,

A) Sharp

B) Blur to 6 pixels radius (for 4K)

C) Blur to 4 pixels radius

Subtract C from B then add A like this,

((B * 1.4) - (C * 0.9)) + (A * 0.5) = result

[Stephen Williams]

1) For a given T stop, the Cooke is more optimistic :) ie T4 mark = real T4.5
…so the image appears a little darker


Hi,

Cooke measure & mark each lens individually T4 is really T4.

[Ryan E. Walters]

Hi,

Cooke measure & mark each lens individually T4 is really T4.

Even on their older glass?

I shot a short earlier this year using two Red's- one with my set of Cooke S2/S3's and the other with RPP's (I could not get a hold of a second set of S2/S3's). To get the two to match, on the RPP's, I put a 1/8 Classic soft, 1/4 Coral, and stopped down the RPP's by about 1/3-1/2 extra. And that seemed to get the lens in the ball park of the Cooke's.

I must say, I LOVE Cooke glass, and I have a special place in my heart for the older glass ...

[Steve Sherrick]

Having shot with a wide variety of lenses on the RED, I have to say that my favorite footage seems to come from the Cooke glass. S4s, and the Techno 18-90 I owned for a while gave very pleasing results, instant cinematic gold. Great results from other lenses as well, including RPPs but a different look. All depends how you're filtering of course, but just straight up I seem to favor Cooke's.

[Stephen Williams]

Even on their older glass?
...

When they left the factory they were correct, if the coatings have been 'cleaned' away or replaced then it's anyones guess.

I don't know how accutare the T stop marks are on the RPP's but there was a HUGE innaccuracy on the 18-50 I tested at a rental house a couple of years ago.

The 2 filters (probably 4 uncoated surfaces) would loose some light.

[Antoine Fabi]

Hi,

Cooke measure & mark each lens individually T4 is really T4.

Hi Stephen,

...then, if so, based on this test, Zeiss are conservative
...ie indicated T4 = real T3.8 or something :)

In this test, the Zeiss definitively lets more light go in.

Antoine

[Zakaree Sandberg]

In my findings.. the cooke just has better black representation...
the blacks are rich.

The lenses were all def set at t4..

[Antoine Fabi]

Yep, the blacks are richer, but also... the midtones and highlights are brighter with the Zeiss :)

Antoine

[Stephen Williams]

Hi Stephen,

...then, if so, based on this test, Zeiss are conservative
...ie indicated T4 = real T3.8 or something :)

In this test, the Zeiss definitively lets more light go in.

Antoine

You would need to test the lens in question, guessing won't help however I suspect the focal length of the lens in question may be off by upto 8% (quite possible) from what is written on the barrel. That in itself would cause an error of about what we are seeing.
Using standard scales for focus (8 I believe for Zeiss) is less accurate than testing the actual lens in question & adding marks.

The Zeiss lenses may be more telecentric than the Cooke, thats more important for digital but not an issue for film

Interestingly the field of view is always different, that can be accounted for by the front nodel point of the Cooke is probably 10 inches in front of the Zeiss, moving the camera backwards 10 inches would fix the problem & the DOF would then be close (F/Tstops difference), in every shot the DOF is more with the prime lens however the image size is always smaller.

[Federico Rizzo]

Could you compare Cooke 20-100 T 3.1 and Zeiss zf 100mm T2 ? Which is the sharpest?

[Zakaree Sandberg]

off the bat zeiss...

the old cooke zooms are not known for their sharpness.. but rather color, low contrast, and creamy cooke look.