Optimus Prime

[Christopher Barrett]

Man, I feel like I've been around the world and back on my quest for prime glass. While many have extolled the virtues of RPP's I was really concerned about the bokeh and warmth. So then I was onto the Schneiders but their mechanical oddities combined with reported quality issues have dropped them to the bottom of the list. I considered the Illuminas and love their speed, but damn, I'm sorry, they're just too ugly for me to put on my Red... the Russians need to hire an industrial designer.

Next up in my price range were the Panchros. I want these lenses. No, you don't understand.... I REALLY want these lenses... but the 2.9 aperture scares me... I do shoot at night. Still they call to me... they tell me "Don't be afraid of the dark... let our warmth enfold you... let yourself float within it's beauty... you will float.... they all float down here..."

And once again I'm staring up at the RPP's from a dark alley waiting for T 1.8 to light the way, to save me from my torment as the Cooke's struggle for possession of my soul.

Know what I mean?

CB

[Julio Quintana]

Trying to decide on the right lenses to match the greatest camera ever made is pretty exhausting. On the other hand, it is really great to see how many options we do have today, mostly due to RED creating a demand for cheap PL glass.

[Jeff Coatney]

LOL! You Rock, Christopher!

If only we got to apply as much analytical horsepower to the subjects we shoot.

[Pawel Achtel]

As a glass connoisseur just get the RPPs and thank everyone later :001_smile:

There is really nothing else close in this price range, specially if you like fast modern lenses that are well supported by the vendor.

Either that or get Master Primes or Leica Summilux-C and be done with it.

RPPs are beautiful lenses and you will love them as your own children. I don't own them, but had a pleasure to use them. Yes, Master Primes are nicer (faster, sharper, less distortion, better build, etc..), but not that much nicer. Jim Hare and I used both on the same shoot and they cut nicely. You'd be hard pressed to tell which one was which.

[David Rasberry]

Next up in my price range were the Panchros. I want these lenses. No, you don't understand.... I REALLY want these lenses... but the 2.9 aperture scares me... I do shoot at night. Still they call to me... they tell me "Don't be afraid of the dark... let our warmth enfold you... let yourself float within it's beauty... you will float.... they all float down here..."

And once again I'm staring up at the RPP's from a dark alley waiting for T 1.8 to light the way, to save me from my torment as the Cooke's struggle for possession of my soul.

Know what I mean?

CB

A truly poetic expression of techno anguish.:violin:

[Ryan Hamblin]

To be perfectly honest if I had the extra cash I would just add the tele panchros to the 17-50 RPZ and call it a day... matching aperture and they match so close in color and sharpness its scary. Used this combo on the amy grant video

But in the end I just have the RPZ 17-50 and some older zeiss lenses that were designed for medium format but there was a small amount of them made in pl mount... from my understanding. They are a bit warm... pleasantly soft... really really dirt cheap, and at the end of the day do just fine.

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

I went with Cooke Panchro/i's.

Amazing lenses.

T/2.8 is slow. But cameras are faster now than ever, and only getting faster. Only 1 in 10 films I shoot requires DoF more shallow than T/2.8. In fact I shoot mainly at T4 or T5.6.

Point being... if you were shooting on a digital cinema camera three years ago you'd have done it at what? T/1.3 Superspeeds and at 320iso? Now the RedOneMX is getting great results at 800iso, Alexa is at 800iso, PhantomFlex is at 1000iso.... etc. The next series of cameras will be faster and cleaner.

If it's not part of the look, I don't want that super shallow DoF. T/2.8 is sometimes too much. Plus it helps 1st AC's sleep at night, and reduces the risk of flubbed takes or re-shoots b/c of difficult focus issues.

I've never been happier with a lens set in my life. At least try a set before you buy anything else.

[Julio Quintana]

I went with Cooke Panchro/i's.

T/2.8 is slow. But cameras are faster now than ever, and only getting faster. Only 1 in 10 films I shoot requires DoF more shallow than T/2.8. In fact I shoot mainly at T4 or T5.6

I definitely get what you are saying, and I also dislike the f1.3 look. But the flip side to cleaner sensors are cameras that shoot higher frame rates, and nobody seems to be considering how much light it takes to shoot 150 fps. I know that those will be specialty shots, but it seems to me that if you want to make the most of all the Epic features, we are still going to need a ton of light.

[Cüneyt Kaya]

the old panchros were t2.2
its just stupid to make the new ones artificially t2.8

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

the old panchros were t2.2
its just stupid to make the new ones artificially t2.8

Super Speeds were T/1.3. Was it dumb to make Ultra Primes?

You may or may not like the new T/2.8 stop, which is your prerogative, but just because a much older and different lens set was T/2.2 doesn't mean anything in regards to what they should or should not do now.

Your logic is sound if you only regard the quality and value of a lens with its' maximum aperture.

[Cüneyt Kaya]

i just dont like the idea to shoot a prime lens wide open.
and since t2.8 is a working stop for me (and many) the lens should have something around t2.2 at least.

for 3d i see the benefits of the new panchros, but for good old regular shooting they are too slow.

i know 1st hand that it was a business decicion.
why do you think the 18mm is missing in their set? - thats another business decicion.

cooke knows how to make excellent glass, the s4/s5 are no compromise lenses, and they cost that way. thumbs up for the new cooke s5.

they just failed to offer something serious for the REd market, which is why they primarly did build these lenses.

they should have done it like angenieux and their rouge series.

a lens has to offer more than only aperture, i agree
but if you can build the best for a certain pricepoint, hell, build it.
thats why there will be an epic-s at 12k usd.

[Hans von Sonntag]

I recently shot a commercial with Zeiss Masterprimes. I usually shoot with old trusty Zeiss Super Speeds because I own them and are very familiar with them. The difference between the two generations is remarkable. No, it's more, it's actually a new lens cosmos. These lenses are unbribable. They are sharp. Actually, sharp or in-focus gets a new meaning. They add to the picture a brilliance it won't have with the Super Speeds.

BUT: They have no personality, an ugly flare and are ridiculous large. All these things can my Super Speeds much better. Especially the flare is second to none.

What to do?

Unless your daily routine is steadicam work and shooting flares, modern optics are much, much better. The RPPs are the closest favourable offer to the Master Primes.

Now the Panchros. I never shot with them but I shot tons of miles of film with the 18-100 Cooke zoom. Cooke optics have a dimensionality all other lens manufactures don't have. That's the reason why I bought for my private kit a Cooke 20-100 and from time to time enjoy its look on certain projects.

Shooting at T2.8 is a classic indoor aperture. But now and then I need to open the aperture for half or 1 stop. That's the main reason why I work with primes. Otherwise I could just as well shoot with a zoom. The small Angenieux zooms, Optimo or Rouge series are a great offering, especially the short Rouge zoom. But they lack dimensionality and personality, so do Zeiss Masterprimes and probably RPPs as well.

I haven't shot with a RedOne MX yet (What!?). May be that shooting indoor at T2.8 will lead automatically to an ND3 filter which can be removed when applicable. Maybe that T2.8 will be the new T2, maybe that Epic's MX sensor will bee even more sensitive and 1.600 ASA is a reasonable ISO setting. If that's the case more speed than T2.8 is only a question of creation than a technical downside.

I would wait until I hold the Epic in my hands. Then I would rent lenses and give them a try at various locations, light levels, ISO settings etc... I would also check out the Canon still lens route. And then you know what will suite your needs best. And don't rule out used glass. Often it has the best value.

Hans

[Cüneyt Kaya]

I recently shot a commercial with Zeiss Masterprimes. I usually shoot with old trusty Zeiss Super Speeds because I own them and are very familiar with them. The difference between the two generations is remarkable. No, it's more, it's actually a new lens cosmos. These lenses are unbribable. They are sharp. Actually, sharp or in-focus gets a new meaning. They add to the picture a brilliance it won't have with the Super Speeds.

BUT: They have no personality, an ugly flare and are ridiculous large. All these things can my Super Speeds much better. Especially the flare is second to none.

What to do?

Unless your daily routine is steadicam work and shooting flares, modern optics are much, much better. The RPPs are the closest favourable offer to the Master Primes.

Now the Panchros. I never shot with them but I shot tons of miles of film with the 18-100 Cooke zoom. Cooke optics have a dimensionality all other lens manufactures don't have. That's the reason why I bought for my private kit a Cooke 20-100 and from time to time enjoy its look on certain projects.

Shooting at T2.8 is a classic indoor aperture. But now and then I need to open the aperture for half or 1 stop. That's the main reason why I work with primes. Otherwise I could just as well shoot with a zoom. The small Angenieux zooms, Optimo or Rouge series are a great offering, especially the short Rouge zoom. But they lack dimensionality and personality, so do Zeiss Masterprimes and probably RPPs as well.

I haven't shot with a RedOne MX yet (What!?). May be that shooting indoor at T2.8 will lead automatically to an ND3 filter which can be removed when applicable. Maybe that T2.8 will be the new T2, maybe that Epic's MX sensor will bee even more sensitive and 1.600 ASA is a reasonable ISO setting. If that's the case more speed than T2.8 is only a question of creation than a technical downside.

I would wait until I hold the Epic in my hands. Then I would rent lenses and give them a try at various locations, light levels, ISO settings etc... I would also check out the Canon still lens route. And then you know what will suite your needs best. And don't rule out used glass. Often it has the best value.

Hans

+1
i owned a set of cooke s2/s3 and the last project was entirely shot on cooke s4`s
so i am a cooke fan actually, best shot at T2.8, once in a while you need that half a stop.

edit: But Ryan, now you have them and can shoot most of the time (except certain situations), congrats! while i am renting you are shooting :)

[Hans von Sonntag]

i just dont like the idea to shoot a prime lens wide open.
and since t2.8 is a working stop for me (and many) the lens should have something around t2.2 at least.


Kaya, I bet that if it were mechanically possible to open the Panchro's aperture more than T2.8 you would find that the optics them selfs are good for T2.4 or even faster. So, when you shoot with them "wide" open it's actually more like closing the aperture to 2.8 than to shoot on the performance edge of the lens.

The T2.8 is purely a business decision and not a performance limitation in the lens design, IMHO.

Hans

[Cüneyt Kaya]

Kaya, I bet that if it were mechanically possible to open the Panchro's aperture more than T2.8 you would find that the optics them selfs are good for T2.4 or even faster. So, when you shoot with them "wide" open it's actually more like closing the aperture to 2.8 than to shoot on the performance edge of the lens.

The T2.8 is purely a business decision and not a performance limitation in the lens design, IMHO.

Hans

sounds reasonable. i agree
T2.2. -T2.4 would have made these lenses a killer deal.

[Shane Kelly]

Kaya, I bet that if it were mechanically possible to open the Panchro's aperture more than T2.8 you would find that the optics them selfs are good for T2.4 or even faster. So, when you shoot with them "wide" open it's actually more like closing the aperture to 2.8 than to shoot on the performance edge of the lens.

The T2.8 is purely a business decision and not a performance limitation in the lens design, IMHO.

Hans

I heard an interview with Les Zellan from ZGC ( I think it was on redcentre podcast) where he stated that they could have made the iris on the lens open wider but the quality would suffer and 2.8 was where the resolution was on par with the rest of the stops.

[Hans von Sonntag]

I heard an interview with Les Zellan from ZGC ( I think it was on redcentre podcast) where he stated that they could have made the iris on the lens open wider but the quality would suffer and 2.8 was where the resolution was on par with the rest of the stops.

That is happening to all high speed lenses except the modern breed such as the Master Primes or the Cooke S5.

Zeiss Super Speeds for instance are until T2.8 soft and creamy and turn with T2.8 into sharp lenses where the legendary Zeiss sharpness takes over. I don't know how the modern Iluminas behave in this regard but I assume that they are at T1.3 more like the Super Speeds than the Master Primes.

What one can bare in this regard is up to the manufacturer in regards to the position of the brand in the market and of course to the customer who expects a certain performance of a certain brand.

With Cooke one expects the "Cooke look" and pristine workmanship including precise optics. Speed is not a classic Cooke asset.



Hans

[Cüneyt Kaya]

I heard an interview with Les Zellan from ZGC ( I think it was on redcentre podcast) where he stated that they could have made the iris on the lens open wider but the quality would suffer and 2.8 was where the resolution was on par with the rest of the stops.

what about maestro duclos?
could he squeeze the half a stop out of the panchros?

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

It was probably a business decision. If Cooke wanted to make a T/2.2 lens set like the old speed panchro's but with the new Cooke optics quality, why re-invent the S4 (T/2)? If you wanted a faster T-stop, go buy or rent the new 5/i's (1.4). As you see, they did make a faster lens set... it just wasn't at the Panchro/i price point :) They aren't making a less quality product, in which case they could offer for a lesser cost and a faster speed. They are literally making a lens that holds it's place in the line. So if you want the modern cooke optics look and mechanical/optical performance, you can go with either Panchro/i, S4/i and 5/i... That's the progression, and their prices mainly reflect speed, but they are all top quality. Cooke wasn't trying to give the world a lens line at a lower price with lower quality. They were trying to make a lens set like the S4's but at a more affordable price. They found the way to do this was to make them smaller, and one stop slower.

In a conversation I had with Les, he told me that it is roughly 8x more difficult to design and manufacture a lens for every stop. Meaning the complexity, cost and other factors of making an 5/i T/1.4 was 8x more difficult than a S4/i and etc. So in order to make a lens that was less expensive but had few compromises to the quality and look, they went T/2.8. If you want a cooke lens at T/2, get an S4. If you need faster get a 5/i. If the Cooke Panchro/i's T/2.8 is enough, paying the extra 13,000 per lens for T/1.4 is hard to justify. If you need faster, by all means there are wonderful S4/i's and 5/i's waiting for you. I think we'll see top feature films (like studio-pics) going with 5/i's, and Indie films going S4/i and Panchro/i. Who knows. I heard from a friend that Hugo was mainly shot with 5/i's but they had S4/i's and Panchro/i's as well. :P

[Christopher Barrett]

It's pretty much the same model Zeiss followed, except Zeiss doesn't really have a 3rd tier. Where it seems you'd be fine intercutting Panchros with S4's I can't imagine wanting to mix UltraPrime and CP.2 footage.

[Cüneyt Kaya]

after rethinking over the day and knowing now that their t2.8 is a workable t2.8
they seem ok for that price.
ryan how do you work with them at night? adding more light seems to be against the idea of being for indiefilmakers.
i mean what about mx at 800 asa and t2.8 and almost available light (maybe a kinoflow or litepanel at best? how does it look.
do you have tested it? maybe post some stills?

right now the cooke cxx seems to be a better deal with a price of of 40k,
there you get t2, maybe add a 65 or 85 mm s4/panchro on it.

the cooke cxx is totally underrated here, no one uses it (besides. me when renting)
people prefer angenieux zooms.

[Christopher Barrett]

concerned about that as well, I did a test the other night (http://youtu.be/36V74Kb8Yro?hd=1) using my RPZ 17-50 at 2.9 shooting at 1600 and processing out as RedLogFilm with the noise reduction cranked up a little.... I was pretty happy with the results and feeling better about the Panchro's speed. God Bless you MX sensor!

I may still kit out a set of ZF's with the 35, 50 and 85 at 1.4 for low light emergencies.

Still thinkin'

[Cüneyt Kaya]

looks pretty good!
can you post r3d frames (8 frames or)?
and did you do the noise reduction inside redcine x with an rocket attached?

[Alexander Ibrahim]

concerned about that as well, I did a test the other night (http://youtu.be/36V74Kb8Yro?hd=1) using my RPZ 17-50 at 2.9 shooting at 1600 and processing out as RedLogFilm with the noise reduction cranked up a little.... I was pretty happy with the results and feeling better about the Panchro's speed. God Bless you MX sensor!

I may still kit out a set of ZF's with the 35, 50 and 85 at 1.4 for low light emergencies.

Still thinkin'

ZF 35 is f/2 or t/2.1

ZF 50 & 85 are f/1.4 or t/1.5

I freaking LOVE those ZF lenses, they make completely gorgeous stills, and nice motion images.

The one issue with your suggestion is that its sort of hard to find PL mounted ZF lenses.

It will probably be easier to see if you can buy a Compact Prime (original) to get the speed in a PL mount. (The newer CP.2 lenses are all t/2.1, which was completely a business decision from what I can tell- but I don't want to get into that.)

That or get fast at swapping your mount- which seems like a scary gamble to me.

[Christopher Barrett]

The 35 f/1.4 is supposed to be out around February. I've got the 35 f/2 and the 85 now using the Allstar mount to swap between those and PL glass. That 85 is just beautiful! Almost even makes ME look good...

http://christopherbarrett.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/85.jpg

[Alexander Ibrahim]

The 35 f/1.4 is supposed to be out around February. I've got the 35 f/2 and the 85 now using the Allstar mount to swap between those and PL glass. That 85 is just beautiful! Almost even makes ME look good...

I didn't know about the upcoming lens.

I assume its still a ZF lens right?

That's pretty exciting.

I think I could happily build a lens kit around PL t/2.6 or t/2.9 zoom lenses for most work with those ZF's in the kit... if I could only get them converted to PL mount.

Better yet if Zeiss's CP.3 reverted to t/1.5 on those lenses, that would be AWESOME. If they added the 100mm Macro with CP.3, that would be even more insanely fantastic. Oh, and LDS or /i data. (If they can do data for DSLR lenses... then why not PL mount?)

Speaking of lens data... can you actually use lens data from RED cameras yet? Last I checked that was a no go.

[Christopher Barrett]

35 f/1.4 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/733916-REG/Zeiss_1871765_35mm_F_1_4_Distagon_T.html)

Yeah, it's a drag the CP's are so slow, none as fast as their ZF versions....

[Nils J. Nesse]

The CP.1s were as fast as the ZF versions... (But there was no 1.4/35 back then)

[Christopher Barrett]

yeah, actually I'm not sure why I thought the CPs were all slower than the ZFs, they're not far off.... all the wide stuff is wicked slow in both lines.

randomness : I was surprised to find my ZFs noticeably colder than my RPZ 17-50.

I gotta stop friggin obsessing over glass, just buy some shit and go to work.

[Ryan Hamblin]

yes christopher commit... it all gets fucked with in post to match now... its kinda irrelevant.

shootin is much more important than thinking about what you will shoot with... I don't mean that with any negative connotations... just one fellow obsessive to another.

[Julio Quintana]

I gotta stop friggin obsessing over glass, just buy some shit and go to work.

I know exactly how you feel. This thread I started has me spinning in circles with regards to the Canon vs. PL investment debate: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=53888

[Christopher Barrett]

Likewise... I was totally considering just putting my money into an Epic and Canon glass. Becoming annoyed with my ministrations, my wife said to me, if your biggest problem is how to spend $30k, you're getting no sympathy from me!

Yeah.

/rant

[Cüneyt Kaya]

Likewise... I was totally considering just putting my money into an Epic and Canon glass. Becoming annoyed with my ministrations, my wife said to me, if your biggest problem is how to spend $30k, you're getting no sympathy from me!

Yeah.

/rant

thats georgous, wifes have the talent to put things in perspective....but if they would know how it feels to be addicted to gear...

[Christopher Barrett]

Heh... I was sitting at the kitchen table staring at the computer and I must have appeared really frustrated because my wife looked over at me and said "Just get the lenses you want..."

Yeah. I'm getting the Cookes. Done.

http://www.printliberation.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/400x/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/d/a/davefuck2.jpg

[Rob Castiglione]

Hey Christopher. I think that that is a good decision. It seems to me based on your other posts that you are really looking for a particular aesthetic. Please let us know what you think when you get them.

[Tom.Wong]

panchros are bad ass, just wish they were half stop faster! read some tests on them though, done by forums Ryan O'hara. they match pretty much identically to s4's... freakin awesome.

[paul engstrom]

Ohh I wouldn't get the Cookes....

[paul engstrom]

I'd wait to NAB if I were you...

[paul engstrom]

Did you see that new video Mitch posted???

[paul engstrom]

Just helping you with some gut checks :)

Enjoy the new glass -- don't check the lens forum anymore!

[Christopher Barrett]

LoL... wazzat Paul? What video? is it on the Abel blog? I do wanna see Tim's review of the Schneiders before I commit but I don't think I can hold out till NAB... besides... anything announced at NAB will be available when? 2012?

[paul engstrom]

Just messin with ya :)

Get the Cookes!!! And don't look back!!

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Heh... I was sitting at the kitchen table staring at the computer and I must have appeared really frustrated because my wife looked over at me and said "Just get the lenses you want..."

Yeah. I'm getting the Cookes. Done.

Which Cookes?

[Julio Quintana]

Which Cookes?

Cooke Panchro Lens Set T2.8 across
Cooke PANCHRO 18mm_____$8900
PANCHRO Set (25, 32, 50, 75, 100)___$33,600
Total
$42,500

[Tim Naylor]

I went with Cooke Panchro/i's.

Amazing lenses.

T/2.8 is slow. But cameras are faster now than ever, and only getting faster. Only 1 in 10 films I shoot requires DoF more shallow than T/2.8. In fact I shoot mainly at T4 or T5.6.

Point being... if you were shooting on a digital cinema camera three years ago you'd have done it at what? T/1.3 Superspeeds and at 320iso? Now the RedOneMX is getting great results at 800iso, Alexa is at 800iso, PhantomFlex is at 1000iso.... etc. The next series of cameras will be faster and cleaner.

If it's not part of the look, I don't want that super shallow DoF. T/2.8 is sometimes too much. Plus it helps 1st AC's sleep at night, and reduces the risk of flubbed takes or re-shoots b/c of difficult focus issues.

I've never been happier with a lens set in my life. At least try a set before you buy anything else.

For film out work, though, I never take the MX above 500 ASA, usually staying between 320-400. Broadcast, have yourself a ball and crank it up.

[Jeremy Benning]

Hey Everyone,

This is my first post to the forum... I was reading all the other posts in this thread about the Cooke Panchro/i lenses and wanted to chime in. I oddly enough became owner of set #1 of the Panchros last February (2010). Almost immediately I shot a feature with the RED MX, 2 cameras, out in the desert of British Columbia with them. We put those lenses through hell with the local talcum powder dust that was blasting us every day for 4 weeks. They held up, survived the torture - they just needed a good cleaning by Guy at ZGC, and they were back to new again.

The images we achieved with them were stunning, every bit as good as the S4s I have loved and used for many years. In fact we had an 18mm S4 (since my 18mm was not ready yet - I now have it) and there is no doubt how well the Panrchro and S4's match up. Combined with the RED MX, people can't believe we shot digitally. We did a 35mm film out in the end as well as HD CAM SR.

My fellow DP Ray Dumas and I had first met Les Zellan at NAB 2009, where we were shown the Panchro by him. We really liked the concept and idea behind these lenses, and somehow we became the first guys to place an order. We have both been using Cooke lenses for many many years. We wanted to bring them to Toronto.

We decided that the best idea for us would be to each order a set, and then have a matched pair for 3D. We talked to Les about this and that became the mission - as no one had asked for this yet other than the Scorcese team on "Hugo Cabret". Thankfully we knew some of the key systems techs on that show, so we were talking to them about how they were working with Cooke to get all of their glass to match, and we were doing with same with Cooke and our tests - which were to the same 3D standard as theirs. We worked together and shared info between us and Cooke to achieve what we needed.

Ray's lenses came in September, and that began a three month saga of testing and back and forthing with Les & Cooke to achieve a matched set. Three sets of lenses and three months later - we succeeded. Thanks to the patience of Les and the dedication of our stereographer Brent Robinson who put in many days of time testing the lenses with us.

Since I have been shooting largely RED MX and now Alexa - the T2.8 stop thing really hasn't been an issue for me. I have had one job in the last year where I needed Master Primes because we needed to shoot night and use some street lighting, and another shoot with the Phantom. On Afghan Luke I shot 1600 ASA in a few night scenes with the Pancrho's and it looks fantastic, and we had real fire as part of our light source.

Our one critique of the lenses from the get go was the inability to open the irises fully at 2.8. Meaning that on the 50, 75 and 100 - part of the iris leaves are still visible through the lens at wide open - leaving you with octagonal bokeh - which is not that pretty when you usually want circles in the b/g.

This was something Ray, Les, Guy and I worked together with the factory for months to solve. Les explained that the Panchros use the same iris assembly as the S4, so at 2.8 they don't fully retract, since they are made for T2. In the end, we worked together to add a circular T2.8 matte behind the iris in the 50mm and then removed the stopper on the iris to allow the blades to fully retract - leaving only the perfect circle matte visible through the lens. And voila - circular bokeh. Now all the lenses have circular bokeh at wide open...

I also have to say that the wait for the 18mm was worth it.. its fantastic.

So Ray and I are happy to be done with all the testing and work, and now we have our matched 3D set.

thats the scoop!

More shots of the lenses here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/14492185@N00/sets/72157625725216465/

Jeremy Benning, csc
director of photography
Toronto, Canada
IATSE 667
---

www.jeremybenning.com

[Christopher Barrett]

Thanks for chiming in Jeremy. It makes me feel even better about the big wire transfer I sent ZGC yesterday ;)

Question: Is Cooke now implementing your 2.8 matte in production of the Panchros?

Man, I can't wait to look through mine... 1 or 2 more weeks.

CB

and hey, what case is that they're sitting in? I was thinking of going with a Pelican rollaboard, which your's looks similar to.

[Jeremy Benning]

Hi Christopher,

As far as I am aware, all the Pancrhos now have this matte. Both our sets here have them now, and all lenses open to perfect circles. That is a Pelican 1560 case, Cooke supplied it and fit the foam for it. Ask Les for that... they charge $600 for it. I prefer Pelican because of the lifetime warranty and water/dust tightness.

We did have problems initially with the foam in the cases being too hard (the top and bottom layer). This resulted in damage to the 75mm's cam follower in Fedex shipping across Canada for a couple jobs. Because the lenses "stand up" in the case when you open the lid (its the only way they will fit in that case) they are subject to g-force trauma if the case is dropped on the flat side (the side it would lay on when opened).

Guy and the techs at ZGC also tweaked the focus and iris rings on some of our lenses as we found them too loose - compared the S4 movement. I noticed someone here commented on the same thing. They are all nice and buttery as you would expect on all Cookes.

Cooke refitted the case with softer foam top and bottom. Seems to have solved it, although I have had a minor cam follower problem with my 100mm since. My lens tech Mike Nadas at Sim Video Toronto feels its the case - that the lenses should be packed on their sides - but Guy at ZGC is not sure. We will be checking it out in a week when Guy comes to town to give Mike and I a rundown on service for the Pancrhos (Mike is already trained on the S4 and 5/i's). Mike really likes the design - but there are slight differences between the Panchros and the other Cookes, so he needs to get the low down now that we have two sets that Sim takes care of for us.

http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/experience/testimonials.html

[AnthonyFlores]

Thanks Jeremy for the killer review. These are definitely in my consideration and your work/confidence in them says a lot.

Also, I could easily see how -- if I owned these, and wanted to shoot a variety of independent features -- my cost would be substantially reduced over time by having them on hand (at $400-500 per day/$1500 per week, it only takes about 20-30 shooting days before they could be purchased/recouped) ...

And if I ever needed 1.4 then I just spend the $1000/day it takes to get rent the 5i -- and shoot my night/low light scenes in the most compressed possible time frame. Hey, it's film budgeting 101! LOL. But yeah, now starting to see the value here -- if you get identical S4 or 5i quality from 2.8 on up it's a pretty sexy proposition.

Now, they just need to make a full frame set for the FF35 Epic! :P

[Steve Sherrick]

Christopher, I think you'll be very happy with your purchase. First lens I had for my RED was a Cooke Technovision 18-90. It was a T2.7. I still miss the look of that lens. And now with M-X it would be looking even sweeter. Some of the best stuff that has been shot with my RED was shot on S4s. RPPs are very nice as well and an incredible value. But if you already know you like the Cooke look then this seems like a good way to go, especially given the price point.

Jeremy, thanks for providing the info about the matte behind the iris. And also very interesting about the issues with the case.

[AnthonyFlores]

Christopher, I think you'll be very happy with your purchase. First lens I had for my RED was a Cooke Technovision 18-90. It was a T2.7. I still miss the look of that lens. And now with M-X it would be looking even sweeter. Some of the best stuff that has been shot with my RED was shot on S4s. RPPs are very nice as well and an incredible value. But if you already know you like the Cooke look then this seems like a good way to go, especially given the price point.

Jeremy, thanks for providing the info about the matte behind the iris. And also very interesting about the issues with the case.

Hey Steve, thanks for the update on the teaser shoot with Mark, btw. Also, I'm curious since you have S4/MX experience -- on one previous 006 post Mark mentioned he thought the S4 might be a bit too "soft" for the Epic and I notice he has been using Master/Ultra Primes.

Do you see this as a concern? Since there are no Epics out, it's obviously a little hard for any of us to test this ... yet my preconception (without seeing footage) would be the opposite -- the Cooke look would be a nice compliment to the incredible detail, sharpness and resolution of the Epic.

Thoughts?

Anthony

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Hey Steve, thanks for the update on the teaser shoot with Mark, btw. Also, I'm curious since you have S4/MX experience -- on one previous 006 post Mark mentioned he thought the S4 might be a bit too "soft" for the Epic and I notice he has been using Master/Ultra Primes.

Do you see this as a concern? Since there are no Epics out, it's obviously a little hard for any of us to test this ... yet my preconception (without seeing footage) would be the opposite -- the Cooke look would be a nice compliment to the incredible detail, sharpness and resolution of the Epic.

Thoughts?

Anthony

Can't say I've ever used Epic, but I highly doubt that is the case. Modern Cooke primes have been plenty sharp for RedMX, and celluloid film. I have no reason to believe it's any different for 5k. Common.

I guess that is the luxury of opinion given to the only man in the world who has one right now (who is not on 'Hobbit' or 'Spiderman'.) He could say that the Epic only works well lathered in peanut butter, and who are we to argue yet? :P

[Steve Sherrick]

Hey Steve, thanks for the update on the teaser shoot with Mark, btw. Also, I'm curious since you have S4/MX experience -- on one previous 006 post Mark mentioned he thought the S4 might be a bit too "soft" for the Epic and I notice he has been using Master/Ultra Primes.

Do you see this as a concern? Since there are no Epics out, it's obviously a little hard for any of us to test this ... yet my preconception (without seeing footage) would be the opposite -- the Cooke look would be a nice compliment to the incredible detail, sharpness and resolution of the Epic.

Thoughts?

Anthony
I have only seen Master Primes so far with Epic, but my guess is that the S4s will be fine on Epic. I know they will be one of the first lens sets I'll want to test as soon as I have the camera in my hands. Also looking forward to seeing the RPPs as well.

[AnthonyFlores]

Can't say I've ever used Epic, but I highly doubt that is the case. Modern Cooke primes have been plenty sharp for RedMX, and celluloid film. I have no reason to believe it's any different for 5k. Common.

I guess that is the luxury of opinion given to the only man in the world who has one right now (who is not on 'Hobbit' or 'Spiderman'.) He could say that the Epic only works well lathered in peanut butter, and who are we to argue yet? :P

Lol. Also, from what I remember it was a VERY passing comment and quick impression ... so I don't want to make it seem like Mark was saying they "suck" and I know he's in a very extensive testing process now, so I'm sure we'll get a much more informed, hands-on opinion from him soon.



I have only seen Master Primes so far with Epic, but my guess is that the S4s will be fine on Epic. I know they will be one of the first lens sets I'll want to test as soon as I have the camera in my hands. Also looking forward to seeing the RPPs as well.

Thanks Steve. Yes would be very eager to see how the S4's or 5i's (or Panchros!) look on the Epic ... and I must say I was pretty blown away by the image quality and bokeh that I saw from the Epic + MP combo from the shoot you were involved in. Thanks again and can't wait to see more of your behind the scenes stuff :)

[Tim Duran]

Steve S, you're right on the Master Primes. Don't think it would look too impressive for Jannard/Jarrad running around with a Lomo out in front. I do recall a shot with a new Lieca.

[Jarred Land]

New Lieca's are great.

I ironically ran around with a 100mm Lomo last week for a couple days on my Epic.. I dont know if I temporarily completely lost my mind , or if i was overcome by some romantic spell Sanjin put on me... but im cured now.

[C.H.Haskell]

How did you like the results Jarred? I have always liked the lomos. Having Glass insomnia.

Chris you have any cooke panchro test I could see that you would care to share? Sounds like your making a solid choice.

Whats the score on those Leicas?

[AnthonyFlores]

New Lieca's are great.

I ironically ran around with a 100mm Lomo last week for a couple days on my Epic.. I dont know if I temporarily completely lost my mind , or if i was overcome by some romantic spell Sanjin put on me... but im cured now.

Hey Jarred, yah curious if you're talking about the Leica S lenses or the Summilux C's .... I'm sure the C's are AWESOME, I think delivery for the initial customers should be starting anytime.

But I'm also hoping to see more people adopt the S lenses (other than me and Ketch, lol) so it will be worth Red's time to make the mount. These are the some of the best still lenses ever, here's the MTF charts ...

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-s2-forum/73103-mtf-charts-first-four-s-lenses.html

This are going to be some of the most fantastic ways to show off Epic's incredible resolution/detail as well as it's proficiency as a still camera.

I just hope it's not too difficult to make the mount or program the autofocus functioning for them :)

Anthony

P.S. -- I think Sanjin put me under his spell, I'm mentioning Leica almost every single day here :P

[C.H.Haskell]

I am with Anthony and Ketch on the S lens mount, I have not pulled the trigger yet as I dont know if RED will make this mount or not.

Shooting Leica S + EPIC combo would be dreamy, not to mention more economic then the Summilux Cs!

I believe they have about 3 or 4 lenses in that set but they are MF glass so not sure how the focal lengths translate.

Cheers

[Matthew Duclos]

I ironically ran around with a 100mm Lomo last week for a couple days on my Epic.

I'm sorry.

[AnthonyFlores]

I am with Anthony and Ketch on the S lens mount, I have not pulled the trigger yet as I dont know if RED will make this mount or not.

Shooting Leica S + EPIC combo would be dreamy, not to mention more economic then the Summilux Cs!

I believe they have about 3 or 4 lenses in that set but they are MF glass so not sure how the focal lengths translate.

Cheers

Thanks for the support C.H.!! Let's rally the troops and be heard by Red, lol (I know they are already always listening) :P

Right now, there are four lenses -- 35mm (f2.5) ... 70mm (f2.5) ... 120mm (f2.5) ... and 180mm (f3.5).

As you know, the conversion is always relative to FF FOV ... so when using them on the S2 body (0.8 crop relative to FF) they are effectively, 28mm ... 56mm ... 96mm ... 144mm ...

However, on the Epic the crop is still approximately 1.3x to know the FF equivalent ... so that means 45.5mm ... 91mm ... 156mm ... 234mm ...

In terms of future lenses, I think their next biggest priority is a 24mm for landscape photographers ... and then hopefully a 50mm as well. But I'm not sure if we'll see the 50mm before the end of the year, since they are still filling demand and also wanting to release CS shutter versions of those lenses as well.

Anyway, all this means that by sometime this summer, using them on the Epic, you should be able to have FF equivalents of 31mm, 45mm, 91mm, 156mm, and 234mm ...

I can honestly totally get by with just the first 4 focal lengths -- which would probably be around $22,000-24,000. Yes I would like a 50 in there and maybe the superfast 100mm that's rumored, but with those four I could do a LOT. (btw, Ketch showed me some shots of the 120mm macro ... amazing! :)

I think it's also already confirmed that Red will make the mount -- Ketch personally confirmed with Jarred ... just a matter of when. Unfortunately, Leica S is such a tiny market compared to Canon/Nikon that it's understandably hard for Red to focus on this lens line until the others are done.

One of the main benefits I can maybe see on Red's side is that the quality of these lenses will probably better showcase the Epic than many of the Zeiss, Canon, Nikon glass out there ... so could be good for people's impression of the camera.

Also, I think that if people see great things from those like Ketch, you and others with them -- they might attract more customers who realize they can get Cooke, Arri/Zeiss, Leica C type IQ ... with the S lenses -- along with AF, smaller form factor and FF/MF coverage -- for a lower price.

Anyway, that's my 0.5 :)

[Matt Uhry]

Thanks for the support C.H.!! Let's rally the troops and be heard by Red, lol (I know they are already always listening) :P

Right now, there are four lenses -- 35mm (f2.5) ... 70mm (f2.5) ... 120mm (f2.5) ... and 180mm (f3.5).

As you know, the conversion is always relative to FF FOV ... so when using them on the S2 body (0.8 crop relative to FF) they are effectively, 28mm ... 56mm ... 96mm ... 144mm ...

However, on the Epic the crop is still approximately 1.3x to know the FF equivalent ... so that means 45.5mm ... 91mm ... 156mm ... 234mm ...

In terms of future lenses, I think their next biggest priority is a 24mm for landscape photographers ... and then hopefully a 50mm as well. But I'm not sure if we'll see the 50mm before the end of the year, since they are still filling demand and also wanting to release CS shutter versions of those lenses as well.

Anyway, all this means that by sometime this summer, using them on the Epic, you should be able to have FF equivalents of 31mm, 45mm, 91mm, 156mm, and 234mm ...

I can honestly totally get by with just the first 4 focal lengths -- which would probably be around $22,000-24,000. Yes I would like a 50 in there and maybe the superfast 100mm that's rumored, but with those four I could do a LOT. (btw, Ketch showed me some shots of the 120mm macro ... amazing! :)

I think it's also already confirmed that Red will make the mount -- Ketch personally confirmed with Jarred ... just a matter of when. Unfortunately, Leica S is such a tiny market compared to Canon/Nikon that it's understandably hard for Red to focus on this lens line until the others are done.

One of the main benefits I can maybe see on Red's side is that the quality of these lenses will probably better showcase the Epic than many of the Zeiss, Canon, Nikon glass out there ... so could be good for people's impression of the camera.

Also, I think that if people see great things from those like Ketch, you and others with them -- they might attract more customers who realize they can get Cooke, Arri/Zeiss, Leica C type IQ ... with the S lenses -- along with AF, smaller form factor and FF/MF coverage -- for a lower price.

Anyway, that's my 0.5 :)

Hi Anthony, Focal length conversions lead to confusing places... Might be better to talk in terms of angle of view ?

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[AnthonyFlores]

Hi Anthony, Focal length conversions lead to confusing places... Might be better to talk in terms of angle of view ?

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

True Matt ... and you would know better than I. Anything I said above that's incorrect?

Btw, looking forward to meeting you in Vegas. Still have your #, I think, and even though
I would love to fly with you guys ... I think I will be driving on my own (who knows, I
even might help Ketch transport some Tiramisu ingredients, if he needs it lol). But if you
can't fill the plane and want a ride, you are welcome to ride in my car if you want :)

[Christopher Barrett]

I've commented on this before... a 35mm lens, whether it's a Master Prime, Summilux C or Summarit-S would yield the same composition on the sensor. Regardless of which sensor a lens is designed for focal lengths remain consistent across formats.

To clarify, if you have a shot set up with a 35mm Master Prime on your camera and you swap it out with a 35mm Leica S (Summarit) your composition would not change.

Crop factors only exist to help you compare one sensor to another, not one lens to another.

For example... I have a 4x5 camera. I have an old 90mm lens designed to cover 4x5 (fairly wide). I also have a new 90mm designed for medium format digital. Same focal lengths designed for different formats, yet they yield the same composition on my digital back because 90mm is 90mm no matter what you are shooting.

Now... the currently widest Summarit-S is the 35mm, right? That's not real wide on an MX sensor. If you never shoot wider than 35, then cool, but if you use a 25 or 18 then it's not a great set of lenses to get into. Right now the widest medium format SLR lenses are the Mamiya and Hasselblad 28mm's. I doubt Leica will ever get much wider than that.

Food for thought.

CB

[Tom.Wong]

what would change would be luminance, and slight changes in your depth of field. field of view, from a company worth anything shouldn't change, maybe down to the the slightest micron because machining isn't the perfect science, nothing really is.

but every lens takes in light differently, and the rating on their t stop can always be a hair off depending on how the comes in. Lot of fine differences from lens to lens, brand to brand. That's why everybody has their personal tastes and choices on what lenses they use.

[AnthonyFlores]

I've commented on this before... a 35mm lens, whether it's a Master Prime, Summilux C or Summarit-S would yield the same composition on the sensor. Regardless of which sensor a lens is designed for focal lengths remain consistent across formats.

To clarify, if you have a shot set up with a 35mm Master Prime on your camera and you swap it out with a 35mm Leica S (Summarit) your composition would not change.

Crop factors only exist to help you compare one sensor to another, not one lens to another.

For example... I have a 4x5 camera. I have an old 90mm lens designed to cover 4x5 (fairly wide). I also have a new 90mm designed for medium format digital. Same focal lengths designed for different formats, yet they yield the same composition on my digital back because 90mm is 90mm no matter what you are shooting.

Now... the currently widest Summarit-S is the 35mm, right? That's not real wide on an MX sensor. If you never shoot wider than 35, then cool, but if you use a 25 or 18 then it's not a great set of lenses to get into. Right now the widest medium format SLR lenses are the Mamiya and Hasselblad 28mm's. I doubt Leica will ever get much wider than that.

Food for thought.

CB

Hi Chris, yes I actually remember your past comment ... I was trying to basically translate FOV according to the two different sensors (S2, which is 56% larger than FF35 ... and Epic, which is about 77% of the size of FF35). I guess I made it even more confusing.

I agree with you on wides, 35 isn't that wide on the Epic. However, on the GetDPI forum they give Leica and the dealers a LOT of feedback -- and it seems the consensus is that they desperately need a 24 to make the system workable for landscape and tech people. I think Leica has heard that, and it IS the next focal length they plan on releasing, though nobody knows exactly when.

Given that the 120mm macro is almost impossible to find, they have some catching up to do and they are sloooooooooooooooooooooooooow :(

But from what I've heard from dealers, there should be some available this year -- and perhaps even by Epic time this summer.

On the plus side, the 24mm and 35mm would cover FF35 image circle ... I need to check back on Duclos tests about coverage, but it seems most big name Cine lenses (except CP2's) don't have full coverage at these wider focal lengths.

Also my feeling is that everyone planning on getting an Epic is also dying for the FF version, whenever it's released, and as you know then those 24mm and 35mm function like wide angle lenses.

[Christopher Barrett]

Cool, hope I didn't come off too preachy. 24 would be sweet. The only MF lenses that wide currently are for view cameras, but if anybody can pull of the formula it would be Leica.

The problem with having a beer with dinner is that you really need another beer for desert.

CB

[AnthonyFlores]

Cool, hope I didn't come off too preachy. 24 would be sweet. The only MF lenses that wide currently are for view cameras, but if anybody can pull of the formula it would be Leica.

The problem with having a beer with dinner is that you really need another beer for desert.

CB

Yah no problem, likewise I don't want to offend you until I get your excellent review of the Panchros on the MX ;)

In terms of the Leicas, I did read that they will have a 24mm/3.5 and a 30mm/2.8 ... a little disappointed the 24mm is not the same speed as the others, which I thought it would be.

But that leads to a bigger question -- how often do you really shoot wide angles wide open for narrative work? I guess maybe street shots at night, things like that. But I know wide angles are often used more in the mid-aperture range, with less subject isolation. So maybe a 24mm at 3.5 isn't the end of the world ...

Anthony

P.S. -- Chris I know you said your primary work was architectural photography ... are you using the R1 + Panchros to add video for those same types of clients?

[Christopher Barrett]

P.S. -- Chris I know you said your primary work was architectural photography ... are you using the R1 + Panchros to add video for those same types of clients?

Exactly. A year ago I shot stills of a client's office (http://christopherbarrett.net/blog/?p=626) and I got to thinking... hey, if I wanna do some motion work in my field that would be a great place to experiment. That lead to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6-ORYJA7l0), which I shot with the 5d2. It was my disappointment with the moire and dynamic range in that footage which eventually lead me to Ketch and #354 :) I've shot 4 more film projects since then, same genre and am totally hooked on all things Red now. Recently I've hooked up with a friend who is an Indie writer/director and we're shooting a short together this May. I'm totally psyched!

And man, I used to think photo gear was expensive!

[Jarred Land]

I am with Anthony and Ketch on the S lens mount, I have not pulled the trigger yet as I dont know if RED will make this mount or not.

Shooting Leica S + EPIC combo would be dreamy, not to mention more economic then the Summilux Cs!

I believe they have about 3 or 4 lenses in that set but they are MF glass so not sure how the focal lengths translate.

Cheers

does anyone know for sure what the flange distance for the S-2 is?

[C.H.Haskell]

Ketch?

[KETCH ROSSi]

He he not that technical ;)

I know we were talking the other day with one of the Photographers for a Victoria 's shot and He said that the S2 has
a very short Flange to Sensor distance, after I told him of the intention of soon hopefully been able to also use the S2
Glass on our Epic-x via and S2 RED adapter.

[AnthonyFlores]

does anyone know for sure what the flange distance for the S-2 is?

Hi Jarred, I will check with a dealer and get back to you on that pronto :)

[Christopher Barrett]

The quest has ended... or has it just begun?

http://christopherbarrett.net/100703_001.jpg

http://christopherbarrett.net/100703_004.jpg

Thank You Fed Ex! And Les and Eggy....

[David Rasberry]

Congratulations:drool5::drool5:

[Yaque Silva-Doyle]

Damn sexy glass.

[Cüneyt Kaya]

long road, congrats!
now shit on that van you want to buy and buy an epic instead!
used cars can drive the same roads ;)

[KETCH ROSSi]

Congrats Christopher ;)

[wade muller]

Nice !!!

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Congrats!

Aren't they just the best built little lenses ever?

[Steve Sherrick]

I'm envious Christopher. Hopefully you'll post some footage soon, which I'm sure will look beautiful. Congrats on the purchase!

[Ken Willinger]

Oooh La La!!

[AnthonyFlores]

Drooling ... more pics, more pics!!! Lol -- congrats Chris, some well deserved toys (I mean tools!) for a really great guy.

[Evin Grant]

Ooooo, baby Cookes, I like.

[Shane Betts]

Ha ha! Love the matching serial numbers! Congratulations.

[Marc Berger]

Congrats! Great! For sure a brillant and future proof choice.:001_wub:

Christopher, It would be great to hear about the ipin. Can you tell me about the information you can see in the LCD/EVF?
Is there a way to see the recorded data in the metadata file now?
Thanks,
and have a lot of fun and great shots!

Marc

[albert rudnicki]

I am soo jealous !
If I did not sale my cooke zoom, I'd be calling ZGC right now:)
Congrats !

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Congrats... I wish I had glass that nice!

[Benjamin Rowland]

Congrats Chris. Post a full review when you can and have fun with the new lenses.

[Marc Berger]

I am soo jealous !
If I did not sale my cooke zoom, I'd be calling ZGC right now:)
Congrats !

Hi Albert, I gave my Cooke Zoom away too and would not hesitate to order those Panchros...I would love to hold SN ..0148 in my hands soon. It´s something miraculous about a set of such great lenses.
So, why not forget your Zeiss´s and go for it.
Never forget to charm your big talent with a gift!

Hope you´re well,
cheers,
Marc

[Christopher Barrett]

Eye Candy for the faithful...

http://christopherbarrett.net/Cookes_83.jpg

Doing a few images tonight to go along with the blog post I'll do once I have some footage.

[Trevor Emmerson]

beautiful. i want em

[AnthonyFlores]

Eye Candy for the faithful...

http://christopherbarrett.net/Cookes_83.jpg

Doing a few images tonight to go along with the blog post I'll do once I have some footage.

Nice shot man. Love the shallow DOF .... sooooooooo "cinematic" LOL. But seriously this is a really nice photo. In addition to architectural, you should perhaps be doing product shots -- if they can afford you :)

[Christopher Barrett]

Marc,

While there is data displayed on the LCD (Aperture, "PRIME", and focus distance) nothing shows up in the file's metadata. I've read in another thread here that RC-X will eventually show the Cooke Data. It is kinda fun watching the distance change as I pull focus...

[albert rudnicki]

Hi Albert, I gave my Cooke Zoom away too and would not hesitate to order those Panchros...I would love to hold SN ..0148 in my hands soon. It´s something miraculous about a set of such great lenses.
So, why not forget your Zeiss´s and go for it.
Never forget to charm your big talent with a gift!

Hope you´re well,
cheers,
Marc

ohhh Marc
As much I love the cooke lens, it's simply not a set I should have as my personal set (new panchros).
They are great, yet they are slow.
I looked at my previous jobs and almost every time I really needed faster lenses at one point.
It is a huge problem even in high budget shows. Lighting is not only expensive but it's time consuming, and often you don't have that time.
(especially today!)
Another aspect of choosing lenses is the control you have after.
Cooke has the look to GO, which is great for most of the times.
They look great as it is, but it is what it is.
I find zeiss to be less appealing on the set, but the range they give in the CC is greater (it is only my opinion) thus I can go a lot further with what I have in post.
if I could have both, I would:)

[Christopher Barrett]

First sample, a grab of my son watching TV. I've got a small silk camera left with a Dedo 150 Tungsten into it, the rest is all available. 50mm @ f/2.8... and they say Cooke's are soft? :)

http://christopherbarrett.net/vincent.jpg

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

ohhh Marc
As much I love the cooke lens, it's simply not a set I should have as my personal set (new panchros).
They are great, yet they are slow.
I looked at my previous jobs and almost every time I really needed faster lenses at one point.
It is a huge problem even in high budget shows. Lighting is not only expensive but it's time consuming, and often you don't have that time.
(especially today!)
Another aspect of choosing lenses is the control you have after.
Cooke has the look to GO, which is great for most of the times.
They look great as it is, but it is what it is.
I find zeiss to be less appealing on the set, but the range they give in the CC is greater (it is only my opinion) thus I can go a lot further with what I have in post.
if I could have both, I would:)

Do go on...

[Marc Berger]

Marc,

While there is data displayed on the LCD (Aperture, "PRIME", and focus distance) nothing shows up in the file's metadata. I've read in another thread here that RC-X will eventually show the Cooke Data. It is kinda fun watching the distance change as I pull focus...

Thank you Christopher,
great to hear. The last time I had a Cooke s4i on my Red I couldn´t see anything on the LCD.But this was some time ago.
Cheers,
Marc

[Marc Berger]

ohhh Marc
As much I love the cooke lens, it's simply not a set I should have as my personal set (new panchros).
They are great, yet they are slow.
I looked at my previous jobs and almost every time I really needed faster lenses at one point.
It is a huge problem even in high budget shows. Lighting is not only expensive but it's time consuming, and often you don't have that time.
(especially today!)
Another aspect of choosing lenses is the control you have after.
Cooke has the look to GO, which is great for most of the times.
They look great as it is, but it is what it is.
I find zeiss to be less appealing on the set, but the range they give in the CC is greater (it is only my opinion) thus I can go a lot further with what I have in post.
if I could have both, I would:)
Albert, got it, very clear point.
I love the Cookes for this very reason: I give away quite a lot of footage without having influence on CC.
But Weight is my biggest concern with a full prime lens set.
I know, you travel a lot with your gear too. A Zeiss LWZ2, or a Angenieux 16-42, adding one longer Prime, will be around 3Kgs. A set of "light" primes starts at 9-10kgs. Should be about the same $...well, you said it already: "If I could have both, I would".

Marc

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

My point was the lack of clarity in his point.

How does Zeiss give him more range in CC? Do they now incorporate RAW in their lenses? Can you set DoF, contrast/color rendition, and flares in post? :)

I'm just curious on why he thinks this, as it is counter intuitive to my opinion. I'd say all lenses have their own look and you choose the one that is right for your image, despite if you are on set or in CC... but even then, the ability to CC shouldn't be influenced by what lenses you use, unless, I suppose you're comparing two very different sets of lenses, IE... modern primes versus old primes that possibly lack advanced lens coatings and etc. I'd really like to hear this opinion more in depth, as I'm sure many others would. I'm curious where he is coming from.

[Christopher Barrett]

I think maybe he's saying that with Zeiss you can start neutral and adjust for warmth (in feel and color) if need be. Whereas with Cooke you're stuck with the "look." Personally, it's a look I'm thrilled to be stuck with. The soft areas of my snap above are just buttery, while the focus remains crisp.

[albert rudnicki]

Ryan,
I am not making a point, I am sharing my personal opinion with a friend.
I also find it rude to talk to someone in a third person.

Christpher,
apologies for polluting your thread, it was not intentional.
and yes, thanks for clearing up my post.
One of my latest tv-spots was shot with Cooke S4:)
http://www.vimeo.com/17315415

Again, Congratulation!

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Albert, please do not get offended.

I was talking about you in third person as a dialogue I was attempting to start with Marc, who seemed to understand your point of view and was currently more active in the thread. I would of course talk to you normally, should I been addressing you directly. Perhaps I should have from the start, as it seems you have returned here before Marc.

Your opinion is always welcome, and you did so on a public forum. It goes against my experience so I was asking for some clarity.

In my experience, Cooke and Red Pro Primes are slightly warm, Angeniuex and Primos are neutral and Zeiss cine lenses tend to be cooler. I'm still not sure how this gives any greater choices in color correction for Zeiss. This is simply nuances the lenses give. Of course in different situations on different cameras, perhaps the warmer lens would look more neutral than the cooler lens.


I completely understand how Zeiss and Cooke have different looks, but I don't understand how you have concluded that Zeiss lenses are more mailable in CC than others. I think the cinematographer is committed to the look of the lens he chooses to a certain degree with whatever lens he chooses. I'm very open to hearing an explanation and having a constructive and positive discussion about it.

Albert, you made a point regarding your opinion, and I'm happy you did. I'm simply asking you and/or your friends who may agree with you, how you came to that opinion as I still don't understand.

[Christopher Barrett]

Yah, if we're talking the actual color cast of the glass itself, the Red makes it so easy to put the overall balance anywhere you want, so that the point becomes moot. People ask why I'm comfortable mixing Schneiders with Rodenstocks for my still camera. The answer is simple, I've never had a project where there was enough consistency in the available light from one shot to the next that it would matter. My scenes can easily vary by several hundred degrees kelvin one shot to the next, not a big deal with R3Ds or Raw stills.

I've always loved Zeiss glass and have used it on Hasselblads, Contax, DSLRS and my Red, but I was looking for something specific in the Cookes and I'm really happy with the look so far.

Albert, I don't feel you've polluted this thread by any means and I value your input.

CB

[Timur Civan]

All view points taken with salt. :)

I too am taking delivery on a set of panchros.

I have been in the market for glass for over a year now. I've tested different lenses in the sub 30k market, and come to the conclusion that none of them have the balance i was looking for. The CP's arent matched well, the CineXenars are a nightmare ergonomically, and the RPP's are just too big for my taste. The only choice was the Optar Illuminas, and the Cookes. Honestly, i couldnt see myself saying, "i think i'll take the Illuminas" if given a choice between cookes and Illuminas.

The cookes are a great balance of quality, optical performance, factory support, long life, and name recognition in the industry. I think they are a great business investment.

Ryan has actually been very helpful in my decision making. His first hand experience has given me a lot of insight to the glass.

[Marc Berger]

Albert, please do not get offended.

I was talking about you in third person as a dialogue I was attempting to start with Marc, who seemed to understand your point of view and was currently more active in the thread. I would of course talk to you normally, should I been addressing you directly. Perhaps I should have from the start, as it seems you have returned here before Marc.

Your opinion is always welcome, and you did so on a public forum. It goes against my experience so I was asking for some clarity.

In my experience, Cooke and Red Pro Primes are slightly warm, Angeniuex and Primos are neutral and Zeiss cine lenses tend to be cooler. I'm still not sure how this gives any greater choices in color correction for Zeiss. This is simply nuances the lenses give. Of course in different situations on different cameras, perhaps the warmer lens would look more neutral than the cooler lens.


I completely understand how Zeiss and Cooke have different looks, but I don't understand how you have concluded that Zeiss lenses are more mailable in CC than others. I think the cinematographer is committed to the look of the lens he chooses to a certain degree with whatever lens he chooses. I'm very open to hearing an explanation and having a constructive and positive discussion about it.

Albert, you made a point regarding your opinion, and I'm happy you did. I'm simply asking you and/or your friends who may agree with you, how you came to that opinion as I still don't understand.
Hi Ryan, sorry for coming back so late to this thread.
I worked with all different kind of lenses and my personal opinion is: not all of the lenses have a strong particular "look" like the Cookes. In my opinion the Angenieux and Zeiss lenses behave quite neutral. (To my taste a bit boring, too clinical compared with Cookes). But they are incredible sharp, have a nice bokeh and neutral color rendition. All over, I would say they are neutral lenses with kind of "incorporate Raw" like you said Ryan. I think the range to create a look from a clean and technical, to a softer look ( with filters, CC) is for Albert bigger with the Zeiss´s. In my own experiences I feel it is difficult to take away the Cooke look from a shot in CC (That´s what I like about them). I always find a Cooke give more depth to the picture, not only a warmer look.
Sorry Ryan and Christopher, I didn´t want to push this thread in another direction. And thank you for sharing your experiences.
I´m completly sold to the new Panchros.
Marc

[AnthonyFlores]

Christopher .... any further thoughts, impressions or images :-P ??? LOL. You teased us and now I find myself wanting more ....

[Christopher Barrett]

Sorry to leave you hangin man...

Another teaser...

http://christopherbarrett.net/nightwalkerSMALL.jpg

I took the 25mm out after we got some more snow. Wide open ISO 1280. I've got a few scenes of this stuff that I'll put together into a short vid after I get some work out the door.

Link to a full rez jpg of the shot above. (http://christopherbarrett.net/nightwalker.jpg)

CB

[C.H.Haskell]

Hey Chris, thanks for sharing and congrats on your new glass! Are you aware of any features being shot with the Panchros? Mind showing a pic of your rig for size reference. keep those stills coming and happy shooting.

[Christopher Barrett]

No shot of the full rig, Clay. Huh, why didn't I do that? Anyway these should give you an idea of size... the 25 is the smallest, the 100 has about the heft of my RPZ 17-50.

[AnthonyFlores]

Gorgeous man, keep em' coming. Actually they look smaller than I thought!

[C.H.Haskell]

No shot of the full rig, Clay. Huh, why didn't I do that? Anyway these should give you an idea of size... the 25 is the smallest, the 100 has about the heft of my RPZ 17-50.

Exactly what I was looking for...those things are tiny! I am considering adding a set of this glass, i have always loved the Cooke look and from what I have researched you get the same look you would from S4s or even S5s....just in a smaller, lighter, cheaper, and slower lens. I feel the MX makes the 2.8 issue not such a deal breaker for me...DO you feel at home with the 2.8 on your RED MX?

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Exactly what I was looking for...those things are tiny! I am considering adding a set of this glass, i have always loved the Cooke look and from what I have researched you get the same look you would from S4s or even S5s....just in a smaller, lighter, cheaper, and slower lens. I feel the MX makes the 2.8 issue not such a deal breaker for me...DO you feel at home with the 2.8 on your RED MX?

I agree about the "Cooke Looke" as I've taken to referring to it.

I am a bit bothered by t/2.8 though.

I do tend to "live" at t/2.8-t/4. I could do 90+% of my work with these lenses

I occasionally LIKE to use t/1.4 and I use t/2 more often. Not because I need it for exposure, but because I think its the "right" look.

I seriously think the right Cooke set for me is the S5- although the price is prohibitive.

If the Panchros made compromises elsewhere and were t/2 I wouldn't even debate the matter. I'd have sold important parts of me if necessary to own a set by now.

If I recall, the Leica PLs are "only" about $10,000 per lens. I think I'll wait until those lenses make financial sense for me before stepping past the RED RPP's or Zeiss CP lenses.

UPDATE: This bit about the price of the Leica lenses is probably wrong... see below.

[Antoine Fabi]

Alexander,

Are you sure the Leicas Pl are only 10K/lense ?

I though it was WAY more...but can't remember where i saw that...

Antoine

[C.H.Haskell]

I think you can only buy sets of Leicas at the moment and thats about 160k+ which I heard are back ordered well into 2012 so not sure when you could just buy individuals.

[AnthonyFlores]

I agree about the "Cooke Looke" as I've taken to referring to it.

I am a bit bothered by t/2.8 though.

I do tend to "live" at t/2.8-t/4. I could do 90+% of my work with these lenses

I occasionally LIKE to use t/1.4 and I use t/2 more often. Not because I need it for exposure, but because I think its the "right" look.

I seriously think the right Cooke set for me is the S5- although the price is prohibitive.

If the Panchros made compromises elsewhere and were t/2 I wouldn't even debate the matter. I'd have sold important parts of me if necessary to own a set by now.

If I recall, the Leica PLs are "only" about $10,000 per lens. I think I'll wait until those lenses make financial sense for me before stepping past the RED RPP's or Zeiss CP lenses.

$10,000 ... I wish! :) They are actually $180,000 for the set of 8 ... and even if you have the money, you cannot get a set until mid 2012 as Clay alluded to. That bums me out especially because I was hoping to be able to check out Ketch's set in person this year :(

But it's really too bad because as much as I love the Cooke look, I feel like the Leica/Panavision look is perfect -- somewhere in between Cooke and Zeiss ... sharp, great contrast, amazing bokeh, etc. Not too warm or too cool, really love the character.

All that said, I'm beginning to strongly consider these Panchros to go along with the Epic ... with the big 5k sensor and great iso -- the 2.8 isn't the end of the world ... and with small form factor of both, I feel it's a great marriage.

Can't wait to see more MX or Epic + Panchro pics and footage :)

Anthony

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Alexander,

Are you sure the Leicas Pl are only 10K/lense ?

I though it was WAY more...but can't remember where i saw that...

Antoine

Actually I'm not sure at all.

$160-180k (as noted above) sounds OK too.

That still fits in the parameters I'm thinking about.

Essentially its performance in the S5 and Master Prime category, but smaller lighter lenses, and much cheaper per lens.

I think the Zeiss t/1.4 Ultra Primes are sold used priced near these Leica lenses. The S4 lenses are I think 50% more expensive.

(correct away, there are obviously people here with better lens market knowledge than me, and I want to know!)

I am sort of depressed that we are talking about sets backordered until 2012.

Then again... it'll probably take me until then to fund them anyway, so I'll be over it after some coffee.

[Alexander Ibrahim]

$10,000 ... I wish! :) They are actually $180,000 for the set of 8 ...

It's a set of ten lenses.

16, 18, 21, 25, 35, 40, 50, 65, 75, 100

And yeah, I want the full set.

I do wish they had a 9, 12 and 14. I'd also like a 135. And a macro or two.

That's one thing Zeiss has going for them... lots and lots of focal lengths to choose from.

Is anyone making a zoom to cover wider angles- like the Tokina 11-16, but real cinema glass, not a conversion?

[AnthonyFlores]

It's a set of ten lenses.

16, 18, 21, 25, 35, 40, 50, 65, 75, 100

And yeah, I want the full set.

I do wish they had a 9, 12 and 14. I'd also like a 135. And a macro or two.

That's one thing Zeiss has going for them... lots and lots of focal lengths to choose from.

Is anyone making a zoom to cover wider angles- like the Tokina 11-16, but real cinema glass, not a conversion?

Hi Alexander,

Well, if these are truly on par with Panavision Primos in sharpness/character -- but also t1.4 and lighter/smaller and same size across all focus lengths, it would be a stunning achievement. But I'm just a little dismayed that I have not seen a single test or hands-on review of them yet and even insiders like Mark have inquired and gotten the run-around. Leica is also NOTORIOUSLY slow in manufacturing, lenses especially. They are routinely out of stock on M lenses and even with the only four S lenses releases ... typically only one focal length is in stock. Like you, my best hope is to work with other lenses this year while I work on funding them sometime next year.

BTW, here is the response I got from BandPro last year (they are the exclusive distributor) ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Anthony:

Thank you for your interest in the Leica Summilux-C Prime Lenses.

Here are the current details on the new lenses from Leica:

They will originally come in a set of 8 lenses and will begin delivering in the last quarter of 2010. The delivering lenses are 18mm, 21mm, 25mm, 35mm, 40mm, 50mm, 75mm, and 100mm (and of course all are T1.4). They are currently offered only as a complete set of 8. More focal lengths at both the wide and long ends of the spectrum are planned for the future.

The price for the set of 8 is $178,000 and Band Pro is currently accepting a refundable deposit of 5% now and 5% three months prior to delivery to reserve your set of Leica lenses.

Planned deliveries are fully booked through 2010, but those who reserve their set now can expect delivery in the second quarter of 2011. Feel free to contact us for more information or to put down a deposit.

Thank you and best regards,

[Name withheld]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope that helps ... it appears they were off in their timing estimate because Ketch (as far as I know) did place his deposit before I even inquired and got this email response ... and yet he still was not able to get delivery this year.

As I mentioned, I love Leica, but they are sloooooooooooooooooooow.

Also, just as one point of correction, these are pretty comparable in pricing to Cooke 5i's (t1.4) and Master Primes (t1.3) ... I think that (brand new) a set of 6 MP's goes goes for $130,000-150,000 -- somewhere in the $22,000-$25,000 per lens range. The Leicas come to about $22,500 per lens.

And here is the pricing for the Cooke 5i's ...

Cooke 5/i Prime Lenses
CKE5 18 Cooke 18mm 5/i Lens T1.4 $21,750
CKE5 25 Cooke 25mm 5/i Lens T1.4 $20,700
CKE5 32 Cooke 32mm 5/i Lens T1.4 $20,700
CKE5 40 Cooke 40mm 5/i Lens T1.4 $21,650
CKE5 50 Cooke 50mm 5/i Lens T1.4 $20,700
CKE5 65 Cooke 65mm 5/i Lens T1.4 $21,650
CKE5 75 Cooke 75mm 5/i Lens T1.4 $20,700
CKE5 100 Cooke 100mm 5/i Lens T1.4 $20,700
CKE5 135 Cooke 135mm 5/i Lens T1.4 $24,000

As you can see it's all very comparable in pricing. But also you can see -- if you're willing to sacrifice a couple stops of speed why the Panchros are really awesome.

One problem I see with such fair pricing on the Panchros is that the Cooke S4's are now a bit overpriced in my mind. Only about one stop faster than the Panchros and not as fast as the 5 series, yet almost the same price as the 5's ....

Cooke S4/i Prime Lenses
CKE 12i Cooke 12mm S4/i Lens $24,750
CKE 14i Cooke 14mm S4/i Lens $20,455
CKE 16i Cooke 16mm S4/i Lens $19,900
CKE 18i Cooke 18mm S4/i Lens $18,250
CKE 21i Cooke 21mm S4/i Lens $18,250
CKE 25i Cooke 25mm S4/i Lens $17,400
CKE 27i Cooke 27mm S4/i Lens $18,250
CKE 32i Cooke 32mm S4/i Lens $18,250
CKE 35i Cooke 35mm S4/i Lens $18,250
CKE 40i Cooke 40mm S4/i Lens $18,250
CKE 50i Cooke 50mm S4/i Lens $17,250
CKE 65i Cooke 65mm S4/i Lens $18,250
CKE 65SF Cooke Soft Focus Attachment for 65mm Cooke S4 Prime $3,350
CKE 75i Cooke 75mm S4/i Lens $17,250
CKE 100i Cooke 100mm S4/i Lens $17,250
CKE 135i Cooke 135mm S4/i Lens $19,950
CKE 150i Cooke 150mm S4/i Lens $24,900
CKE 180i Cooke 180mm S4/i Lens $25,400
CKE 300i Cooke 300mm S4/i Lens $26,500

Personally I think (with the exception of the more exotic focal lengths, teles, etc) -- most of the S4's should be in the $11,000-14,000 range ... comfortably between the Panchros and the 5i's -- and about the same price as the Arri/Zeiss Ultra Primes.

At their current pricing there's no way I would consider them -- I'd either go slightly slower and save a ton by getting the Panchros, or faster and go for the 5i series.

But that's just me :)

Anthony

[Tom.Wong]

$10,000 ... I wish! :) They are actually $180,000 for the set of 8 ... and even if you have the money, you cannot get a set until mid 2012 as Clay alluded to. That bums me out especially because I was hoping to be able to check out Ketch's set in person this year :(

But it's really too bad because as much as I love the Cooke look, I feel like the Leica/Panavision look is perfect -- somewhere in between Cooke and Zeiss ... sharp, great contrast, amazing bokeh, etc. Not too warm or too cool, really love the character.

All that said, I'm beginning to strongly consider these Panchros to go along with the Epic ... with the big 5k sensor and great iso -- the 2.8 isn't the end of the world ... and with small form factor of both, I feel it's a great marriage.

Can't wait to see more MX or Epic + Panchro pics and footage :)

Anthony



was testing with my friend a cook 18-100 t3 zoom on a red MX. at 800 iso, on a focus chart, a simple tungsten 1k flown above it as our only light source, we were still stopped down for proper exposure. i think any slower than a 2.8 is unbearable. but people shoot on zooms all the time at a 2.8, people stop down to a 2.8 constantly to give their AC's a fighting chance and cause that's typically when the lens starts getting its sharpest (panchros are sharp wide open because of this) 2.8 is kind of a universal magic T stop in 90% of shooting. you either get faster lenses just to stop down to it, or it's sharp at 2.8 wide open and you stay there. nobody is complaining about zooms are a 2.8. People just don't think anything of it because it's a zoom. you gain in speed of use.

the case with the panchros are that they have the sharpness of primes, the sharpness of cooke s4's stopped down to a 2.8, and matched in everywhere to the entire cooke line of lenses. losing a little under a stop of light means saving 60k on buying the set...

I"m honestly glad that the light loss is the only compromise and find it the best choice.


fast, good, cheap. pick any 2 of the 3...

[C.H.Haskell]

Anyone care to share some films or projects shot with the panchros. I am liking this set the more I learn about them and considering for my feature. "look" has a lot to do with it but size is a big factor as well. I wonder how a set of panchros would cut with a pair of optimos zooms, ie 16-42 and 30-80.

[AnthonyFlores]

Anyone care to share some films or projects shot with the panchros. I am liking this set the more I learn about them and considering for my feature. "look" has a lot to do with it but size is a big factor as well. I wonder how a set of panchros would cut with a pair of optimos zooms, ie 16-42 and 30-80.

I think Mark (OffH) would be the person to ask that, since he has extensive work with the Optimos but also said they were recently wrapping up a feature with the Panchros. I would PM him or possibly wait and see if he chimes in :)

[C.H.Haskell]

Who is Mark? ;) Spit it up Mark! I have been meaning to swing by your office soon anyways.