Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Luma Tech Illuminas vs. the new Cooke Panchros...a review

Keep us posted Paul. All eyes are on your review as I know a few people who are interested in the illuminas and are just waiting for someone to test them (including me) ;)
Thanks!
 
what do people think about possibly getting a mixed set of primarily panchros, then swapping out the panchro 50mm for a Red pro prime 50mm?

obviously the set wouldn't be matched, but i personally feel limited by 2.8 for more unplanned indie shoots, some without budget enough to rent yet more lenses for every night sequence.

i have done entire shoots before where ive hardly come off a 50mm, and in a tight spot entire night scenes could easily be shot on just this length (with artistic integrity upheld!). it also gives me the option for a little bit more separation with depth of field if i need that, and the RPP 50mm is just about fine to keep a lightweight setup without venturing into the cumbersome wide end of the RPPs.

on paper it seems like a good solution to my needs, does anyone have any advice about that particular mix of lenses or foresee any problems here?
 
Tobias Ashenheim said:
what do people think about possibly getting a mixed set of primarily panchros, then swapping out the panchro 50mm for a Red pro prime 50mm?

obviously the set wouldn't be matched, but i personally feel limited by 2.8 for more unplanned indie shoots, some without budget enough to rent yet more lenses for every night sequence.

i have done entire shoots before where ive hardly come off a 50mm, and in a tight spot entire night scenes could easily be shot on just this length (with artistic integrity upheld!). it also gives me the option for a little bit more separation with depth of field if i need that, and the RPP 50mm is just about fine to keep a lightweight setup without venturing into the cumbersome wide end of the RPPs.

on paper it seems like a good solution to my needs, does anyone have any advice about that particular mix of lenses or foresee any problems here?
Click to expand...

its a very bad idea imho especially if you want to rent it out.
grading and look wise as you mention they wont match precisely, which depending on the viewer/artist involved might or might not be ok. In grading its irritating having to correct a separate lens, but ofcourse doable:)
 
Maz Mawlawi said:
Keep us posted Paul. All eyes are on your review as I know a few people who are interested in the illuminas and are just waiting for someone to test them (including me) ;)
Thanks!
Click to expand...

Will do. Last I heard from FSI my set will arrive in the USA on August 10.

@Tobias: If the lenses are ONLY for you and not for rental, and you don't mind the downside to mixing in a lens with a very different form factor in the middle of your set, it of course will work. But, I think it will also be a pain in the ass. Sharpness and bokah and contrast and color and flare characteristing will not match. That can be mostly remedied with extra work in post, but who wants to force that on your post chain? Also, the form factor of the RPP 50mm is a LOT bigger than the Panchros, so that will require some extra work on your AC to get all the accessories re-set for a larger lens. Were it me, I'd not do that.
 
thanks for your replies, it is an imperfect solution.. they are just for me, not dry hire, but your both right about the post work being completely out of my control... which could just reflect badly on my work in the end. its just a problem for me, and im trying to compromise.. but i dont want to end up being compromised after spending a chunk of cash.

i guess i'll soon be leaning back to the panchro vs illumina ultimatum.
 
For me it is a no brainer. Illuminas all the way. Image quality is close but the speed is a slam dunk win for Illuminas. For a long time I was thinking, I can get by fine with 2.8. And Cookes have a lovely image no question. But after testing them together there was not enough of a difference (ie: image superiority of Cooke over Illuminas) to make up for the clear speed difference.

This last weekend I was shooting a commercial in a warehouse. My Epic-M mostly at 300fps, and a second Red One MX at mostly 24 fps. We used RPPs on my Epic wide open all the time to try to match the lighting levels between my 300fps and the other cam's 24fps. That was approximately a 4-5 stop difference. We did not have a huge lighting package so we were only able to get the cams to match within a half stop or so. On the second day we used a Duclos 11-18 zoom on the Epic which is a 2.8 lens. That lens helped to get us to a field of view that worked for wider shots on the Epic at 300fps, but the stop loss of light was a very big problem. Particularly later in the day as ambient light was reduced, we were at least a full stop underexposed as compared to the Red One MX.
Its times like that where having lenses faster than 2.8 are required. I'm really glad I ordered the Illuminas. Had I been using them on this shoot, we would have had no problem matching light levels even as the sun went down.
 
Julio Quintana said:
Tobias, why don't you spend a little more money and buy a 50mm S4? It would be a T2 and match the Panchro set perfectly.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and this is IMO one huge advantage to the Panchros: it's so easy to move up a stop or two without changing the look. Great idea Julio!
 
i would love an S4 i really would but i am stretched to my limit with the panchros or illuminas. I mean, im not a rental company, and as a freelance i have to consider what i can feasibly recoup.
i was looking at the RPPs and the CP.2s initially, so the stretch is to get the panchros or illuminas. i think its worthwhile, but its at the top end of what i can afford optically.

Im just looking to tool up without cheeping out. with so many gigs in the UK open only to RED owners, (or similar). its a boundry where you start being able to shoot interesting projects whilst getting paid properly.

Im sure there are others in similar situations, and sometimes one just has to keep oneself in check with these things, as you can spend a small fortune, and still end up feeling that what you have is "not good enough" if you know what i mean.
 
It might be redundant, but I love my Cooke Panchro/i's. It's everything you loved about s4's but at a T/2.8.


I've not tested Illuminas, but I can tell you.... if you love the focus falloff of S4's, the color rendition, the contrast, the focus barrel rotation, the iris shape or anything else about the lenses... the Panchro/i's are the same. It's not similar or kinda the same... it's the same. Everytime I use the lenses I have to smile to think I own a set. They are beautiful, functional, and affordable. I would recommend testing a set before you buy anything. If you choose another lens set over the Panchro/i's, that's fine, but you should totally test them first.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
. If you choose another lens set over the Panchro/i's, that's fine, but you should totally test them first.
Click to expand...

Truer words were never spoke! Buying lenses is like buying a sports-car. You never really know how they handle until you put your own butt in the drivers seat.
 
Tobias Ashenheim said:
what do people think about possibly getting a mixed set of primarily panchros, then swapping out the panchro 50mm for a Red pro prime 50mm?

obviously the set wouldn't be matched, but i personally feel limited by 2.8 for more unplanned indie shoots, some without budget enough to rent yet more lenses for every night sequence.

i have done entire shoots before where ive hardly come off a 50mm, and in a tight spot entire night scenes could easily be shot on just this length (with artistic integrity upheld!). it also gives me the option for a little bit more separation with depth of field if i need that, and the RPP 50mm is just about fine to keep a lightweight setup without venturing into the cumbersome wide end of the RPPs.

on paper it seems like a good solution to my needs, does anyone have any advice about that particular mix of lenses or foresee any problems here?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mix the sets. The RPP's have significantly different flare and bokeh than the Cooke line. that one lens will stand out.

in 1991, where the fastest film is 250T, yes you would be limited by a T2.8 in a "No lights" situation, in 2011, no way. A standing 800 ISO, useable up to 1600 on most digital cine camera, it not a hinderance at all. Think of it like this, in New York City, at night, in times square for example, a bright area, meters at T2.8 @ 500ISO. Meaning, with a REDmx, Epic or F3 you have to stop down to 2.8/4 Split with NO lighting. If you do lots of documentary projects, at night with no lights, then yes, Panchros may be a bit of a problem. if you turn on one light, any where, at all, you get proper exposure. Simple as that.

The benefit being that you get S4/i5 quality images, at 2/5ths the price. The cookes really do make a difference. Optically they are astounding, and the magic they bring really shows up on screen. A good friend and phenomenal DP Khalid Mohtaseb recently took the cookes on a job, He owns CP2's and swore by them. On their return He said and i Quote: "I will do my best to shoot on the cookes for every job I possibly can. I turned on the camera and was like; Holy Effing crap!!! I was totally wrong about the T2.8, its not a problem at all."

Try em. hell you're in the UK they are made there!


That said, im dying to try the illuminas!
 
I don't mean to rain on the parade here but at 2.8 the Nikon (and Angie)zooms blow anything out of the water optically.
The only reason to use primes is the stop- zooms just don't go beyond 2.8 and won't any time soon. Whether for lighting or for super shallow DOF (especially on the wides) purpose the fast primes are the only way to go. Other than that zooms rule....
 
OptiTek said:
I don't mean to rain on the parade here but at 2.8 the Nikon (and Angie)zooms blow anything out of the water optically.
The only reason to use primes is the stop- zooms just don't go beyond 2.8 and won't any time soon. Whether for lighting or for super shallow DOF (especially on the wides) purpose the fast primes are the only way to go. Other than that zooms rule....
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not quite this enthusiastic about it ... but yeah if I'm shooting at t/2.8 anyway zooms offer a lot of workflow advantages.

So ... I'm probably looking at zooms before the Cooke Panchros.

I am surprised to read that you think that the Nikon zooms are optically as good as the Angeniuex for motion?! I kind of hate the Nikon 17-35 lens - is that one a stinker? (I much prefer the Canon 16-35, though I think neither are up to cine standards.)

What do you think about the Canon and Red zooms then? Especially on Epic?
 
I think taking it further would derail this thread too much. I'll probably start a new one soon related to the Prolock for Epic with footage and tests posted there.
As for Canons I haven't seen much lately- my experience dates back 15 years when I was in charge of the 17-35 project at Century. Wasn't impressed then....
And this is not Epic specific- just general projection tests and some MTF lens data...
Epic sensor is the canvas and lenses are the brushes- light provides the colors....:thumbup1:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top