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 :)

Cooke Panchros vs Canon K35 ?

Rick Darge. Good stuff loved every single minute of it!
Great music, great visual and most of all nice story. The ending was a real nice touch.
 
Hey, so what are K35s going for nowadays...that's a set of lenses right up my alley.
 
With the external focus, how do you guys deal with Mattebox issue? Or is it an issue?
What about Follow Focus Units?
And is the Iris Ring closer to the front or the Focus Ring?
What are the other downsides?
Thanks!
 
Operationally, k-35s are the same as superspeeds, if you can shoot with speeds, you can shoot with k-35s.

nick
 
I wish I had access to Super Speeds -- but in my area of the country they would probably be about as rare as a Democrat.

Can you describe to me how they are similar so I can get a clear picture?
 
Andrew Patterson said:
With the external focus, how do you guys deal with Mattebox issue? Or is it an issue?
What about Follow Focus Units?
And is the Iris Ring closer to the front or the Focus Ring?
What are the other downsides?
Thanks!
Click to expand...

They don't move that much so the ff gear is still able to "catch" at both extremes. The mattebox thus is also a non issue. The iris ring is very close to the front (except on 18mm lens)
so I used a couple of screw on filters (without the glass) on each of the lenses in order to be able to use a clip-on mattebox as well. Unfortunately they are not built as sturdy as modern lenses
and you have to use a light clip-on box, otherwise the weight of it gives pressure and the ff ring becomes difficult to rotate, especially for remote ff motors. Also they are softer wide open,
but less than superspeeds, imo. Other than that I see no downsides. And the picture IS gorgeous..
 
I'll double check, but I'm 99% sure that the gear doesn't move. Again, just like super speeds,if you crank down too tight with a clip on mattebox, they bind. It's because you start deforming the barrel. I don't use a clip on mattebox with mine, I use them with an MB-19, but any professional mattebox should work fine.

Nick
 
Gediminas, you are correct sir. I just checked the 24mm and the 55mm both move about 2mm, the 35mm moves about 4mm. How is work in Vilnius? I lived there for a year or so. I was sorry to see they tore down LKS. I really liked that place ;-)

Nick
 
Regards from Vilnius! Nick, so you worked on some of the American productions shot here? An entire generation of movie business professionals emerged as a result of those productions. It's a shame LKS is no more, and the country has no film studio at all now... Currently most foreign productions are drawn to the neighbouring Latvia. Almost everything's been shot digitally here on Red for the past 3 years, since we were the first to bring the camera to the local market. So I sort of take pride in being part of the transition :).
 
@Rick: really liked the video concept and cinematogpraphy. makes me want to build a robot costume for Halloween.

So I don't think there is clarity on the rehoused FD issue. Someone said that these are not rehoused FDs, and are built from the ground up using an aspherical design. I happen to have almost every FD lens ever made, including one of the radioactive lenses that used thorium glass. Anywho, Canon had two lines of FD lenses, the regular line for the masses and the aspherical line designed for the "pro" photographer, which also happened to be superspeeds. In reality, that is not happenstance: you needed an asperical design to compensate for the distortions when you go to larger apertures. The aspherical lenses were marked as such. In the early years, these were essentially handmade, only later did Canon develop the tooling to mass-produce these. When they ramped up, they also made a name change. These were now called the "L" series, dropping the aspeherical marking. Later, these switched from the FD to the EF mount and are what shooters are using today. All L series, whether FD or EF mount are an aspherical design.

Now someone else said that there were two series of K-35s, the early one had the 55mm and the later one had the 50mm. Not coincidentally, the Canon FD aspherical series also had a 55mm in the early days, which was replaced by a 50mm. Many lens heads consider the Canon 55mm aspherical to be the greatest lens ever made.

My educated guess is that when Canon decided to make the K-35 cinema lenses, what was designed from the ground up was just the housing and focus mechanisms. The glass used in the K-35s was the FD aspherical still series glass.
 
Michael Olsen said:
Hey, so what are K35s going for nowadays...that's a set of lenses right up my alley.
Click to expand...

I'm also interested in knowing what people paid for these lenses in the recent past.

Also interested to know if any of you guys would let me take a look at your set next time I'm in your city. Because of where I live, opportunities to evaluate new equipment is limited to once or twice a year for me and so any gracious opportunity to evaluate gear, which I hope to buy, is always appreciated!
 
Michael Panfeld said:
@Rick: really liked the video concept and cinematogpraphy. makes me want to build a robot costume for Halloween.

So I don't think there is clarity on the rehoused FD issue. Someone said that these are nor rehoused FDs, and are built from the group up using an aspherical design. I happen to have almost every FD lens ever made, including one of the radioactive lenses that used thorium glass. Anywho, Canon had two lines of FD lenses, the regular line for the masses and the aspherical line designed for the "pro" photographer, which also happened to be superspeeds. In reality, that is not happenstance: you needed an asperical design to compensate for the distortions when you go to larger apertures. The aspherical lenses were marked as such. In the early years, these were essentially handmade, only later did Canon develop the tooling to mass-produce these. When they ramped up, they also made a name change. These were now called the "L" series, dropping the aspeherical marking. Later, these switched from the FD to the EF mount and are what shooters are using today. All L series, whether FD or EF mount are an aspherical design.

Now someone else said that there were two series of K-35s, the early one had the 55mm and the later one had the 50mm. Not coincidentally, they Canon FD asperical still lenses also had a 55mm in the early days, which was replaced by a 50mm. Many lens heads consider the Canon 55mm aspherical to be the greatest lens ever made.

My educated guess is that when Canon decided to make the K-35 cinema lenses, what was designed from the ground up was just the housing and focus mechanisms. The glass used in the K-35s was the FD aspherical still series glass.
Click to expand...
I thought so too but the rear elements on the K35s are so far back that they would most certainly interfere with the SLR flip up mirror so I'm not so sure anymore.....
 
So...

back to the Panchros / K35 image comparo :)

Anybody ? :)

Why not add Optimos to the comparo... Evin ?

Antoine
 
Michael Panfeld said:
@Rick: really liked the video concept and cinematogpraphy. makes me want to build a robot costume for Halloween.

So I don't think there is clarity on the rehoused FD issue. Someone said that these are not rehoused FDs, and are built from the ground up using an aspherical design. I happen to have almost every FD lens ever made, including one of the radioactive lenses that used thorium glass. Anywho, Canon had two lines of FD lenses, the regular line for the masses and the aspherical line designed for the "pro" photographer, which also happened to be superspeeds. In reality, that is not happenstance: you needed an asperical design to compensate for the distortions when you go to larger apertures. The aspherical lenses were marked as such. In the early years, these were essentially handmade, only later did Canon develop the tooling to mass-produce these. When they ramped up, they also made a name change. These were now called the "L" series, dropping the aspeherical marking. Later, these switched from the FD to the EF mount and are what shooters are using today. All L series, whether FD or EF mount are an aspherical design.

Now someone else said that there were two series of K-35s, the early one had the 55mm and the later one had the 50mm. Not coincidentally, the Canon FD aspherical series also had a 55mm in the early days, which was replaced by a 50mm. Many lens heads consider the Canon 55mm aspherical to be the greatest lens ever made.

My educated guess is that when Canon decided to make the K-35 cinema lenses, what was designed from the ground up was just the housing and focus mechanisms. The glass used in the K-35s was the FD aspherical still series glass.
Click to expand...

Thanks Michael,

very good post.

Also people can read more about FD glass at "CANON FD Lens Reports 50 and 55mm" from a Dutch lens expert and analyst Eriwn Puts>>>
 
I'm leaning towards Panchros or Optimos Rouge... :)

Used price of K35s is waaaay too high considering their not made anymore...even if they have a wonderfull texture.

Antoine
 
Antoine Fabi said:
I'm leaning towards Panchros or Optimos Rouge... :)

Used price of K35s is waaaay too high considering their not made anymore...even if they have a wonderfull texture.

Antoine
Click to expand...

A very good thought many neglect. If someone were to drop a K35 and shatter it... sure you'd have it insured, but where would you really find that focal length available? Buy another set? Simply not have one anymore? At least with newer Angenieux, Zeiss or Cooke, you can get something repaired or simply replace it. New lens sets can be more expensive than buying used, but there is a guarantee that you'll be supported and you can replace what might be lost for quite some time.

I love vintage glass, but it's a risky business move to own because it's so hard to replace!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top