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 Rehouse Speed Panchro vs mini S4

D

Dave Blackham

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
2,543
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Im interested in view between a top end rehouse set of Cooke Speed Panchros and the Mini S4. Pros and cons and look of the lens.

How similar is the glass ?
 
Not at all similar. I prefer the Panchros, of the two, but I am a bad test subject as I am not a fan of cookes, at least the new ones. Apples and oranges though.

Nick
 
Both are great lenses, but they are from different eras.

The Cooke Speed Panchro's are wonderful vintage lenses while the Mini-S4's are wonderful modern cinema lenses.

They have been used in the past together, not the minis mind you, but Speed Panchros and S4's, which Mini-S4's are almost exact matches of. These were used intercut on Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Other films have used modern and old cookes but not intercut, most recently Midnight in Paris by Darius Khonji, who I believe used Speed Panchros and 5/i's.

I am a Cooke fan and I think both lenses are among the best looking of their respective eras. However, I would very seldom find myself picking between the two as they do serve different aesthetics. I believe the speed panchros were only used for beauty closeups in Mr and Mrs Smith. Then again, the Mini-S4's have uncoated front elements, and even back elements now, so if you want some characteristics of vintage but with modern mechanics, give those a try. They are not the same things as speed panchros though! Just a vintage twist on a modern lens.
 
The thought of spending 30,000 - 50,000 without looking at and shooting with both sets makes me shiver.

The Speed Panchros are warm, magic, total butter around a T/2, as close as they'll get to what's been called "modern" at 5/6, all sorts of lovely things in between. It is hard to describe that old aesthetic, but it's perhaps worth it to say that thousands of movies were shot with them. Women just glow. The 32 and 40 make everyone look good and the 75 and 135 give that exta ka-Pow to your early 90s twin peaks close-up. Disclaimer I have no idea what they shot Twin Peaks with, just think of whatever close-up still haunts your memory and there's a decent chance it was on these lenses. Good news you can save the filtration; bad news are you really resolving 4K?

I have only used the S4s, not their T/2.8 cousins, but it is hard to describe a modern Cooke lens. It's like going to a really, really nice restaurant, everything is just so. Cooke has found a way to focus the red, blue and green wavelengths of light such that "sharp" is kind. Perhaps related to this, the out of focus highlights on all Cooke glass tend to resemble watercolor paintings more than photographs. It's there on every lens, but a bit different on every lens.

I can't speak more to the mini-S4 but the fact of the matter is they are a set of primes at T2.8. Only you can know if you could work with these. The Speed Panchros have such a distinct look, I would go so far as to say it's not a desirable look for every job. I passed on buying the exact set that shot Taxi Driver when I realized that some films and projects call for Zeiss 3d pop, some call for Cooke watercolor, some call for both. I can't afford to try to pay off lenses for the next few years, especially when a set of S2/S3 went from $2,000 at MOST a few years ago to $15,000+ today, and that's before you throw down $20,000 for a TLS re-housing. Lenses are more than our eyes they make up a good chunk of the "look" we bring to a film. Each lens set is going to do this in a specific way. If you can't personally speak to the difference between one or another are you ready to spend that much money to own them?
 
Ryan De Franco said:
The thought of spending 30,000 - 50,000 without looking at and shooting with both sets makes me shiver.

The Speed Panchros are warm, magic, total butter around a T/2, as close as they'll get to what's been called "modern" at 5/6, all sorts of lovely things in between. It is hard to describe that old aesthetic, but it's perhaps worth it to say that thousands of movies were shot with them. Women just glow. The 32 and 40 make everyone look good and the 75 and 135 give that exta ka-Pow to your early 90s twin peaks close-up. Disclaimer I have no idea what they shot Twin Peaks with, just think of whatever close-up still haunts your memory and there's a decent chance it was on these lenses. Good news you can save the filtration; bad news are you really resolving 4K?

I have only used the S4s, not their T/2.8 cousins, but it is hard to describe a modern Cooke lens. It's like going to a really, really nice restaurant, everything is just so. Cooke has found a way to focus the red, blue and green wavelengths of light such that "sharp" is kind. Perhaps related to this, the out of focus highlights on all Cooke glass tend to resemble watercolor paintings more than photographs. It's there on every lens, but a bit different on every lens.

I can't speak more to the mini-S4 but the fact of the matter is they are a set of primes at T2.8. Only you can know if you could work with these. The Speed Panchros have such a distinct look, I would go so far as to say it's not a desirable look for every job. I passed on buying the exact set that shot Taxi Driver when I realized that some films and projects call for Zeiss 3d pop, some call for Cooke watercolor, some call for both. I can't afford to try to pay off lenses for the next few years, especially when a set of S2/S3 went from $2,000 at MOST a few years ago to $15,000+ today, and that's before you throw down $20,000 for a TLS re-housing. Lenses are more than our eyes they make up a good chunk of the "look" we bring to a film. Each lens set is going to do this in a specific way. If you can't personally speak to the difference between one or another are you ready to spend that much money to own them?
Click to expand...

I agree, we need to look at both sets and run tests. Most of our work is shot on Leica R lenses which are right for some but not all of our work. The question really was if we wanted vintage warmth where is best to start looking, it seemed to us that Speed Panchro's were worth a look but they would need rehousing.
 
Dave Blackham said:
I agree, we need to look at both sets and run tests. Most of our work is shot on Leica R lenses which are right for some but not all of our work. The question really was if we wanted vintage warmth where is best to start looking, it seemed to us that Speed Panchro's were worth a look but they would need rehousing.
Click to expand...

You might want to think about the Schneider Cine Xenar Mrk III's. They fall somewhere in between Cooke and Zeiss, have no breathing and some of the best looking bokeh I have ever seen. They cost exactly the same as a set of Cooke Mini's.
 
Heh. Just made that decision (a major one for me) Clayton. It's sort of like Zeiss, Cooke, and Leica all smashed into each other and the produced the look of the Schneider Cine-Xenar IIIs. Not exactly like any of them individually, but on their own have "hints" of each of them.

Very strange, unique, and cool.
 
Phil Holland said:
Heh. Just made that decision (a major one for me) Clayton. It's sort of like Zeiss, Cooke, and Leica all smashed into each other and the produced the look of the Schneider Cine-Xenar IIIs. Not exactly like any of them individually, but on their own have "hints" of each of them.

Very strange, unique, and cool.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I loved the image I saw coming from the Mark II's, but they were just so bloody heavy and poorly designed. But the Mark III's really fit the bill.
I think they are only going to grow in people's esteem as more and more work gets out there that was shot with them.
 
Mini-S4's have a very impressive focal length range and the guys and gals at Cooke continue to deliver more! As of now there are 18, 25, 32, 40, 50, 65, 75, 100, 135 and my nose to the ground has found considerable proof a 21mm is next. The manufacturer's stated image circle is 33.51, which is a hair-short of the 34mm Dragon sensor. Considering how many people used older cinema lenses made to cover S35mm film on Epic 5K, I can imagine the slight lens spill off used to make up for the slight difference will be among the best performing of any non-FF lens.

The Speed Panchros will have a vintage characteristic that will serve you well, but they will need to be rehoused for modern usage. They are a little faster but will perform considerably worse on typical objective standards when wide open versus the Mini-S4's. The Mini-S4's are almost as sharp wide open as they are closed down when compared to fast performing lenses or vintage ones.

That said, and as someone said earlier, test every lens set you are considering. You can't just go off of other people's opinions. There are objective ways to test lenses, but the importance shortly after objective, is how it looks subjectively. What one person likes may not be what another wants. In fact, you'd be surprised at how subjective test results can vary between even the most professional and talented DP's.

Test, test, test.
 
Ryan De Franco said:
The thought of spending 30,000 - 50,000 without looking at and shooting with both sets makes me shiver.

The Speed Panchros are warm, magic, total butter around a T/2, as close as they'll get to what's been called "modern" at 5/6, all sorts of lovely things in between. It is hard to describe that old aesthetic, but it's perhaps worth it to say that thousands of movies were shot with them. Women just glow. The 32 and 40 make everyone look good and the 75 and 135 give that exta ka-Pow to your early 90s twin peaks close-up. Disclaimer I have no idea what they shot Twin Peaks with, just think of whatever close-up still haunts your memory and there's a decent chance it was on these lenses. Good news you can save the filtration; bad news are you really resolving 4K?

I have only used the S4s, not their T/2.8 cousins, but it is hard to describe a modern Cooke lens. It's like going to a really, really nice restaurant, everything is just so. Cooke has found a way to focus the red, blue and green wavelengths of light such that "sharp" is kind. Perhaps related to this, the out of focus highlights on all Cooke glass tend to resemble watercolor paintings more than photographs. It's there on every lens, but a bit different on every lens.

I can't speak more to the mini-S4 but the fact of the matter is they are a set of primes at T2.8. Only you can know if you could work with these. The Speed Panchros have such a distinct look, I would go so far as to say it's not a desirable look for every job. I passed on buying the exact set that shot Taxi Driver when I realized that some films and projects call for Zeiss 3d pop, some call for Cooke watercolor, some call for both. I can't afford to try to pay off lenses for the next few years, especially when a set of S2/S3 went from $2,000 at MOST a few years ago to $15,000+ today, and that's before you throw down $20,000 for a TLS re-housing. Lenses are more than our eyes they make up a good chunk of the "look" we bring to a film. Each lens set is going to do this in a specific way. If you can't personally speak to the difference between one or another are you ready to spend that much money to own them?
Click to expand...

135MM??
 
Not a fan of Cookes!! Come on Nick really!!
Click to expand...

They never turned me on. I never put one up, or saw a shot and thought, "Wow. This lens makes the shot." Everybody and their brother shot everything on s4s and they all look meh. Sure they are sharp, and look nice, but so do all the other high end lenses. I just think like most modern optics they are too neutral and optically good. I do prefer cooke zooms to the Ang. zooms, but I just think the primes are too sterile.

Nick
 
Nick Gardner said:
They never turned me on. I never put one up, or saw a shot and thought, "Wow. This lens makes the shot." Everybody and their brother shot everything on s4s and they all look meh. Sure they are sharp, and look nice, but so do all the other high end lenses. I just think like most modern optics they are too neutral and optically good. I do prefer cooke zooms to the Ang. zooms, but I just think the primes are too sterile.

Nick
Click to expand...
I think the film "Her" is a great example of how the speed panchros can really establish a special look for a film. Giving Joachim Phoenix glowing skin is no easy task, believe me. The quality of the skin on Cooke's in general is very flattering, however the old Panchros pair very well with new cameras. I never say "meh" when I compare them to Zeiss lenses for instance. Saves a hell of a lot of time in post, otherwise trying to dumb down over resolved pores, makeup and skin irritations, especially on 4K+ cameras. However for contrast and dynamics, especially "modern" atmospheres, certain still lives and futurist circumstances, Zeiss seems more appropriate. I think content dictates to a great degree what set of lenses are appropriate for me.

I recently bought a Cooke 20-100 and it was the wisest choice I could make now looking at the footage coming from Dragon. There needed to be some compensation somewhere for the incessant march towards exaggerated detail, which to my mind brings us closer to video than film in certain circumstances. Apparently I am not alone, these old zooms have really picked up again at the rental houses in Europe for this very reason. Funny really.
 
To be clear, I am talking about all of the modern lenses. S4s, 5s, and the little cheap lenses (whatever they re called mini s4s or whatever). Panchros look great. I love my cooke zooms. I also don't think cookes look any worse than anything else. I just think all modern glass is too clinical and sterile.

Nick
 
Cooke zoom

Cooke zoom

I recommend the cooke 20-60mm - small, lightweight and match nearly identically with the cooke speed panchros single primes . Unfortunately rare and sought after on the market - and starting to get valued like K35's...
 
Last edited:
KEVIN DESCHEEMAEKER said:
Hi Guys

We're planning to shoot a short movie on our MōVI with RED setup. Is there anyone that can define the big differences between the Cooke S3 and Cooke S4 mini?

Thanks in advance!

Grtz Kevin
Click to expand...


Cooke Mini's have the S4 look. Modern, warm, and lower contrast/smooth for a modern lens. The Cooke Speed Panchro lenses are vintage. Increased low contrast, older coatings, the whole 9 yards. If looking for something in between, try the uncoated Mini S4's. The rear uncoated elements cause a funky iris shape reflection I don't care for, but using them with uncoated fronts puts the modern Cooke look and cooke mechanics closer to the older lenses, although not the same. It just gives the modern Cookes a bit more of a vintage feel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top