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

Rob Castiglione said:
Paul, did the two have a noticeably different aesthetic? The only reason I favour the Panchros is how nice they make faces look - that is a very big plus given that that is what most movies are really about.
Click to expand...

They did have a different character. but to really figure out the nuance of that, I think real-world shooting is required, and I didn't have time to do that. So this evaluation is more of a technical one rather than subjective.
 
Erich Ocean said:
Well, I chose to build up a set of Pancho/i lenses. I haven't found the T2.8 speed a problem, I usually shoot at that or T4. Modern cameras can see amazingly well in the dark, and I'm not too fond of super soft backgrounds.
Click to expand...

To a degree I agree with you. if I didn't I would have already bought the Panchros, which do have a lovely image. I also don't like using a t2 or 1.3 for closeups. They detach talent from their environment. But for wides they are less of an issue. T1.3 can extend daylight 20-30 minutes into twilight without having to stop and relight, with background and foreground element ratios still matching. For night exterior wides, faster lenses are a huge boon. Faster cameras only get half way there in my opinion.
 
Thanks Paul,

How would you compare/are you able to compare the Illuminas against Zeiss Superspeed Mk 2s or 3s, wide open and at T2?

Regards,
Paul
 
Hey Paul,

Many thanks -- people like you, and posts like this are one of the things that make Reduser such an amazing place.

And I agree with you about the Leicas, still working on gathering and justifying the funds for those.

In the meantime, the Illuminas might be a pretty decent option - at least it seems they'll be better than CP2's ...

Thanks again,

Anthony
 
Thanks Paul, this is a great post. I recently recommended the Cooke Panchros to a friend who owns a rental house... he bought them. I think he made the right decision. However, I think you should buy the illuminas :) For a couple reasons really. First, you seem to need those extra stops for most the work you do, so it makes sense right away to go for faster lenses. You're right, renting isn't a really viable option for the owner/operator. Second, although you noticed the difference in quality with the clear victory going to the Panchros in almost every category, you didn't mind those minor differences very much. Actually, it sounds like you would be quite happy with the Illumina performance if they hadn't been next to the Cooke Panchros. Finally, I think its guys like you that can create reputations for lenses that otherwise would never be on a rental camera. Let's face it, Cookes rent and Illuminas don't... at least not yet :) I agree that being an operator/owner gives you the freedom to choose products without having to worry about name recognition. If people see your work shot with the Illuminas and they like what they see, maybe it won't be so difficult for camera houses to rent them in the future. That's a good thing. The more lens options the better.

Whatever you get, you made the right choice. There is no wrong choice here :) Good luck!
 
My conclusions (based entirely on Paul's posted materials!):

The Illumina's are good lenses. For 4K finishes and projection, I'd probably want to consider other lenses, but I'd be OK if I shot with Illuminas. For 2K or 1080p delivery I'd probably be very happy on almost all my shots- especially if the target was TV or web.

I see a number of deficiencies in this comparison for the Illuminas. Chromatic aberration is worse across the board, and there is luminance and resolution fall off.

I see a few advantages for the Illuminas. First off they appear to be sharper in the center than Panchros, and they fall off to just a bit less resolution to the Panchros in the corner. Also, they seem a bit more contrasty, which suits my current style.

A point that is neutral ... flaring. I am using more flares in my present work, so I'm attracted to lenses that flare. From the test clips, the Illuminas flare in an interesting way, and one that will be fairly controllable. For me that's perfect.

I'm a little concerned with how the lenses "milk out" while flaring, but the way I tend to use flares (with moving cameras) results in transient flares that probably won't distress me too much.

I like the Panchros better, but two stops is HUGE, and the Panchros are not enough better to offset a two stop speed advantage.

I've always planned on buying a "for now" set and a "for real" set like the S5, MP or Leica, later when I'm working more. I always planned on keeping the "for now" set for B camera and crash cams and such.

I think the Illuminas just went to the top of my "for now" list.

If I already owned an S4 or S5 set, or if I were 100% certain that I'd be buying one of those sets, I'd definitely go with the Panchros as the "for now" or "B cam" set.

As far as rentals go ... I see hardly any difference between Cooke and Illumina. I don't think either will rent much, and that goes for the Red Pro primes as well. If rental is a consideration then the Zeiss compact primes jump up the list as do the older Zeiss cine lenses and the Ultra Primes.

I still need more hands on tests of my own ... but unless I see more compelling tests, I think that my "on-paper decision" is made. My only remaining concern is how the lenses see faces in CU and XCU.
 
Last edited:
I think this is a highly personal decision and the outcome can be as affected by the heart as it is by the mind. I couldn't possibly begin to logically justify my decision to buy the Panchros. There are so many choices that are cheaper, faster and really pretty good. But I gotta tell ya, I love this friggin glass! During the short we just did I never found myself wanting faster than 2.9. We we're shooting at dusk, night and interiors. I was usually wide open at ISO 800 all the time and even had to employ ND on occasion. But you know your work and You know what you need.

My own little bit of Cooke Look...

 
Last edited:
paul engstrom said:
Thanks Paul,

How would you compare/are you able to compare the Illuminas against Zeiss Superspeed Mk 2s or 3s, wide open and at T2?

Regards,
Paul
Click to expand...

Hey Paul
I have looked at them at the NAB and personally I would pick them up over Speeds. They were a bit sharper wide open.
They are also brighter wide open then shupers, which makes them almost 1.2s
Cheers

A.

Edit:
ohhh
and I felt in loves with the man who made them. He is completely mad scientist who cares not about the business and love what he does; he does it well.
(I did a bit of translation for him at the NAb)
 
Christopher Barrett said:
I think this is a highly personal decision and the outcome can be as affected by the heart as it is by the mind.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more Christopher. I fell in love with the Cooke look on a shoot 5 years ago. They truly make beautiful pictures. Like someone else said, there are no bad choices here. I am a gear junkie and a quality nut. I love shooting wth the knowledge that I am not leaving any potential behind due to inferior gear. Even if only I know it, I know it! So I totally respect your choice to go with Cooke.

The thing I am balancing is quality vs. utility. And bottom line for me is that I cannot buy the set of my dreams now. I need to buy an Epic and I dont have any trade in. So I've already got a healthy chunk of change tied up in the camera kit (once Jarred tells me I can get an "M" that is). I don't want zooms. I like shooting with primes. I get to know each lens and exactly what they can do. They keep my honest in my setups. If I am pressed for time with a zoom, I may be tempted to just punch in for a CU. But with primes, since I have to change lenses anyway, why not move camera and get up close with a 25mm for that intimacy that a punch in CU misses out on.

OK, I'm wandering off course here...

It does not make sense for me to buy the lenses of my dreams right now. I work a lot, but only a percentage of my gigs could pay the rate I'd need to charge for Leicas or MPs. So for now, when I get those gigs, I'll rent. And when I am shooting a more lean gig, I'll use the lenses that provide a great image but affordably. Hence my Cooke Panchro vs. Illumina dilemma in the first place.

As of this moment, I am leaning towards the Illuminas. I'll sleep on it a few times, and try find a set to shoot people with, and then make my final decision. I don't expect anything to pop up in that final test that will change my mind. At the end of the day, I feel my lighting skills have far greater impact on the beauty of what I shoot (narative films) than the lenses. If I were shooting timelapse visual montage stuff like Tom Lowe or Vincent LaForet I might be more concerned with almost nothing but resolving power and edge-to-edge sharpness and contrast.
 
albert rudnicki said:
Hey Paul
and I felt in love with the man who made them. He is completely mad scientist who cares not about the business and love what he does; he does it well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he must be. He's evolved these lenses from a WIP to something that is pretty refined and well executed. And they are really bright lenses.

Fred told me today that Luma Tech is coming out with an Illumina 135mm t1.6 in two or three months. Same lens diameter. Amazing.

Thanks everyone for your feedback. It was really my plesure to give soemthing cool to the RedUser community, which I've gotten a lot from.
 
T2.8 or not, build quality was important to me. I gnashed my teeth debating over the T1.3 illuminas for a year and a half, while raising funds to purchase lenses.

The cookes have a pedigree of build quality. That was important. I've been boned on jobs by lenses that just sieze of mechanichally come apart at the seems.
 
Lenses seize or fall apart at the seams because they are poorly maintained. It's natural to poorly maintain cheap lenses but, unfortunately, it's counter intuitive.
The reality is that those who purchase them can't afford proper maintenance and service and, as result, lenses fail one way or another.
It's taken to another level with still lenses, since they are cheap, purchased used online and never serviced after 20+ years in someones camera bag.
Than these guys go online and bi$%h how poorly they perform. Go figure.....
 
OptiTek said:
Lenses seize or fall apart at the seams because they are poorly maintained. It's natural to poorly maintain cheap lenses but, unfortunately, it's counter intuitive.
The reality is that those who purchase them can't afford proper maintenance and service and, as result, lenses fail one way or another.
It's taken to another level with still lenses, since they are cheap, purchased used online and never serviced after 20+ years in someones camera bag.
Than these guys go online and bi$%h how poorly they perform. Go figure.....
Click to expand...

By "these guys" do you mean Timur Civan? I would point out Jacek that Timur is a well respected DP, not some amatuer hack who never maintains his lenses like your post implies. I think his input is valid even if you disagree. His point was simple... Better made lenses last longer. No need to accuse him of something you can't prove, like not maintaining or servicing his lenses.
 
No I did not mean Timur. Don't put in my mouth words I did not say please....
BTW I said the same thing about better made lenses - you've completely missed the point...
 
Seeing as Timur was complaining about build quality in the post directly above yours, and you go on to say "these guys go online and bitch about build quality... go figure" It seems terribly obvious you were refering to Timur's post, so I don't see how that is putting words in your mouth. I get your point loud and clear. It is also a valid point, but the jab at "these guys" or Timur was uncalled for.
 
Again- I wasn't talking about Timur, I was responding to his post ABOUT LENSES but it doesn't mean I was talking about him. What is so hard to understand here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top