Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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

I hear you Paul and must say I'm swinging towards the Illuminas too. The 2 stops is just too much to ignore and I know that Cooke logo is inciting but if you just keep looking through the viewfinder the Illuminas speak for themselves.

I guess the important thing is that you are not relying on rental to cover your costs so you don't have to "sell" the lenses to renters who don't know the make.
If only Cooke made their new Panchros at T2 but I understand they want to protect their S4's which is strange to me as they should just stick to S5's and the new Panchros.
 
roryhinds said:
If only Cooke made their new Panchros at T2 but I understand they want to protect their S4's which is strange to me as they should just stick to S5's and the new Panchros.
Click to expand...

I hear you Rory. A t2.0 Panchro would have been a slam dunk for me, even if it was anther $1k/lens. But according to Cooke, to keep the same quality the the cost would have had to at least double and the size would have had to increase. In otherwords, they would have made the Panchro into an S4. No free lunch, unfortunately.
 
Yeah, and at 2.8 I'm not sure how great a renter the Panchros will be either. In fact, I think you'll find people possibly hunting down the Illuminas to rent them for those times when they've got a night shoot lined up... If its true they substantially outperform SuperSpeeds wide open I think the word will get out.

Another thing that irks me about the Panchros is that the 18 has a substantially larger front diameter than the rest of the lens set. I do NOT like that.
 
The Illuminas are of a modern design. They substantially out perform the 30+ year old super speeds in every aspect and are hard to distinguish in tests against MP's and Cooke S4's. Testing has been done in many cities in the USA and in both Montreal and Toronto, Canada and the Illuminas out perform the panchros as well optically. The Illuminas use German Schott glass and are not prone to weird flaring characteristics and do not flare more or less than other lenses using this glass. I am not going to quibble about the results that Paul determined in LA. However, ALL the major rental houses in Canada have ordered the Illuminas and the biggest, Michel Trudel is already renting them as is MidCan Rentals. Spare parts are very hard to come by, if at all. The Illuminas come with a one year warranty on parts and labor.
 
Hi Fred
Spare parts are the core of servicing/repair - customer support.
Please do what you can to make the parts available and catalogued properly.
It can make or break this product- I've seen it many times before....
 
Fred Salaff said:
... and the Illuminas out perform the panchros as well optically.
Click to expand...

Seems you and the OP who did testing have differing opinions. I can't say, since I've not tested the Illuminas. Just saying I suppose as most things are, it's a matter of opinion?

Since you are an Illumina Dealer, and my curiosity is peaked, where can I test in LA? I own a set of Panchro/i's.
 
Ryan, I'd take that as words from the dealer. Fred's a good guy and he is definitely enthusiastic about the quality and value that the Illuminas offer. I am too. And to be honest his claim is not entirely off base from what I found. The illuminas are superior optically in the categories of brightness and breathing.
Panchros are superior optically in the categories of edge falloff (both illumination and sharpness), and CA

The images I posted pretty clearly bear that out. However, that is all chart-evaluation. Both lenses capture pretty pictures well...matter of taste really , and thats pretty amazing when one is 2 stops faster.

Not sure about Fred's comparison of the Illuminas with MPs though. But I didn't test any that day so will leave that comparison for someone else to respond to.
 
Paul Nordin said:
Ryan, I'd take that as words from the dealer. Fred's a good guy and he is definitely enthusiastic about the quality and value that the Illuminas offer. I am too. And to be honest his claim is not entirely off base from what I found. The illuminas are superior optically in the categories of brightness and breathing.
Panchros are superior optically in the categories of edge falloff (both illumination and sharpness), and CA

The images I posted pretty clearly bear that out. However, that is all chart-evaluation. Both lenses capture pretty pictures well...matter of taste really , and thats pretty amazing when one is 2 stops faster.

Not sure about Fred's comparison of the Illuminas with MPs though. But I didn't test any that day so will leave that comparison for someone else to respond to.
Click to expand...

Well said. :)
 
paul engstrom said:
Yeah, and at 2.8 I'm not sure how great a renter the Panchros will be either. In fact, I think you'll find people possibly hunting down the Illuminas to rent them for those times when they've got a night shoot lined up... If its true they substantially outperform SuperSpeeds wide open I think the word will get out.

I cant imagine these Panchro Primes being a viable rental item no matter how beautiful. At 2.8 you may as well have a Rouge Optimo. I think to even produce these lenses was a strange idea. If they were a 2.0 it would be a different ball game, but 2.8....... no way. To each they're own I suppose.

just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...
 
Timur Civan said:
They actually rnt very very well. :)
Click to expand...

Market dependent as everything I think.

In my area (and Erich's) ... there are not that many folks who even know what the "Cooke Looke" is talking about ... entirely too many that don't even understand how lens choices affect image making. So, they typically rent on the specifications, and t/2.8 doesn't look that great. t/1.2 looks insanely good. 2.5 stops faster ... a lot of people will jump at that alone. They'll definitely rent a set of zooms at t/2.6 before seriously considering a t/2.8 prime set.

Remember, just the numbers.

The Zeiss name carries a lot of weight here, and there are a lot of folks who are wondering where the Canon and Fujinon cinema lenses are - because of their experience with broadcast lenses. When Fujinon announced their PL lenses I had a LOT of people bend my ear about them. A few even said that "Maybe a Red can be a serious camera after all."

In NYC and LA, Cooke has a reputation as a fantastic lens set with a great reputation and a specific look. Not everyone is "in" on the Cooke Looke but there is enough work happening for there to be a healthy traffic in lenses with a good rep.

Frankly, I think they would work well for a lot of the historical recreation stuff that gets shot around the mid-atlantic for History channel and the like. They have a gorgeous look wide open that flatters in the low key lighting that is very typical, and necessary, to really evoke historical settings. Of course, if I were a rental house I'd want to make sure I had a set of S4 or S5 to go out with A camera so I could sell the beautiful and consistent Cooke Looke & make the Panchos available as a cheap rental for B & C cam.

I agree with Erich though ... I've always wondered why Cooke decided to make a t/2.8 set like this. I really think they should have pushed Panchros towards t/2. If they could deliver the Panchros at a uniform t/2.1 or t/2.2, with a recommendation that they match the S4/S5 at 2.8 or higher, that would be something. In other words, I think the lenses would be more marketable if they were faster - even if that meant a drop in quality when you open up past t/2.8
 
Paul Nordin said:
And for what its worth, Indierentals in LA do not have as much traffic with their Cooke Panchro set as they would like.
Click to expand...

As one of those people who does, on occasion, rent the new Panchros, it's pretty clear that they are overpriced relative to S4 rentals, which are generally less than 20% more. Purchasing? Panchros no question, but renting, you might as well rent Cooke S4s.

Cooke isn't having any difficulty at all selling Panchros from what I can tell, and I don't know anyone (myself included) who actually *owns* the lenses and is disappointed with the image quality, the coverage (5K), the build quality, or the speed. Sure, we all would rather get 5/i speed and Leica weight on a Panchro budget, and I'm sure Cooke would be happy to sell us that lens if it were possible. Apparently, it's not.
 
not just that, but it's protecting owners too. what the hell is the point of the s4 if you have t2 panchros? a few more lenses to choose from? it would destroy there 100K plus line, not to mention, it's probably not possible to make t2 lenses with their level of optical quality and gain that cooke look at the price point the panchros are set out. not to mention s4's are bigger compared to panchros. and if you compare them to the older panchros where they were faster, they suffered massively optically compared to their top line lenses.

panchros are matched to s4's and s5's in everyway except speed. there is no win all situation. if they made it a t2, it would have to be inferior optically and wouldn't match as well for 40 thousand dollars. I'm no lens technician, but compromises are always there, be it price, quality, or speed. the old adage never fails, cheap fast good, pick any 2.

the illuminas are a good deal too, but they seem to be more neutral lenses, and suffer a little bit more distortion wise, and someone mentioned more CA. plus they don't look to be matched as well. panchros are a completely matched set, even luminance wise. all these little things matter, and it's all dependent on what you need and want. personally, I know several dp's who use superspeeds almost never even bother shooting it wide open. the dof is hell for focus pullers, and it's so milky the image isn't worth it. but stopped down to a 2.8 it's like magic. if your the type that shoots at a 1.3-2 all the time, than the choice is obvious. but if you find yourself almost always stopping down to a 2.8 most of the time... then this is where you can start evaluating and making decisions.

the cooke look isn't some made up thing, it's there, and it is a aesthetic choice dp's go for, for a reason. best to do is always just test on your own, try to get a demo, and see what fits your aesthetic and technical preference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top