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

Thanks Paul! Really looking forward to it. It would be SO interesting to see one shot done with Epic and both UP and Illumina, then with Alexa and both lenses. Envious and anxious!
 
I keep hearing about the Illuminas but there is so little information about them. It's so frustrating trying to research lenses for Epic, and not be able to find any real tangible info
 
Paul Nordin said:
Ok ok!! :cheers2:
I'll post some stills from this weekend. In the next couple of days.
Click to expand...

Paul, PLEASE include close-up pictures of the lenses themselves, esp. the barrels. I saw a set of Illuminas over a year ago and would like to see how they've changed since then.
 
I think the chances of seeing footage from Illuminas is like finding the 13th floor of a hotel in Vegas. You know it's there somewhere, but it dosent exsist in the physical world.
 
Timur, remember their day-rate is divided by every single day. In the film world, a day rate is under the assumption it's a three-day week! At least here in LA.

So if my lenses are 400/day, that's 1,200 a week, which is actually 171/day.... see what I mean?


Well, their prices aren't that insane. In LA, the set of 6 is 400/day... three day weeks, 10 day month. That is the best deal i know of right now, and it's the pricing I offer (HD camera rentals as well, and IndieRentals) So I get 4,000/month or 1,200/week. That includes the 18mm which is actually more expensive than the others. It's the best deal I know of, and it's mine.


What do they offer? 980/week without damage waiver? That's not including shipping, which I'm sure is expensive! To LA, it's 174.00 cheapest... I'm sure that's one way as well. So the total of a week rental for a 5 set, after shipping, is equal to my rate and that's a 6 set. In LA, a set of Cooke S4's is $700/day, so I've got to compete. I don't see going higher than 400/day until the 135mm is in and I have a 7-set. The advantage of Panchro/i's since they look and perform identical to S4's is weight, size and cost.

However, my best deal is my 10-day-month rental price of $4,000... theirs, without the damage waiver and after shipping is about $3,100... again for the 5 set, mine is the 6 set. If you get their damage waiver, it's about $3,500 for a month. I don't really know what the heck the waiver is all about since you need a cert to get the lenses anyhow.

What I can't get close to is their 90 day rental... which is retarded. If mine get really busy, I might just rent theirs and use them on my productions! I'll charge my normal good rate and make some money off their lenses. :P

My business model can't sustain their 90-day plan. The lenses work too often for me to tie them up in a crazy low rate like that for that long. I'd make more money doing multiple smaller productions.
 
Erich Ocean said:
Wow, lensrentals.com has a set of 5 Panchros for $980 for the week. http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/video/lenses/pl-cooke-panchro-set

Longer rentals are as low as $63.16/day.

They might be a good choice for someone who wants to kick the tires on a shoot.
Click to expand...

That's in line. Considering there's no 18mm they're charging about three hundred and change a day if you go by the 3 day week standard. A little bit under but I'm sure after shipping etc, it comes close to standard rates (1 % per rental day).
 
Timur Civan said:
In NY almost Everything is 1 or 2 days... So i suppose the idea of charging 216 a day is crazy.
Click to expand...


They aren't charging 216/day though... those numbers are just breaking down the deals. It looks like 4-day rental (735 plus 300 round trip shipping) is minimum.

That could potentially be MUCH better than some of us get in LA... here we do one-day weekends. So a Friday pickup and Monday return is just one day. That is like two and a half days of shooting for $400. If someone were shooting a weekend shoot, going with LensRentals.com would be MUCH more expensive than going with a rental house or myself.

It's only the really long rental rates where they are at an advantage.

If shooting a day, weekend, or week... even a month... it's still better to rent in LA if you are in LA. Only the 90day deal seems to be the real sweet deal there.
 
Andrew Patterson said:
This is great news, Paul! I literally read this thread start to finish last night and was left in anticipation of what you decided and then what you thought of the Illuminas. So this is excellent news for those of us looking at these in the near future.

Please post any and all findings! No detail is too small!

Good luck and enjoy them!
Click to expand...

Can't wait to see the results.
 
oh i know that, im just saying, for the wear and tear you accumulate on a feature, it seems to make less sense to me to rent to features. The climate in NY is different. At least the world im in, i do a lot more commercial work. Day by Day jobs.

That said i am shooting a feature next month. So lets see....
 
Julio Quintana said:
This, for me, hits on the biggest dilemma with the Panchros. The major productions that can afford to light night exteriors to a f2.8 will probably just rent S4's or S5's. Conversely, the smaller productions that can't afford S4's or S5's usually can't afford to light wide night shots either, so a couple of extra stops is critical. It seems like they would be better off with the Illumina's or even a set of MK3's.
Click to expand...

I 2nd the notion. The Cooke Panchro dilemma is what makes me go for Mk 3's on lower budgets and S4's on bigger ones. Which brings me to the test I'd really want to see MK3's vs Illuminas. Granted, Tom has pointed out optically the Mk 3's fall to mush below a 2.0, but a 2.0 is a workable stop requiring half the firepower as 2.8. And Mk 3's look great at 2.0.
 
Tom.Wong said:
have you seen what mk3's look like wide open? it's not a very good picture at all, it's a very desperate move if you have to do that. mk3 at a 2.8 however is f-ing magical. but alas support and repair for these lenses is getting harder by the minute. either way, not all productions fall in the two categories you just mentioned. s4's go for 1k a day, panchros can go for roughly 500. 50% difference, and a moderate lighting package and some skilled pros with a sensitive camera can accomplish a lot. does it work for every situation? do faster lenses give you more flexibility? of course. but in the end it's all about what you want to do. the "cooke" look is coveted, and the lens set is matched perfectly. these are important factors too, and not to mention the very expensive lenses, go out a lot too and are limited in quantity. if you wanted s4's and nobody has them in for the day you are shooting, and you had a healthy lighting package to begin with, panchros make the best alternative and are readily available too. lens choice is never so black and white, always back to right tools for the job. and that will never change.
been shooting with snorkel lenses all week, and we are at a t8 the whole time. but it's fine because this is what we need for what we are doing, and compensate accordingly.
Click to expand...


Any A/B tests with people, DOF, Bokeh, Roll off, on display comparing Panchros to S4's?
 
Last edited:
Ned Wilson said:
Not convinced yet they match with S4's. Have yet to see a convincing A/B test with people in it. It's almost like a mantra everyone says because Cooke or someone else said it. But I haven't seen it with my eyes yet.
Click to expand...

Bless your heart.

You say, "not convinced yet"... but what is that based off of?

Since you have done zero tests of your own, you are apparently 'not convinced' by the following:

1) The opinions of several cinematographers here on RedUser.net who have extensive experience with Cooke lens sets.
2) The company itself. One of the top cinema lens manufacturers in the world, who advertises as such and stakes its reputation on its products.
3) The controlled A/B test I performed myself and Timur kindly posted in your other thread.
4) As an extension, Robert Richardson, ASC, who used Cooke 5/i's, Cooke S4's and Cooke Panchro/i's on Hugo Cabret.
4.1) Darius Khondji, ASC used Cooke 5/i, S4/i, and Panchro/i lenses to shoot Midnight in Paris
5) As an extension, Jon Fauer, ASC, who reported that the lenses match within his FDT write up almost a year ago.
6) How about based on the fact there is not a single person who has tested the lenses and has said they don't match near perfectly?


I apologize if I seem to be a bit aggressive, but as a person who has done the A/B test, and as a person who purchased a set, I can tell you that the Panchro/i lens set is an amazing set of lenses which are relatively new to the scene and unknown. So just as these lenses are getting their legs and becoming well liked, it is bothersome to me for someone who has not done any testing, to spread doubts about their quality on a public forum. I don't know if you are intentionally trying to question the integrity of the Panchro/i lens set, but your pessimism influences other people's opinions who have not yet tested the lens set.

So why are you not giving Cooke the benefit of the doubt? If Zeiss came out with a new lens set and said it was the same design, glass, coatings and quality of MP's, I'd believe them until proven untrue.

What do you want? You asked for an A/B comparison, and Timur kindly directed you to one. One I took great effort and care to create. Now you need a test with people in it?! Why? Do you think the color reproduction and contrast would match between Panchro/i's and S4/i's on all the still life objects but not on people?

I would like to help you find the answers you seek, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why you must cast so much doubt.

What do you need? What can I do to help you?

If you don't believe, go find a set of S4's and Panchro/i's and do the test. I believe Timur offered up his set of Panchro/i's. If what you find is not to your satisfaction, by all means report back to us here. Until then, your best bet is to believe those who have. Sorry if all the evidence available on the interwebs isn't enough for you to give the benefit of the doubt. If you can't trust Cooke, the company, or other cinematographers tests and conclusions, you best just do the test yourself.
 
Ned Wilson said:
Not convinced yet they match with S4's. Have yet to see a convincing A/B test with people in it. It's almost like a mantra everyone says because Cooke or someone else said it. But I haven't seen it with my eyes yet.
Click to expand...

Ryan was being pretty aggressive, but he's right.

There is some very damn solid evidence in front of you and a lot of very distinguished folks are putting their reputations on the line with this.

I'll add my voice to the list ... The Cooke Panchros are a better match for the S4 and S5 lenses, aside from stops, than anything else. They match the S4 primes better than the Cooke S4 CXX 15-40 t/2 zoom.

I think they match the S4 set better than two sets of Red Pro Primes or Zeiss Compact Primes will match each other.

Now, that's probably more "blah blah blah" to you.

Here is what I want you to consider, if this evidence isn't sufficient to convince you, then until you do the tests yourself and can draw your own conclusions nothing will.

Until then, I think what you should probably say is, "The Cooke Panchros are reputed to be a great match for the Cooke S4 & S5 sets. There are tests that come to that conclusion, but I need to do my own tests to be convinced."

No one can fault you for that, and its far less dismissive of so many carefully considered positions by a ton of industry pros.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top