Optimus Prime

[Christopher Barrett]

Man, I feel like I've been around the world and back on my quest for prime glass. While many have extolled the virtues of RPP's I was really concerned about the bokeh and warmth. So then I was onto the Schneiders but their mechanical oddities combined with reported quality issues have dropped them to the bottom of the list. I considered the Illuminas and love their speed, but damn, I'm sorry, they're just too ugly for me to put on my Red... the Russians need to hire an industrial designer.

Next up in my price range were the Panchros. I want these lenses. No, you don't understand.... I REALLY want these lenses... but the 2.9 aperture scares me... I do shoot at night. Still they call to me... they tell me "Don't be afraid of the dark... let our warmth enfold you... let yourself float within it's beauty... you will float.... they all float down here..."

And once again I'm staring up at the RPP's from a dark alley waiting for T 1.8 to light the way, to save me from my torment as the Cooke's struggle for possession of my soul.

Know what I mean?

CB

 

[Julio Quintana]

Trying to decide on the right lenses to match the greatest camera ever made is pretty exhausting. On the other hand, it is really great to see how many options we do have today, mostly due to RED creating a demand for cheap PL glass.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

LOL! You Rock, Christopher!

If only we got to apply as much analytical horsepower to the subjects we shoot.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

As a glass connoisseur just get the RPPs and thank everyone later :001_smile:

There is really nothing else close in this price range, specially if you like fast modern lenses that are well supported by the vendor.

Either that or get Master Primes or Leica Summilux-C and be done with it.

RPPs are beautiful lenses and you will love them as your own children. I don't own them, but had a pleasure to use them. Yes, Master Primes are nicer (faster, sharper, less distortion, better build, etc..), but not that much nicer. Jim Hare and I used both on the same shoot and they cut nicely. You'd be hard pressed to tell which one was which.

 

[David Rasberry]

Next up in my price range were the Panchros. I want these lenses. No, you don't understand.... I REALLY want these lenses... but the 2.9 aperture scares me... I do shoot at night. Still they call to me... they tell me "Don't be afraid of the dark... let our warmth enfold you... let yourself float within it's beauty... you will float.... they all float down here..."

And once again I'm staring up at the RPP's from a dark alley waiting for T 1.8 to light the way, to save me from my torment as the Cooke's struggle for possession of my soul.

Know what I mean?

CB

A truly poetic expression of techno anguish.:violin:

 

[Ryan Hamblin]

To be perfectly honest if I had the extra cash I would just add the tele panchros to the 17-50 RPZ and call it a day... matching aperture and they match so close in color and sharpness its scary. Used this combo on the amy grant video

But in the end I just have the RPZ 17-50 and some older zeiss lenses that were designed for medium format but there was a small amount of them made in pl mount... from my understanding. They are a bit warm... pleasantly soft... really really dirt cheap, and at the end of the day do just fine.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

I went with Cooke Panchro/i's.

Amazing lenses.

T/2.8 is slow. But cameras are faster now than ever, and only getting faster. Only 1 in 10 films I shoot requires DoF more shallow than T/2.8. In fact I shoot mainly at T4 or T5.6.

Point being... if you were shooting on a digital cinema camera three years ago you'd have done it at what? T/1.3 Superspeeds and at 320iso? Now the RedOneMX is getting great results at 800iso, Alexa is at 800iso, PhantomFlex is at 1000iso.... etc. The next series of cameras will be faster and cleaner.

If it's not part of the look, I don't want that super shallow DoF. T/2.8 is sometimes too much. Plus it helps 1st AC's sleep at night, and reduces the risk of flubbed takes or re-shoots b/c of difficult focus issues.

I've never been happier with a lens set in my life. At least try a set before you buy anything else.

 

[Julio Quintana]

I went with Cooke Panchro/i's.

T/2.8 is slow. But cameras are faster now than ever, and only getting faster. Only 1 in 10 films I shoot requires DoF more shallow than T/2.8. In fact I shoot mainly at T4 or T5.6

I definitely get what you are saying, and I also dislike the f1.3 look. But the flip side to cleaner sensors are cameras that shoot higher frame rates, and nobody seems to be considering how much light it takes to shoot 150 fps. I know that those will be specialty shots, but it seems to me that if you want to make the most of all the Epic features, we are still going to need a ton of light.

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

the old panchros were t2.2
its just stupid to make the new ones artificially t2.8

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

the old panchros were t2.2
its just stupid to make the new ones artificially t2.8

Super Speeds were T/1.3. Was it dumb to make Ultra Primes?

You may or may not like the new T/2.8 stop, which is your prerogative, but just because a much older and different lens set was T/2.2 doesn't mean anything in regards to what they should or should not do now.

Your logic is sound if you only regard the quality and value of a lens with its' maximum aperture.

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

i just dont like the idea to shoot a prime lens wide open.
and since t2.8 is a working stop for me (and many) the lens should have something around t2.2 at least.

for 3d i see the benefits of the new panchros, but for good old regular shooting they are too slow.

i know 1st hand that it was a business decicion.
why do you think the 18mm is missing in their set? - thats another business decicion.

cooke knows how to make excellent glass, the s4/s5 are no compromise lenses, and they cost that way. thumbs up for the new cooke s5.

they just failed to offer something serious for the REd market, which is why they primarly did build these lenses.

they should have done it like angenieux and their rouge series.

a lens has to offer more than only aperture, i agree
but if you can build the best for a certain pricepoint, hell, build it.
thats why there will be an epic-s at 12k usd.

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

I recently shot a commercial with Zeiss Masterprimes. I usually shoot with old trusty Zeiss Super Speeds because I own them and are very familiar with them. The difference between the two generations is remarkable. No, it's more, it's actually a new lens cosmos. These lenses are unbribable. They are sharp. Actually, sharp or in-focus gets a new meaning. They add to the picture a brilliance it won't have with the Super Speeds.

BUT: They have no personality, an ugly flare and are ridiculous large. All these things can my Super Speeds much better. Especially the flare is second to none.

What to do?

Unless your daily routine is steadicam work and shooting flares, modern optics are much, much better. The RPPs are the closest favourable offer to the Master Primes.

Now the Panchros. I never shot with them but I shot tons of miles of film with the 18-100 Cooke zoom. Cooke optics have a dimensionality all other lens manufactures don't have. That's the reason why I bought for my private kit a Cooke 20-100 and from time to time enjoy its look on certain projects.

Shooting at T2.8 is a classic indoor aperture. But now and then I need to open the aperture for half or 1 stop. That's the main reason why I work with primes. Otherwise I could just as well shoot with a zoom. The small Angenieux zooms, Optimo or Rouge series are a great offering, especially the short Rouge zoom. But they lack dimensionality and personality, so do Zeiss Masterprimes and probably RPPs as well.

I haven't shot with a RedOne MX yet (What!?). May be that shooting indoor at T2.8 will lead automatically to an ND3 filter which can be removed when applicable. Maybe that T2.8 will be the new T2, maybe that Epic's MX sensor will bee even more sensitive and 1.600 ASA is a reasonable ISO setting. If that's the case more speed than T2.8 is only a question of creation than a technical downside.

I would wait until I hold the Epic in my hands. Then I would rent lenses and give them a try at various locations, light levels, ISO settings etc... I would also check out the Canon still lens route. And then you know what will suite your needs best. And don't rule out used glass. Often it has the best value.

Hans

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

I recently shot a commercial with Zeiss Masterprimes. I usually shoot with old trusty Zeiss Super Speeds because I own them and are very familiar with them. The difference between the two generations is remarkable. No, it's more, it's actually a new lens cosmos. These lenses are unbribable. They are sharp. Actually, sharp or in-focus gets a new meaning. They add to the picture a brilliance it won't have with the Super Speeds.

BUT: They have no personality, an ugly flare and are ridiculous large. All these things can my Super Speeds much better. Especially the flare is second to none.

What to do?

Unless your daily routine is steadicam work and shooting flares, modern optics are much, much better. The RPPs are the closest favourable offer to the Master Primes.

Now the Panchros. I never shot with them but I shot tons of miles of film with the 18-100 Cooke zoom. Cooke optics have a dimensionality all other lens manufactures don't have. That's the reason why I bought for my private kit a Cooke 20-100 and from time to time enjoy its look on certain projects.

Shooting at T2.8 is a classic indoor aperture. But now and then I need to open the aperture for half or 1 stop. That's the main reason why I work with primes. Otherwise I could just as well shoot with a zoom. The small Angenieux zooms, Optimo or Rouge series are a great offering, especially the short Rouge zoom. But they lack dimensionality and personality, so do Zeiss Masterprimes and probably RPPs as well.

I haven't shot with a RedOne MX yet (What!?). May be that shooting indoor at T2.8 will lead automatically to an ND3 filter which can be removed when applicable. Maybe that T2.8 will be the new T2, maybe that Epic's MX sensor will bee even more sensitive and 1.600 ASA is a reasonable ISO setting. If that's the case more speed than T2.8 is only a question of creation than a technical downside.

I would wait until I hold the Epic in my hands. Then I would rent lenses and give them a try at various locations, light levels, ISO settings etc... I would also check out the Canon still lens route. And then you know what will suite your needs best. And don't rule out used glass. Often it has the best value.

Hans

+1
i owned a set of cooke s2/s3 and the last project was entirely shot on cooke s4`s
so i am a cooke fan actually, best shot at T2.8, once in a while you need that half a stop.

edit: But Ryan, now you have them and can shoot most of the time (except certain situations), congrats! while i am renting you are shooting

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

i just dont like the idea to shoot a prime lens wide open.
and since t2.8 is a working stop for me (and many) the lens should have something around t2.2 at least.

Kaya, I bet that if it were mechanically possible to open the Panchro's aperture more than T2.8 you would find that the optics them selfs are good for T2.4 or even faster. So, when you shoot with them "wide" open it's actually more like closing the aperture to 2.8 than to shoot on the performance edge of the lens.

The T2.8 is purely a business decision and not a performance limitation in the lens design, IMHO.

Hans

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

Kaya, I bet that if it were mechanically possible to open the Panchro's aperture more than T2.8 you would find that the optics them selfs are good for T2.4 or even faster. So, when you shoot with them "wide" open it's actually more like closing the aperture to 2.8 than to shoot on the performance edge of the lens.

The T2.8 is purely a business decision and not a performance limitation in the lens design, IMHO.

Hans

sounds reasonable. i agree
T2.2. -T2.4 would have made these lenses a killer deal.

 

[Shane Kelly]

Kaya, I bet that if it were mechanically possible to open the Panchro's aperture more than T2.8 you would find that the optics them selfs are good for T2.4 or even faster. So, when you shoot with them "wide" open it's actually more like closing the aperture to 2.8 than to shoot on the performance edge of the lens.

The T2.8 is purely a business decision and not a performance limitation in the lens design, IMHO.

Hans

I heard an interview with Les Zellan from ZGC ( I think it was on redcentre podcast) where he stated that they could have made the iris on the lens open wider but the quality would suffer and 2.8 was where the resolution was on par with the rest of the stops.

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

I heard an interview with Les Zellan from ZGC ( I think it was on redcentre podcast) where he stated that they could have made the iris on the lens open wider but the quality would suffer and 2.8 was where the resolution was on par with the rest of the stops.

That is happening to all high speed lenses except the modern breed such as the Master Primes or the Cooke S5.

Zeiss Super Speeds for instance are until T2.8 soft and creamy and turn with T2.8 into sharp lenses where the legendary Zeiss sharpness takes over. I don't know how the modern Iluminas behave in this regard but I assume that they are at T1.3 more like the Super Speeds than the Master Primes.

What one can bare in this regard is up to the manufacturer in regards to the position of the brand in the market and of course to the customer who expects a certain performance of a certain brand.

With Cooke one expects the "Cooke look" and pristine workmanship including precise optics. Speed is not a classic Cooke asset.



Hans

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

I heard an interview with Les Zellan from ZGC ( I think it was on redcentre podcast) where he stated that they could have made the iris on the lens open wider but the quality would suffer and 2.8 was where the resolution was on par with the rest of the stops.

what about maestro duclos?
could he squeeze the half a stop out of the panchros?

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

It was probably a business decision. If Cooke wanted to make a T/2.2 lens set like the old speed panchro's but with the new Cooke optics quality, why re-invent the S4 (T/2)? If you wanted a faster T-stop, go buy or rent the new 5/i's (1.4). As you see, they did make a faster lens set... it just wasn't at the Panchro/i price point They aren't making a less quality product, in which case they could offer for a lesser cost and a faster speed. They are literally making a lens that holds it's place in the line. So if you want the modern cooke optics look and mechanical/optical performance, you can go with either Panchro/i, S4/i and 5/i... That's the progression, and their prices mainly reflect speed, but they are all top quality. Cooke wasn't trying to give the world a lens line at a lower price with lower quality. They were trying to make a lens set like the S4's but at a more affordable price. They found the way to do this was to make them smaller, and one stop slower.

In a conversation I had with Les, he told me that it is roughly 8x more difficult to design and manufacture a lens for every stop. Meaning the complexity, cost and other factors of making an 5/i T/1.4 was 8x more difficult than a S4/i and etc. So in order to make a lens that was less expensive but had few compromises to the quality and look, they went T/2.8. If you want a cooke lens at T/2, get an S4. If you need faster get a 5/i. If the Cooke Panchro/i's T/2.8 is enough, paying the extra 13,000 per lens for T/1.4 is hard to justify. If you need faster, by all means there are wonderful S4/i's and 5/i's waiting for you. I think we'll see top feature films (like studio-pics) going with 5/i's, and Indie films going S4/i and Panchro/i. Who knows. I heard from a friend that Hugo was mainly shot with 5/i's but they had S4/i's and Panchro/i's as well.

 

[Christopher Barrett]

It's pretty much the same model Zeiss followed, except Zeiss doesn't really have a 3rd tier. Where it seems you'd be fine intercutting Panchros with S4's I can't imagine wanting to mix UltraPrime and CP.2 footage.