Optimus Prime

[Christopher Barrett]

I think maybe he's saying that with Zeiss you can start neutral and adjust for warmth (in feel and color) if need be. Whereas with Cooke you're stuck with the "look." Personally, it's a look I'm thrilled to be stuck with. The soft areas of my snap above are just buttery, while the focus remains crisp.

 

[albert rudnicki]

Ryan,
I am not making a point, I am sharing my personal opinion with a friend.
I also find it rude to talk to someone in a third person.

Christpher,
apologies for polluting your thread, it was not intentional.
and yes, thanks for clearing up my post.
One of my latest tv-spots was shot with Cooke S4
http://www.vimeo.com/17315415

Again, Congratulation!

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Albert, please do not get offended.

I was talking about you in third person as a dialogue I was attempting to start with Marc, who seemed to understand your point of view and was currently more active in the thread. I would of course talk to you normally, should I been addressing you directly. Perhaps I should have from the start, as it seems you have returned here before Marc.

Your opinion is always welcome, and you did so on a public forum. It goes against my experience so I was asking for some clarity.

In my experience, Cooke and Red Pro Primes are slightly warm, Angeniuex and Primos are neutral and Zeiss cine lenses tend to be cooler. I'm still not sure how this gives any greater choices in color correction for Zeiss. This is simply nuances the lenses give. Of course in different situations on different cameras, perhaps the warmer lens would look more neutral than the cooler lens.


I completely understand how Zeiss and Cooke have different looks, but I don't understand how you have concluded that Zeiss lenses are more mailable in CC than others. I think the cinematographer is committed to the look of the lens he chooses to a certain degree with whatever lens he chooses. I'm very open to hearing an explanation and having a constructive and positive discussion about it.

Albert, you made a point regarding your opinion, and I'm happy you did. I'm simply asking you and/or your friends who may agree with you, how you came to that opinion as I still don't understand.

 

[Christopher Barrett]

Yah, if we're talking the actual color cast of the glass itself, the Red makes it so easy to put the overall balance anywhere you want, so that the point becomes moot. People ask why I'm comfortable mixing Schneiders with Rodenstocks for my still camera. The answer is simple, I've never had a project where there was enough consistency in the available light from one shot to the next that it would matter. My scenes can easily vary by several hundred degrees kelvin one shot to the next, not a big deal with R3Ds or Raw stills.

I've always loved Zeiss glass and have used it on Hasselblads, Contax, DSLRS and my Red, but I was looking for something specific in the Cookes and I'm really happy with the look so far.

Albert, I don't feel you've polluted this thread by any means and I value your input.

CB

 

[Timur Civan]

All view points taken with salt.

I too am taking delivery on a set of panchros.

I have been in the market for glass for over a year now. I've tested different lenses in the sub 30k market, and come to the conclusion that none of them have the balance i was looking for. The CP's arent matched well, the CineXenars are a nightmare ergonomically, and the RPP's are just too big for my taste. The only choice was the Optar Illuminas, and the Cookes. Honestly, i couldnt see myself saying, "i think i'll take the Illuminas" if given a choice between cookes and Illuminas.

The cookes are a great balance of quality, optical performance, factory support, long life, and name recognition in the industry. I think they are a great business investment.

Ryan has actually been very helpful in my decision making. His first hand experience has given me a lot of insight to the glass.

 

[Marc Berger]

Albert, please do not get offended.

I was talking about you in third person as a dialogue I was attempting to start with Marc, who seemed to understand your point of view and was currently more active in the thread. I would of course talk to you normally, should I been addressing you directly. Perhaps I should have from the start, as it seems you have returned here before Marc.

Your opinion is always welcome, and you did so on a public forum. It goes against my experience so I was asking for some clarity.

In my experience, Cooke and Red Pro Primes are slightly warm, Angeniuex and Primos are neutral and Zeiss cine lenses tend to be cooler. I'm still not sure how this gives any greater choices in color correction for Zeiss. This is simply nuances the lenses give. Of course in different situations on different cameras, perhaps the warmer lens would look more neutral than the cooler lens.


I completely understand how Zeiss and Cooke have different looks, but I don't understand how you have concluded that Zeiss lenses are more mailable in CC than others. I think the cinematographer is committed to the look of the lens he chooses to a certain degree with whatever lens he chooses. I'm very open to hearing an explanation and having a constructive and positive discussion about it.

Albert, you made a point regarding your opinion, and I'm happy you did. I'm simply asking you and/or your friends who may agree with you, how you came to that opinion as I still don't understand.

Hi Ryan, sorry for coming back so late to this thread.
I worked with all different kind of lenses and my personal opinion is: not all of the lenses have a strong particular "look" like the Cookes. In my opinion the Angenieux and Zeiss lenses behave quite neutral. (To my taste a bit boring, too clinical compared with Cookes). But they are incredible sharp, have a nice bokeh and neutral color rendition. All over, I would say they are neutral lenses with kind of "incorporate Raw" like you said Ryan. I think the range to create a look from a clean and technical, to a softer look ( with filters, CC) is for Albert bigger with the Zeiss´s. In my own experiences I feel it is difficult to take away the Cooke look from a shot in CC (That´s what I like about them). I always find a Cooke give more depth to the picture, not only a warmer look.
Sorry Ryan and Christopher, I didn´t want to push this thread in another direction. And thank you for sharing your experiences.
I´m completly sold to the new Panchros.
Marc

 

[AnthonyFlores]

Christopher .... any further thoughts, impressions or images ??? LOL. You teased us and now I find myself wanting more ....

 

[Christopher Barrett]

Sorry to leave you hangin man...

Another teaser...

I took the 25mm out after we got some more snow. Wide open ISO 1280. I've got a few scenes of this stuff that I'll put together into a short vid after I get some work out the door.

Link to a full rez jpg of the shot above.

CB

 

[C.H.Haskell]

Hey Chris, thanks for sharing and congrats on your new glass! Are you aware of any features being shot with the Panchros? Mind showing a pic of your rig for size reference. keep those stills coming and happy shooting.

 

[Christopher Barrett]

No shot of the full rig, Clay. Huh, why didn't I do that? Anyway these should give you an idea of size... the 25 is the smallest, the 100 has about the heft of my RPZ 17-50.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

Gorgeous man, keep em' coming. Actually they look smaller than I thought!

 

[C.H.Haskell]

No shot of the full rig, Clay. Huh, why didn't I do that? Anyway these should give you an idea of size... the 25 is the smallest, the 100 has about the heft of my RPZ 17-50.

Exactly what I was looking for...those things are tiny! I am considering adding a set of this glass, i have always loved the Cooke look and from what I have researched you get the same look you would from S4s or even S5s....just in a smaller, lighter, cheaper, and slower lens. I feel the MX makes the 2.8 issue not such a deal breaker for me...DO you feel at home with the 2.8 on your RED MX?

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Exactly what I was looking for...those things are tiny! I am considering adding a set of this glass, i have always loved the Cooke look and from what I have researched you get the same look you would from S4s or even S5s....just in a smaller, lighter, cheaper, and slower lens. I feel the MX makes the 2.8 issue not such a deal breaker for me...DO you feel at home with the 2.8 on your RED MX?

I agree about the "Cooke Looke" as I've taken to referring to it.

I am a bit bothered by t/2.8 though.

I do tend to "live" at t/2.8-t/4. I could do 90+% of my work with these lenses

I occasionally LIKE to use t/1.4 and I use t/2 more often. Not because I need it for exposure, but because I think its the "right" look.

I seriously think the right Cooke set for me is the S5- although the price is prohibitive.

If the Panchros made compromises elsewhere and were t/2 I wouldn't even debate the matter. I'd have sold important parts of me if necessary to own a set by now.

If I recall, the Leica PLs are "only" about $10,000 per lens. I think I'll wait until those lenses make financial sense for me before stepping past the RED RPP's or Zeiss CP lenses.

UPDATE: This bit about the price of the Leica lenses is probably wrong... see below.

 

[Antoine Fabi]

Alexander,

Are you sure the Leicas Pl are only 10K/lense ?

I though it was WAY more...but can't remember where i saw that...

Antoine

 

[C.H.Haskell]

I think you can only buy sets of Leicas at the moment and thats about 160k+ which I heard are back ordered well into 2012 so not sure when you could just buy individuals.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

I agree about the "Cooke Looke" as I've taken to referring to it.

I am a bit bothered by t/2.8 though.

I do tend to "live" at t/2.8-t/4. I could do 90+% of my work with these lenses

I occasionally LIKE to use t/1.4 and I use t/2 more often. Not because I need it for exposure, but because I think its the "right" look.

I seriously think the right Cooke set for me is the S5- although the price is prohibitive.

If the Panchros made compromises elsewhere and were t/2 I wouldn't even debate the matter. I'd have sold important parts of me if necessary to own a set by now.

If I recall, the Leica PLs are "only" about $10,000 per lens. I think I'll wait until those lenses make financial sense for me before stepping past the RED RPP's or Zeiss CP lenses.

$10,000 ... I wish! They are actually $180,000 for the set of 8 ... and even if you have the money, you cannot get a set until mid 2012 as Clay alluded to. That bums me out especially because I was hoping to be able to check out Ketch's set in person this year

But it's really too bad because as much as I love the Cooke look, I feel like the Leica/Panavision look is perfect -- somewhere in between Cooke and Zeiss ... sharp, great contrast, amazing bokeh, etc. Not too warm or too cool, really love the character.

All that said, I'm beginning to strongly consider these Panchros to go along with the Epic ... with the big 5k sensor and great iso -- the 2.8 isn't the end of the world ... and with small form factor of both, I feel it's a great marriage.

Can't wait to see more MX or Epic + Panchro pics and footage

Anthony

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Alexander,

Are you sure the Leicas Pl are only 10K/lense ?

I though it was WAY more...but can't remember where i saw that...

Antoine

Actually I'm not sure at all.

$160-180k (as noted above) sounds OK too.

That still fits in the parameters I'm thinking about.

Essentially its performance in the S5 and Master Prime category, but smaller lighter lenses, and much cheaper per lens.

I think the Zeiss t/1.4 Ultra Primes are sold used priced near these Leica lenses. The S4 lenses are I think 50% more expensive.

(correct away, there are obviously people here with better lens market knowledge than me, and I want to know!)

I am sort of depressed that we are talking about sets backordered until 2012.

Then again... it'll probably take me until then to fund them anyway, so I'll be over it after some coffee.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

$10,000 ... I wish! They are actually $180,000 for the set of 8 ...

It's a set of ten lenses.

16, 18, 21, 25, 35, 40, 50, 65, 75, 100

And yeah, I want the full set.

I do wish they had a 9, 12 and 14. I'd also like a 135. And a macro or two.

That's one thing Zeiss has going for them... lots and lots of focal lengths to choose from.

Is anyone making a zoom to cover wider angles- like the Tokina 11-16, but real cinema glass, not a conversion?

 

[AnthonyFlores]

It's a set of ten lenses.

16, 18, 21, 25, 35, 40, 50, 65, 75, 100

And yeah, I want the full set.

I do wish they had a 9, 12 and 14. I'd also like a 135. And a macro or two.

That's one thing Zeiss has going for them... lots and lots of focal lengths to choose from.

Is anyone making a zoom to cover wider angles- like the Tokina 11-16, but real cinema glass, not a conversion?

Hi Alexander,

Well, if these are truly on par with Panavision Primos in sharpness/character -- but also t1.4 and lighter/smaller and same size across all focus lengths, it would be a stunning achievement. But I'm just a little dismayed that I have not seen a single test or hands-on review of them yet and even insiders like Mark have inquired and gotten the run-around. Leica is also NOTORIOUSLY slow in manufacturing, lenses especially. They are routinely out of stock on M lenses and even with the only four S lenses releases ... typically only one focal length is in stock. Like you, my best hope is to work with other lenses this year while I work on funding them sometime next year.

BTW, here is the response I got from BandPro last year (they are the exclusive distributor) ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Anthony:

Thank you for your interest in the Leica Summilux-C Prime Lenses.

Here are the current details on the new lenses from Leica:

They will originally come in a set of 8 lenses and will begin delivering in the last quarter of 2010. The delivering lenses are 18mm, 21mm, 25mm, 35mm, 40mm, 50mm, 75mm, and 100mm (and of course all are T1.4). They are currently offered only as a complete set of 8. More focal lengths at both the wide and long ends of the spectrum are planned for the future.

The price for the set of 8 is $178,000 and Band Pro is currently accepting a refundable deposit of 5% now and 5% three months prior to delivery to reserve your set of Leica lenses.

Planned deliveries are fully booked through 2010, but those who reserve their set now can expect delivery in the second quarter of 2011. Feel free to contact us for more information or to put down a deposit.

Thank you and best regards,

[Name withheld]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope that helps ... it appears they were off in their timing estimate because Ketch (as far as I know) did place his deposit before I even inquired and got this email response ... and yet he still was not able to get delivery this year.

As I mentioned, I love Leica, but they are sloooooooooooooooooooow.

Also, just as one point of correction, these are pretty comparable in pricing to Cooke 5i's (t1.4) and Master Primes (t1.3) ... I think that (brand new) a set of 6 MP's goes goes for $130,000-150,000 -- somewhere in the $22,000-$25,000 per lens range. The Leicas come to about $22,500 per lens.

And here is the pricing for the Cooke 5i's ...

Cooke 5/i Prime Lenses
CKE5 18 Cooke 18mm 5/i Lens T1.4 $21,750
CKE5 25 Cooke 25mm 5/i Lens T1.4 $20,700
CKE5 32 Cooke 32mm 5/i Lens T1.4 $20,700
CKE5 40 Cooke 40mm 5/i Lens T1.4 $21,650
CKE5 50 Cooke 50mm 5/i Lens T1.4 $20,700
CKE5 65 Cooke 65mm 5/i Lens T1.4 $21,650
CKE5 75 Cooke 75mm 5/i Lens T1.4 $20,700
CKE5 100 Cooke 100mm 5/i Lens T1.4 $20,700
CKE5 135 Cooke 135mm 5/i Lens T1.4 $24,000

As you can see it's all very comparable in pricing. But also you can see -- if you're willing to sacrifice a couple stops of speed why the Panchros are really awesome.

One problem I see with such fair pricing on the Panchros is that the Cooke S4's are now a bit overpriced in my mind. Only about one stop faster than the Panchros and not as fast as the 5 series, yet almost the same price as the 5's ....

Cooke S4/i Prime Lenses
CKE 12i Cooke 12mm S4/i Lens $24,750
CKE 14i Cooke 14mm S4/i Lens $20,455
CKE 16i Cooke 16mm S4/i Lens $19,900
CKE 18i Cooke 18mm S4/i Lens $18,250
CKE 21i Cooke 21mm S4/i Lens $18,250
CKE 25i Cooke 25mm S4/i Lens $17,400
CKE 27i Cooke 27mm S4/i Lens $18,250
CKE 32i Cooke 32mm S4/i Lens $18,250
CKE 35i Cooke 35mm S4/i Lens $18,250
CKE 40i Cooke 40mm S4/i Lens $18,250
CKE 50i Cooke 50mm S4/i Lens $17,250
CKE 65i Cooke 65mm S4/i Lens $18,250
CKE 65SF Cooke Soft Focus Attachment for 65mm Cooke S4 Prime $3,350
CKE 75i Cooke 75mm S4/i Lens $17,250
CKE 100i Cooke 100mm S4/i Lens $17,250
CKE 135i Cooke 135mm S4/i Lens $19,950
CKE 150i Cooke 150mm S4/i Lens $24,900
CKE 180i Cooke 180mm S4/i Lens $25,400
CKE 300i Cooke 300mm S4/i Lens $26,500

Personally I think (with the exception of the more exotic focal lengths, teles, etc) -- most of the S4's should be in the $11,000-14,000 range ... comfortably between the Panchros and the 5i's -- and about the same price as the Arri/Zeiss Ultra Primes.

At their current pricing there's no way I would consider them -- I'd either go slightly slower and save a ton by getting the Panchros, or faster and go for the 5i series.

But that's just me

Anthony

 

[Tom.Wong]

$10,000 ... I wish! They are actually $180,000 for the set of 8 ... and even if you have the money, you cannot get a set until mid 2012 as Clay alluded to. That bums me out especially because I was hoping to be able to check out Ketch's set in person this year

But it's really too bad because as much as I love the Cooke look, I feel like the Leica/Panavision look is perfect -- somewhere in between Cooke and Zeiss ... sharp, great contrast, amazing bokeh, etc. Not too warm or too cool, really love the character.

All that said, I'm beginning to strongly consider these Panchros to go along with the Epic ... with the big 5k sensor and great iso -- the 2.8 isn't the end of the world ... and with small form factor of both, I feel it's a great marriage.

Can't wait to see more MX or Epic + Panchro pics and footage

Anthony

was testing with my friend a cook 18-100 t3 zoom on a red MX. at 800 iso, on a focus chart, a simple tungsten 1k flown above it as our only light source, we were still stopped down for proper exposure. i think any slower than a 2.8 is unbearable. but people shoot on zooms all the time at a 2.8, people stop down to a 2.8 constantly to give their AC's a fighting chance and cause that's typically when the lens starts getting its sharpest (panchros are sharp wide open because of this) 2.8 is kind of a universal magic T stop in 90% of shooting. you either get faster lenses just to stop down to it, or it's sharp at 2.8 wide open and you stay there. nobody is complaining about zooms are a 2.8. People just don't think anything of it because it's a zoom. you gain in speed of use.

the case with the panchros are that they have the sharpness of primes, the sharpness of cooke s4's stopped down to a 2.8, and matched in everywhere to the entire cooke line of lenses. losing a little under a stop of light means saving 60k on buying the set...

I"m honestly glad that the light loss is the only compromise and find it the best choice.


fast, good, cheap. pick any 2 of the 3...