Panchro/i by Cooke renamed miniS4/i

[Gary Jones]

Not especially exciting but I thought I would pass the information along for those that hadn't heard:

http://www.cookeoptics.co.uk/cooke.nsf/products/minis4.html

 

[Mark K.]

Interesting choice of label, makes it very clear that these sit below the S4s in performance, but I would of thought calling them something like: 'S4/light' or 'S3/i' would make for a simpler line-up of names ('mini' just sounds a bit cheap/tacky).

 

[Ryan De Franco]

It's exciting. It's exactly what the Panchros are: mini S4s.

It's unfortuante: the "Panchro" text on the lenses looked so much better than the "Mini s4" line graphic. Perhaps owners of the Panchro sets will have a collector's item worth more 50 years from now.

Will the original "panchro" marked sets still in stock go up or down in price.... will people rush to buy those with the Panchro text or prefer the new, producer/$-friendly name...

 

[Ryan De Franco]

Mark, I haven't done any side-by-side testing, but reading from several reputable Panchro owners, there is no difference between an S4 and a Panchro. Just as sharp corner to corner, same low but measurable CA, etc.
It's far easier to make a lens consistently fantastic when it only has to go to a 2.8.

On the other hand, they do "sit below" the S4s in terms of speed... but as they were designed to be intercut seamlessly, I'm not sure it's fair to say they're of lower "performance."

This distinction is exactly what Cooke is trying to prove by changing the name: these aren't your uncle's panchros, they're an S4 that's wide open at 2.8.

 

[Robert Horwell]

It's purely a marketing decision. Les Zellan said Cooke named them Panchro/i as a homage to the original panchros that were so popular back mid- century onwards. However, He feels that it may have caused some confusion because of the increasing popularity today of the older Cookes panchros. Especially for producers, who I have often had a hard time trying to explain how Panchro/I are S4's but a stop slower, and they would be perfect for the job in hand "no we want S4's" they say, only to get on the job and stop them down. Personally i think calling them Mini S4's was a good choice, good for business anyway.

 

[Mark K.]

Mark, I haven't done any side-by-side testing, but reading from several reputable Panchro owners, there is no difference between an S4 and a Panchro. Just as sharp corner to corner, same low but measurable CA, etc.
It's far easier to make a lens consistently fantastic when it only has to go to a 2.8.

On the other hand, they do "sit below" the S4s in terms of speed... but as they were designed to be intercut seamlessly, I'm not sure it's fair to say they're of lower "performance."

This distinction is exactly what Cooke is trying to prove by changing the name: these aren't your uncle's panchros, they're an S4 that's wide open at 2.8.

I've heard pretty much the same thing Ryan, in fact I've heard the 18mm Panchro is actually better than the equivalent S4. To my mind how far open the aperture goes on a lens is key component of it's 'performance' as a tool on set. I wasn't really referring to overall image quality as such.