ULTRAPRIME VS COOKE S4

[Max Jacoby]

The Elites go from 4.5mm to 85mm. Most of these lenses are a T1.3. I don't know anyone who's shot with them though and if they even are available in the UK.

 

Obviously the Master Primes do fit on the 416 as well.

[Daniel Stigler]

You hear a lot that lenses are optimized to be shot wide-open, but the fact is that every single lens becomes optically better (i.e. sharper with less chromatic abberations) once you stop it down (up to the point when diffraction starts setting in, which is at the other end of the stop scale). That's just simple physics. Putting them on a projector or getting an MTF reading will invariably confirm this.

 

I won't argue with you about that, but you can't deny that it makes a hell of a difference is you shoot with a MasterPrime at 1.3 or an old three blade standard mount Zeiss Opton at T1.4. While the image shot with the MasterPrime is still acceptable the Opton doesn't give you an image anywhere near sharp.

[Evan Winter]

While interesting and valuable information this so feels like an ivory tower discussion about an aspect of cinematography (bokeh) that has virtually no effect on the way information is communicated to an audience. :)

 

Granted, I will from now on pay particular attention to bokeh (if only to use it as a help in identifying the lenses used to shoot material i am watching) but does it matter in any way or affect in any way the ability or quality of storytelling? Is this only a purist's discussion or does this talk of bokeh help us as DPs working towards bettering our art?

 

I hope I'm not coming off as snide as I am sincerely asking the above questions and greatly valued the discussion about the low-contrast nature of S4's vs. Ultra Primes and the information about S4's being designed to open up to T2 only (where they still perform 'optimally') vs. older lenses which permitted one to open up to a stop that went beyond optimal performance.

 

Thanks,

 

Evan

[oscar jimenez]

I wrote Zeiss the same question about 3 years ago. If I find that info in my mail account I will post it for shure, I have used those lenses on 35mm, they are just different, is an issue just like people that love those small schneider lenses or Cooke panchros, sometimes it is a matter of visual style depending the story, but Im in love with UltraPrimes.

Cheers

Oscar

[Janice d' Avila]

Kieslowski's Dekalog too. I guess we're the only two people on the planet that atually like the triangular bokeh.

 

No you´re not. In Brazil, many films that I love were shot with the superspeeds, with the triangular bokeh everywhere. Of course I love the Ultra Primes and S4s, but I´m attached to that bokeh.

[Chris Keth]

This question has been answered so many times, please search the archives. The one thing that I would add is that I do not care particulalry for the bokeh of Cooke S4 lenses. Closed down the out-of-focus highlights are not round or even the shape of an octagon as one would expect (the lenses have 8 iris blades), but instead the sides of the octagon are bend inwards. It's the dead give-away that Cooke S4s were used and it looks very funny to me. You can see that a lot in 'Casino Royale' for intsance. Zeiss would never make that lenses that have such a bokeh.

 

I actually quite like the effect. I do wish one of the lens makers would make lenses with very round irises like large format camera lenses have. I love the way they fall out of focus. It's a very smooth look that makes anythin look like a Monet painting :D

[Tony Brown]

Zeiss would never make that lenses that have such a bokeh.

 

LOL

 

Triangles anyone?

[Tony Brown]

You hear a lot that lenses are optimized to be shot wide-open, but the fact is that every single lens becomes optically better (i.e. sharper with less chromatic abberations) once you stop it down (up to the point when diffraction starts setting in, which is at the other end of the stop scale). That's just simple physics. Putting them on a projector or getting an MTF reading will invariably confirm this.

 

Define 'better' Max. If you want to compare MTF charts and chromatic aberration then its a very literal 'recording whats in front of you with accuracy' world you're dealing with. I do everything I can to soften / disrupt / corrupt images to produce something thats pleasing to the eye and more importantly interesting and different to what 90% of people are doing. Getting 'the best' out of a lens is film school criteria. IMO Cooke S4's shot wide open (and I do..... every shot I do I shoot at T2) look fantastic compared to any Ziess (and I own a set of Zeiss). They for me produce an image that is everything film stands for, whereas Zeiss continually strive for a sharper, more contrasty image to appease the bang per buck HD market. I've yet to use Master Primes, but so far Zeiss leave me very cold. The T2.1 Planars were the closest they ever came to a look that O would be happy with.

[Riku Naskali]

You also get this triangular flaring from the three-bladed Zeiss lenses, which is really nasty. And they flare pretty easily, I've usually had hard time cutting down the flare with wide lenses...

[Kar Wai Ng]

Yeah, I'm not at all a fan of Zeiss Superspeeds, mainly because of the flare. I got used to the Optars shooting one film and then when I used the Superspeeds for the first time, I did a lot of the things I like doing like shooting into overblown windows (which weren't really a problem with the Optars) and came out really disappointed. It's not even a nice flare, like with older cookes, it's an ugly, unappealing one.

[Glenn Hanns]

I wrote Zeiss the same question about 3 years ago. If I find that info in my mail account I will post it for shure, I have used those lenses on 35mm, they are just different, is an issue just like people that love those small schneider lenses or Cooke panchros, sometimes it is a matter of visual style depending the story, but Im in love with UltraPrimes.

Cheers

Oscar

 

Im a big fan of the Ultraprimes as well, as an Arri/Ziess hybrid they have virtually no flare no matter what I point them at, and the LDS is such an advantage over the Cookes. The Bokeh are nice rounded circles with no triangular shape like the super speeds but they do tend to be contrasty and dont fall as quickly in focus like the cookes. I havent used the MP yet but I hear there much the same just with a little more in aperture. Does anyone have a MP / UP comparison?

 

Cheers G

[Max Jacoby]

Define 'better' Max. If you want to compare MTF charts and chromatic aberration then its a very literal 'recording whats in front of you with accuracy' world you're dealing with. I do everything I can to soften / disrupt / corrupt images to produce something thats pleasing to the eye and more importantly interesting and different to what 90% of people are doing. Getting 'the best' out of a lens is film school criteria. IMO Cooke S4's shot wide open (and I do..... every shot I do I shoot at T2) look fantastic compared to any Ziess (and I own a set of Zeiss). They for me produce an image that is everything film stands for, whereas Zeiss continually strive for a sharper, more contrasty image to appease the bang per buck HD market. I've yet to use Master Primes, but so far Zeiss leave me very cold. The T2.1 Planars were the closest they ever came to a look that O would be happy with.

I shot mostly anamorphic for the big screen and there I find it very important to close down the lens, so that the area of sharpness increases out to the edges (I like to put things on the edges of the frame) and you get good contrast accross the frame. Obviously in anamorphic this makes a much bigger difference than with spherical.

 

As for the Cookes, I agree with you that they have a very nice bokeh and look very tri-dimensional on faces, but for the big screen I find them too soft wide open, especially if you have a relatively flat and high key image.

[Eric Bensoussan]

From a creative view ,we are lucky to have the choice between both worlds

Cooke's warm soft contrast and Zeiss 's colder more contrast look .

I believe they should be used according to what the film look needs and the conditions of filming .

 

The Bokeh effect is only for our personnal pleasure since most spectators will

never even notice it .It s one of those pre-production conversations we all had before.

 

From a technical view ,again we are lucky to have both worlds because for some ,

pulling focus will feel more confortable on a Cooke or a Zeiss .

 

Now for my personnal view , I prefer Cooke technically for it s smoother barrel ride and bigger markings.

I feel the shots more,everything feels smooth and in place ,faster racks.

With the Zeiss I feel I'm stuggling to pull at the right time ,the small barrel makes it harder to achieve slow minute ajustement .

For Handheld running shots with no remote focus,Cookes makes your life easier .

In the cold ,Cookes do not freeze up like the Zeiss which become blocks of ice sometimes.But again ,this condition only applies when you talking about shooting inconditions of -10 degrees Celcius and under .

 

Also , I can honestly say that Cooke made the best 40mm ,and Zeiss made the best 65mm.Those 2 lenses make me

have goose bumps ..don't know why ...I drull over their look.

 

So in the end ,which is better ? Take bits and piece of testimonies and build yourself the right package for that particular fim .

 

 

Cheers

[Tony Brown]

and Zeiss made the best 65mm..........

 

Just shows how subjective it is.... I bought a Cooke 65mm

 

:rolleyes:

[Eric Bensoussan]

lol tru that Tony .

 

For some reason ,where I work here in Montreal ,the 65mm Cooke or Zeiss is a rare piece and hard to rent.

Never tried ,never saw the 65mm Cooke here, only the 75mm .

 

So you saying the 65mm Zeiss is not the best...subjective...subjective ...lol

[Tony Brown]

For some reason..................... ,the 65mm Cooke or Zeiss is a rare piece and hard to rent.

 

As it was when I decided to buy one...... bloody things are everywhere now............

 

:blink:

[Max Jacoby]

Tony

 

Out of curiosity, which lenses do you own?

[Tony Brown]

Tony

 

Out of curiosity, which lenses do you own?

 

20mm - 100mm Cooke (never use it), Zeiss T1.4 18mm/25mm/35mm/50mm/85mm (never used) Cooke S4 65mm (Love it), Canon 300mm T2.8 (best lens ever constructed) and a 14mm Zeiss T2.1 (ish - rarely used)

 

The lenses that I USE however are

 

18 - 135 Cooke S4

135 Moy Leitz Macro

150 - 450 Hawk

200mm Canon T1.8

300/600 Canon T2.8

If using a remote head Angenieux 17 - 102mm zoom

 

Beauty work (depending on subject) Cooke Mk 1 25 - 250mm zoom

[chuck colburn]

Wondering why you don't use your 5to1 Cooke and the T 1.4s?

[Tony Brown]

Wondering why you don't use your 5to1 Cooke and the T 1.4s?

 

Because the 18-100 and the 17-102 are so much more useful....... and the T1.4's are harsh and the flare quality is way inferior to the Cooke T2s IMO

 

They both came as a package with an Arri3 package I bought with a couple of partners.

[Max Jacoby]

Have you already had an opportunity to compare the new 300mm Cooke S4 to the Canon?

[David Mullen ASC]

Have you already had an opportunity to compare the new 300mm Cooke S4 to the Canon?

 

When will Cooke make a modern S4 zoom in the 18-100 range? All they have is their old 18-100 T/3 zoom and a S4 15-40mm T/2 zoom.

[Tony Brown]

Not seen the 300mm yet, I think they get released in July. Surprised they bothered, the Canon is so cheap and the market is saturated with them......

 

No idea on the zoom front, don't use them much.