Cooke S4's vs Ultra Primes

Jayson Crothers · November 21, 2004

My anamorphic show is going back to spherical - bit of a disappointment, but it's a decision I spear-headed and it's for the best.

Having said that, I'm looking at spherical lenses and wanted some input from everyone regarding personal opinions/experiences with both the Cooke S4's and the Ultra Primes; pros, cons, etc.

Thanks again everyone!

Eric Steelberg ASC · November 21, 2004

I haven't used the Ultra Primes too much but I'm doing a feature soon and have ordered a set of S4s for the film based on excellent prior results. I particularly like the contrast and sharpness at the wide end of the lenses. I think they really show their worth wide open, a place where most lenses show their weakness. They also have a way of reducing veiling glare which I like. From what I've HEARD, the Ultra Primes have similar performance but are more contasty.

Max Jacoby · November 21, 2004

Personally I have always found the wide S4s to be soft. These lenses are great for close-ups, because they have the most pleasing contrast and bokeh. They look much more three-dimensional than the Ultra Primes. The UPs are the sharpest lenses however and on wide shots they are the best (with the possible exception of the Master Primes, which I haven't tested yet).

Cooke S4s are fine for telecine, but for the big screen I'd do what they did on 'IRobot': use Ultra Primes for the wide shots and the Cooke S4s for the close-ups.

Eric Steelberg ASC · November 22, 2004

So the bottom line is do some tests and see where your personal preferences are.

Tony Brown · November 23, 2004

I've found Ultra Primes to flare more and breathe. Never liked them at all. Much prefer the Planars

Haven't Zeiss just dumped them for the 'Master' Primes?

David Mullen ASC · November 23, 2004

No, the Master Primes are meant for people who want a T/1.4 lens; the Ultra Primes for the T/2.0 crowd -- sort of like their old Super Speeds and Standard Speeds. I don't know if this means that Ultra Primes aren't being made.

Remi Adafaresin used Ultra Primes on his last few features as far as I know. "Amelie" was shot on Ultra Primes, although the DP later said they were actually sharper than he wanted but he was afraid of losing sharpness in the D.I. process.

Funny thing is that historically, Cookes had a worse reputation for flaring than Zeiss...

Max Jacoby · November 24, 2004

The Master Primes don't breathe at all, which is a big improvement over the Ultra Primes. The Ultra Primes seem to flare most when the source of light is just out of shot.

At least for the features that I've worked on, Dops seemed to prefer the Ultra Primes to the Cooke S4s. On 'Girl with a Pear Earring' we had some problems with the Cooke S4s: during rushes (print off Super35 neg) there were some wide shots that looked soft. We tested several of the wide lenses and even exchanged one, but there was nothing 'wrong' with them, they just don't look very sharp if you're going for projection.

bucknall · November 28, 2004

My anamorphic show is going back to spherical - bit of a disappointment, but it's a decision I spear-headed and it's for the best.

Having said that, I'm looking at spherical lenses and wanted some input from everyone regarding personal opinions/experiences with both the Cooke S4's and the Ultra Primes; pros, cons, etc.

Thanks again everyone!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

mattuhry · November 28, 2004

Both are excellent lenses in my experience. Mid focal lentgh ultra primes are smaller and lighter than the s4's which can help when doing alot of handheld. Talk to the lens guy at your rental house and have them show you what they have and figure out what works best for you.

Matt

www.fuzby.com