Monty Chan Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Need help to decide either a set of Cooke Panchro includes 25,32,50,75, 100 or the standard primes 16, 28, 40, 60 *macro, 85, 100, 180. I recently got budget for either set. I have rented the standard prime before. The images were consistantly very good and not a huge different compared to the ultra prime. I heard that the New Panchros are also great but with 1 stop slower. I'm leaning towards the used zeiss considering the set is cheaper and 1 stop faster. But really want to hear what you guys think about these two set. I appreciate your comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted June 16, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted June 16, 2011 Need help to decide either a set of Cooke Panchro includes 25,32,50,75, 100 or the standard primes 16, 28, 40, 60 *macro, 85, 100, 180. I recently got budget for either set. I have rented the standard prime before. The images were consistantly very good and not a huge different compared to the ultra prime. I heard that the New Panchros are also great but with 1 stop slower. I'm leaning towards the used zeiss considering the set is cheaper and 1 stop faster. But really want to hear what you guys think about these two set. I appreciate your comments. Personally I would go with the Pancros, I like the cooke look. You have modern lenses with good lens spacing. 10 years ago you could not give away a set of Standards! The wide Sandards porthole with digital sensors so you have to stop down to T2.8 or more in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Chan Posted June 18, 2011 Author Share Posted June 18, 2011 Personally I would go with the Pancros, I like the cooke look. You have modern lenses with good lens spacing. 10 years ago you could not give away a set of Standards! The wide Sandards porthole with digital sensors so you have to stop down to T2.8 or more in any case. Thank for your reply Stephen. I have seen the zeiss std spd 16mm on epic 4k, no porthole was seen. I like the cooke look too, but 2.8 might be little slow for me, since I shoot mostly closeup and low light. I don't know if anyone has compared cooke panchro and the S4. The reason why I consider the zeiss standard prime, because it is very very sharp even comparing to the ultra prime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted June 18, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted June 18, 2011 Thank for your reply Stephen. I have seen the zeiss std spd 16mm on epic 4k, no porthole was seen. I like the cooke look too, but 2.8 might be little slow for me, since I shoot mostly closeup and low light. I don't know if anyone has compared cooke panchro and the S4. The reason why I consider the zeiss standard prime, because it is very very sharp even comparing to the ultra prime. The 16mm portholes on Red Ome, set the lens wide open & look at a white / grey background. Stop down to 2.8/4 & it's gone. It's there for sure if you look! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Chan Posted June 18, 2011 Author Share Posted June 18, 2011 you're right stephen, tested at the studio this morning with the 16mm. It does portholes unless stopping down 1 or 2 stop. Do you think 24/28/32 will also portholes at 4K? We only have a 16mm at this moment, and the 40mm/50mm look fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignacio Aguilar Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 The 16mm Zeiss Standard portholes very obviously on Red One (4k), but the 24mm works well wide-open (I haven't tested it just to see if it portholes, but my footage, which was shot in low-light with lots of shadows, was OK, so if it portholes it wasn't that obvious). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted June 18, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted June 18, 2011 The 16mm Zeiss Standard portholes very obviously on Red One (4k), but the 24mm works well wide-open (I haven't tested it just to see if it portholes, but my footage, which was shot in low-light with lots of shadows, was OK, so if it portholes it wasn't that obvious). From my testing the 24 was fine by 2.8 on a grey background at 2.1 it was noticeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now