Jump to content

zeiss, shneider or cooke?


stijnbarbe

Recommended Posts

as DP for two music videos I have to choose the lens-set. since this is my first 'real' production, I don't really know wich brand to choose. the rental company advises their zeiss primes. By the way, we're transferring to video, so maybe lens choice really doesn't matter...

so, what is the main difference between different lens brands?

 

thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zeiss superspeeds are by far superior to the older Schneider and Cooke lenses that are most frequently available with inexpensive camera packages. There are more recent Cooke lenses but I have never used them nor had the chance to compare them with Zeiss. Zeiss lenses have a pretty snappy look, they're sharp and contrasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The newer cooke S4 Lens are much nicer than the zeiss primes. But you may find that there are cost implications to your rental package. Panavision have some new Lenses (Primo's) Stay well clear of the zooms as there are inherent problems with focusing. Finally, as a DOP I'm surprised you yourself don't know the diffrence between Zeiss, Cooke's etc....????

 

Rich Steel

Steadicam Owner/Operator

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

Well, I've been called a director of photography (dodgy with video but it wasn't my idea) and I've never used the lenses mentioned, so I can't really comment on it... I know about the difference between a 709 and a 790, instead.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I wouldn't say it makes no difference, but on the other hand, a lot of TV shows use older lenses and zooms because the differences in resolution are less critical than for something to be broadcast. For some of the straight-to-video features I've shot, I've used the older "Z" Series lenses at Panavision just because I can't really justify pushing for a set of Primos, especially when it may force me to cut down the rest of the package (but I'm also talking about 35mm production here.)

 

But if money were no object, my choices would probably be narrowed to Primos, Zeiss Ultra Primes, and Cooke S4's. Actually, I've never used Ultra Primes or Cookes since I mostly shoot on Panavision gear. All my Arri shows used Zeiss Super-Speeds because the budgets were so low.

 

But the general belief is that Cookes S4's and Primos have less contrast than Zeiss Ultra Primes. I mean, I'm sure they are all nothing to sneeze at, quality-wise, so I don't think you can really make the wrong choice here. If I were going to use diffusion for an effect, like ProMists, I might want to use Zeiss to counteract the contrast loss. But again, for telecine-only stuff, I'm not sure even that difference couldn't be fixed.

 

Greg Irwin reported here that the Cookes have minimal flare when a specular light source is in the frame, but can get flared if there is a soft light on the edge of the frame. (Oddly enough, I think Geoff Boyle made the same complaint about Primos, so go figure...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yep, meanwhile, I've checked a few different lens packages and the Zeiss Superspeed MK2 T1.3- package sure is the best choice. For my next upcoming music video, we're aiming for a more romantic, 'feel-good' atmosphere. So I was thinking of adding diffusion and even then Zeiss is the better choice, because they are so crisp and sharp, you have more control over the amount of diffusion you add with soft and mist filters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word on the sets here in NY is that to counter the popular Zeiss Ultra Primes and Cooke S4's, Panavision is developing a new set of Primo primes. I haven't seen a set of Zeiss superspeeds on a job in a very long time (at least here in NY). You won't be having a problem with them at all unless they are not taken care of. The Mark III series of Superspeeds are the best. The hottest lens of the moment is the Angenieux 24mm-290mm Zoom. Everyone loves the look it gives. Many say it looks better than primo 11-1. The only thing is the weight! But then again this a 35mm format lens. Good luck.

 

Robert Lau

1st AC - NYC

IATSE Local 600

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks a lot, the superspeeds are in very good shape, so that won't be a problem.

here in belgium a pana is a very rare item, so I'm afraid I won't get to see those new primos in the near future. The few feature-films that are shot on 35mm here, are usually made with Arri.

 

stijn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Picasso's brush does not a Picasso make. In other words good cinematography will out weigh any disavantage in gear most of the time. I have seen some fantastic work and found that the cinematographer used inferiour or older equipment because that's all they had in the budget while other films had the latest and greatest tools of the trade available and displayed a less than inspiring look. As one who has come up through the ranks from short films and music vidoes using whatever I could lay my hands on to TV series and features where I had my pick, I can safely say that lens technology is significant, but is not the end all. Older lenses aside I've tried most of the present offerings and found that the differences in gear is often relatively subtle and very subjective. Different modern lenses do have different looks and flare characteristics etc., but unless you are seeing them side by side by the time you go through a telecine you would be hard pressed to see great deal of difference and most modern telecines can manipulate the look of your images the way you want. Where the difference is most significant is when the material is printed. Various cinematographers like lenses because they are more contrasty or less contrasty or for their apparent warmth or coolness or the way they render out of focus backgrounds and highlights. Brand loyalty ie. Panavision versus Arri often determines the use of lenses more often than the lenses themselves and vogue of course. Everyone wants the latest and the "best" and wants to use what everyone else is using. It is only natural. There is some great gear sitting on rental house shelves that people would have killed for ten years ago. It was OK then why not now? Best thing to do is test the options availble to you and pick which suites you best. Through time we develop favorites for various reasons. The Zeiss high speeds were mine for a long while and I still think they are fine lenses. The new generation of lenses have newer coatings that resist flare better. The Cookes are a little warmer and have a more graduated softer contrast than either the Zeiss Ultras or the Primos. They are all pretty good for flare, but the Cookes are probably the best. Assistants like the focus scales on Primos and Cookes the best and the Cookes with their roller bearings are the best in cold weather than greased helical lenses. There are pros and cons to all. We are very technologicaly driven, but often loose sight of what makes our work great in all the tech talk. I am as guilty as the next one for that. One can not help but think if I just had those latest lenses. Often we have to make do without them and the world still turns. Great cinematography, like great photography, or great painting or anything else creative, is not soley predicated on the use of the latest technology, but rather on the skill and creativity of the artist and the way they use the technology they have at their disposal. That's my two cents worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...