Cooke Panchro Prime vs Zeiss Compact Prime

I don't understand why there's confusion over the "color matched" thing. Zeiss says the CP's are "color matched" according to the standard set by the DIN, which is the German Institute for Standardization. The DIN specifies how much tolerance there can be for something to be considered "color matched" and the CP's comply.

Zeiss takes it a step further with their Master and Ultra Primes, tightening up the specifications even further and conforming to even tighter tolerances.

What's wrong with that? Nothing, as far as I can tell. Saying something is "color matched" is, ideally, saying that it complies with the DIN standard for what "color matched" is. But that doesn't mean it has to be the very last word in everything -- it's like saying a lens is "sharp". Is it? Just because a lens is sharp, does that rule out the prospect of making another lens that's even sharper?
 
avro said:
There is nothing wrong with Zeiss MP & UP optics.
Just because some guys are running humble Panchro Rentals does not mean Zeis is a lesser product.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, ok now, hold on. There's absolutely nothing wrong. I rent Ultra Primes on occasion (love the 10mm) and Master Primes are probably the second best prime set ever. I think you are reading too much into my statement. It's not saying the lenses are not good, that's not what I am saying at all. Yes, I favor cooke lenses most of the time, but that shouldn't mean all of my comments are loaded with anti-zeiss subtext. I'm still allowed to have an opinion about Zeiss. :)

So to start, I'll mention that I am a big fan of Ultra Primes and Standard Speeds. There are films which I'd think Ultra's or Standards would be the best lenses for. No doubt. They have different looks and can be used accordingly.



Now regarding color-matched lenses, I'm not sure there is any confusion.

I am not sure there really is a measured standard everyone adheres to when saying they are color matched. I could be wrong, but if all lens companies that claim to be color matched were referring to DIN standards, I'd be surprised. Sure there are DIN standards, but nobody knows what color matching is rated in units of, and where to find that information, so I find it funny to mention it. Nothing really more of a thought than a stance.

Of course Ultra's and Master's are held in greater tolerances, they should be and it's clear that they are.


Here is my point:
I think it is peculiar that CP.2's are color matched to Ultra's and Master's, but not as color matched as Ultra's are to Masters... so are they really matched? It depends on where personal taste and personal tolerances fall along those lines... meaning, my tolerances are very strict so I find the tiered system flawed. Go test for yourself. Color matching can be measured, but saying something is color matched means it has transcended a level of performance... and who is to determine that? We can measure tolerances, but we can't measure taste. My point.
 
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Regarding color-matched lenses, there really isn't a measured standard everyone adheres to when saying they are color matched, so I thought it was funny to have tiers. Of course Ultra's and Master's are held in greater tolerances, they should be. I think it's just odd and peculiar. Nothing really more of a thought than a stance.
Click to expand...

Just because everyone doesn't do it doesn't mean that Zeiss doing so should appear "funny." If anything the company should be lauded for adhearing to a standard (someone else's) and noting it so that anyone interested could judge them on it.

As the Zeiss Warranty Service Partner for the Americas, I can assure you that Zeiss takes such considerations extremely seriously. The degree of training and investment in custom technology we had to make so that they could be certain that we were fully able to match their standards was quite sizeable. Having worked with other manufacturers I can assure you that this is not nearly the case with many of them.
 
I think what I have said, may have read a bit wrong or come off as being to serious, and for that I apologize.

I do think it's funny/silly because of how poorly this industry has established a system of measuring, understanding and comparing color matching. Am I seriously alone in this?

Does nobody else thinks it's silly to claim a product superceeds what is, in reality, a subjective quality by the means of an unpublished measurement which surpasses a very relatively unknown standard?

I consider myself a very knowledgeable cinematographer... not a lens technician... I have no idea what the DIN is, where their tolerances are set, how it's measured or what it's measured in. I've spent casual time investigating, and without having to do some hardcore research, it's not information very widely known or easily accessible to those interested.

Let's be honest, any PL lens set from any company, will likely hold a very respectable level of color matching. And I expect Zeiss to be one of the best. I'm just saying that they really aren't providing any real information regarding color matching to those interested in buying, except for the obvious fact the CP.2's are not as matched as the higher grade lenses. Now does that mean the CP.2's are color matched to the Ultra's or Masters?... Not if you're renting Ultra's because you desire their level of tolerances. See what I mean? It's funny because it's subjective. If you desire the upper tier of 'super color matched' level of tolerances, you'd probably not consider the lower tier as being color matched, since they fall outside of your definition of what is acceptably color matched. Until there are measurements people can analyze and understand, it is better left for testing on the personal level. And that is all I mean by it.

Honestly, there is lots of love in my heart for many lens manufacturers, and this goes for all of them. Test your lenses and find what is color matched for you. I've seen people mash lenses that don't look alike at all and walk away feeling their images were matched fairly well. Sometimes to the point of unbelievable disagreement to myself.

Regarding color matching... we could measure it, but we don't know how. We could be told what the measurement is, but we can't quite understand it. We could understand it, but we may not agree upon if it is color matched to our personal taste.

Point is, CP.2's are not color matched to Ultra Primes or Master Primes, if you are used to the performance of Ultra's or Masters. They are just much closer matched than say, much different lenses. It's subjective. See the issue. You can't be color matched but not color matched. You can be more color matched or less color matched.

This isn't a Zeiss issue, this is an industry issue... and Zeiss has only been singled out by me, because they attempt to create an uninformative ranking system in a world without a real system.
 
Last edited:
Sure this is being very picky, and I've been successfully made to feel like a big fat techy-arse. I'll wear the hat of villain tonight, and I'll see you all in the morning!

:)
 
It's true I have been hearing about Cooke's "creamy bokeh" for years now. Still not sure what that means. Would love to see more clearly what people are referring to without having to make a special trip to a camera rental place and asking to test their equipment. It strikes me that color matching is not so much of an issue these days however. What really matters is the stray light absorption and the quality of the coatings in terms of their ability to achieve color seperation in the individual channels. Matching contrast seems much more important to me. I can very easily distinguish images shot with Zeiss lenses for instance from many other manufacturer's glass because of the way in which seperation happens with a subject from it's background. I believe this has more to do with the quality of the coatings than the actual glass in fact. However, I would very much appreciate seeing the same subject matter shot with glass from these two manufacturer's if anyone has some examples.
Not to throw another monkey into the stew, but what do people here think about the new-ish Schneider Cine-Xenar lenses in comparison as well?
 
Last edited:


Cooke bokeh. Varotal 18-100 T3.

The lenses are designed to gently roll into focus and then out again. Where as Zeiss lenses have an infinitly sharp single plane of focus, the cookes have a broader but not quite as molecular sharpness. You could almost say the "dof" is deeper, but its not quite like that.... Angeniuex lenses are similar in that sense.

The xenars optcally are nice, but i dont like them mechanically.
 
TimurCivan said:


Cooke bokeh. Varotal 18-100 T3.

The lenses are designed to gently roll into focus and then out again. Where as Zeiss lenses have an infinitly sharp single plane of focus, the cookes have a broader but not quite as molecular sharpness. You could almost say the "dof" is deeper, but its not quite like that.... Angeniuex lenses are similar in that sense.

The xenars optcally are nice, but i dont like them mechanically.
Click to expand...

I see, so what you are saying is that there are much gentler transitions between what is in focus and what is not compared to the Zeiss.
 
TimurCivan said:


Cooke bokeh. Varotal 18-100 T3.

The lenses are designed to gently roll into focus and then out again. Where as Zeiss lenses have an infinitly sharp single plane of focus, the cookes have a broader but not quite as molecular sharpness. You could almost say the "dof" is deeper, but its not quite like that.... Angeniuex lenses are similar in that sense.

The xenars optcally are nice, but i dont like them mechanically.
Click to expand...



Provinding when Berger comes out with their adapter: How would Canon dslr lenses compare to these lenes? Sorry for being slightly off topic.
 
bokeh can be pretty good on canon lenses, pretty spherical if I remember correctly. but focus roll off won't be as good, because they are still lenses. breathing is also an issue. some of the best canon glass can be as sharp or sharper than a great deal of PL glass, but sharpness isn't the only quality a lot of DP's look for in the lens they choose. the subtlety in the aesthetics of the luck, to the mechanics you need for production.
 
Wendt said:
Provinding when Berger comes out with their adapter: How would Canon dslr lenses compare to these lenes? Sorry for being slightly off topic.
Click to expand...

They would look like canon lenses. The glass is different. The design, the Iris, the color, the quality and feel will be completely different.
 
First, ask yourself if you like the look your canon lenses produce on a still camera. If yes then the secret is to avoid:

1) Rack focus shots. The short focus turn of some still lenses makes it hard to get a spot on focus in one easy motion. Rack shots become hunting for focus shots. Or just do them at the end when you already have every shot you need. That way if you don't get it there's not a huge waste of time as you try again and again.

2) Zoom shots. Zooms generally look videoish anyway.

3) Fade to black shots. Do it in post. Depending on which canon lenses you have there may be detent/clicks or no physical control of the iris. Declicking an aperture is necessary for film. Its not especially necessary for video.

If you use a DSLR zoom as a variable prime (i.e. set everthing before the shot) they work fine and are sometimes sharper than cine lenses. A good piece of DSLR glass is already designed to make pretty pictures. Don't be intimidated. If you like the contrast and color, or its close enough you can work with it in post, keep it.

No doubt the cine lenses are better in several regards, but IMHO DSLR lenses can work great 98% of the time. Its more a matter of being aware how they are different, and how they are the same.
 
In our research and just looking around, I'll throw another lens set out there. How about the Red lens? Also is the digi optics 18-50 the same as the older red 18-50?
 
RPP's are like oysters. You love em or you hate em. I don't like them, but many well respected DP's swear by them. Just a matter of taste.
 
I don't like the RPPs, they are too heavy.

On the other hand, the 17-50mm and 50-150 Red Zooms are a good value for the money, IMO.
 
Contrast and mid tone color reproduction of the CP lenses are very poor, and if you shoot for a living and have 20/20 clients, they WILL see the difference, and of course, so will you. When the client remarks on how gorgeous the image looks, you will pay for the difference in cost in less than 6 months with increased work. The CP's are very overpriced in comparison. Optically, they don't even hold up against Nikon glass.
 
Wow. Well, I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but I definitely disagree, especially with the assertion that the CP's "don't hold up to" Nikon lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top