Future of Lenses and Cooke Panchro Review


The Future of Super-Fast Lenses​
At the birth of cinema, film emulsions were slow. Very slow. In fact, so slow they served as a catalyst for the development and advancement of fast aperture lenses. Together with film emulsions, the two technologies have advanced together, offering the modern day cinematographer the ability to capture more on film with less light. With the exception of rare/specialty lenses and film stocks, the 35mm format lens has settled around T/1.3 or T/1.4 as the standard super-fast lenses, while 500iso/asa has settled as the commonly used fast film stock. While light years better than what existed in the early half of the century, the demand for increased light sensitivity has not relented. Regarding aperture, cinema lenses have hit a glass ceiling.

Making a professional S35mm cinema lens at a T/1 is almost unfathomable in design and manufacturing difficulty. The resulting cost of such a lens would likely be unprecedented. Perhaps more importantly, the demand for such a lens is hard to grasp. In 35mm and S35mm cameras shooting at T/1, the depth of field would be considerably shallow compared to the already super-shallow T/1.4. Very few cinematographers would desire the aesthetic look such depth of field offers. Additionally, cinematographers would not want to put their 1st camera assistants through incredible strain while constantly putting the shot at risk of focus error. T/1 is simply too expensive and shallow for mainstream use.


Which T-stop is ideal? It is a safe generalization to state most cinematographers cautiously avoid the use of T/stops
wider than T/4 or T/2.8. These two stops still offer shallow depth of field qualities, but allow more reasonable depth of field for the subject. Stops wider exhibit more extreme shallow depth of field that may not satisfy the desired look of the picture. As mentioned, wider stops tax the focus puller and increase the potential risk for error and reshoots. Therefore, unless extremely shallow depth of field is the intended look for the picture, the only reason to desire a super fast aperture lens is if the cinematographer knows or fears not having sufficient lighting to properly expose.

Eliminating the need for super-fast lenses for aesthetic use, the only remaining factor is one of exposure. If the cinematographer simply does not have the natural or artificial means of lighting to proper exposure, faster lenses are the answer. Camera technology, however, is relentlessly irradiating this need as this article is being printed. With the arrival of the newest generation of digital cinema cameras, the progression of camera sensitivity has taken giant leaps forward. In fact, digital camera sensitivity is advancing at such a rate; it is argued that T/2.8 is the new T/1.4.


The following are manufacturer issued or commonly rated ISO/ASA ratings for recent (2009/2010) professional digital cinema camera models:

Make/Model​
ISO/ASA ratings​
Silicon Imaging SI-2K
200 – 400

Arri D-21
200 – 400

RedOne Mysterium
320

Phantom 35/HD
320

Sony Cinealta F900
320

Panavision Genesis
400

Available in 2010- 2011, the following cameras or upgrades represent a hint of what is to come. As of this writing, common ratings or preferences are:

Make/Model​
ISO/ASA rating​
Arri Alexa
800

RedOne Mysterium X
400 – 800

Phantom Flex
1000

Sony F-35
650-1000

Notice Arri, RedOne, Phantom, and Sony have at least
doubled in sensitivity between camera models or upgrades. Sensitivity coupled with cleaner signals, allows the possibility of stretching these numbers further.

Why T/2.8 On the New Cooke Panchros Work.​
Cooke’s goal when designing the new Panchro line was to create a smaller, lighter, and more affordable lens set, yet retain the optical quality of the established Cooke S4 series. The result was a color-matched prime lens set less than ½ the price and only one–stop slower. The cost differential is a direct result of the stop-loss. In conversation with Les Zellan, Chairman of Cooke Optics Ltd., the difficulty manufacturing a lens of such caliber multiplies by a factor of 8x for each stop reduction in maximum aperture.

All facts considered, it becomes increasingly difficult to understand why anyone who could achieve a desired shooting stop of at least T/2.8, would justify spending more money for a set of equal quality super-fast lenses. This especially rings true when budgeting lenses for the 2nd unit or multiple camera production. If a stop under T/2.8 is not needed, renting multiple sets of more expensive lenses adds up quickly. Thus, the question remains; “
does one need a T-stop wider than T/2.8?” The answer is increasingly ‘no’.

The newest wave of digital cinema camera is now one or even two stops
more sensitive than their previous generations or models. Of course, most cinematographers are well versed in shooting digital cinema cameras around 320-400iso/asa, at reasonable T-stops; as that has been the ballpark sensitivity for almost all professional digital cinema cameras in the past few years. However, there are productions that shoot in extremely low light and otherwise need to shoot wide open at T/1.4 for exposure. Previously marooned at T/1.4 wide open, these same filmmakers, with the same light levels, may now achieve similar exposure but with a T/2 or T/2.8 lens using one of the many higher sensitive cinema cameras.

Perhaps the only other reason to desire a super-fast lens is a direct result of another historical precedence regarding optics. It is the classic tale of the knowledgeable cinematographer wishing to stop the lens down a couple of stops in order to ‘center the lens’, a term for finding the sweet spot on a lens; where the image is at optimal performance in relation to sharpness. Historically, this isn’t a false practice. Many super-fast lenses from yesteryear, sacrificed a degree of sharpness when wide open. If using an older T/1.3 lens, stopping down to a T/2.8 or T/4 would typically exhibit optimal sharpness in the image. This practice still holds true regarding older primes and zoom lenses. However, the new Panchros are designed and built to work at optimal sharpness from wide-open and down the aperture. They do not need to be stopped down in order to find the ‘sweet spot’.


What does the future hold?


Since cinematographers typically desire a decent stop around T/2.8 –T/4, the new camera chips are making that goal more and more accessible. These cameras allow those who previously worked at such stops more room for experimentation, while those who were forced to shoot at open stops just to expose, an opportunity to shoot at their desired stop. With camera sensitivity currently in an arms race with no end in sight, the need of super fast prime lenses, which cost more to produce and rent, will dwindle to that of specialty lenses for most productions.

The future of super-fast lenses appears to be slowing.

-Ryan Patrick O’Hara, cinematographer


(All numbers assigned as ISO/ASA are either found by the author from experience, as a realistic base sensitivity or are number taken from a manufacturer recommendation. Test cameras and find what works.)​
 
Last edited:
Everything but the last paragraph is spot on.

The reason why DSLRs are so light sensitive is because we do not end up seeing the grain... The reason why do not end up seeing the grain is because of the internal circuitry that's trying to make it easier on the compressor and smooths out the image.
 
Everything but the last paragraph is spot on.

The reason why DSLRs are so light sensitive is because we do not end up seeing the grain... The reason why do not end up seeing the grain is because of the internal circuitry that's trying to make it easier on the compressor and smooths out the image.

Yes, I totally agree, although I always figured the noise was dampened by the video output compression... which is pretty bad. Is that what you meant by the internal circuitry?

I'm going to edit the article and save it. You are right that I have to clarify that the DSLR's have the 'apparent' ability.
 
Yes, I totally agree, although I always figured the noise was dampened by the video output compression... which is pretty bad. Is that what you meant by the internal circuitry?

I'm going to edit the article and save it. You are right that I have to clarify that the DSLR's have the 'apparent' ability.

Too much compression and too much marketing. The basic sensitivity of a modern DSLR is below ISO100. On modern cameras with high resolution analog to digital conversion, you can claim anything really. They are just adding higher sensitivity even though it looks bad. The previous generation of SLRs only had ISO they could support with reasonable quality, ISO1600 maximum and a ISO3200 mode with extra digital gain that required a special setting. Now it ISO100000 or whatever.

Check out these raw/flat developments:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_5d_mark2_vs_1ds_mark3.htm

But on a typical review (dpreview etc) the ISO test images are carefully selected to hide the heavy denoising, grey and dark patches with no detail etc.



About the new lenses, they work because they are far cheaper to make:)

They make the shallow DOF capability identical to a camera with a sensor 2x smaller.

They also make the low light equivalent to a sensor 4 times smaller in area (2x in size). They waste 3/4 of the light and force you to use 4x higher ISO. This was generally required by large sensors to get practical DOF even with the larger aperture lenses.

I like small aperture super35 lenses of course for the following reason:

My camera project uses a 10.56mm wide sensor with f1.4 lenses.
A super35 camera uses about a 23mm wide sensor with f2.8 lenses? Great!

The crop factor of my Kodak vs the super35 is only 2.18. This means my 2/3" f1.4 is equivalent to super35 f3.0 in shallow DOF capability so I practically match the DOF of the larger cameras when they are using f2.8 lenses. I also get to use 4 times lower ISO because I gather 4x more light with that f1.4. So I can afford to use ISO500 instead of ISO2000. And larger cameras usually have more pixels, not larger pixels (4k vs 1080p), their ISO will not be 4x better than the ISO of a 2/3" sensor because the pixel size is similar.

EDIT: Btw, the comparison (two stops) is refering to the fastest super35 primes available (many f1.2 and f1.4 exist), not the f1.9 (I think)/T2.0 model.
 
Last edited:
Too much compression and too much marketing. The basic sensitivity of a modern DSLR is below ISO100. On modern cameras with high resolution analog to digital conversion, you can claim anything really. They are just adding higher sensitivity even though it looks bad. The previous generation of SLRs only had ISO they could support with reasonable quality, ISO1600 maximum and a ISO3200 mode with extra digital gain that required a special setting. Now it ISO100000 or whatever.


Yeah, I'm just going to remove the comment about DSLR's. I never considered them an actual camera to compare the others to, (notice how I didn't put it on the list)... my point was to point to the very high DSLR iso/asa chips, despite performance in video mode, as a sign of the direction the future is taking. By no means was I trying to imply they are comparative to the others at 1200iso/asa.

About the new lenses, they work because they are far cheaper to make:)

They make the shallow DOF capability identical to a camera with a sensor 2x smaller.

They also make the low light equivalent to a sensor 4 times smaller in area (2x in size). They waste 3/4 of the light and force you to use 4x higher ISO. This was generally required by large sensors to get practical DOF even with the larger aperture lenses.

I like small aperture super35 lenses of course for the following reason:

My camera project uses a 10.56mm wide sensor with f1.4 lenses.
A super35 camera uses about a 23mm wide sensor with f2.8 lenses? Great!

The Panchro's cover a 30mm diameter surface... not bad. I sort of know where you are going with the "They make shallow DoF capability identical to a camera with a sensor 2x smaller." But that is simply relative. Any Panchro lens is going to have the same DoF despite what camera it is on, so long as the aperature remains the same, and the subject to camera distance remains the same. However, I don't know your custom camera, so if you have a smaller sensor AND you adjust the PL mount flange distance, I imagine you can project the 30mm sensor light gathering onto a smaller surface... hence more light onto the smaller sensor surface area. If this is what you are talking about, then yes you are gaining further light gathering power on that sensor.

However you lose the focus marks on the barrel. They would no longer be accurate, right?

I'd love for you to go into a bit more detail, as I am quite interested about what you are talking about. I think I follow, but i'd hate to be misinformed.
 
Last edited:
I have no intentions of using the Cooke, they DOF will be very deep on a 2/3" sensor. But using 2/3" with f1.4 will amtch super35 with f2.8 which is interesting.

I also find the trend to deeper DOF interesting. Shallow DOF has been abused to the maximum the last few years.

T2.8 is not f2.8 of course, but Cooke are good, it could even approach f2.8.

The lens will produce the same image on any camera, but the DOF will be different because the smaller sensors magnify the image more to produce the final output. The angle of view changes, the magnification crops the image. A lens produces different DOF on different cameras.

Now lets see this:

24mm f2.8 super35
12mm f1.4 2/3"
6mm f0.7 1/3"
3mm f0.35 1/6"

All have same DOF, same geometry and same angle of view. Identical image on the same tripod focusing at the same distance, on the same scene.

The absolute aperture in all the lenses I mention above is the same. 24mm/2.8 = 12mm/1.4 etc. All have the same absolute aperture size of 8.57mm diameter. And the maximum aperture is usually an actual circle, it's higher aperture ratios that start having differences due to blade design.

The reason why a lower ISO is required on smaller sensors is because the same scene is projected thought the same absolute aperture (smaller relative aperture=f-stop) . But on the smaller sensor, the light hits a smaller area. Focal length is what counts, the flange distance is not important in this.

So, even though the images will match, the ISO will need to be 4x for each increase in sensor size:

24mm f2.8 super35 ISO400
12mm f1.4 2/3" ISO100
6mm f0.7 1/3" ISO25
3mm f0.35 1/6" ISO6

One problem is that you will not find these insanely large aperture ration on cameras with small sensors due to cost/size restriction.

ISO has nothing to do with the sensor or its quality of course. It's just photography outside the sensor. Up to the point on which it hits the sensor actually. It could have clean or a noisy image. Anything can achieve any ISO with analog and/or digital gain.

Using the same f stop will preserve the ISO of course:
24mm f2.8 super35 ISO400
12mm f2.8 2/3" ISO400
6mm f2.8 1/3" ISO400
3mm f2.8 1/6" ISO400

But it will change the image DOF.

The image quality depends on sensor quality, noise, efficiency in gathering light etc. So it could be better in one camera vs the other.

If all these sensors were 1920x1080, all these would produce identical image quality:

24mm f2.8 super35 ISO400
12mm f1.4 2/3" ISO100
6mm f0.7 1/3" ISO25
3mm f0.35 1/6" ISO6

4x larger pixel in area on each step, if base noise was the same, the s/n would be 4x greater. So they could afford to have 4x the ISO of the smaller size without a loss in image quality, at exactly the same signal per noise ratio.

But larger cameras generally have more pixels, so it doesn't work that way. We all know a Red One 4K has similar base sensitivity with a 1080p 2/3" and a 960x540 1/3" HVX. The pixel size (and area) is about the same, it gets the same number of photos when using the same relative aperture (f stop). Newer designs are always better, but one can't argue with physics.

Back to the new lenses:

The focus marks do not change. If I wanted to use a Cooke, I would get a PL to C-mount adapter, it would be moved to the right distance by the adapter, it would focus fine and all marks would be precise.

Everything above on DOF assumes you are interested in 1080p sharpness regardless of the image resolution. And that you are interested in getting the same bokeh look, the same blur on the background.

But DOF is not that simple. The COC should vary depending on the pixel size. This will change the bokeh look, but it will change the near and far distanc of perceived sharpness, which is what COC is about.

An example:

A 2/3" sensor of 192x108 pixels will achieve very deep DOF. It will easily achieve good focus on the subject. But the DOF will still have the same look, the perception of bokeh will be identical to that of a 2/3" 1920x1080 sensor. Everything will be identical, lens, imaging and DOF look, same diameter of out of focus highlight (just more blocky!) but the DOF will be different.

I can easily produce DOF graphs for 1080p and any sensor/resolution/lens combination if you are interested. I can even graph the bokeh level, in radius of blur in pixels. The definition of sharpness should be 0.5pixel blur on any resolution, so COC is calculated from that. The bokeh level can be 5pixels of blur or anything else, and you can read that from a DOF graph also, a min and max distance for your focal length/aperture/focus distance combination that will get a blur of 5 pixels.
 
Last edited:
Yes, yes, I totally get it. I thought you meant using the s35 cooke lenses on your 2/3" camera.... but you didn't.

Thanks for the notes. I really enjoyed reading them, and it brought back some old conversions I've not had to think about for a couple of years now. Cheers.



I'm way off topic, but it's very rare that i engage in such interestingly indepth conversations on DVXuser. :)
 
Last edited:
Hi Ryan,
That is a nice essay on trends of new lens designs as intersects with more sensative sensors. I was wondering if you have had a chance to use the Cooke Panchros, or if you assessment of where they fit is based on Cooke's data? I ask only because I am very close to purchasing a set and am interested in any/all first hand impressions.
 
I am a big fan of the Cooke S4's, and although I've never shot anything with the new Panchros, I've seen them at tradeshows, such as Cinegear.

From reading the brochure/literature, talking to the owner of Cooke, and through a ringing endorsement from an ASC member I know, I've been assured that the quality of the Panchros is on par with the S4 series, except one stop slower. My past experience with S4's has made me fall in love with their look, so... with that said, I'm sold on the Panchros.

I'm ordering a set soon. I truly believe in what I wrote above. As a cinematographer, why not have a lens set comparable to Cooke S4, but at less cost, size, weight. Digital sensors will catch up, and if I ever need super shallow DoF... I'll rent lenses for that rare occasion when T/2.8 shallow DoF isn't enough.

Sure, one can argue that fast sensors + super fast lenses, allow for even more low light shooting, negating my belief that T/2.8 is the new T/1.4... but the projects I work on, allow me to have somewhat proper lighting. I don't plan on being a cinematographer who wanders around at night shooting films in night exterior available light. If I have to shoot something like that, I'll rent super fast lenses. But remember, the original first series of Panchros from about 70+ years ago were made to be 'fast' (relative to back then).... but film stocks were no more than 50-100 asa/iso! So who are we to snub a T/2.8 when we now have top of the line camera sensors hitting 800 or 1000 iso/asa?! If the camera stock was 50 iso/asa compare that to our 800 iso sensors... 4 stops of difference. Meaning, if you don't take DoF into equation, but simply exposure... to shoot a T/2.8 lens at 800 iso back then with 50asa/iso film stock, you would need a T/0.7 lens! Hahaha, so they had it harder.

It's a great investment too. Look as S4's. They are still holding thier value, and the S4's were first introduced in 1998... 12 years ago! Where will camera sensitivity be in another decade?

The owner of Cooke also said that there are more lenses in the Panchro series to be released in the future. I'm excited to see that, as it means Cooke is invested in this line for the long haul. It's also great because I'd LOVE a lens around the 135mm area. Otherwise, I don't really care much for lenses between the set they already have.

A 40mm is sexy, but if you already own a 32mm and 50mm, it seems kinda crazy for anyone budget concious to buy a 40mm. Look at the cooke S4 line... it's filled with many lenses really close to each other, in the sense that I just don't understand. Take the following as an example: who needs ALL the lenses in this range? 18mm, 21mm, 25mm, 27mm, 32mm, and 35mm.

Kinda silly, I think. I plan on the panchro 18, 25, 32, 50, 85, 100, and eventually something in the 135mm range.
 
Last edited:
The lens coverage is very good and I imagine they will also work well in any future camera, as long as the pixels are >5um. Even 2/3" 1080p will work well, and these lenses also cover 4/3 if that ever becomes a standard. They are a safe investment, lenses are not depreciated fast and technology does not have to offer something extra at the lines/mm requirements of film and single sensor digital. They are not cheap, but with a little care they should operate fine in 2030.

Every time I have discussed DOF with a cinematographer, I always hear about an f3.5/f4 practical minimum for super35, so the f2.8 aperture is not limiting for large sensors and film. Only the DOF craze we have seen the last years might make us think otherwise, but that's a fad IMHO.

The heavy lighting and/or high ISO requirements in super35 are an effect of the DOF requirement, a faster aperture does not solve anything if you still need 30cm of DOF for the shot. A faster aperture is only important in smaller sensors because those can afford to open the aperture more and they can also use large apertures to match the typical practical super35 DOF.

The focal lengths of the set look great, very practical, well proportioned coverage of the range.

With no hands on experience, I would guess that the performance is identical to the larger aperture lenses at the same aperture. The design can be much simpler for f2.8 and they are a new design. They might even be better at some apertures. I see that happen in SLR lenses all the time.
 
you are exactly right on everything. In fact the owner of cooke told me that for every stop the lens is faster, it is 8x more difficult to produce. So yeah, the quality of s4's and panchros are on par, but the panchros are much easier to make. Hence why they are under 8k a lens while the 5/i lenses are 23k+ a lens.
 
Thank you for the great article Ryan and input from the other users. We hope to take delivery of our Alexa's by end of august but decided to make a lens selection after testing out a few different models.

I will add the Panchros to that list and see if I can post a follow up to this thread for a review.
 
That would be great!

May I ask what else you are looking at? Angeniuex zooms would be my next choice, should I be buying more... and if money was no object the new HAWK anamorphics that are 1.3/1.4x stretch (not stop).... made for non 4x3 chips. Those are soooo sexy. I played around with a couple at Cinegear, as well. I believed when I asked how much a typical lens in the set was... it was upwards of 40k a lens. If I remember correctly that is.
 
Last edited:
I am sold on the Panchros.
Putting my order in, 15 days from today. :)


Its the logical investment. Cooke build quality for long service life, Cooke optics, perfect ergonomics. The DP's i've spoken to, have no issue with the aperture, so the rental potential is high. Also, should i ever want to sell them, the resale value on Cooke lenses is very good.
 
Back
Top