iPanchros or Arri Ultraprimes?

A

arturrito

Well-known member
I got an MTF adapter to match my Zeiss ZFs with F3, but, after 2 weeks tests, I prefer get the PL lenses way, so, I did read a lot about Cooke look, and Ultraprimes, but I need any drop of advice about real Arri and iPanchros users, I will begin with a wide angle, a 50 and a tele.
Most of the time I will work in indie fiction features and long feature documentaries.
thanks a lot in advance!
 
I use both.

What do you want to know?

In general, Ultra Primes are more in line with the S4's. Ultras are all T2.0, and run about 12-15,000 each. The iPanchros, are par interms of build and optics as the S4's and Ultraprime class of lenses, but are T2.8.

They also are significantly cheaper. Ranging about $8,000-$9,500 each.
 
arturrito said:
I got an MTF adapter to match my Zeiss ZFs with F3, but, after 2 weeks tests, I prefer get the PL lenses way, so, I did read a lot about Cooke look, and Ultraprimes, but I need any drop of advice about real Arri and iPanchros users, I will begin with a wide angle, a 50 and a tele.
Most of the time I will work in indie fiction features and long feature documentaries.
thanks a lot in advance!
Click to expand...

You really won't go wrong with either. Both lens sets are simply amazing.

The biggest difference is this:

Look, cost, and speed.

Zeiss Ultra's and Cooke lenses have different looks. Ultra's are more expensive, but a stop faster.

I liked the aesthetic look of Cooke S4's more than Ultraprimes, and I didn't need a T/2.0 stop, so I went with Panchro/i's. Never regretted a day... but then again, if I owned UltraPrimes, I doubt I'd regret much either. My choice was based on subtle differences in aesthetics. I think you'll be in wonderful hands with either lens set. You best rent each set and test which has the subtle look you prefer more.

Unless you are on a very planned and deliberate documentary, I'd say go Angeniuex zooms. Prime lenses on 'run and gun' documentaries is not fun. You'll miss all the good stuff. If your documentary is sit down interviews, and not spontaneous field action, you can get away with primes.
 
As much as i love, Cooke, the only other set of lenses i'd buy are Ultras, best bang for the buck.

set of 5 Ultras run about 75-80 grand depending on the lenses. 5 S4's is around 100k. Thats said... if im spending 80 grand...... mind as well spend 100k and get IMHO are better lenses. ( but that statement is taste, not fact, there is no "better" in that class)
 
Im trying to hear about aesthetics user preferences, obviously I know each kind of work has it own aesthetic needs. I just need to know from true users, the feelings. Before spent money I will get rent way to test them. At present iPanchros seems my option.
 
Another option

Another option

Don't forget illuminas they are t1.3 smaller than UPs and cost less than Panchros.
disclaimer- I'm not associated with Lomo but they are winners in my book at least on paper:engel017:
you only need 25% or less light to use them(compared to the cookes)- very important on low budget jobs.
2.8 is for zooms IMO:love4:
Putting my flame proof suit on NOW!!!
 
hahaha Optitek. I know you are a speed demon first and foremost. You are all about how fast a lens is.

I can't wait to test Illuminas. They seem to have their pro's and con's. I would definately like to test a set. With that said, I don't need the extra stops, so they better blow me away with the look and they better color match, because i'm a huge stickler for color matched lenses. In fact, I tried to get Cooke to let me visit the factory in England to personally pick my 135mm prime from a batch, but they had to talk me down and assure me their lenses are all color matched beyond others. They said I was still welcome to go, but I needed not be concerned about matching. I'm that serious about it.

Didn't someone do an Illuminas vs Panchro/i test at RedUser.net? If I remember correctly, they said the Panchro/i's were better optically on all fronts except breathing. I believe this was it. That was their opinion, but thus far, they are one of only two Illumina reviews I have ever seen, and the only one that did a comparison with Cooke Panchro/i's.

So if the Cooke Panchro/i's did better (in the tester's opinion) wide open versus the Illuminas stopped down two stops, at the Illumina price point, I'd assume they aren't likely performing at that level when wide open. I'm not saying they are bad lenses, but I'm very cautious about cheap-ish and fast lenses. As a DP and 1st AC, I've seen the horrid softness from SuperSpeeds wide open. I can only imagine affordable t/1.3 lenses as being potential softies wide open. Ya Know? SuperSpeeds just fall apart at T/1.3.


With that said... I'm still waiting for one set to reach LA so I can at least play a little. I'm very interested to see what the Russians are up to.
 
Last edited:
Yes it is about speed. Speed and size are the only two things that set primes apart from zooms today. Have you seen zooms lately? angies, Zeiss LWZ, even Nikons.
There is nothing better about the primes performance wise. If 2.8 is all you ever plan to do get a pair of angie short zooms and viola. The most crucial aspect of production- quick setup is easier, the ACs and DPs are going to love you because they don't have to deal with lens changes, sensor dust etc.
Price is the same. Less cargo to carry around.
BUT when director calls for ultra soft background, when there just isn't enough light or can't fire up those HMIs, when you need the extra 15 minutes of magic hour,
and you are stuck at 2.8 you are screwed my friend- plain and simple....
 
optitek said:
Don't forget illuminas they are t1.3 smaller than UPs and cost less than Panchros.
disclaimer- I'm not associated with Lomo but they are winners in my book at least on paper:engel017:
you only need 25% or less light to use them(compared to the cookes)- very important on low budget jobs.
2.8 is for zooms IMO:love4:

Putting my flame proof suit on NOW!!!
Click to expand...


Most folks don't purchase any of the lenses mentioned in this thread for low budget work.
 
I think we have different angle on low budgets. high budgets use Master Primes and Cooke S5s so I didn't even mention these....
 
David W. Jones said:
Most folks don't purchase any of the lenses mentioned in this thread for low budget work.
Click to expand...
:cheesy:

Point is... test, test, test.


Some people just want speed. Some want clinical sharpness. Some want a smoother, subtler look. Some want to zoom. Some just want cheap. Some want small and light. etc, etc.

Everyshoot is different and every cinematographer is different. Test everything you can.

I can speak for Cooke Panchro/i's and Zeiss UltraSpeeds. You'll be good with either lens set. Test the ones you are thinking about and decide for yourself.

As for Illuminas, if they interest you, test them as well. Good luck finding a set.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Patrick on this one- for sure. Also I'm finding that lens choice, beyond budgetary, is mainly artistic decision for the DP(most of the time).
Like a paint brush for the painter. Only the visionaries (Director and the DP) know what that is.... and hopefully will make their lens choice accordingly..
 
optitek said:
Yes it is about speed. Speed and size are the only two things that set primes apart from zooms today. Have you seen zooms lately? angies, Zeiss LWZ, even Nikons.
There is nothing better about the primes performance wise. If 2.8 is all you ever plan to do get a pair of angie short zooms and viola. The most crucial aspect of production- quick setup is easier, the ACs and DPs are going to love you because they don't have to deal with lens changes, sensor dust etc.
Price is the same. Less cargo to carry around.
BUT when director calls for ultra soft background, when there just isn't enough light or can't fire up those HMIs, when you need the extra 15 minutes of magic hour,
and you are stuck at 2.8 you are screwed my friend- plain and simple....
Click to expand...

Primes are sharper, smaller, and lighter. I have yet for a diretor to call for a "softer background" in 8 years shooting. ;)

You speak truth about the lat 15 minutes of magic hour, but i REFUSE to compromise the optics being used in the other 11 hours and 45 min of the day for softer, but "faster" lenses.
 
TimurCivan said:
Primes are sharper, smaller, and lighter. I have yet for a diretor to call for a "softer background" in 8 years shooting. ;)

You speak truth about the lat 15 minutes of magic hour, but i REFUSE to compromise the optics being used in the other 11 hours and 45 min of the day for softer, but "faster" lenses.
Click to expand...

+1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top