Cooke Zoom VS Lomo
Posted 16 May 2011 - 09:35 PM
A- Cooke zoom 20-100
B- Lomo primes anamorphic square fronts 25,50 & 75
C- Lomo primes anamorphic round fronts 25,50 & 75
Does the 1:85/zoom resolution disadvantage of the Cooke end up being comparable to the 2:35/prime advantage of the inferior Lomo?
We prefer a big negative (scope) but not if other aspects of resolution quality make it a shaky one.
If anyone has insight or an opinion on this, it would be more than welcomed. Thanks.
Posted 17 May 2011 - 02:52 AM
I really wouldn't recommend mixing anamorphic lenses with a cropped spherical zoom. It shouldn't be hard to find or rent an anamorphic adapter for the zoom.
It's worth testing them yourself, but the round front Lomos are newer and I find generally better than the square fronts - less breathing and distortion, better mechanically, easier to pull focus. I wasn't aware of a 25mm round front - 35mm is the widest I've come across. We have a square front 30mm and 22mm for very wide angle.
Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:10 AM
Seems like it depends on what the script calls for.. in terms of resolution, a good set of Lomos will be pretty similar to a good Cooke 20-100. You'd need to shoot tests to properly compare them. They're old lenses, enormous variation is possible. But do you want the widescreen framing and 'epic' feel of anamorphics or the flexibility of more than 3 focal lengths?
Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:50 AM
my biggest issue with Lomos, and I have a set of the old primes which I love, is the markings in Meters. Not too helpful being here in the states where everything is in ft. That said, listen to Dom, he's spot on about the need to test both of them and see how they work. Personally I'd go anamorphic, if the script called for it, but that's just because I really enjoy the way anamorphic translates on a big screen (not the flares, so much, but the bokeh).
Posted 17 May 2011 - 12:29 PM
Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:08 PM
I actually prefer imperial markings - I seem to be able to visualise 8 feet more easily than 2.4 metres.
It does create some mixed-up language though: "400 feet of 35mm", "set the 50mm to 6 feet" etc
Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:13 PM