Panavision ATZ (Anamorphic Tele Zoom) vs Cooke 35-140mm Anamorphic/i T3.1
Panavision ATZ (Anamorphic Tele Zoom) vs Cooke 35-140mm Anamorphic/i T3.1
When comparing Cooke 35-140mm Anamorphic/i T3.1 and Panavision ATZ (Anamorphic Tele Zoom), which one is better?
1. Compare weight
The lens that weighs the least of the two is Panavision ATZ (Anamorphic Tele Zoom) which weighs 5800 g, compared to the loser Cooke 35-140mm Anamorphic/i T3.1 which weighs 10300 g.
Winner: Panavision ATZ (Anamorphic Tele Zoom)
Regarding weight: When it comes to the lens's weight, it's actually more important than many people think that the lens weighs as little as possible — it's simply a pain to lug around a lens that's too heavy when you're photographing or filming for several hours, and a few hundred grams can make a real difference.
2. Compare minimum focusing distance
When it comes to minimum focusing distance, that is how close to the subject the lens can focus, Cooke 35-140mm Anamorphic/i T3.1 is the winner with a minimum focusing distance of 72 cm. This can be compared with the minimum focusing distance of 175.3 cm for Panavision ATZ (Anamorphic Tele Zoom).
Winner: Cooke 35-140mm Anamorphic/i T3.1
Regarding minimum focusing distance: The lens's minimum focusing distance determines how close you can photograph your subject, such as a face or an animal. If the minimum focusing distance is 50 cm then you cannot get closer to your subject than 50 cm. Macro lenses often have a very low minimum focusing distance so that you can take close-up shots (macro photography).
Specifications
Full specifications table of Panavision ATZ (Anamorphic Tele Zoom) and Cooke 35-140mm Anamorphic/i T3.1:
| Panavision ATZ (Anamorphic Tele Zoom) | Cooke 35-140mm Anamorphic/i T3.1 | |
 |  | |
| Brand | Panavision | Cooke |
| Weight | 5800 g | 10300 g |
| Mount | Missing | |
| Focal Length | 70 - 200 mm | 35 - 140 mm |
| Largest Aperture | 3.5 | 3.1 |
| Anamorphic Lens | Yes | Yes |
| Minimum Focusing Distance | 175.3 cm | 72 cm |
| Type | Zoom | Zoom |