Panavision AWZ2 (Anamorphic Wide Zoom 2) vs Cooke 35-140mm Anamorphic/i T3.1
Panavision AWZ2 (Anamorphic Wide Zoom 2) vs Cooke 35-140mm Anamorphic/i T3.1
When comparing Cooke 35-140mm Anamorphic/i T3.1 and Panavision AWZ2 (Anamorphic Wide Zoom 2), which one is better?
1. Lens Weight Comparison
Regarding the weight of the lenses, Panavision AWZ2 (Anamorphic Wide Zoom 2) is the winner with a weight of 4700 g compared to the 10300 g that Cooke 35-140mm Anamorphic/i T3.1 weighs.
Winner: Panavision AWZ2 (Anamorphic Wide Zoom 2)
Regarding weight: The weight of a lens is something you need to consider, since you have to carry it around on the camera as long as you're shooting. It adds to the total weight of your camera and it's important to keep the weight low if you get tired in your arms when taking photographs or filming.
2. Largest Aperture Comparison
The Panavision AWZ2 (Anamorphic Wide Zoom 2) has the largest aperture of the two lenses at 2.8 compared to the 3.1 aperture of Cooke 35-140mm Anamorphic/i T3.1. This means that you get more light to your sensor using Panavision AWZ2 (Anamorphic Wide Zoom 2) wide open, and therefore it might be a better lens in dark situations.
Winner: Panavision AWZ2 (Anamorphic Wide Zoom 2)
Regarding largest aperture: A lower aperture number means that the widest aperture on the lens is larger. This means that more light will hit the sensor and also that the depth of field will be shallower, better separating your subject from the background.
3. Anamorphic Comparison
Both Cooke 35-140mm Anamorphic/i T3.1 and Panavision AWZ2 (Anamorphic Wide Zoom 2) are anamorphic lenses.
Winner: Tied — both have this feature
Regarding anamorphic: Anamorphic lenses are usually used on cinema cameras and squeezes the image when its recorded, which gives the final, stretched out, image oval bokeh and a different angle of view. The most common lenses, however, are not anamorphic but spherical, which gives a spherical bokeh and is a much cheaper lens design.
4. Focus Distance Comparison
Cooke 35-140mm Anamorphic/i T3.1 features a minimum focus distance of 72 cm while Panavision AWZ2 (Anamorphic Wide Zoom 2) has a minimum focus distance of 99.1 cm. Depending on your shooting style, the Cooke 35-140mm Anamorphic/i T3.1 might be a better choice.
Winner: Cooke 35-140mm Anamorphic/i T3.1
Regarding minimum focus distance: The minimum focus distance of a lens is the smallest distance from the lens to the subject you want to be in focus; subjects closer than the lens' minimum focus distance will not be in focus. Whether or not this is important to you is up for you to decide, but some want to take close photos and videos and in those cases it's important to have a lens with a low minimum focus distance.
5. Lens Type Comparison
Both lenses are Zoom lenses, which means that you can choose both Panavision AWZ2 (Anamorphic Wide Zoom 2) or Cooke 35-140mm Anamorphic/i T3.1 if you're looking for that type of lens.
Winner: Tied
Regarding type: There are two types of lenses; zoom lenses and prime lenses. Prime lenses have a fixed focal length and cannot be zoomed, while zoom lenses have a focal length range and can be zoomed in to get closer to the subject. Prime lenses are usually lighter, cheaper and let in more light. Zoom lenses are more versatile but are more expensive since they require a more advanced lens design.
Specifications
Full specifications table of Panavision AWZ2 (Anamorphic Wide Zoom 2) and Cooke 35-140mm Anamorphic/i T3.1:
| Panavision AWZ2 (Anamorphic Wide Zoom 2) | Cooke 35-140mm Anamorphic/i T3.1 | |
 |  | |
| Brand | Panavision | Cooke |
| Weight | 4700 g | 10300 g |
| Lens Mount | Missing | |
| Focal Length | 40 - 80 mm | 35 - 140 mm |
| Largest Aperture | 2.8 | 3.1 |
| Anamorphic | Yes | Yes |
| Anamorphic Squeeze Factor | 2 | 2 |
| Minimum Focus Distance | 99.1 cm | 72 cm |
| Type | Zoom | Zoom |
| Aperture Range | Missing | 3.1 - 22 |