Any test/use results from Cooke XVa?

[Dan Smith]

Now that the Cooke Triple Convertible XVa has been out for a bit, do we have any test or user reports on how it performs? Is it worth getting rid of the Nikkor 300 and 450 to use one of these instead? Less to carry around & if it is as sharp, contrasty & nice in its results it may be worth looking at. If you are one of the 50 Winners who has one, let us know how it is doing. Especially if you actually did some testing against "known standards" in the 8x10 lens field.

[Oren Grad]

Scans on the web can't really do justice to the subtleties of a lens, but here's a taste:


http://www.cliveruss.com/cooke/cookexva/cooke%20xvaproto/cookexva.html

[Richard Årlin]

Really, there must be a few other comments on this long awaited lens...

[turtle]

I paid quite a bit of interest to this lens which if the claims were true offered so mcuh in such a small convertible package. After claims of zero focus shift whn stopping down on single cells....one hear murmors that there is some shift as Ansel explained that he had to counter when making moonrise by racking in o out 1/32 of a inch or so (cant quite remember which way). I have red reports of monster ULF coverage....performance of single cells as good as both cells...BUT

Nobody to my knowledge has produced an objective test comparing shots mande on this lens compared to conventional modern lenses. I for one would love to know how the negs look comared to a Fuji 450c or Nikkor 450f9 M and Fuji 600C. Everyone has gushed about how perfect the lens is BUT all the promises of imminnent comparison tests against regular lenses simply never materialised! Not one. Many buyers claimed to own lenses they sought to replace with the convertible so clearly had the kit to compare. I am not suggesting there is an obligation at all, only vertain promises were made on various forums. Most 'tests' I have read relate to very subjective evaluation of wet negs hanging up or staring at GG; neither of which mean didly squat!

Could it be that this lens, while a weight saver and emminently usable, does not compete favourably head to head against modern fixed FL lenses? Could this explain the amaxing lack of 'follow thru' ??? For a contact printer this matters less, but for those making big prionts from 5x7 or 10x8, borderline edges soon become blurry annoyances when enlarged X times!

Come on, anyone feel like sharing their thoughts? Anyone sold their and prepred to break ranks and admit it did not turn out as perfect as hoped for and had the compromises physics suggests that it should? Of will anyone say hand on heart that the negs are stunnining and to all intents and pursposes as good at 646mm as the 600 Fjui C for example?....even magnified?????

Just curious.

[Eric Leppanen]

There are a few Cooke comparative reviews floating around, see:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ight=cooke+xva

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum44/3...d-my-lens.html

[Jack Flesher]

Turtle keeps reviving really old posts -- kind of fun to read them

FWIW, I owned a modern XVa for a short while and it was in all respects a stunning lens. However, that said, it was not really any better on 8x10 than my Fuji 300C, 450C and 600C. It also showed a very slight touch of CA at he corners of 8x10 on a high-res scan. Slight enough I doubt it would ever show on even a huge print, but nonetheless, it was there -- at least on my copy. The Cooke's coatings are legendary and this lens was no exception -- you could shoot directly into any bright light-source and as long as the glass was clean, there would be no flare. Impressive really.

In the end I sold mine for three reasons: My trio of Fujis was essentially "as good"; they were more convenient in use since I didn't have to remove or remove and swap cells; and finally I was paranoid about a shutter failure or dropping a cell. Shutter failed on the triple and I don't have any lenses any more. With three separte lenses I have back-up. Drop a Cooke cell and break it, I was down to one lens and had a very expensive repair. In a relative sense, if I were to drop a Fuji and break it I could live with that

Cheers,

[Tony Lakin]

Now that the Cooke Triple Convertible XVa has been out for a bit, do we have any test or user reports on how it performs? Is it worth getting rid of the Nikkor 300 and 450 to use one of these instead? Less to carry around & if it is as sharp, contrasty & nice in its results it may be worth looking at. If you are one of the 50 Winners who has one, let us know how it is doing. Especially if you actually did some testing against "known standards" in the 8x10 lens field.

Hi
The lens is superb, dont know about 50 winners though, mine is number 55

[turtle]

Tahnks for the links above. one I read before and the other was new for me. Again, neither really do an objective test, with one looking at the GG only. The assertion that the Fujis were only sharper below F45 or so seems odd as one would expect the single cells to be worse wider open and only match normal lenses once diffraction brought them level at smaller apertures. The focus shift issue does nto get a mention I notice. Cannot see why the new lens would be less affected than the original.

I think the killer is the 700+mm extension required at 646mm. The Fuji 600 C required 575mm. My Zone VI can cope with this, but not 700+ really. I am one day hoping to get an Ebony RW810 and again, this only goes out to 600 without tilts.

I think the issue of fumbling with threads and individual cells when the ground is frosty and your hands cold is an issue but only for some of us. still, sounds wonderful lens and I am very glad Cooke made it. The compact 158mm WA would be the most interesting re-launch for me though.

All interesting!

[Eric Leppanen]

Regarding "objective" testing: Most folks evaluated the Cooke within the framework of their own immediate needs and workflow, and within this context I think many of the tests were quite objective. I tested the Cooke versus my corresponding fixed focal length lenses (300, 450, and 600mm), shooting comparative test shots at both infinity and close-up (around 3 meters or so if I recall) and comparing the resulting chromes using a 10x loupe. This methodology was as "objective" as I needed to be for my purposes. I noticed the single-cell results were not quite a sharp as my fixed focal length lenses, but whether this was the result of the lens optics, or a stability limitation in my field camera, I could not definitely say. I could have borrowed or rented a heavy-duty studio monorail camera mounted on multiple heavy-duty tripods to eliminate possible camera shake from the equation, but since I have absolutely no intention of ever using such a configuration, such a test would have been useless to me and a waste of time. My field camera was stabilized using two tripods and a long-lens support arm, which is as far as I'm willing to go in the field. The test was plenty objective for my needs.

Similarly, a contact printer may need only a sharp image in the ground glass to feel assured that an acceptably sharp contact print will be attained. Here again, this test methodology is objective enough for the intended application. It simply falls short of the more general-purpose testing that you apparently are looking for.

The best general-purpose LF lens testing on the web that I have seen is on Chris Perez' web site (http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/index1.html), but to date he has not tested the Cooke (at least not to my knowledge).

[Diane Maher]

I thought that there was a brief article in View Camera magazine shortly after the lens came out. However, it might not have compared this lens against the Fuji or Nikon lenses.