Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Cooke PS945's rings and dots!

  1. #1

    Cooke PS945's rings and dots!

    I have been intrigued by this lens for some time. Then I came across with some images of this lens, see "branch" attached image. While the rear bokeh looks awesome, the fore bokeh looks very weird, see "cropped" attached image. You can see clearly the rings and dots in the middle. I am actually dissapointed with this because eventually I would like to buy this lens but now I am having second thoughts. What are your thoughts on this issue?
    Note: I am not sure whether the attachments will work?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    469

    Re: Cooke PS945's rings and dots!

    It appears that the "fore bokeh" is of spider webs with dew on them. Might the bright spots be the water refracting the sunlight?

    I would try a different subject before deciding that the lens is "weird".

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    751

    Re: Cooke PS945's rings and dots!

    I agree with Chris on the particular sample. I own the lens and it is awesome! If you're concerned, send Clive Russ an email and I am sure he will be happy to email you a heap of samples.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Redondo Beach
    Posts
    547

    Re: Cooke PS945's rings and dots!

    It may be that no lens shooting that subject matter, from that angle, framed the way it was, would look good, I don't think the way the shot looks has anything to do with the lens, there's always going to be combinations of depth of field, a particular film, exposure, framing, foreground-background justaposition, and so forth, that will work for the Cooke, and like any other lens, there'll be combinations that won't work.

    Like Don says, the lens is awesome, but it won't turn a bear in a wedding gown into a beautiful bride.
    Jonathan Brewer

    www.imageandartifact.bz

  5. #5

    Re: Cooke PS945's rings and dots!

    I know that folks that own this lens love it, I would too. In fact I have been contemplating to buy this lens when it was just being released 4 years ago? Attached below is more photos showing the effects of using different aperture ~4-11. It's wonderful as you can see. However, this section is part of the same photograph that I have attached above "branch".

    It's fine to just treasure the great soft focus background that this lens produce. But as you can see this lens "sometimes" produce aweful foreground focus as highlighted by the better light digital scanning back images shows.

    These images were taken from the betterlight website. I hope that they didn't mind me taking and discussing their images.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Redondo Beach
    Posts
    547

    Re: Cooke PS945's rings and dots!

    'But as you can see this lens "sometimes" produce aweful foreground focus as highlighted by the better light digital scanning back images shows.'..................A lens can't produce an awful shot, that's done by the person who shoots the image, and shot with any lens, I would suggest this part of the shot, would look awful no matter what.

    There's subject matter that works as background coming straight up the lens axis going way out of focus, but this shot isn't one of the ones in my opinion that worked, so I think there are better examples for showing what this lens can do. That's the problem with test shots/examples of what the lens can do, the Cooke PS945 will be make a good shot better, it won't make a bad shot better.

    When I first heard about this lens, I was skeptical initially about what this lens could really do, and its steep pricetag, so I looked at the images of A. Langdon Coburn, F Holland Day, Steichen, masters who shot with the Pinkham & Smith and I suggest you might want to spend the time checking out some of their work done with the Pinkham, you'll still only get a glimpse of what kind of image this lens will produce looking at j-pegs, because a j-peg doesn't produce the same feeling of what an image looks like shot with this lens as a print does.

    Go to Per Volquartz's website, and look at his images he shot with the CookePS945, I think they're better examples of what the lens can do, than the shots above.
    Jonathan Brewer

    www.imageandartifact.bz

  7. #7

    Re: Cooke PS945's rings and dots!

    I have no doubt that this lens (or lens design) can produce excellent images. I have been looking at the images produced by this Cooke lens on the web right from the begining! I even have a brochure sent personally by Barbarra from Cooke optics. I've read and seen prints from the original lens produced by these "Masters".

    What I don't have is this cooke lens and the original, but that is probably the reason why I am not so blinded by the aura of this "wow I have this amazing lens on my hand".

    All I am saying is that this Cooke lens does objectively produce bad bokeh as proven by the images above that shows excellent rear out of focus and "aweful" fore focus and I really hope that this only happens sometimes! Maybe it happens so rarely that you haven't come across with it before. As you say on your previous comment that you are just on the "toe of the learning curve".

    My argument is really is this "If a pilot landed perfectly 99 commercial flights but crash and burn on his/her 100th flight. Is this Pilot any good?

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    751

    Re: Cooke PS945's rings and dots!

    I have managed to produce aweful images from just about every lens I own - if you are immune to that, very good luck to you. I'm just not sure what relevance the pilot analogy has to a lens discussion. I'm not sure what Barbara sent you, but I am unimpressed with the images contained on the accompanying CD which Cooke distribute with the lens, which is why I recommended that you contact Clive - he is a photographer and sells the lens so I am sure he could perhaps be a little more objective with what he could show you.

    I'd also recommend that if you don't think it is going to work for you (especially if you make such judgements based on a web based Jpeg) I would strongly recommend that you don't buy one - it's a lot of money. I tried a couple of other soft focus lenses before buying this - you should definitely do the same. My statement about it being awesome is obviously subjective - it works extremely well for me - way way better than anything else I tried. If it didn't I'd sell it in a heartbeat.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Redondo Beach
    Posts
    547

    Re: Cooke PS945's rings and dots!

    All I am saying is that this Cooke lens does objectively produce bad bokeh as proven by the images above that shows excellent rear out of focus and "aweful" fore focus and I really hope that this only happens sometimes! Maybe it happens so rarely that you haven't come across with it before. As you say on your previous comment that you are just on the "toe of the learning curve".

    My argument is really is this "If a pilot landed perfectly 99 commercial flights but crash and burn on his/her 100th flight. Is this Pilot any good?........................


    I like the results I get w/the cooke, I'm not 'blinded' by its 'aura', the issue is a discussion of the shots you uploaded, and I simply disagree w/your characterization as to what's good and bad about them as it relates to the Cooke. Unless I'm missing something, it looks to me like whoever shot the image had a different composition in mind, and there's a smaller area within that composition that doesn't work, I don't like the way that works either, when you've got foreground subject matter that's way out of focus and your composition is on something in the background, the results can look garish,...............do a portrait, you get most of the eyes and the majority of the face in focus, but the tip of the nose is way out of focus, most times, an area like this that's way out of focus, because this out of focus area is DIRECTLY IN FRONT of what you're trying to draw attention to, instead of behind it, it will tend to look garish.

    My point again is that some things turn out bad no matter what lens you use, I'm not seeking a fight w/you, but with all due respect, you're commenting on a smaller section of an image that was taken out of a larger composition that looks worse than it does in the original shot.

    Again, I don't think it's a good shot, period, let alone an example of what any particular lens can do, if it's me shooting a tree, the tree looks like some nice subject matter for whatever I'm shooting it with, and a see a branch sticking out toward the lens, like in this shot, I would've addressed it differently, and if there's just too big a difference for me to address in terms of what's in or out of focus, I'll consider it a lousy shot, and go shoot another tree.

    Yes, I've had this lens for 2 years and I'm still learning or more to the point, learning what NOT to do w/this lens, which is why I disagree with your statement about the Cooke producing 'bad bokeh' as it relates to the shot we're discussing, simply the person taking this shot, settled on a composition where part of it didn't look right, he/she didn't see it, or didn't think it was a big deal and chose not to deal with it, or didn't know how to deal w/it.

    My point, is if this or any other lens can produce nice 'bokeh' which the Cooke does, and you see a shot where the background has a nice 'bokeh', and something in the foregrond looks 'out of whack', it's not the lens, but his/her management of selective focus/depth of field.

    If you still feel differently, then so be it.
    Jonathan Brewer

    www.imageandartifact.bz

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Redondo Beach
    Posts
    547

    Re: Cooke PS945's rings and dots!

    I'd pass along this suggestion to a brother photographer, this lens is steep, $3k, I don't know if it's Clive Russ, or Cooke, but one or the other will rent you a Cooke PS945, if the rental is too steep, hold off until you've seen some more work from this lens.

    If you or anyone else is ever in the southern California area, you're welcome to take some shots w/mine, bottom line, is if you have the slightest doubt, don't get one.
    Jonathan Brewer

    www.imageandartifact.bz

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •