cooke series II anastigmat?

[goamules]

I don't know if these Cookes can be called it, but I like moderately wide lenses for landscapes. I know Dagors are, at about 70 degrees view if I recall. And I know Petzvals are not, at about 40 degrees!

[IanG]

I posted a thread either here or on APUG about my 105mm f3.8 Xpres which illuminates 5"x4" as does my 105mm f4.5 Tominon at all apertures, I've yet to test them. I've no current plans to use them on formats they weren't designed for but would like to know what the short fall are in terms of fall off in sharpness.

It's time I also tested my 2 modern Triplets, 150mm & 210mm Geronars, they have far less glass than equivalent Cooke Triplets, which I also own.

Ian

[goamules]

I got another Aviar last weekend, at 10" that is coated for some reason. No, there is no Burke and James rework markings on it. But the barrel looks 1930s or 40s to me. It's funny how an F4.5 Portrait Series with the soft focus adjustment in this size will go for $1500, but the same lens without the variable elements will sell for $31. Looking forward to using it.

[Dan Fromm]

Garrett, what's your new Aviar's serial number? The VM says that TTH started coating sometime in 1942-3, puts s/n 303,000 in '43 or '44. I've had a 5"/4.5 Aviar s/n 292229 that was coated. It came from England, bore no B&J markings.

[goamules]

Its 415830. I guess I was going by the old look of the black lacquer. But it must be later than 1944 then.

This catalog is from the 1930s.

[Jim Galli]

I think we're starting to mix up apples and oranges here, even though Cooke did not help calling both a Series II. The Aviar is a dialyt. Not a triplet. So perhaps Cooke's Series no. had more to do with max aperture than lens type? Now a coated Cooke Aviar is a thing to behold. It may just crowd the sharpest lenses on earth, and they have spectacular bokeh wide open.

coca~cola, Cooke Aviar Anastigmat 14" @ f5.6

[Dan Fromm]

Um, Jimbo, trade names have little to do with much, possibly nothing to do with anything. If you think that TTH's revision was confusing, take a look at Berthiot's of around 1912.

TTH's series numbers (not Cooke's, Cooke is a TTH brand) have nothing to do with anything, same as every other maker's series numbers.

Its a shame that you're a reasonable person and expect reasonableness from others. If you were unreasonable you'd find what lens manufacturers have done much easier to understand and bear.

[Jim Galli]

Um, Jimbo, trade names have little to do with much, possibly nothing to do with anything. If you think that TTH's revision was confusing, take a look at Berthiot's of around 1912.

TTH's series numbers (not Cooke's, Cooke is a TTH brand) have nothing to do with anything, same as every other maker's series numbers.

Its a shame that you're a reasonable person and expect reasonableness from others. If you were unreasonable you'd find what lens manufacturers have done much easier to understand and bear.

Yes, thinking about my previous observation that a 4.5 would always be a series II no matter the makeup breaks down quickly when both Series IV and Series VI are f5.6. So of course you're exactly right that there is no rhyme or reason involved.

Never-the-less, Cooke lenses are an addiction. They are so lovely to just hold in your hand. Thanks again for the wee 5" and change triplet that you once gave to me.

[goamules]

... The Aviar is a dialyt. Not a triplet....

I'm looking for a Dialyt diagram to compare to a triplet. Not familiar with them, do you have a diagram?

[Jim Galli]

Triplet diagram is here;

http://www.dioptrique.info/OBJECTIFS5/00200/00200.HTM

Dialyt is here;

http://www.dioptrique.info/OBJECTIFS7/00328/00328.HTM

An obvious copy of Taylor's idea with an extra center. Better corrected but suffered from more air glass interfaces, until coating made it king.