PDA

View Full Version : Cooke Series XVa Convertible - Opinions and Experiences?



Ari
4-Nov-2014, 20:35
Hello everybody,

I will visit a friend next month who is selling one of these; before I do so, I'd like to solicit any and all opinions on this lens with regards to its performance and image characteristics.
The lens will be used for portraits, and whatever else I can think of.

A few things to note:
I am not a soft-focus fan, if this lens has a hint of soft-focus-ability, it's a deal-breaker. I know the other Cooke is the SF version, but just wondering if the XVa is at all soft.
Sharpness is something I like and appreciate in a lens, and I can tone down the sharpness in a portrait, if needed.
My favourite lenses are all Kodaks, including the 10" WF Ektar, 12" and 14" CEs.
The measuring stick would be the 12" or 14" Commercial Ektar.

Buying the Cooke would necessitate selling off almost all my current lenses, which also include a Dagor and Heliar (both 12" as well).
The idea of having so much money tied up in one lens is both a little baffling and terrifying, but I'm curious nonetheless.
Thoughts and opinions?

Thank you in advance.

Eric Leppanen
4-Nov-2014, 22:41
This thread contains my assessment, albeit from the perspective of a field photographer:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?21088-Cooke-triple-convertible-vs-other-lenses

Ari
5-Nov-2014, 06:44
Thank you, Eric; I'll go through it.

Ari
10-Nov-2014, 16:52
I will have a demo Cooke XVa in my hands later this week, and I'll be comparing it with my Commercial Ektars.
From what I have read and heard, the Cooke will easily surpass the Ektars in IQ and edge-to-edge sharpness, but choosing one over the other would still be a matter of taste.
Anybody care to see results? I'll be posting them as soon as I can.

Christopher Barrett
10-Nov-2014, 17:06
I've been looking hard at that glass for a while now and wondering... The only detractor I've read about is an apparent focus shift between W.O. and stopped down. Please check that out and let us know... as well as any other opinions you may have. I owned a set of Cooke cinema lenses and their rendition and build quality were both superb!

Ari
10-Nov-2014, 18:08
Interesting, as I have read that a nice benefit of the new Cooke is the apparent lack of focus shift, especially when using the single cells.
See post #3: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?21088-Cooke-triple-convertible-vs-other-lenses
But yes, I will see if any of that is true, though I am by no means any kind of expert lens tester.
Just a guy who likes to shoot portraits.

Two practical considerations keep me coming back to this lens (neither of them is price :)):
1. A modern shutter - all but one of my lenses is in an Acme/Ilex/Compound, and none of them work perfectly. A reliable modern shutter, well-maintained, should last years.
2. It would be nice to replace all of my lenses, save the wide-angle lens, with the Cooke; carrying a two-lens kit would make travel much easier.

Mark Sampson
10-Nov-2014, 21:05
Ari, go for it. Perhaps it will inspire you to make more, and better, pictures. If you use it and don't like it, sell it and get something else. I predict that it ain't no magic bullet, but I also predict that it's a very good lens.

karl french
10-Nov-2014, 21:21
No focus shift that I've noticed. It's a sharp lens (all three configurations) that renders totality beautifully. I'm very pleased with mine. The only thing I'd like is a bit more image circle with the whole lens.

Ari
11-Nov-2014, 07:11
Thank you both, Mark and Karl.
I'll have time to try out the lens when it arrives later this week.
I'll do what I can to provide a useful test of some kind.

Ari
12-Nov-2014, 13:49
The Cooke is now here, I just picked it up from the PO.
It's too dark outside at the moment, so testing will begin tomorrow.
Meantime, here are some photos; it's a beautiful lens, substantial in size and weight, but not so heavy.
Fit and finish are first-rate, optics and coatings look nicer than anything I've seen in a long time.

Of course, the real question is: how does it perform?
Tune in soon.

Phil Hudson
13-Nov-2014, 01:47
Just curious......in the field how do you protect the lens groups that are not being used?

richardman
13-Nov-2014, 01:48
Back pocket? ;-P


Just curious......in the field how do you protect the lens groups that are not being used?

Tony Lakin
13-Nov-2014, 03:19
I keep my XVa in a lens wrap, the cell I am not using goes in that, if not using the front cell the front cap obviously stays on and vice versa for the rear cell, I am sure someone can supply rear caps for the cells, Cooke optics/Grimes?

Ari
13-Nov-2014, 06:24
Yes, I suppose caps can be had or made for the unused rear group; lens wrap is another option, I have a chamois cloth for that.

William Whitaker
13-Nov-2014, 06:34
Grimes can make a threaded cap for the unused cell (for a price). I have one for my XV. Good insurance.

karl french
13-Nov-2014, 06:54
I have one of the Grimes rear caps as well. It's nice to have since the lens is frequently apart.

Ari
14-Nov-2014, 16:14
Did my first shot yesterday with the borrowed XVa, my neighbour René happily volunteered.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7479/15604392999_25e9bea1b5_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/pLUAoB)René (https://flic.kr/p/pLUAoB) by Ari4000 (https://www.flickr.com/people/44110300@N06/), on Flickr

This was shot wide open, at f6.8 using the lens in its normal 311mm configuration. It is the shot where René moved the least.
An overcast and dreary day, with FP4 I shot at f6.8 at 1/4, partly because of a little bellows extension and slight reciprocity.

What struck me was not how sharp the lens is (it is very sharp, btw), but how smooooooooth it is.
I love how it balanced out all the highs and lows, leaving me a lot of mid-tones, but with plenty of room to adjust the blacks and whites.
And try as I might, that white area behind René's head would not could not get blocked up, no matter how much I pushed the "Whites" slider to 100%.
I really like the look, tomorrow I'll try out some forest-y stuff; trees don't sway as much as humans.

karl french
14-Nov-2014, 16:24
"Sharp, in a very pleasing way." is how I characterized it to someone the other day. It's a really nice lens. Some lenses are sharp, but in sort of a 'clinical' or brittle way.

Christopher Barrett
14-Nov-2014, 17:00
Man, that image just jumps off the screen. It's all about the sharpness and falloff. Ok, I think I need the Cooke. ;)

djdister
14-Nov-2014, 17:03
We know its not just the lens, but wow, that shot really looks great!

William Whitaker
14-Nov-2014, 17:21
Very nice, Ari!

Ari
14-Nov-2014, 17:33
"Sharp, in a very pleasing way." is how I characterized it to someone the other day. It's a really nice lens. Some lenses are sharp, but in sort of a 'clinical' or brittle way.

Yes, it's amazing what kind of smooth transition is built into the lens; unlike anything I've seen before.


Man, that image just jumps off the screen. It's all about the sharpness and falloff. Ok, I think I need the Cooke. ;)

I spoke to Mr Clive Russ today, who lent me the lens and who had a hand in its design; he told me the chief designer knew he could make a very sharp lens, what they concentrated on was the OOF part of the image.
He also added that the sweet spot of the lens is f9 or f11 (!).
And yes, I could use a Coke, too. I mean Cooke. :)


We know its not just the lens, but wow, that shot really looks great!


Very nice, Ari!

Thank you both.

There will be more to come, I'll try different subjects and whatever else I can think of before I have to tearfully return the lens to its owner.

Alan Gales
14-Nov-2014, 17:47
Nice portrait, Ari.

From what I have seen I really like the look of the Cooke lenses. Like Karl says, sharp but not clinically so. After you shoot it a bit please give us your opinion on how it compares to the Commercial Ektars.

Ari
14-Nov-2014, 17:55
Nice portrait, Ari.

From what I have seen I really like the look of the Cooke lenses. Like Karl says, sharp but not clinically so. After you shoot it a bit please give us your opinion on how it compares to the Commercial Ektars.


I love how it balanced out all the highs and lows, leaving me a lot of mid-tones, but with plenty of room to adjust the blacks and whites.
And try as I might, that white area behind René's head would not could not get blocked up, no matter how much I pushed the "Whites" slider to 100%.


Thank you, Alan.
The section I quoted above is relevant to the comparison you mention.
As a long-time Commercial Ektar user, I immediately thought that the white horizontal area behind the subject's head would get burned out and become a white blob that I'd have to burn in in Lightroom.
That's probably what would have happened with a CE.
With the Cooke, the highlights were tamed on the sheet of film; for a laugh, I tried maxxing out the "Whites" slider to see how quickly it would cause the white area to block up, but it never did.

I just sold my 12" and 14" CEs, but I will re-do a shot from last week that I did with a neighbour; that was with the 12" CE, so I'll re-do it with the Cooke.

Ari
14-Nov-2014, 17:57
PS- Is there any way I can rationalize the "I can't afford not buying this lens" position?

karl french
14-Nov-2014, 18:03
I went with the "I've wanted this lens for 10 years. They may stop making them tomorrow. Just do it." rationalization. :-)

Carl J
14-Nov-2014, 18:10
PS- Is there any way I can rationalize the "I can't afford not buying this lens" position?

Seems very appealing (lovely portrait) but I guess my question would be how much do you see yourself using the other focal lengths (476/645mm)?

Alan Gales
14-Nov-2014, 18:10
PS- Is there any way I can rationalize the "I can't afford not buying this lens" position?

Thanks, Ari. A new Copal shutter would be nicer than the old Ilex #5's too.

I think it has a lot to do with money. You are a pro so this lens will pay for itself. Me being an amateur with limited funds it would be hard for me to justify.

Ari
14-Nov-2014, 18:16
I went with the "I've wanted this lens for 10 years. They may stop making them tomorrow. Just do it." rationalization. :-)

Where's that "like" button? :)


Seems very appealing (lovely portrait) but I guess my question would be how much do you see yourself using the other focal lengths (476/645mm)?

Well, that's a good practical question. I suppose 476mm would be used second-most often, and I would probably rarely, if ever, get to use the 645mm FL.
My camera has a max extension of 28 inches, just 2,5 inches of surplus bellows extension when using the 645mm.


Thanks, Ari. A new Copal shutter would be nicer than the old Ilex #5's too.

I think it has a lot to do with money. You are a pro so this lens will pay for itself. Me being an amateur with limited funds it would be hard for me to justify.

I forgot to mention that; the new Copal was a real pleasure to use, after having gotten used to old Ilexes and their many quirks.
I was a pro for a long time, but I recently took time off to build up the FLM distributorship over the next few years.
Looks like I picked the wrong time to become a "gentleman photographer". :)

Christopher Barrett
14-Nov-2014, 18:16
The "Cooke Look" is a long standing Hollywood legend. I owned a set of their Cine lenses for a number of years. If you feel like checking out my cinematography reel, it was all shot on Cookes.


https://vimeo.com/60301733

CB

Ari
14-Nov-2014, 18:41
Beautifully shot, Christopher; the Cookes really do impart something unique. Wonderful colours.
And I can see why the 4x10 is your new best friend.

ScottPhotoCo
14-Nov-2014, 20:01
How would you compare the rendition to the Heliar?

Tim

Ari
14-Nov-2014, 20:11
Tim, while I still have the Heliar, I'll do a direct comparison and post the results here.

I am no expert, and I'm working mostly from memory wrt the Heliar, but it seems that the transition areas from "in-focus" to "out-of-focus" are more gradual on the Cooke, and far more subtle.
Not to say that the Heliar's take on this isn't pleasing, it is very nice, but I find it displays a more abrupt transition.

When I was spotting the photo of René, I was struck by how smooth and even the grain appeared in the Cooke photo at 100% magnification.
I'm not sure if that's a real indication of anything, but it was something that made me sit up and take notice.

More to come, I won't say more until I have the film in front of me.

George W.
16-Nov-2014, 13:30
Ari,


the images look nice!


if I remember correctly, in the 645mm configuration the bellows extension
will be *much* longer than normally expected for a single lens with that focal
length…

many cameras will have problems to focus with their available bellows extension

this is quite well documented, i do not have the link available right now


george

Ari
16-Nov-2014, 13:43
Thank you, George.

I know about the FFL being longer, it is one practical drawback of this lens.
My camera can extend to about 720mm, but I doubt that I would use the longest FL on the Cooke, probably stick to 311mm and 476mm.

Yesterday, I used only the rear element, for a 476mm FL, but I placed the lens in front of the shutter.
Later, I found out that the correct way is to place the lens behind the shutter, as per Cooke's instructions.

8x10 user
16-Nov-2014, 13:56
The XVa uses much better glass than the original. It's made with Lanthanum oxide; a glass with a high refractive index and low chromatic dispersion.

Most high refractive glasses also have high chromatic aberration, these are known as flint glass types (such as sodium fluoride). Glass types that are known as low dispersion have less separation of colors (chromatic aberration). Most low dispersion glass is also has a low refractive index, these types are known as Crown glass (such as bk7). The refractive index refers to a lenses efficiency in bending light. Higher refractive index lens are can be thinner, with less curvature. In addition, there is less change in focal length from the middle of the lens to the outside... This is known as spherical aberration (good for soft focus, and "bokeh").

Up until the 1940's, lens makers had to choose from glass types that were either flint or crown. Many designs use one type of glass to correct one aberration and different glass type to correct the other. Using glasses with different properties to isolate and correct aberrations separately is still a main technique used in modern lens design. Other early lens designs were symmetrical; where the opposing side of the lens would cancel out any aberrations that were present. ~1930 George W. Morey invented a number optical glasses with lanthanum oxide. These glasses were further developed and commercialized by kodak during WWII as the supply of high quality german glass was cut off. These radioactive, rare-earth glass types have the unusual property of being both highly refractive and offer low dispersion. That is why they are so good for the XVa as it would not be possible to otherwise correct such a simple design as well as cooke did. It is said the XVa version is 5x sharper then the original without changing the look or feel of the lens. Not a surprise when you think about it. This also explains why the lens is so sharp wide open and does not suffer from focal shift when stopped down.

I believe cooke is the only large format lens manufacture to use lanthanum since the days of kodak and voigtlander. Lanthanum is not required for a lens to be fully corrected for chromatic and spherical aberrations. Rodenstock has done a great job with heavy lead crown (ED) glass. The designs just have to be thicker, heavier, and more complicated. Schneider uses some ULD (HM) elements (CaF2, aKa fluorite) in a few of their designs. This glass type (technically a lab grown crystal) has the lowest dispersion available. However It is very tricky to use, because it is fragile, and also has a extremely low index of refraction.


Schott optical glass selection (from edmund optics)
125142

Carl J
18-Nov-2014, 11:45
I wonder if anyone has had any recent experience using them in formats greater than 8x10? Maybe Karl French will be able to report on 10x12 soon and I wonder if there are current ULF users out there who might give an update on their long(er)-term experiences. Interesting apug thread from 2006: http://www.apug.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-25912.html (including comments from Sandy King, Jim Galli, etc.).

Ari
18-Nov-2014, 14:04
Thank you, 8x10 user, for that explanation; fascinating.



I wonder if anyone has had any recent experience using them in formats greater than 8x10? Maybe Karl French will be able to report on 10x12 soon and I wonder if there are current ULF users out there who might give an update on their long(er)-term experiences. Interesting apug thread from 2006: http://www.apug.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-25912.html (including comments from Sandy King, Jim Galli, etc.).

According to the Cooke specs, the lens will cover 11x14, though without movements.
I, too, would like to hear from someone with real-world experience, though, since these numbers are usually on the conservative side.
Reading Carl's link (see poster "Dunsta"), not only will the cells of the XVa cover 11x14, they will do so with excellent corner sharpness, and performance is about equal whether you are using both cells or a single cell.

Thanks for the link, Carl, and I hope the new gear is treating you right.

karl french
18-Nov-2014, 16:12
I have no doubts that the front and back groups will cover 10x12, but the listed image circle of the whole lens (311mm) at infinity is only 381mm. Which is just shy of the 396mm diagonal of the 10x12 format. I suspect the 311 will cover without vignetting, but I wonder if there will be any room for movements. I thought seriously about using the Cooke XVa today when I took out the 10x12 Deardorff for the first time, but in the end I went with a 355 G Claron, 450 Fujinon C, and 600 Fujinon C. I used the Fuji 600 for all three shots today. I will get to testing the Cooke XVa with the 10x12 camera soon.

Carl J
18-Nov-2014, 17:04
Yes, thanks Ari, the FLM 48FTR ballhead and lightweight tripod (along with the Wehman) are working out very well! Much appreciated. :)

I'm looking forward to seeing more images from your (soon to be) new XVa; also with Karl's 10x12.

Carl

karl french
18-Nov-2014, 17:26
Yes, that is an interesting and encouraging thread. Somehow I missed that one. Must now try the XVa as 311mm on the 10x12.

Ari
18-Nov-2014, 18:00
Yes, thanks Ari, the FLM 48FTR ballhead and lightweight tripod (along with the Wehman) are working out very well! Much appreciated. :)

I'm looking forward to seeing more images from your (soon to be) new XVa; also with Karl's 10x12.

Carl

Great, Carl; and I haven't decided yet whether to get the Cooke or not, but I am leaning towards buying one.


Yes, that is an interesting and encouraging thread. Somehow I missed that one. Must now try the XVa as 311mm on the 10x12.

Please keep us informed, Karl, as to results, and if possible, post them here.

Ari
18-Nov-2014, 20:00
Just posting stuff as it becomes available.
Scans are unmanipulated. There is some negative curl at the edges, I didn't tape down the negs to the scanner, hence the wavy lower fence in photo 2.

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/Cooke/Tree_zps9aa97790.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/Cooke/Tree_zps9aa97790.jpg.html)

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/Cooke/Cooke22_zps0808fbe0.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/Cooke/Cooke22_zps0808fbe0.jpg.html)

richardman
19-Nov-2014, 01:14
Dang, the Convertible XVa can really sing. If I move to 8x10, I know what lens I will get....

Ari
19-Nov-2014, 15:40
More images.
My scanner doesn't seem to like 160NC in 8x10 format; it kept cutting off the right hand side of the image.
As usual, these are un-manipulated scans.

Caveat: I am the world's worst landscape/tree/nature photographer; my wife made me do it.
Third image has extensive front swing, the others are merely bumbling attempts at something decent, while figuring out what should be "vertical".

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/Cooke/Stump_zps25ef2f00.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/Cooke/Stump_zps25ef2f00.jpg.html)

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/Cooke/Trees_zps90f6bffe.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/Cooke/Trees_zps90f6bffe.jpg.html)

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/Cooke/TreeBlur_zps47f3d8c3.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/Cooke/TreeBlur_zps47f3d8c3.jpg.html)

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/Cooke/BigTree728_zpsd9bd3e52.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/Cooke/BigTree728_zpsd9bd3e52.jpg.html)

William Whitaker
19-Nov-2014, 18:04
Smooth as a baby's bum... I think that's why we do LF.

Ari
19-Nov-2014, 19:40
Thanks, Will; I think I am having focusing issues at the moment, maybe that's why things look smooth. :)
I really like my new GG/fresnel screen, but it's not a good match for the 10x loupe I have.
I may have to go back to a plain GG.

The Cooke is very nice to focus, things just snap into focus quite easily; image on the GG is clear and bright.
My loupe is magnifying the fresnel part too much, causing me to waver when focusing, so some shots on this whole thread are a little soft.

richardman
19-Nov-2014, 21:33
I used my Cooke PS945 for full body portraits for the first time, and OMG, the images just snap on the ground glass...

Ari
20-Nov-2014, 12:30
I used my Cooke PS945 for full body portraits for the first time, and OMG, the images just snap on the ground glass...

Don't they, though? Build quality is second to none.

Ari
20-Nov-2014, 12:33
More images; focus in the first image is on "Cooke".
Other two are slightly soft, partly from me, partly from moving subject. but the comparison shows very well the difference in contrast in each lens.

Cooke - f8, 2s
http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/Cooke/Misc_zps0b1aa1e6.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/Cooke/Misc_zps0b1aa1e6.jpg.html)

Cooke - f/11, 1/4s
http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/Cooke/Cooke_zpsbe931d25.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/Cooke/Cooke_zpsbe931d25.jpg.html)

Heliar - f/11, 1/4s (lens cap shutter)
http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/Cooke/Heliar_zpsd8a70280.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/Cooke/Heliar_zpsd8a70280.jpg.html)

ljsegil
20-Nov-2014, 23:11
One can use either of the Cooke's elements in front of the shutter, contrary to instructions, and enable focus at somewhat shorter bellows extensions than is necessary with the element behind the shutter. I was able to focus the 645mm front element to about 10 feet with a 25" bellows extension. It helps to stop the lens down a bit more than one might otherwise to preserve sharpness when using the elements reversed like this, but it beats not being able to use them at all.
LJS

Nodda Duma
21-Nov-2014, 13:41
Ari does that Heliar have coatings on the lens?

Ari
21-Nov-2014, 13:47
Ari does that Heliar have coatings on the lens?

No, Jason, it is an uncoated lens made around 1905.

Ari
21-Nov-2014, 13:48
One can use either of the Cooke's elements in front of the shutter, contrary to instructions, and enable focus at somewhat shorter bellows extensions than is necessary with the element behind the shutter. I was able to focus the 645mm front element to about 10 feet with a 25" bellows extension. It helps to stop the lens down a bit more than one might otherwise to preserve sharpness when using the elements reversed like this, but it beats not being able to use them at all.
LJS

Thanks for the tip, LJS; the extra bellows was a slight sore point for me, and, I'm sure, for others.

Nodda Duma
21-Nov-2014, 14:04
No, Jason, it is an uncoated lens made around 1905.

One of the originals... Nice!

I was wondering about the source of the contrast difference and thought it may be due to that (you should never stop learning).




Btw it is possible to have modern coatings applied to old optics.

Ari
21-Nov-2014, 14:12
I was wondering about the source of the contrast difference and thought it may be due to that (you should never stop learning).

Thanks for pointing that out; of course tekmology has changed in 100 years, and I am being unfair.
I am probably the world's worst lens tester, and I used the Heliar only because it was the only lens I had left from a recent sell-off of all my LF lenses.
Now the Heliar is gone, too.
Given a choice, I'd rather have a few other (coated) lenses to compare to the Cooke, in a side-by-side:

12" Ektar
300mm APO Sironar W
Fujinon C
305mm G-Claron

but I don't have any of those lenses, and I sold my 12" Ektar last week.
But I will do an indirect comparison, as I will take another photo of the same person who sat for me two weeks ago using the 12" Ektar; this time I'll use the Cooke.


Btw it is possible to have modern coatings applied to old optics.

I would love to know more about this.
Thanks again, Jason.

Nodda Duma
21-Nov-2014, 14:45
Thanks for pointing that out; of course tekmology has changed in 100 years, and I am being unfair.
I am probably the world's worst lens tester,.


No no not all. I think it was an excellent test and I got to see an important design point. The comparison photo shows quite clearly that lens coatings were important not just for throughput and reducing lens flare, but also additional issues such as the reduction in contrast (veiling glare in lens design jargon)

Ari
21-Nov-2014, 16:22
Thank you, I'm glad my tests were of use to someone, in some way.
It seems that whenever I set up these tests, I get a shaky, blurry photo, or I make my once-yearly processing mistake.
All I've been able to tell so far is that the Cooke is an excellent lens, and an expensive one. But is it $2k better than a Sironar-W?
I still am not sure whether or not I'd buy it, or whether I've helped anyone else in their decision.

karl french
21-Nov-2014, 16:32
The 300mm Apo Sironar W is a monster. The 300mm Apo Sironar S is much more manageable. They are getting hard to find after the announcement of their discontinuance. It's an amazing lens. There are days when I think I let go of the one I had too quickly. But then I bought the Cooke and those thoughts have largely subsided. They have a very different look. So, of course the best option would be to have both :-).

8x10 user
21-Nov-2014, 17:04
I onced owed a 300 W, its not that much larger than the 300 or 360 - s (about the same size as the 300 w). Its a rare and valuable lens for ULF (11x14, 7x17). The performance is very similar to the Sironar-S, only with a larger image circle. I sold mind for about what badger was charging for samples from the last run they commissioned (about a new XVa costs in a copal shutter).

Bernice Loui
21-Nov-2014, 20:18
A tour of Cooke Optics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW_rkuKjy5k

Cooke optics current primary market is serious film and video folks who are willing to spend $20,000 and up for a single prime lens. These Cooke optics are known for their smooth out of focus rendition balance definition, color balance and high resistance to flare due to their specialized coatings.

Major player in this market, Angénieux, Cooke, Schneider, Zeiss and a bit of Canon.


Bernice

ScottPhotoCo
22-Nov-2014, 01:06
A tour of Cooke Optics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW_rkuKjy5k

Cooke optics current primary market is serious film and video folks who are willing to spend $20,000 and up for a single prime lens. These Cooke optics are known for their smooth out of focus rendition balance definition, color balance and high resistance to flare due to their specialized coatings.

Major player in this market, Angénieux, Cooke, Schneider, Zeiss and a bit of Canon.


Bernice

Thanks for sharing that Bernice! I love stuff like that and I can't even explain why. Just a lens nerd I guess. :)

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

richardman
22-Nov-2014, 02:04
Thanks for sharing that Bernice! I love stuff like that and I can't even explain why. Just a lens nerd I guess. :)

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

My wife asked what I was watching, and I replied "camera porn."

Ari
22-Nov-2014, 06:58
Thanks for the last few replies; I'm slowly turning into a lens nerd myself.

Ken Lee
22-Nov-2014, 07:18
It would be helpful to take the same exact shot with different lenses and compare detail sections.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/cookeleica.jpg

Here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5febma4_OE) where a cinematographer compares Cooke and Leica lenses for cinema. While the color and sense of depth is better, note the octagonal blur in the background with the Cooke lens.

I find it surprising that their lenses have non-rounded apertures, given their dedication to so many other considerations of quality.

Nodda Duma
22-Nov-2014, 07:20
I should add that blackening the inside of the barrel and baffling (grooved interior) helps with contrast aka veiling glare as well.

Oh and that video is awesome.

Ken Lee
22-Nov-2014, 08:13
Incidentally, the fellow who designed the Cooke Series XVa and PS945 lenses also designed the Cooke S4 cinema lenses (for which he received an Academy Award aka Oscar). His name was Mark Gerchman.

You can see a photo of him on Clive Russ's web site (http://www.cliveruss.com/cooke/cookeps945/cookePS945photos/markgershman.html), sitting with the grandson of Mr. Smith of Pinkham and Smith fame.

He passed away in 2010. You can read more about him here (http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/hartfordcourant/obituary.aspx?n=mark-craig-gerchman&pid=141658206) and here (http://coruway.blogspot.com/2010/05/losing-mark-gerchman.html).

I exchanged a few emails with Mark a number of years ago: he was a really nice guy.

William Whitaker
22-Nov-2014, 10:17
It would be helpful to take the same exact shot with different lenses and compare detail sections.

Here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5febma4_OE) where a cinematographer compares Cooke and Leica lenses for cinema. While the color and sense of depth is better, note the octagonal blur in the background with the Cooke lens.

Interesting vid (I thought we were anal!)

Ken Lee
22-Nov-2014, 11:24
I suspect (some) cinematographers can afford to be more anal. Since so much money is spent making films and videos, it's a different world.

Ari
22-Nov-2014, 11:32
It would be helpful to take the same exact shot with different lenses and compare detail sections.

I would have loved the chance, but the Cooke arrived soon after my lens sale, and most of my best lenses went first.
I am open to doing some "Cooke vs. X" testing for anyone, provided they can loan me their lens for a few days.


Here's a video where a cinematographer compares Cooke and Leica lenses for cinema. While the color and sense of depth is better, note the octagonal blur in the background with the Cooke lens.

I find it surprising that their lenses have non-rounded apertures, given their dedication to so many other considerations of quality.

I saw that video, great stuff.
I asked Mr Russ about the aperture, and he told me that when designing the lens, the benefits of having a new, modern shutter with its non-rounded look was more of an issue than using older unreliable shutters, even if those had more blades.
Cooke then proceeded to buy several hundred new Copal 3 shutters, and that is why the difference in price between shuttered and barrel Cookes is about $1500; that is the price of a brand-new Copal 3.

karl french
22-Nov-2014, 12:10
My advice it to buy the lens in barrel, then find a Schneideritis ridden lens in a copal 3 and steal the shutter for the Cooke. Unless you are set on a new shutter, it reduces the cost significantly.

Tony Lakin
22-Nov-2014, 15:21
My advice it to buy the lens in barrel, then find a Schneideritis ridden lens in a copal 3 and steal the shutter for the Cooke. Unless you are set on a new shutter, it reduces the cost significantly.

If you do this make sure the Copal 3 is a late all black one with the aperture scale on the side of the shutter as opposed to the front, the aperture ring supplied with the XVa will only work with this model.

Ari
22-Nov-2014, 16:10
My advice it to buy the lens in barrel, then find a Schneideritis ridden lens in a copal 3 and steal the shutter for the Cooke. Unless you are set on a new shutter, it reduces the cost significantly.


If you do this make sure the Copal 3 is a late all black one with the aperture scale on the side of the shutter as opposed to the front, the aperture ring supplied with the XVa will only work with this model.

I had already thought of that early on, skinflint that I am.
My intention, should I buy the lens, is to go all in, and get a new lens with a new shutter.
Part of the attraction of this lens is having a brand-new shutter, giving me years of worry-free use; my shutter repairman and I will become strangers, I'm afraid. :)

Sal Santamaura
22-Nov-2014, 16:45
If you do this make sure the Copal 3 is a late all black one with the aperture scale on the side of the shutter as opposed to the front, the aperture ring supplied with the XVa will only work with this model.I'd take a different route. Get an older Copal 3 with non-linear aperture scale as seen in the attached photo of a Fuji 420L. Have S.K. Grimes machine adapters to fit the Cooke cells (if necessary) as well as whatever is needed for implementing the aperture ring on this shutter. Then you'll have all the Cooke's wonderfulness and a much rounder 10-bladed aperture to boot.

Given what an XVa costs, the extra expense seems almost trivial. :D

Ari
22-Nov-2014, 18:24
That's a good idea, Sal; I suppose buying the barrel lens, Copal 3 shutter, and machining would all add up to roughly the price of the Cooke in a shutter.
The non-rounded aperture doesn't bother me, or at least wouldn't be a deal-breaker.
I suppose I can always have that done at a later date, if the look really bothers me.

Ari
22-Nov-2014, 18:34
More photos of my neighbour Richard, taken today.
He's photogenic, and can stay still enough for a 2s exposure.
I'll add the photos as I scan them; these will be straight scans, no adjustments at all.

First, for comparison, here's a shot of Richard taken two weeks ago with a 12" Commercial Ektar, at f/22; straight scan.

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/Cooke/Richard689_zpsebf54255.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/Cooke/Richard689_zpsebf54255.jpg.html)

Here's the first of five shots taken today, same location, slightly less direct sunlight coming in; all shots at f/11:

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/Cooke/Richard733_zps19346054.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/Cooke/Richard733_zps19346054.jpg.html)

Alan Gales
22-Nov-2014, 18:59
What a pal Richard is!

The Cooke image is more contrasty and the out of focus areas more blurred. Richard looks like a nice fellow in the first image and a little bit menacing in the second. I like both images, Ari.

Ari
22-Nov-2014, 19:01
Next shot, he was standing, so he did move slightly:
Note the bucket at lower left, it was in direct sun, so that white area was pretty hot; compare with the blown out whites in the Ektar shot. Straight scans.

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/Cooke/Richard734_zpsce413449.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/Cooke/Richard734_zpsce413449.jpg.html)

Ari
22-Nov-2014, 19:06
What a pal Richard is!

The Cooke image is more contrasty and the out of focus areas more blurred. Richard looks like a nice fellow in the first image and a little bit menacing in the second. I like both images, Ari.

Thank you, Alan; remember that the 12" KCE was shot at f/22 vs f/11 for the Cooke. Still, I agree, the Cooke gives very creamy OOF areas.
What I like about the Cooke is how it evens out the blacks and highlights; you are very rarely left with a blown-out highlight (see the Ektar photo) or muddy, detail-less blacks.

Alan Gales
22-Nov-2014, 19:10
Yes, the Cooke does even out the blacks and highlights. Are you trying to talk me into buying one too? :cool:

I tell you what. If I won the lottery, I'd definitely buy a Cooke.

Ari
22-Nov-2014, 19:14
Well, if you win the lottery, I'd expect you to buy me one as well :)

Alan Gales
22-Nov-2014, 19:16
Well, if you win the lottery, I'd expect you to buy me one as well :)

I'll do that and go one better and buy Stone one too! ;)

cowanw
22-Nov-2014, 19:21
Thank you, Alan; remember that the 12" KCE was shot at f/22 vs f/11 for the Cooke. Still, I agree, the Cooke gives very creamy OOF areas.
What I like about the Cooke is how it evens out the blacks and highlights; you are very rarely left with a blown-out highlight (see the Ektar photo) or muddy, detail-less blacks.

How can it be more contrasty if the blacks and whites are evened out and there are no blown-out highlights. Isn't that a contradiction about what contrast is? I see the difference. I am just not sure our words are right. Perhaps there is a different word for what we are seeing.

Ari
22-Nov-2014, 19:22
Ok, and I'll chip in for a new bubble level for Stone.

Here's another image, just scanned:

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/Cooke/Richard735_zps4124ecf2.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/Cooke/Richard735_zps4124ecf2.jpg.html)

Alan Gales
22-Nov-2014, 19:42
How can it be more contrasty if the blacks and whites are evened out and there are no blown-out highlights. Isn't that a contradiction about what contrast is? I see the difference. I am just not sure our words are right. Perhaps there is a different word for what we are seeing.

Evening out the blacks isn't the right term. It's actually blocking out the blacks. There is less definition in the blacks with the Cooke lens than the Commercial Ektar. Look at the hair and the shirts. The Cooke is more contrasty. Handling the highlights the way it does is not a mark of a contrasty lens though.

StoneNYC
22-Nov-2014, 19:46
Ok, and I'll chip in for a new bubble level for Stone.

Here's another image, just scanned:

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/Cooke/Richard735_zps4124ecf2.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/Cooke/Richard735_zps4124ecf2.jpg.html)

Haha! Wrong thread, but I'll reply therr about the level, but if anyone but me wins the lottery I'll accept anything they want to give lol. If I win, it depends on how much, I think a big group meetup trip funded by the lottery winner would be a much more valuable gift, meet, exchange gear and friendship and all for free :)

Ari
22-Nov-2014, 19:49
The Cooke image is more contrasty and the out of focus areas more blurred. Richard looks like a nice fellow in the first image and a little bit menacing in the second.


Evening out the blacks isn't the right term. It's actually blocking out the blacks. There is less definition in the blacks with the Cooke lens than the Commercial Ektar. Look at the hair and the shirts. The Cooke is more contrasty. Handling the highlights the way it does is not a mark of a contrasty lens though.

Personally, I don't think it's more contrasty, but it certainly isn't flat either.
Maybe it's got a richness to the blacks and whites? Can we say that? I'm not sure either how to explain it, but it makes everything neutral.
That neutral look allows one to add or remove contrast, sharpness, blacks, saturation, etc etc.

Another image:

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/Cooke/Richard736_zps1d427d76.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/Cooke/Richard736_zps1d427d76.jpg.html)

And the KCE image, again; I find these two resemble each other closest:

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/Cooke/Richard689_zpsebf54255.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/Cooke/Richard689_zpsebf54255.jpg.html)

Alan Gales
22-Nov-2014, 19:51
Haha! Wrong thread, but I'll reply therr about the level, but if anyone but me wins the lottery I'll accept anything they want to give lol. If I win, it depends on how much, I think a big group meetup trip funded by the lottery winner would be a much more valuable gift, meet, exchange gear and friendship and all for free :)

Stone, you didn't read far enough back. Not only are you getting a bubble level but a Cooke lens as well! Of course that's all contingent upon me winning the lottery.

A big group meet-up would be fun!

StoneNYC
22-Nov-2014, 19:53
Stone, you didn't read far enough back. Not only are you getting a bubble level but a Cooke lens as well! Of course that's all contingent upon me winning the lottery.

A big group meet-up would be fun!

Oh! Thought only Ari was getting the lens! Great I'll take that deal! Can I have a Fujinon 600 C also please? (Ya know, for comparison purposes....) :whistling:

richardman
22-Nov-2014, 20:06
Personally, I don't think it's more contrasty, but it certainly isn't flat either.
Maybe it's got a richness to the blacks and whites? Can we say that? I'm not sure either how to explain it, but it makes everything neutral.
That neutral look allows one to add or remove contrast, sharpness, blacks, saturation, etc etc.



IMHO, the response curve is more flatline with no huge toe or shadow, i.e. more like T-MAX than Tri-X. Which of course is great for "digital" printers as us heathens can manipulate to our content. The smoothness of the background cannot be overstated though. Outside of a side by side comparison, either photo's background looks fine. In a side-by-side, then I prefer the Cooke's.

I have seen this behavior in the 2 ancient Cooke I have and the PS945. Oh so smooth...

Ari
22-Nov-2014, 20:07
A big meet-up would be a great way to blow some lottery winnings.
Btw, all these were shot on HP5+, same as the KCE shot from two weeks ago.
Last shot, and I'm really loving the way the straight scans look. I'd love to still have a darkroom and see what the enlarged Cooke images would look like.

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/Cooke/Richard737_zps7fabe543.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/Cooke/Richard737_zps7fabe543.jpg.html)

Alan Gales
22-Nov-2014, 20:08
Personally, I don't think it's more contrasty, but it certainly isn't flat either.
Maybe it's got a richness to the blacks and whites? Can we say that? I'm not sure either how to explain it, but it makes everything neutral.
That neutral look allows one to add or remove contrast, sharpness, blacks, saturation, etc etc.

Another image:

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/Cooke/Richard736_zps1d427d76.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/Cooke/Richard736_zps1d427d76.jpg.html)

And the KCE image, I find these two resemble each other closest:

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/Cooke/Richard689_zpsebf54255.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/Cooke/Richard689_zpsebf54255.jpg.html)

Ari, on my screen the image from the Cooke definitely looks more contrasty than the Commercial Ektar. It's got deeper blacks and you can really see the contrast in the hair.

Ari
22-Nov-2014, 20:17
Ari, on my screen the image from the Cooke definitely looks more contrasty than the Commercial Ektar. It's got deeper blacks and you can really see the contrast in the hair.

Yes, my screen as well; but it's something else, not just contrast, it's an evenness.
It feels like the lens isn't sacrificing the detailed whites for deep blacks.
The KCE had to blow out the whites to keep detail in the blacks; when I worked on the image later on, the whites were still blown out, but the blacks were much easier to work with.
I feel like the Cooke gives you the option of having both blacks and whites within a range that nothing gets blown out or muddy.
At least in contrasty situations.

Just for kicks, here's my finished image of Richard using the KCE from two weeks ago; sharpening is not mine, but Flickr's:

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5610/15783675696_8b9944eb7e_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/q3KsTA)Richard (https://flic.kr/p/q3KsTA) by Ari4000 (https://www.flickr.com/people/44110300@N06/), on Flickr

When I compare the two images, the Cooke image has more depth, if I am only considering Richard's face, and not the contrast or other technical stuff.
It has an immediacy and presence; the KCE is an accurate rendering, but the Cooke adds a little "oomph".
Does that make any sense?

Alan Gales
22-Nov-2014, 20:37
Yes, my screen as well; but it's something else, not just contrast, it's an evenness.
It feels like the lens isn't sacrificing the detailed whites for deep blacks.
The KCE had to blow out the whites to keep detail in the blacks; when I worked on the image later on, the whites were still blown out, but the blacks were much easier to work with.
I feel like the Cooke gives you the option of having both blacks and whites within a range that nothing gets blown out or muddy.
At least in contrasty situations.

Just for kicks, here's my finished image of Richard using the KCE from two weeks ago; sharpening is not mine, but Flickr's:

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5610/15783675696_8b9944eb7e_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/q3KsTA)Richard (https://flic.kr/p/q3KsTA) by Ari4000 (https://www.flickr.com/people/44110300@N06/), on Flickr

When I compare the two images, the Cooke image has more depth, if I am only considering Richard's face, and not the contrast or other technical stuff.
It has an immediacy and presence; the KCE is an accurate rendering, but the Cooke adds a little "oomph".
Does that make any sense?

This image is even more contrasty than the Cooke images. ;)

I understand what you are saying. It does make sense. I'd say it depends upon the look you are after. I'd love to own a Cooke but I don't know if I would give up my Commercial Ektar. I'd have to test them out like you are doing and examine the prints. It would be nice to own a variety of portrait lenses if a person could afford it.

Alan Gales
22-Nov-2014, 20:40
Oh! Thought only Ari was getting the lens! Great I'll take that deal! Can I have a Fujinon 600 C also please? (Ya know, for comparison purposes....) :whistling:

Oh Oh! I think I started something here. Next you will be wanting a Ferrari! ;)

William Whitaker
22-Nov-2014, 20:41
What a pal Richard is!

The Cooke image is more contrasty and the out of focus areas more blurred. Richard looks like a nice fellow in the first image and a little bit menacing in the second. I like both images, Ari.

There are some subtle variations in lighting between the shots, too.

Ari
22-Nov-2014, 20:43
This image is even more contrasty than the Cooke images. ;)

Yes, that is a lot of contrast added in post, as well as a good amount of dodging and burning (about 5 separate layers).

Ari
22-Nov-2014, 20:46
There are some subtle variations in lighting between the shots, too.

Yes, of course, they were taken two weeks apart, and the light was about a stop brighter in the KCE shot, as it was a much sunnier day.
But we made the effort to use the same time of day, same exact spot, and same film. I guess I should have used the same f-stop and exact same distance as well.

If you read my earlier posts, you'll see where I describe myself as the world's worst lens tester, and I stand by that statement. :)

Alan Gales
22-Nov-2014, 20:49
There are some subtle variations in lighting between the shots, too.

Thanks Will. I did read that and of course as you wisely point out, it will make some difference.

StoneNYC
22-Nov-2014, 21:15
Oh Oh! I think I started something here. Next you will be wanting a Ferrari! ;)

No a Tesla Roadster for the weekends and a Tesla Model S for long road trips. And a Nissan 370Z Convertible for beach adventures. (I have a 280ZX T-Top already so I suppose I can settle for just the two Tesla's then...).

End of tangent

Bernice Loui
22-Nov-2014, 21:28
Some notes on lens testing.

They must done:

* Using the same aperture.

* Similar to as close as possible lens focal length and bellows draw to achieve near identical image reproduction ratio between the reference lens and lens under test.

* Identical lighting conditions (this is where artificial light and studio conditions can work well). Very slight differences in lighting will have a significant effect on the image.

* Same batch of film verified using the emulsion lot number.

* Film developed in the same run / batch of chemistry.

The alternative is to live with the lenses in question for a long time taking LOTs of images under the same conditions and comparing them over time.

There is just no easy way to be comprehensive about testing lenses as there are SO many variables that can effect the end results.

Kodak Commercial Ektars are most common in a Ilex shutter which are IMO, not exposure consistent or trust-worthy compared to a modern Copal which is pretty consistent. This variable alone can effect the results by difference in exposure. Adding to that, different lighting, film, developer and transmitting these scanned images via the web adds to the difficulty.

Back in the day, most of the lens testing that was done happened under very controlled studio lighting conditions using color transparency film all processed the same day, same batch. The goal was to reduce the number of variables as much as possible keeping the variable limited to the lens alone.

It is much about being as scientific and objective as possible for a well controlled experiment.


Bernice

StoneNYC
22-Nov-2014, 21:40
Some notes on lens testing.

They must done:

* Using the same aperture.

* Similar to as close as possible lens focal length and bellows draw to achieve near identical image reproduction ratio between the reference lens and lens under test.

* Identical lighting conditions (this is where artificial light and studio conditions can work well). Very slight differences in lighting will have a significant effect on the image.

* Same batch of film verified using the emulsion lot number.

* Film developed in the same run / batch of chemistry.

The alternative is to live with the lenses in question for a long time taking LOTs of images under the same conditions and comparing them over time.

There is just no easy way to be comprehensive about testing lenses as there are SO many variables that can effect the end results.

Kodak Commercial Ektars are most common in a Ilex shutter which are IMO, not exposure consistent or trust-worthy compared to a modern Copal which is pretty consistent. This variable alone can effect the results by difference in exposure. Adding to that, different lighting, film, developer and transmitting these scanned images via the web adds to the difficulty.

Back in the day, most of the lens testing that was done happened under very controlled studio lighting conditions using color transparency film all processed the same day, same batch. The goal was to reduce the number of variables as much as possible keeping the variable limited to the lens alone.

It is much about being as scientific and objective as possible for a well controlled experiment.


Bernice

You said what I was thinking, the two images are so different as the subject is differently composed and almost looks like they moved so the light on them is different and the DOF is different.

richardman
22-Nov-2014, 21:54
Shush :-)

One rule of enabling is "Why yes, that lens is clearly better!"

Bernice Loui
22-Nov-2014, 22:26
Schneider replied to the less than round iris in the Cooke S4 by producing their Cine Xenar III with a round iris to eliminate that hard edge on OOF high lights. The filmmakers and serious video folks use their lenses quite differently than most view camera folks. Selective focus is a very significant aspect of film - video production values.

Given the history of view camera images and how it has been influenced by Group f64, the soft focus or better termed selective focus aka Pictorialism got buried and almost forgotten given the dominance of everything in the image sharp style post Group f64. This did not affect the film and video folks as they continued to do their own thing.

Those who choose to stop the lens down to f22 or more and use camera movements to further aid in holding as much of the image in focus as possible have driven the modern view camera lens market. If one were to ask a photographer what matters most in a lens, the common reply would be, "the lens must be SHARP and have SNAP (implies high contrast) or Ooomph." For view camera lenses, they should have large aperture to aid in focusing, no focus shift when stopped down and mounted in a modern reliable-consistent-problem free shutter with a good size image circle. This runs mostly counter to lenses used by the film-video folks and previous generations of selective focus image makers. This could be the reason why most modern view camera lenses are spec'ed at f22.

Not everyone agrees everything in the image sharp is a good thing. Once the image maker moves beyond the everything in the image sharp mind set, out of focus elements can be used in enhance the overall image effect and composition. As an example, the final scene from Les Misérables where candles are used as out of focus highlights in the background to aid in the composition is quite effective. What should be noted is the roundness and soft focus transitions from the candle lights in the back ground -vs- foreground aiding with drawing the viewer's eye to the central actors in this scene. Also notable is the use of very selective focus to accentuate the viewers visual attention to what the producer is trying to convey. This style of image making in the view camera world is not that common today, often limited to portrait work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dFIz5ZG4DQ


The marketing folks at major optics companies have a pretty good idea of what their users expect and what products will meet their needs for a given point or place in time. Initially a technology (camera optics) is developed, innovated and matures. Once there is enough maturity of the technology, it often become tuned and made specific to meet market and user expectations. Camera optics is can be very interesting and fascinating due to the preservation of their behavior over time.



Bernice



It would be helpful to take the same exact shot with different lenses and compare detail sections.

Here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5febma4_OE) where a cinematographer compares Cooke and Leica lenses for cinema. While the color and sense of depth is better, note the octagonal blur in the background with the Cooke lens.

I find it surprising that their lenses have non-rounded apertures, given their dedication to so many other considerations of quality.

StoneNYC
22-Nov-2014, 22:58
Bernice, I'll disagree only that I often shoot at f/22 with lots of out of focus areas, though often it's macro work, but the hard edge (I call it the stop sign effect) of out of focus bright spots is SO ugly compared to the nice perfectly round older shutters, it's certainly something that really bothers me about the copal shutters, but it's the only thing that bothers me.

Bernice Loui
22-Nov-2014, 23:04
Macro work often accentuates the OOF issues even at smaller apertures. For some, focus transition matters, other, they do not.

Spend some time with good optical microscopes and note their out of focus rendition as the majority of high quality microscope objectives do not have an iris, some do and they are most often round.


Bernice


Bernice, I'll disagree only that I often shoot at f/22 with lots of out of focus areas, though often it's macro work, but the hard edge (I call it the stop sign effect) of out of focus bright spots is SO ugly compared to the nice perfectly round older shutters, it's certainly something that really bothers me about the copal shutters, but it's the only thing that bothers me.

ScottPhotoCo
23-Nov-2014, 01:06
Ari,

I'm not a technical guy. I see things that I like and things that I don't care for as much. To my eye the Cooke has a dimensionality that I don't see in the other images. Personally, I love that. It feels less like a photograph and more like I'm there. The tones and transitions are beautiful. I dig it.

I have seen incredible work done using the KCE (Karsh for example) but the level of skill and post is way beyond my skill level. Some lenses seem to make the look and feel that I personally prefer just a bit easier to achieve. My Heliar on LF and my 105mm f2.4 on my Pentax 67 for example. (I've never had a chance to shoot with a Cooke up to this point so I can't comment personally on that.) But I do really like the potential that you're digging into with this lens.

Follow that little passionate voice in your head and you'll find your personal sweet-spot regardless of what the numbers say. :)

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

analoguey
23-Nov-2014, 01:36
A big meet-up would be a great way to blow some lottery winnings.
Btw, all these were shot on HP5+, same as the KCE shot from two weeks ago.
Last shot, and I'm really loving the way the straight scans look. I'd love to still have a darkroom and see what the enlarged Cooke images would look like.

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/Cooke/Richard737_zps7fabe543.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/Cooke/Richard737_zps7fabe543.jpg.html)
That's a great shot, Ari. And Richard seems to really know how to pose!

The light looks significantly better/contrasty with the Cooke shoot - is it about 2 stops lower? (the last headshots you compare)

Ken Lee
23-Nov-2014, 03:41
To compare lenses, it's best to scan images together at the same time, or re-use the settings exactly across all scans.

If we allow the scanner to merely perform a "straight scan", the scanner software will apply a different tonal adjustment to each image, according to its own logic. Subsequent comparisons may be confusing at best.

Alan Gales
23-Nov-2014, 10:58
This has turned out to be a really interesting thread!

Ari
23-Nov-2014, 11:10
This has turned out to be a really interesting thread!

It really has!
Folks, the fact that the Cooke doesn't have 20 or 30 shutter blades is of no concern to me; you can see how beautifully it renders backgrounds.
I'm sure I won't go to extraordinary lengths to have a round aperture when, most of the time, those specular highlights aren't even present.

I'll get around to replying to everybody in just a little while; thank you all very much for the input.
It's been, and continues to be, a very educational topic.

Ari
23-Nov-2014, 11:20
@Bernice,
Thank you for all the information, it is quite eye-opening. But:
I am not a lens tester, I am just seeing what the Cooke can do under my normal use. I'm not one for numbers and crunching ratios to find out which lens is best on paper.
Also, I gave up studio shooting entirely six years ago, and don't care much for the look anymore. I do admire those who do it well, though.
But to test the lens under studio conditions would be meaningless to me, as I'd never use it that way.
I just wanted to test the lens myself, and show the results, in the hope it would help us understand why the Cooke is a very expensive high-quality lens, and what it can do that other lenses can't, if anything.

And as I said earlier, I have no other lenses here, they are all sold, except for a Grandagon 115 which doesn't help us here.
But if somebody wants some testing done against one of their lenses (modern glass, coatings & shutter), I'd be happy to be a scientist for a day, and follow Bernice's excellent guide to lens testing.


Shush :-)

One rule of enabling is "Why yes, that lens is clearly better!"

I knew at least one person would understand. :)

VictoriaPerelet
23-Nov-2014, 11:21
....

* Using the same aperture.

* Similar to as close as possible lens focal length and bellows draw to achieve near identical image reproduction ratio between the reference lens and lens under test.

* Identical lighting conditions (this is where artificial light and studio conditions can work well). Very slight differences in lighting will have a significant effect on the image.

* Same batch of film verified using the emulsion lot number.

* Film developed in the same run / batch of chemistry.

......

Back in the day, most of the lens testing that was done happened under very controlled studio lighting conditions using color transparency film all processed the same day, same batch. The goal was to reduce the number of variables as much as possible keeping the variable limited to the lens alone.

.....



In case if you are not allergenic to digital:), digital back is pretty much ultimate tool for doing comparisons. Eliminates a lot of extra steps. Even Cooke webpage refers to betterlight digital files.

http://www.cookeoptics.com/l/largeformat.html

Ari
23-Nov-2014, 11:27
Ari,

I'm not a technical guy. I see things that I like and things that I don't care for as much. To my eye the Cooke has a dimensionality that I don't see in the other images. Personally, I love that. It feels less like a photograph and more like I'm there. The tones and transitions are beautiful. I dig it.

I have seen incredible work done using the KCE (Karsh for example) but the level of skill and post is way beyond my skill level. Some lenses seem to make the look and feel that I personally prefer just a bit easier to achieve. My Heliar on LF and my 105mm f2.4 on my Pentax 67 for example. (I've never had a chance to shoot with a Cooke up to this point so I can't comment personally on that.) But I do really like the potential that you're digging into with this lens.

Follow that little passionate voice in your head and you'll find your personal sweet-spot regardless of what the numbers say. :)

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

Tim,
Thank you, I really appreciated that post.
I'm definitely following it, despite (in spite of?) number-crunching; I'm really starting to take a shine to the Cooke.
Having never seen a lens that looks quite like this one, I have to go on instinct alone, and what I think is important in the photographs I tend to make.
I, too, am not a technical person, not very scientific, and some days I am outright dull. :) So I have my own taste and experience to go on, not much else.
Thanks again.

Ari
23-Nov-2014, 11:29
That's a great shot, Ari. And Richard seems to really know how to pose!

The light looks significantly better/contrasty with the Cooke shoot - is it about 2 stops lower? (the last headshots you compare)

Thank you, sir! Richard is a natural. :)
The light here was pretty contrasty, but the bright light was only 1/2 stop brighter than the previous shots done that day.

Ari
23-Nov-2014, 11:30
To compare lenses, it's best to scan images together at the same time, or re-use the settings exactly across all scans.

If we allow the scanner to merely perform a "straight scan", the scanner software will apply a different tonal adjustment to each image, according to its own logic. Subsequent comparisons may be confusing at best.

Is there a way to do that on a v750 without damaging one or both sheets of film?

Ari
23-Nov-2014, 11:34
In case if you are not allergenic to digital:), digital back is pretty much ultimate tool for doing comparisons. Eliminates a lot of extra steps. Even Cooke webpage refers to betterlight digital files.

http://www.cookeoptics.com/l/largeformat.html

Thank you, Victoria; I would love to, if I could get access to a BL back for a few days, and if someone has a specific request to test a particular lens.

Clive Russ
23-Nov-2014, 11:51
Ari has pointed me to this thread. He is having fun with a Cooke XVa while I am enjoying my newly purchased FLM carbon fiber tripod which is so much nicer than any other carbon fiber tripod I have seen in the past. Until now, I have used Linhof aluminum tripods because I found most carbon fiber tripods were over rated.

Thank you for all the interesting comments. I enjoyed watching the video showing the Leica/Cooke lens image comparisons.

With a small lens, like the Cooke movie lens shown in the video comparison with a Leica lens, the round (or pentagonal Copal) aperture plays a more prominent role. In a longer 12” Cooke XVa, I have never seen the aperture show in background specular highlights. At ƒ/11 and wider apertures, the five bladed Copal apertures tend toward looking round. At ƒ/64 (small, pentagonal aperture) I don’t notice any ugly projection of the aperture in background highlights because the image is more “in focus”.

The difference in contrast of the image on the negative shows both in the overall image and the micro contrast. The whole image is improved by the really excellent modern multi coatings on the XVa. The effect is that the highlights are not “flared” out and the shadows reveal separation of the details. The whites look like cream, not chalk. The shadows don’t look like soot. A little more exposure and less development would be advantageous for the Cooke negatives. The mid tones are also helped (look more tactile) by the coatings, but it is not as easy to see. The extra exposure would be like sliding up the brightness slider in PhotoShop, a favorite adjustment.

Karsh, the great portrait photographer, often used Kodak Commercial Ektar (KCE) lenses, 12” and 14”, which are very sharp in the center (and quickly fall off toward the astigmatised edges). They also have a fairly curved field which follows the round faces he was photographing. He underexposed the film and pushed the development, by about two stops. Norman Partington did the same for portraits, as did Ansel Adams for landscapes. The mushiness of the shadows was hidden in the dark zones, two and three. The highlights blew out (flared), but they were usually just the tiny specular highlights on the skin. He used the limitations of the lens coatings (single MgFl on the KCEs) and the curved field of the four element lens to artistic advantage. Tri-X, with its long toe, helped the mid tones and highlight contrast, compensating for the veiling flare in the image, at the expense of the shadow contrast where it was less noticeable.

Even Tri-X could not help a KCE when photographing a white building in direct sunlight. That would look like chalk no matter what you did. With a Cooke XVa, it would look pretty good, certainly much better than anything from an instant capture digital back.

Ken Lee
23-Nov-2014, 11:53
Is there a way to do that on a v750 without damaging one or both sheets of film?

Photos of different subjects, shot on different films and developed differently will look different to a consumer scanner like the Epson: it will automatically apply a different correction to each one. Comparing highlight and shadow rendering this way may be more of a game of chance than we'd like.

However, we can jot down the settings from the first scan and apply them again in subsequent scans. See http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/scanning.php

It's probably a good idea to adjust the scanner to render the blank film edge as 0 on the brightness scale (or do it in your photo editor), especially if we're trying to compare the contrast of different lenses. This is especially true if we're looking at images shot and developed at different times on different film/developer combinations, since each will have its own "base + fog" level.

For an example of a lens comparison where the "variables" have been kept to a minimum, click here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/tech/BokehComparison.jpg). For the record, this test is still flawed because the Heliar exhibited focus-shift when stopped down. For the same test made with three 150mm lenses, click here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/150mmLensesSharpened.png).

One of the best test series has been done by Armin Seeholzer, but I can't find it on the web at the moment.

StoneNYC
23-Nov-2014, 11:53
Is there a way to do that on a v750 without damaging one or both sheets of film?

Damaging?

Certainly wouldn't damage the film.

If you look at the pre-scan, there are black and white numbers and numbers in the center, they often look like this...

[64] [0.97] [200]

Or some variation of that pattern. You mark those down, then when you select the second piece of film to be scanned, after the pre-scan you change the pre scan numbers to match the first scans numbers.

This gives you matching white, black, and mid points. Then you can truly see the difference in the film's before the scanner auto exposure gets involved.

cowanw
23-Nov-2014, 12:23
I think Ari was making a joke about scanning two 8x10's at the same time.
Thanks, Clive about your observations about Karsh. I will print those up for my Karsh files.

Ari
23-Nov-2014, 12:38
Photos of different subjects, shot on different films and developed differently will look different to a consumer scanner like the Epson: it will automatically apply a different correction to each one. Comparing highlight and shadow rendering this way may be more of a game of chance than we'd like.

However, we can jot down the settings from the first scan and apply them again in subsequent scans. See http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/scanning.php

It's probably a good idea to adjust the scanner to render the blank film edge as 0 on the brightness scale (or do it in your photo editor), especially if we're trying to compare the contrast of different lenses. This is especially true if we're looking at images shot and developed at different times on different film/developer combinations, since each will have its own "base + fog" level.

For an example of a lens comparison where the "variables" have been kept to a minimum, click here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/tech/BokehComparison.jpg). For the record, this test is still flawed because the Heliar exhibited focus-shift when stopped down. For the same test made with three 150mm lenses, click here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/150mmLensesSharpened.png).

One of the best test series has been done by Armin Seeholzer, but I can't find it on the web at the moment.

Thanks, Ken; I remember Armin's tests well, you are right, it was an excellent overview.
As for writing down the numbers from each scan, that is what I did; it was the only way to have a small degree of consistency when scanning.


Damaging?

Certainly wouldn't damage the film.

If you look at the pre-scan, there are black and white numbers and numbers in the center, they often look like this...

[64] [0.97] [200]

Or some variation of that pattern. You mark those down, then when you select the second piece of film to be scanned, after the pre-scan you change the pre scan numbers to match the first scans numbers.

This gives you matching white, black, and mid points. Then you can truly see the difference in the film's before the scanner auto exposure gets involved.

Yes, I used the same numbers when scanning.
Thanks.

Ari
23-Nov-2014, 18:40
Ari has pointed me to this thread. He is having fun with a Cooke XVa while I am enjoying my newly purchased FLM carbon fiber tripod which is so much nicer than any other carbon fiber tripod I have seen in the past. Until now, I have used Linhof aluminum tripods because I found most carbon fiber tripods were over rated.

Thank you for all the interesting comments. I enjoyed watching the video showing the Leica/Cooke lens image comparisons.

With a small lens, like the Cooke movie lens shown in the video comparison with a Leica lens, the round (or pentagonal Copal) aperture plays a more prominent role. In a longer 12” Cooke XVa, I have never seen the aperture show in background specular highlights. At ƒ/11 and wider apertures, the five bladed Copal apertures tend toward looking round. At ƒ/64 (small, pentagonal aperture) I don’t notice any ugly projection of the aperture in background highlights because the image is more “in focus”.

The difference in contrast of the image on the negative shows both in the overall image and the micro contrast. The whole image is improved by the really excellent modern multi coatings on the XVa. The effect is that the highlights are not “flared” out and the shadows reveal separation of the details. The whites look like cream, not chalk. The shadows don’t look like soot. A little more exposure and less development would be advantageous for the Cooke negatives. The mid tones are also helped (look more tactile) by the coatings, but it is not as easy to see. The extra exposure would be like sliding up the brightness slider in PhotoShop, a favorite adjustment.

Karsh, the great portrait photographer, often used Kodak Commercial Ektar (KCE) lenses, 12” and 14”, which are very sharp in the center (and quickly fall off toward the astigmatised edges). They also have a fairly curved field which follows the round faces he was photographing. He underexposed the film and pushed the development, by about two stops. Norman Partington did the same for portraits, as did Ansel Adams for landscapes. The mushiness of the shadows was hidden in the dark zones, two and three. The highlights blew out (flared), but they were usually just the tiny specular highlights on the skin. He used the limitations of the lens coatings (single MgFl on the KCEs) and the curved field of the four element lens to artistic advantage. Tri-X, with its long toe, helped the mid tones and highlight contrast, compensating for the veiling flare in the image, at the expense of the shadow contrast where it was less noticeable.

Even Tri-X could not help a KCE when photographing a white building in direct sunlight. That would look like chalk no matter what you did. With a Cooke XVa, it would look pretty good, certainly much better than anything from an instant capture digital back.

Clive, thank you very much for adding your thoughts here; informative, insightful and interesting, as always.
For those who don't know, Mr Russ is not only a very fine photographer, he also had a hand in the design of the Cooke.
He is also a very trusting person, as he loaned me his Cooke after meeting me only once.

Adamphotoman
24-Nov-2014, 13:32
Using the Betterlight for lens testing will take some error out of the equation. But as you are wanting to test 8X10 or larger field, then the Betterlight would need to be shifted into the corners and a rise and a fall would need to be employed. Then the images could be stitched together for an overall view. A lot of work but doable.
This could work for a still life but not so much for a portrait. There one would need to be happy with a single capture from a 72mm X 96 mm portion. This would show out of focus and subtle tone gradations. In the studio a large amount of light is needed such as David's 900 Northlights.

Ari
24-Nov-2014, 15:17
Using the Betterlight for lens testing will take some error out of the equation. But as you are wanting to test 8X10 or larger field, then the Betterlight would need to be shifted into the corners and a rise and a fall would need to be employed. Then the images could be stitched together for an overall view. A lot of work but doable.
This could work for a still life but not so much for a portrait. There one would need to be happy with a single capture from a 72mm X 96 mm portion. This would show out of focus and subtle tone gradations. In the studio a large amount of light is needed such as David's 900 Northlights.

That would be great for the numbers, sharpness, contrast, etc but not for my own purposes.
Should I eventually buy the Cooke, and such equipment become available, I'd be happy to test the numbers measured against some other heavy-hitters in the same FLs.
My tests probably don't help anyone but me, given that I used the Cooke in situations that are typical of my shooting style.

karl french
24-Nov-2014, 15:27
Ari, those are the best situations to test a lens. Frankly, I think you really need to live with a lens for quite a while before you know it's the right one for you. Some lenses may be better on paper but others just feel right.

Ari
24-Nov-2014, 15:48
Ari, those are the best situations to test a lens. Frankly, I think you really need to live with a lens for quite a while before you know it's the right one for you. Some lenses may be better on paper but others just feel right.

This is one of those times when I wish the forum had a "Like" button.
Thanks, Karl.

karl french
24-Nov-2014, 16:04
It's sort of like my 210mm lens situation. Even though both the Sinaron WS 210/5.6 and the Computar 210/9 are technically better lenses than the 21cm Angulon, I keep going back to the Angulon. The is just something about the look of the images it produces, the size of the lens and that amazing old compound shutter that all add up to make me connect with it.

I can see that the Cooke is a special lens each time I look carefully at an image it produces, but I still feel like I'm just barely getting to know it.

Ari
24-Nov-2014, 18:43
It's sort of like my 210mm lens situation. Even though both the Sinaron WS 210/5.6 and the Computar 210/9 are technically better lenses than the 21cm Angulon, I keep going back to the Angulon. The is just something about the look of the images it produces, the size of the lens and that amazing old compound shutter that all add up to make me connect with it.

I, and many here, can relate to that. I loved the 12" Commercial Ektar, until the Cooke torpedoed it.


I can see that the Cooke is a special lens each time I look carefully at an image it produces, but I still feel like I'm just barely getting to know it.

Yes, it is special, that much is obvious, and it will probably require a lot more time than average in understanding it and getting it to work to my taste.
Why? Maybe it's the neutrality of the look it produces.
The images are sublime in their sharpness, smoothness and richness.
Hell, I'm sure it's even been engineered to neatly re-arrange silver atoms, but the final result is, um, quite neutral, and I'm not quite sure what to do with that yet.

Ari
24-Nov-2014, 20:06
A couple of before and after photos of neighbour Richard:

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/Cooke/Richard1_zps23627bed.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/Cooke/Richard1_zps23627bed.jpg.html)

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/Cooke/Richard2_zps07392187.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/Cooke/Richard2_zps07392187.jpg.html)

Bernice Loui
24-Nov-2014, 20:06
During a meet up not too long ago, I got a chance to meet Karl and view some 8x10 contact prints. One of the images that appeared was of a set of train wheels. Upon seeing it, there was every cue within the image that said made with Dagor. Moments later, Karl confirmed this.

Lenses like the Dagor have IMO , a visual signature and personality that is unique.

While some lens might claim to be state of the art, latest and greatest, it comes down to individual preference of image results. What matters most is settling on a set of lenses, film developer and related post process and getting these tools to deliver what the image maker had in mind and wants to deliver as the finished print.

There was another example posted by Mr. Clive and Karsh's portraits using a Kodak Commercial Ektar. No optic is perfect, Karsh understood what was required to get what he wanted from that lens, film, development and post process to achieve the image results desired.

It's the finished print that matters, the tools and process used to achieve that is of lesser importance to the viewer and audience.



Bernice



It's sort of like my 210mm lens situation. Even though both the Sinaron WS 210/5.6 and the Computar 210/9 are technically better lenses than the 21cm Angulon, I keep going back to the Angulon. The is just something about the look of the images it produces, the size of the lens and that amazing old compound shutter that all add up to make me connect with it.

I can see that the Cooke is a special lens each time I look carefully at an image it produces, but I still feel like I'm just barely getting to know it.

karl french
24-Nov-2014, 20:17
Sadly, I've been neglecting that beautiful 12" Gold Dot Dagor since the Cooke XVa showed up, but seeing that it will make a very nice gentle wide angle for the 10x12 Deardorff, I suspect it will see much needed use again.

Bernice Loui
24-Nov-2014, 20:37
Don't forget your Dagors.. They are special in their own way.

Karl makes very nice contact prints that should be seen in real life to be fully appreciated.


IMO, there is need and desire to treat the newest and fondest in a special way then neglect the one who as served so very well for so very long even if it can still offer that something special.

Could it be that lenses like Dagor, Angulon and related double anastigmat with their limited number of air-glass interfaces and symmetrical form offers a rather special image signature.

Of all the lenses used over the years, what remains, Dagor for images stopped down & Kodak Ektar (Tessar) for images made at f16 to f4.5, these are the lenses that appeal to me. There is MUCH more to an image then just "Sharpness and Snap"


Bernice



Sadly, I've been neglecting that beautiful 12" Gold Dot Dagor since the Cooke XVa showed up, but seeing that it will make a very nice gentle wide angle for the 10x12 Deardorff, I suspect it will see much needed use again.

Ari
24-Nov-2014, 20:45
There is MUCH more to an image then just "Sharpness and Snap"

Yes, of course; but when trying out a new lens, these are the more obvious qualities that one would quickly notice.
I certainly don't mean to harp on those things, I've been discussing other aspects of the Cooke's behaviour as well, OOF areas, and highlights, for example.

I'd be happy if one lens could do all I need in 8x10; it's doubtful, since I like to shoot architecture/urban stuff as well as portraits.
I just sold off six lenses; they all had different qualities and were excellent, highly-regarded lenses; but having that many different "palettes" is, in the end, cumbersome for me.
Hence the appeal of the Cooke, and the trouble I'm taking with the loaner lens right now.

Bernice Loui
24-Nov-2014, 21:52
That Cooke is a GREAT asset with a GREAT palette !!!

In time the personality of the Cooke will become set on mind and the choice of when to use it will become second nature. If one does a wide variety of image making, this is where the problem of wanting and needing a specific lens/item or what every to achieve that image in mind becomes a problem. Simplification is very good, not having just the proper tools for the job can be a serious bummer.

It is much about balance and what is possible and not possible. Knowing and completely understanding these issues with image making is never easy, the choices are never easy.

At some point, life is easier to simply let go of what might be and do what is possible, let it go at that.


:)
Bernice



Yes, of course; but when trying out a new lens, these are the more obvious qualities that one would quickly notice.
I certainly don't mean to harp on those things, I've been discussing other aspects of the Cooke's behaviour as well, OOF areas, and highlights, for example.

I'd be happy if one lens could do all I need in 8x10; it's doubtful, since I like to shoot architecture/urban stuff as well as portraits.
I just sold off six lenses; they all had different qualities and were excellent, highly-regarded lenses; but having that many different "palettes" is, in the end, cumbersome for me.
Hence the appeal of the Cooke, and the trouble I'm taking with the loaner lens right now.

Ari
25-Nov-2014, 07:53
That Cooke is a GREAT asset with a GREAT palette !!!

In time the personality of the Cooke will become set on mind and the choice of when to use it will become second nature. If one does a wide variety of image making, this is where the problem of wanting and needing a specific lens/item or what every to achieve that image in mind becomes a problem. Simplification is very good, not having just the proper tools for the job can be a serious bummer.

It is much about balance and what is possible and not possible. Knowing and completely understanding these issues with image making is never easy, the choices are never easy.

At some point, life is easier to simply let go of what might be and do what is possible, let it go at that.


:)
Bernice

Very thoughtful words; thank you, Bernice.

Andrew Plume
29-Nov-2014, 06:51
Hi Ari

a really good portrait it really is that you've recently posted in the 'November portrait section'

recall that you were wondering whether this lens would be suitable for your architectural work, wouldn't the longer focal length option be just what you need?

best

andrew

Ari
29-Nov-2014, 09:21
Hi Ari

a really good portrait it really is that you've recently posted in the 'November portrait section'

recall that you were wondering whether this lens would be suitable for your architectural work, wouldn't the longer focal length option be just what you need?

best

andrew

Thank you, Andrew, very kind of you to say.

In my own use, on both 4x5 and 8x10, "normal" (and longer) lenses rarely get used for architecture.
On 8x10, I tend to stick with a 150 or 210, rarely using a 300 or longer.
I imagine the colour rendition and sharpness of the Cooke would be great for shooting architecture in colour, and I am hopeful that the occasion will one day present itself.
I can also envision a use for architectural shots using the longer FLs, 19" and 26" with the right subject.

But I am looking at the Cooke primarily for portraits.
Having now printed (digitally) some of the Cooke portraits, all I can say is "WOW!" They look even more amazing printed than on the screen. No surprise, but the scanned images were beautiful in their own right. I thought something would get lost in printing them, but the opposite is true. The fineness and smoothness of detail is more apparent in the print.

Cheers!

Alan Gales
29-Nov-2014, 10:27
But I am looking at the Cooke primarily for portraits.
Having now printed (digitally) some of the Cooke portraits, all I can say is "WOW!" They look even more amazing printed than on the screen. No surprise, but the scanned images were beautiful in their own right. I thought something would get lost in printing them, but the opposite is true. The fineness and smoothness of detail is more apparent in the print.

Cheers!

It sounds to me like someone is buying themselves a new Cooke lens this holiday season! :cool:

Andrew Plume
29-Nov-2014, 11:14
Thank you, Andrew, very kind of you to say.

In my own use, on both 4x5 and 8x10, "normal" (and longer) lenses rarely get used for architecture.
On 8x10, I tend to stick with a 150 or 210, rarely using a 300 or longer.
I imagine the colour rendition and sharpness of the Cooke would be great for shooting architecture in colour, and I am hopeful that the occasion will one day present itself.
I can also envision a use for architectural shots using the longer FLs, 19" and 26" with the right subject.

But I am looking at the Cooke primarily for portraits.
Having now printed (digitally) some of the Cooke portraits, all I can say is "WOW!" They look even more amazing printed than on the screen. No surprise, but the scanned images were beautiful in their own right. I thought something would get lost in printing them, but the opposite is true. The fineness and smoothness of detail is more apparent in the print.

Cheers!

thanks Ari, very welcome as always

err.....duh...... from me, of course 'Architectural professionals' prefer to use wider angle lenses, Kirk's great work, a lesson in point

best

andrew

Ari
29-Nov-2014, 12:02
It sounds to me like someone is buying themselves a new Cooke lens this holiday season! :cool:

Um, no comment. :)


thanks Ari, very welcome as always

Thank you, Andrew

Ari
7-Dec-2014, 20:54
Just to add a post script to this wonderful thread, I bought the lens.

Having never bought anything new, ever, this was quite daunting. Luckily, I bought it from Clive Russ, who is a seller of the first order, and a gentleman's gentleman.
He is also a master photographer of the old school, and all in all, a wonderful person to deal with.

Clive expertly mounted the lens, with spacer, onto a Technika board for me, in a brand new Copal 3 shutter.
A nice surprise is that the lens (not the shutter) comes with a one-year warranty.

The lens is quite stunning in appearance, and doubly so in performance; I am extremely pleased, and excited to make more images with it.
The detail, workmanship and machining on this lens is exceptional and first-rate, as befits both the Cooke name and the Cooke price tag.

The one downside is I can no longer blame my equipment for shoddy photos or my inattention to detail.

Thanks to all who participated in this thread, I hope it helped in some way.

karl french
7-Dec-2014, 21:04
Congratulations. What number did you get?

Ari
7-Dec-2014, 21:18
Congratulations. What number did you get?

Thanks, Karl; I got 186.

karl french
7-Dec-2014, 21:47
195 here. They must just be getting past 200 with the last shipment of lenses.

Ari
7-Dec-2014, 21:55
Nice; there is uncertainty about another production run, so you may be right about these being among the last made.

karl french
7-Dec-2014, 22:04
Oh, I think they'll keep making them as long as the pre-orders keep coming in. But if not, I'm glad I got in while I had the chance.

Alan Gales
7-Dec-2014, 22:13
Congratulations, Ari!

Now if I win the lottery I don't have to buy you one. ;)