Taylor Hobson Cooke 15inch Portrait Series II 4.5 knuckled

[LeeSimmons]

Hi Everyone,

I've been lurking for a while, absorbing information and enjoying reading discussions. I am a professional photographer who has recently rediscovered B&W 4x5 and have been happily cruising along until this weekend when I happened upon a jaw dropingly beautiful lens - a 100 year old "Taylor Hobson Cooke 15inch Portrait Series II 4.5 knuckler" . This was the first time I have handled this type of lens and to say I was taken with it would be the understatement of the year.

This lens has my wheels turning and if anyones is up for helping a guy out I'd love to dip into your collective pool of knowledge.

The craftmanship of this thing blows me away. It all functions flawlessly I really want to start using this lens and am putting my mind towards building a system for it. I wish to shoot film over plate. It is an very heavy (1o pound) 8x10 lens that was made to go on the old style studio wetplate cameras.

I have two lines of thought for film use.

My preferance would be to put it on a modern 8x1o monorail with a packard shutter and use nd filters and slow film when required. The current lens board is a whopping 9 inches(could probably squeeze into a 6 inch lens board. This thing is really heavy but I'd love to get it out in the field.

Have any of you guys or girls adapted this big brass type of vintage barrel lens for film use out of the studio with a more modern camera. Used two rear standards with custom bellows for a sinar or something like that.

Or would it be easier to get a wetplate 8x10 made with an optional film back.

Stability, ease of use and "relative" portability are my priorities.

Any thoughts would be welcome.

Thanks Lee

[Mark Sawyer]

Not many field cameras will handle a lens like this. The proper camera to put this on would be an 8x10 studio camera, preferably on a studio stand, although that would be quite a chore to transport outside a studio. 9x9 is the most common lensboard size for these cameras, so it's almost certain that's where your lens spent its early years. Here's George Hurrell with his knuckler on an 8x10 studio camera:

[Steven Tribe]

Lovely as the Knuckler version is, it is also around 35 per cent heavier than the older series II design is. So perhaps a compromise is necessary for field use? Then, perhaps you could use a tailboard type field camera.

[Mark Sawyer]

Lovely as the Knuckler version is, it is also around 35 per cent heavier than the older series II design is. So perhaps a compromise is necessary for field use? Then, perhaps you could use a tailboard type field camera.

Good point! Also, with Cooke Portrait Lenses, a shorter focal length decreases the size and weight more than with most other lenses. I have a lovely little 10.5" f/4.5 Knuckler that goes nicely on any old 4x5, even a Speed Graphic, yet still covers 8x10.

[LeeSimmons]

Thanks for the responses gents, and for the mention of George Hurrell. I've been learning about the lens (this era is a mystery to me) but wasn't aware of any practitioners past or present using this lens. I'll take a look at Hurell's work and maybe that will send my imaging ideas for this lens in a different direction. The responses are appreciated especially before embarking on a little bit crazy and probably expensive project. By the way Mark a lot of my lurking was done reading posts of yours relating to the Imagon's. I purchased and older 200mm imagon in a compound shutter I've been enjoying "failing" as I learn the character of that lens. Anyway both your responses are appreciated and help to maintain a bit of common sense as to what is practical and what is not.

Regads Lee

[Mark Sawyer]

My preferance would be to put it on a modern 8x1o monorail with a packard shutter and use nd filters and slow film when required.

The Packard shutter with nd filters is do-able, but a pain in the field. If you don't have an 8x10 yet, consider one that takes the Sinar shutter system, which has a shutter that goes to 1/60th of a second. Or better yet, a Mentor Panorama 18x24 cm camera (it still takes standard 8x10 holders), which also has a built-in shutter that goes to 1/125th.

[Mark Sawyer]

...By the way Mark a lot of my lurking was done reading posts of yours relating to the Imagon's. I purchased and older 200mm imagon in a compound shutter I've been enjoying "failing" as I learn the character of that lens...

Lesson number one with the Imagon: Put those h-stop discs away and use the compound shutter's conventional iris! The Imagon then behaves very much like a Kodak Portrait Lens, Gundlach Achromatic Meniscus, or Spencer Port-Land lens!

[LeeSimmons]

Thanks for that Mark,

I was fantasizing that this lens would be usable on a 4x5 (obviously not). I fell in love with the feel, construction quality and glass. I'll start to research the smaller ones.

Thanks for the thought

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...] By the way Mark a lot of my lurking was done reading posts of yours relating to the Imagon's. I purchased and older 200mm imagon in a compound shutter

The Imagons do not have the coverage of many lenses of its focal length. The 200mm is more acceptable to medium format. Strange, I know.

And when looking at Hurrell's work consider that it was done under hot lights with early films and he did a whole lot of retouching.
.

[LeeSimmons]

Thanks Jac,
The imagon 200mm illuminates but loses cohesion at the edges of the 4x5. I dislike the halation and always had it in mind as a older look lens . Using it has made me rethink my whole idea and subject matter. It's been fun to calculate apeture sizes. The effort creates a different relationship with the lens. Part of the fun. I've found that typical landscape subjects where sharpness and tonal range were usually paramount and tended to be the goal with other lenses the Imagon fall a little flat. It am finding myself gravitating towards shape and dimensionality with this lens. When I feel I truly understand it's sweet spot I'll start to post some images. Again, I've been enjoying "failing lately" It brings back the joy of success when in modern photography it is a very predictable world.

I think thats the draw to the older lenses. That aero ektar is also on my wish list. The shape and draw of the light is quite different than the ultra sharpness and contrast of modern lenses. They do create dream like feel that for me at least is unexpected. i find it pleasantly surprising.

Thanks everyone for sharing and Mark I don't have an 8x10 - hadn't even planned on it until this darn Cooke arrived in my life. I like the look of the Mentor Panorama 18x24 cm. That camera would give a ton of flexibility with older barrel lenses and looks a little easier to use than the speed graphics. Thanks for the heads up.

Regards Lee

[carverlux]

....Stability, ease of use and "relative" portability are my priorities....

Lee,

Here's my 15" Cooke IIE 8x10 fitted to the Sinar p2. It dominates the p2 front standard and I designed a reinforced mount/adapter system to add rigidity that is actually necessary. Without the reinforced lens board, turning the knuckler could lead to other unintended consequences. You may have a free-moving knuckler but none of mine move that easily. In fact, this one had to be lapped so it would. Front standards on field cameras that are usually less robust would be even more problematic. I can also confirm as suggested by others that the same lens mounted on a Deardorff P8 studio camera with an 8x8 lens boards is a breeze to control and use.

138545

carver

[LeeSimmons]

Thank you Carver,

The information on this thread has been insane. Thank you everyone!! Saved me from diving into a bunch of different mostly ineffective rabbit holes.

What you have there Carver is exactly what I had originally envisioned only better with the sinar shutter.

A couple of questions if you will.

Do you have a website to check out some images? I'd love to see some work.

The primary advantage to this setup in my mind is the shutter and relative portability vs deardorf. Putting it in bags in a cart I image you could drag it around on location. Delta 100 @ 50 is usable with this setup in most light. In that form the lens is imminently usable even in a working situation. Which I wasn't really considering for this lens.

Was the original flange cut or was the flange replaced with a modified squared version?

Did your source the lens modification with a local machine shop or use an industry pro sk grimes etc?

Once you have this set up I guess your good to go with any vintage barrel lenses. I imagine you have a few. What subjects draw you to pull out the Cooke?

Super fun. Thanks for sharing.

Regards Lee

[Emil Schildt]

I dont have the knuckler, but an older 3.5 version and I love it to bits...

you wanted some samples so here's some... all full aperture on 5x7

[LeeSimmons]

Hi Gandolfi,

Thanks for taking the time.

And there is the other shoe. Getting past the the physical beauty of the lens itself to see what it can do makes it all worthwhile.

Beautiful classic portraits. Wow.

Very pleasing transitions of focus. The sharper images look quite sharp. I bet the prints are spectacular. The second image using the softer setting is neat to see the very subtle bleed of the lighter chest skin to the dark fabric. My imagon would render that quite differently. I prefer this look.

Thank you for providing this reference.

Regards Lee

[Jim Galli]

I abuse my old Kodak 2D 8X10 with heavier than design intent lenses. Cooke produced the Series II f4.5 and the Series VI f5.6 knuckler's side by side. The f5.6 lens can squeek into the field on the Kodak. That's where I draw the line though. Series II is just too big to go out and about. It's a Studio queen. The 12 3/4" Series II and the 15" Series VI share the same flange.

[Tim Meisburger]

I'm with Jim. I think you should just bite the bullet and get a nice, old studio 8x10 for that lens. That is were it will really shine (do google George Hurrell). You will then have arguably the best portrait set-up ever devised by man (I personally would go for the Universal Heliar, but many would go for the Cooke, and its hard to argue with George).

For outdoor stuff on a 4x5, look for a smaller Cooke, or something similar. Try a Heliar, and you might fall in love...

[carverlux]

...Was the original flange cut or was the flange replaced with a modified squared version?

Did your source the lens modification with a local machine shop or use an industry pro sk grimes etc?

Once you have this set up I guess your good to go with any vintage barrel lenses. I imagine you have a few. What subjects draw you to pull out the Cooke?...

Lee,

I do not have or use a website for photos and as you can see, there are many members with superb work like Mr. Gandolfi and Mr. Galli who handily add to the allure of the Cooke.

To answer your other questions, the original lens flange was not modified, new flanges were made to be used with adapters. Each adapter is fitted to a specific lens on one side, with the standardized flange thread on the other side. I designed the system and SK Grimes built it. The system accommodates my needs for using lenses with different cameras and it has worked out pretty well. I can use small lenses in an iris holder, and larger lenses are mounted through different lens boards adapters. Below is a physically skinnier but longer lens, the 375mm Eidoscope No. 1, mounted to a Deardorff P8 that uses a 8x8 lens board. The thread on this brass adapter is the same as the one on the Sinar adapter, and therefore allows the lenses to go on either camera.

138588

It's safe to say that the same lens behaves differently in the hands of different photographers. The Cooke's for me, especially the impressive, shiny knuckler versions like the Series IIE, fetches more money when used with wealthy patrons. Much more so than a Verito or worse, a Veritar. They are all fine lenses but one conjures up nostalgia and the others just looks outdated. Cameras are the same way, patrons respond well to Deardorff's mahogany and brushed nameplates much better than the cold, black industrial look of the Sinar p2.

My personal people lens is the first version Heliar, in either 42cm or 48cm. There is a magic brilliance on the highlights and the out-of-focus background holds together better than most Cooke Portraits I've used, for the pictures I like to take. But it is a black pipe like a Verito so I am selective about using it - I reach for the Cooke (or the Eidoscope) when I know the patron will respond positively to it.

138601

Hope this helps.

carver

[LeeSimmons]

Thanks Jim, Tim and Carver, That's really been useful information that frames the options very well. Wonderfully educated, thoughtful and innovative responses. I look forward to putting this together and in the meantime sharing on other threads. What a wonderful introduction to the LF community. Many thanks.
Regards Lee