PDA

View Full Version : Lens Blasphemy



Steve Hamley
30-Dec-2008, 16:15
Folks,

Now that I’ve seemingly criticized the Phillips design in another thread. I’m going further and going to “blaspheme” the vaunted Cooke triple convertible to give Dan a vitriol filled holiday thread (maybe). I also wanted to give a fellow LFer a chance to sell his before posting.

The lens sells for a premium (I suppose) because St. Ansel used it to photograph some very famous images. But in the “The Making of 40 Photographs”, Adams states that he saw the scene (Moonrise over Hernandez) and stopped, and “... I struggled to change components on my Cooke Triple Convertible lens.”

Adams also states in the same article that “... I realized that I had an unusual photograph which deserved a second negative, I swiftly reversed the filmholder, but as I pulled the darkslide the sunlight passed from the white crosses; I was a few seconds too late!”

Rather than attribute success to the Cooke TC, I would at least a attribute partial failure. If Adams had a prime lens, would he have gotten the wanted second negative versus fumbling with the convertible? I think maybe so.

Those of us that shoot sunrises and sunsets know that “primetime” frequently lasts at best 2-3 minutes, and sometimes less than a minute. Gear that causes me to miss a great sunrise/sunset generally gets sold.

I was conversing via e-mail with one of our brethren about the wisdom of one Copal 3s with a multiple Grimes aperture scale for multiple Computar focal lengths (mostly to save money), or a Copal 1 ditto for Dagor-type G-Clarons. The response was something like “Get a shutter for each, once you’ve fumbled in the field with lens cells and dropped them/managed them, you’ll wish you had.” Which seems to be exactly what Adams encountered.

So why is the convertible Cooke so well respected when Adams basically said the convertible feature made him miss a shot he wanted?

Cheers,

Steve

Peter De Smidt
30-Dec-2008, 16:19
Because the performance is OK, the price is reasonable (compared to three lenses), and it's fairly compact and light weight. That said, I agree with you. I'd rather have lenses in their own shutters.

Walter Calahan
30-Dec-2008, 17:02
I LOVE my Cooke XVa!!!! The lens is not as small as my Nikkor 240 mm, it is small compared to many of my lenses. The benefit of having three focal length in one lens make the XVa a very productive tool. The XVa is probably the best glass I've ever used.

Never used the XV that Adams had. One recently sold on eBay for around $1500.

But I agree with you that if he had a prime at the focal length he needed, he would not have wasted time changing the lens configuration. That said, it takes less than 30 seconds to remove the front element if he was to shoot in the 476 mm configuration. If he needed to shoot with the front element attached to the rear of the shutter (645 mm), then he would have spent a bit more time configuring his set up.

Most importantly, if Adams had the modern Grimes aperture scale he probably would have gotten a better exposure on his first frame. I understand he flubbed the exposure a bit.

Steve Hamley
30-Dec-2008, 17:11
Peter,

That's probably right. An old axiom of the business I'm in is "If you don't understand it, follow the money." It's probably true that the Cooke that recently sold is cheaper than a decent vintage 12", 19" and 24" in shutter.

Cheers,

Steve

Steve Hamley
30-Dec-2008, 17:12
I LOVE my Cooke XVa!!!! The lens is not as small as my Nikkor 240 mm, it is small compared to many of my lenses. The benefit of having three focal length in one lens make the XVa a very productive tool. The XVa is probably the best glass I've ever used.

Never used the XV that Adams had. One recently sold on eBay for around $1500.

But I agree with you that if he had a prime at the focal length he needed, he would not have wasted time changing the lens configuration. That said, it takes less than 30 seconds to remove the front element if he was to shoot in the 476 mm configuration. If he needed to shoot with the front element attached to the rear of the shutter (645 mm), then he would have spent a bit more time configuring his set up.

Most importantly, if Adams had the modern Grimes aperture scale he probably would have gotten a better exposure on his first frame. I understand he flubbed the exposure a bit.

Walter, Thanks much for the input! It helps. How is it the best glass you've ever used?

Cheers,

Steve

SAShruby
30-Dec-2008, 19:34
It's better carry one lens in the field than three, especially if you're hiking. :)

CP Goerz
30-Dec-2008, 20:02
I've had a couple of the old versions of this lens, not the newer coated and copal'd version and found the lens to be OK...nothing too great to write home about. I think if Ansel happened to have a__________(fill in the blank) at the time of 'Moonrise' and used it we would be talking about it rather than the Cooke.



Was the glass in the new version of the Cooke changed in any way or is it a faithful reproduction of the original design? If you consider that an old and uncoated lens sells for $1500 in an older shutter then the newer copal and coated ones may be a nicely priced optic.


Someone on this site once mentioned that Ansel kinda made the shooting of the Moonrise image a bit more dramatic than it actually was, he had given a fairly hum drum account to a US Camera writer shortly after the image was taken. No slight to the image..its great, I wish I had shot it! ;-) I think A did flub the exposure in spite all his foot candle arithmetic but he still managed to get the image on the paper which is what really matters.



I used to work in an auction house and would see AA images all the time from scrappy unframed pieces to the blockbusters, it seems he underexposed pretty regularly from the veiling going on in many of the shadows.....just my cup of gasoline on the fire :-)

Jon Wilson
30-Dec-2008, 21:37
Yes, it is not a Cooke Convertible, but a nice clean TR (Turner Reich) Gundlach convertible (12 inch, 19.7 inch, & 25 inch) in an ilex shutter will make a lot of nice shots for fewer $s which allows more funds for film. Jon

Steve Hamley
31-Dec-2008, 16:47
Peter,

You know, I've struggled with the thought you've expressed about lens weight and hiking, and Kerry's done extensive research on lightweight lenses. having hoisted packs up many a mountain, I'm very sensitive to the thought and clearly understand it, but I also realize that lenses are light compared to my body weight.

In other words, if I want to carry three primes rather than a convertible, what I really need to do is lose a a few pounds.

Cheers,

Steve

David A. Goldfarb
31-Dec-2008, 19:00
When I was looking into it, it seemed the Cooke XVa cost about as much as a comparable set of the three (300/450/600) Fujinon-C lenses, and people who had both thought the prime lenses had a bit of an edge.

I've got a few different lenses that share an Ilex 5 shutter--10" WF Ektar original to the shutter, and 12" Gold Dot Dagor and 19" Apo Artar, the latter two in barrel with a front mount adapter, and I recently acquired a 16.5" Dagor that I'll have adapted to the same shutter, so that's one way to have a range of choices without carrying too many big shutters.

Ole Tjugen
31-Dec-2008, 20:21
For simplicity's sake, if you want a convertible I can recommend one of these:

http://www.casket-set.com/JPG/Casket_04.jpg

It's a complete "Vade Mecum Type" Aplanat casket set with shutter, with cells of 150, 250 ... 750mm focal length for just about any combined focal length from 100mm and up. ;)

Jim Galli
20-Feb-2009, 11:12
Ha, I missed this thread when it was fresh meat. Actually Ansel appeared to me in a dream and we talked about this very thing. He said it was actually the damn Pontiac woody that made him late. When he pulled up to the spot a large case of gear had jammed against the upper tailgate and it simply wouldn't come open. Flustered, he had to go in from a side door and crawl over crap to free the latch. He also mentioned the Pontiac was a dog. A serious dog. Seems Edward and Dodi would pass him on every hill with the Ford woody with it's 95 horse V8. So you see, blaming the Cooke is just silly.

In more modern times, I have that same lovely Cooke in the Betax #5. If you should visit my home sometime with pockets filled with dollars you could very well talk me out of Protar VII's, Wolly Series 1's, and I might pay you to remove a Turner Reich or 2, but the Cooke will remain. That's just how it is.

Mark Sampson
20-Feb-2009, 11:53
If, If, If, If, If! I'd say Adams kept that lens because he made many more shots with it than he missed. And he didn't miss the "Moonrise over Hernandez" shot either. I take your point about convertibles, though. I can't understand why any modern maker of them, I suppose that was Schneider pre-'72 and now Cooke, didn't supply a set of caps for all the element sets, as well as a shutter cover. My own (limited) experience with convertible lenses tells me that handling seperate elements is indeed a pain.

Steve Hamley
20-Feb-2009, 12:41
Wow, it's alive! It's alive!

The original post was worded to help give Dan some Christmas cheer, but let's put it another way, in question form:

Would you (or St. Ansel), looking over Hernandez knowing the light will go in an instant, rather have two shots with a prime or one with a convertible?

Now just for the record, Mark's right, Ansel didn't miss the shot. However, he did say that he wanted a backup and because he had only one neg, it ended up being difficult to print. If he'd had a backup, he could have developed it to print more easily. keep in mind that the account seems to imply that he missed the second shot by seconds.

Cheers, Steve

Gene McCluney
20-Feb-2009, 12:58
I think there "is" a difference in convenience between trying to have one shutter for several separate "prime" lenses, and having a convertible lens in a shutter. With a modern-ish convertible lens, you are only having to "wrangle" one loose element if you are shooting with the other element. This does not apply to casket sets, although most casket sets originally did come in nice fitted cases which provide place to store unused elements.

Gene McCluney
20-Feb-2009, 12:59
For simplicity's sake, if you want a convertible I can recommend one of these:

http://www.casket-set.com/JPG/Casket_04.jpg

It's a complete "Vade Mecum Type" Aplanat casket set with shutter, with cells of 150, 250 ... 750mm focal length for just about any combined focal length from 100mm and up. ;)


Oh Ole, while it may be hard to believe, "some" people actually need a shutter with flash sync, and "some" people desire coated lenses. Go figure.

ljsegil
20-Feb-2009, 14:44
If Ansel had just wanted a backup negative then he would not have needed to futz with the lens, merely change his exposure as he thought best and shot the same focal length. He must have had a different take on the image in his mind to wish to change focal lengths, and whether it was quicker for him to use a convertible lens or find a second prime lens wherever he may have kept them while shooting in a rush from the car we'll never know. However, if he didn't like the Cooke it never would have been on his camera in the first place.
Larry

Steve Hamley
20-Feb-2009, 14:48
Adams did not want to change focal lengths. From the OP:

But in the “The Making of 40 Photographs”, Adams states that he saw the scene (Moonrise over Hernandez) and stopped, and “... I struggled to change components on my Cooke Triple Convertible lens.”

Adams also states in the same article that “... I realized that I had an unusual photograph which deserved a second negative, I swiftly reversed the film holder, but as I pulled the darkslide the sunlight passed from the white crosses; I was a few seconds too late!”

Rather than attribute success to the Cooke TC, I would at least a attribute partial failure. If Adams had a prime lens, would he have gotten the wanted second negative versus fumbling with the convertible? I think maybe so.

Cheers, Steve