Cooke lenses reissued

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I just got off the phone with Jeff at Badger. Apparently Cooke will be doing a new run of the soft-focus PS945 sometime this summer, and will also do a run of the 8x10 XVa Triple Convertible sometime soon. Cooke will also be issuing a new lens; a shorter XVa for 4x5.

[Songyun]

I just got off the phone with Jeff at Badger. Apparently Cooke will be doing a new run of the soft-focus PS945 sometime this summer, and will also do a run of the 8x10 XVa Triple Convertible sometime soon. Cooke will also be issuing a new lens; a shorter XVa for 4x5.

shorter for 4X5, sounds interesting.

[Walter Calahan]

Cool, glad to learn they are expanding their line of LF lenses.

[JEFFREY MORFIT]

I would like to have an 8x10 XVa. Would have to find some bucks somewhere to pay for it, though. Wonder how much my wife is worth??

[Sal Santamaura]

Interesting timing. I wrote Cooke just a few days ago asking that it consider a modern 158mm "Series VIIc." No reply yet, but it seems there's hope.

[Scott Davis]

Would the ps945 cover whole-plate at portrait range? or just 5x7?

[Michael Graves]

I would like to have an 8x10 XVa. Would have to find some bucks somewhere to pay for it, though. Wonder how much my wife is worth??

Post some pictures and see what kinds of offers you get.

[dsphotog]

I would like to have an 8x10 XVa. Would have to find some bucks somewhere to pay for it, though. Wonder how much my wife is worth??

Gee Jeff.....Will she do nasty things that my wife won't?

.........Like laundry, dishes, windows, yardwork....He he.

Sorry Jeff, Welcome to the forum!!

David Silva

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Would the ps945 cover whole-plate at portrait range? or just 5x7?

There is a quote from Mark Osterman on the Cooke website affirming that the PS945 covered whole plate at landscape distance.


"While I was told that this lens was designed with the 4"x5" format in mind I found that it had more than enough coverage for the 6 1/2" x 8 1/2" collodion plates I was making. The first thing I did after receiving the lens was to go into the field and try some landscape shots. With the lens stopped down to f.8 the image on the ground glass displayed great clarity. My assumption was that pushing the format would result in some falling off on the edges. In fact, they were remarkably crisp, and so I used camera movements to soften the upper portions of the negative."

from: http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/popup/osterman_ps945.html

[Jim Rhoades]

Damn this is not a good time to be reading this. As soon as the DOW goes up another 5,000 points I'll be ready.

[drew.saunders]

Time to go buy a couple lottery tickets!

[Alan Rabe]

Don't get in too much of a hurry. This from their website:
"We have temporarily suspended production of our large format lenses."l

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Don't get in too much of a hurry. This from their website:
"We have temporarily suspended production of our large format lenses."l

Pay no attention to that, it has been on their site since they discontinued them a few years ago and hasn't been updated.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I wrote Cooke...asking that it consider a modern 158mm "Series VIIc." No reply yet...Well, Barara Lowry of Cooke replied to my message yesterday afternoon. She answered as follows:



"...They say all good things come to those who wait. For what it's worth, I'm waiting too. I would love to see us do a modern redesign of that little wide angle gem. All I can say is that it is not forgotten, but other lenses (that pay the bills) must come first.

The good news is that we are starting up production of our PS945 again in the near future. No set date for release yet, but I will be sending out an email in the near future when I have concrete information to share..."

So, while she didn't mention 8x10 or 4x5 versions of the XVa, Barbara motivated me to continue being patient about the 158mm lens.

[Songyun]

Well, Barara Lowry of Cooke replied to my message yesterday afternoon. She answered as follows:



"...They say all good things come to those who wait. For what it's worth, I'm waiting too. I would love to see us do a modern redesign of that little wide angle gem. All I can say is that it is not forgotten, but other lenses (that pay the bills) must come first.

The good news is that we are starting up production of our PS945 again in the near future. No set date for release yet, but I will be sending out an email in the near future when I have concrete information to share..."

So, while she didn't mention 8x10 or 4x5 versions of the XVa, Barbara motivated me to continue being patient about the 158mm lens.

What is so special about the 158mm lens?

[Sal Santamaura]

What is so special about the 158mm lens?What I've named the 158mm "Series VIIc" would be a modern, multicoated, Copal 1-shuttered version of Cooke's 100-degree Series VIIb. An f/6.5 wide-field optic that would easily cover 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 inch negatives with plenty of room for movements. And, having been optimized like the recent XVa version was, it would undoubtedly exhibit incredible resolution, contrast and freedom from flare. The perfect wideangle for a "whole plate" camera.

[Don Hutton]

What is so special about the 158mm lens?It covers 8x10 with plenty of room for movements and is a tiny sharp gem... I just had Grimes mount the only coated example I've ever seen into a Copal 1 and my first tests look excellent...

[Jan Pedersen]

It is rare, small, reasonable sharp and has good coverage. Mine is not for sale :D

[Bruce Watson]

What I've named the 158mm "Series VIIc" would be a modern, multicoated, Copal 1-shuttered version of Cooke's 100-degree Series VIIb. An f/6.5 wide-field optic that would easily cover 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 inch negatives with plenty of room for movements. And, having been optimized like the recent XVa version was, it would undoubtedly exhibit incredible resolution, contrast and freedom from flare. The perfect wideangle for a "whole plate" camera.

If they make it I'll certainly consider it!

But... what's the difference between a Series III and a Series VIIc? I'm thinking of the old Wollensak Series III 6 1/4" (159mm) f/9.5 Raptar, which also seems to easily cover whole plate.

[Sal Santamaura]

...what's the difference between a Series III and a Series VIIc? I'm thinking of the old Wollensak Series III 6 1/4" (159mm) f/9.5 Raptar, which also seems to easily cover whole plate.I'm not familiar with the resolution/contrast performance of that Raptar, but am fairly certain it wasn't designed recently or multicoated. :) Also, there's a difference between illuminating and maintaining MTF to or near the edge of a circle of illumination.

[John Berry]

Nice glass, too bad it gets screwed up with multi-coating and a copal shutter.

[Sal Santamaura]

Nice glass, too bad it gets screwed up with multi-coating and a copal shutter.Please explain. That makes no sense to me.

[Mark Sawyer]

My guess is that John is among those of us who appreciate the look from an uncoated lens, and see it as part of the classic signature of the design. Multi-coating a Pinkham and Smith is kinda like pulling the V8 out of a`56 Corvette convertible and turning it into a hybrid. Yup, it's more fuel-efficient and pollutes less, but...

Personally, I'd love to have my 18-inch Verito in a #12 Copal shutter...

[Sal Santamaura]

My guess is that John is among those of us who appreciate the look from an uncoated lens, and see it as part of the classic signature of the design. Multi-coating a Pinkham and Smith is kinda like pulling the V8 out of a`56 Corvette convertible and turning it into a hybrid. Yup, it's more fuel-efficient and pollutes less, but...I still don't understand why (since there are flarey, less sharp vintage samples of these lenses available in old/obsolete shutters for those who appreciate them) anyone would describe a modern improved version as "screwed up."

I'd take one new hybrid to a million 56 Corvette convertibles. This isn't 1956. If it were, my preferred tool might be different.

[8x10 user]

One issue with a copal shutter is that it has fewer aperture blades then most barrel lenses. Some say this has an adverse effect on the way the out of focus areas are shown.

I'd personally like to see them do a 14" reproduction of Pinkham and Smith; even if it would be barrel lens. Also I'd like to see a more of a wide angle landscape version, that sharpens at F/22 for maximum depth of field (for the sharp inner core).

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

One issue with a copal shutter is that it has fewer aperture blades then most barrel lenses. Some say this has an adverse effect on the way the out of focus areas are shown.

I'd personally like to see them do a 14" reproduction of Pinkham and Smith; even if it would be barrel lens. Also I'd like to see a more of a wide angle landscape version, that sharpens at F/22 for maximum depth of field (for the sharp inner core).

It is relatively easy and cheap to find a vintage 14" lens which is very similar to a P&S. Eddie was selling a 14" Eidoscope--very similar design and look to the P&S--a few weeks ago for less than half the price of a new 9" Cooke. There is even a 14" Nicola Perscheid for sale here (as well as one at Lens and Repro) which are also very similar to the P&S. 14" or 18" Veritos? Not the same look, but they are easily available.

It is much more difficult to find one of these SF lenses in an appropriate size for 4x5. The 250mm Fujinon or Imagon are easily found, but these are a very different look than the P&S or the Cooke.

You are correct however about the number of iris blades. This is in my mind a big problem, but perhaps replacing the Copal shutter with a used Compur or even a Compound might help. One side note however; studio shutters which many Verito and P&S lenses were mounted in have a similar number or perhaps even less iris blades than a Copal, and the aperture shape is very rough.

[Scott Davis]

Sal- I have the f12.5 version of the Wolly 159 W.A. Raptar, and while it may not be a recent design, it is multi-coated (WoCoated mark in purple on the lens face). It will cover 8x10 with limited movement. I've souped a couple of negs from it but not printed them yet, so I can't say for certain how good they are at the edge, but I would expect that on whole plate, they're still pretty good corner to corner. And it's super-cheap, especially compared to similar focal-length vintage optics.

[8x10 user]

I've actually own just about enough soft focus lenses. Many of them are around the 14" range. Still... I'd like to see a 14" Cooke.

All the best,
Ed


It is relatively easy and cheap to find a vintage 14" lens which is very similar to a P&S. Eddie was selling a 14" Eidoscope--very similar design and look to the P&S--a few weeks ago for less than half the price of a new 9" Cooke. There is even a 14" Nicola Perscheid for sale here (as well as one at Lens and Repro) which are also very similar to the P&S. 14" or 18" Veritos? Not the same look, but they are easily available.

It is much more difficult to find one of these SF lenses in an appropriate size for 4x5. The 250mm Fujinon or Imagon are easily found, but these are a very different look than the P&S or the Cooke.

You are correct however about the number of iris blades. This is in my mind a big problem, but perhaps replacing the Copal shutter with a used Compur or even a Compound might help. One side note however; studio shutters which many Verito and P&S lenses were mounted in have a similar number or perhaps even less iris blades than a Copal, and the aperture shape is very rough.

[eddie]

I'd take one new hybrid to a million 56 Corvette convertibles. This isn't 1956. If it were, my preferred tool might be different.

HHHMMM?!?!!? one million 56 vette convertibles worth about $80,000 each vs one crappy ugly $20,000 hybrid?!?!? HHHMMMM? sounds like a bad move to me.....

i will leave the math to others (OH! and too bad they did not make a million)

so based on the rest of your logic with today's tools and all i believe you are in the wrong forum as the "preferred" photographic tool in 2009 is a digital camera. so you seem to be wavering in your ideals.....

[Steve Hamley]

It is much more difficult to find one of these SF lenses in an appropriate size for 4x5. The 250mm Fujinon or Imagon are easily found, but these are a very different look than the P&S or the Cooke.

I guess I'll stir the pot a little in the spirit of discussion. There are 4x5 alternatives although as Jason says, they're relatively rare (except maybe for Veritos), compared to the 14" focal length. Given the price and absence of Cooke portrait lenses at the time, and some comments by users related to the relatively small maximum aperture of the Copal, I began looking.

What I ended up with (attached jpeg) is a 9" (same as the Cooke) f:4 Gundlach Equal (Hyperion) Diffusion. It's triple convertible, color corrected according to the Gundlach literature, and the 15" and 21" lengths will cover ULF pretty easily, especially at portrait distances. After some preliminary testing and some research, I determined that it is the same as the Hyperion Diffusion which I have in the 14" focal length. I then sent it to S.K. Grimes, who fabricated the adapters to mount the cells in an Ilex #5, a triple aperture scale, and a 77mm filter adapter intended to be used with a Singh-Ray vari ND so that fast film can be more easily used. BTW, by appearances, the lens will open up just a bit wider than f:4 in the Ilex #5 shutter.

I like the results very much. Wide open, the lens is considerably more diffused than the Cooke, and has the "glow" that some other diffused lenses don't have. Granted, the shutter is a #5, but you won't find a 9" f:4 lens that fits on a small board.

As far as coated versus multi-coated versus un-coated, in B&W general flare isn't an issue as St. Ansel pointed out, but you do have to have to know your development times accordingly. I've not tested with color yet, but the primary result of general flare seems to reduce saturation and contrast, and you can compensate with film selection to some degree.

Cheers, Steve

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Steve, as best I understand, the Hyperion (it is a great name, no?) is the same design as the P&S, a modified Rapid Rectilinear. It looks like a great lens and I would love to have it, although as you say putting a Ilex no. 5 on most 4x5 or even 5x7 field cameras is pushing their weight and lensboard limits, no? For this reason, I still think the PS945 is unique...

[Steve Hamley]

Jason,

It pushes the size limits of most 4x5 field cameras, but it is not a heavy lens, even in the Ilex - I'll weigh it just for fun when I get home. Even the 14" isn't that heavy.

I concluded that if I was going to shoot fast lenses like this on 4x5, I needed something other than a small-board field camera. I'm using a nice Sinar Norma. So if you're really going to shoot fast glass on 4x5, a dedicated camera can be had for very little. I'm partial to the Norma, but I recently bought and traded a Cambo NX that would have worked just fine for the 9" combined lens for less than $100.

Cheers, Steve

[aduncanson]

Sal- I have the f12.5 version of the Wolly 159 W.A. Raptar, and while it may not be a recent design, it is multi-coated (WoCoated mark in purple on the lens face). It will cover 8x10 with limited movement. I've souped a couple of negs from it but not printed them yet, so I can't say for certain how good they are at the edge, but I would expect that on whole plate, they're still pretty good corner to corner. And it's super-cheap, especially compared to similar focal-length vintage optics.

Coated for sure, but multi-coated? Multi-coating was pretty new when Wollensak shut down in 1972. I am not sure when Schneider & Rodenstock started multi-coating large format lenses. Conventional wisdom at the time said that multi-coating was justified only for the complicated designs prevalent on smaller formats, not for typical large format designs with only 6 or 8 air-to-glass interfaces. I would be very surprised if Wollensak invested in that technology just before quitting the business. I always thought of the circle-W mark as an analogy to Schneider's Red Triangle, a way to distinguish their coated products from their earlier uncoated ones.

[John O'Connell]

Regarding the Wollensak Ser. III f/9.5 Ex. W.A. lenses:

I had a 6.25" f/9.5 version, uncoated, with clean glass. The design, I believe, had 9 (!) elements. I eventually acquired a coated f/12.5 version in the same length, and tested them against each other on my 8x10.

Unfair test, I know, but the resolution of the f/12.5 version was much better in the corners, even discounting the higher contrast of the coated lens.

Concerning coverage, the 6.25" faster version of the lens will barely cover 8x10---you have about 12mm of movement at infinity, with significant falloff even when the lens is centered. The significant movements offered by the f/12.5 lens are greatly appreciated.

The f/12.5 version of the Wolly lens is pretty good. But by reputation, the coated Cooke VIIb is supposed to be superior and just as small or smaller. If I was Cooke, I'd reintroduce a multicoated VIIc in 212mm and charge $2000 for it. All of the 8x10 and 11x14 users on this board would suddenly need one.

[Sal Santamaura]

HHHMMM?!?!!? one million 56 vette convertibles worth about $80,000 each vs one crappy ugly $20,000 hybrid?!?!? HHHMMMM? sounds like a bad move to me.....

i will leave the math to others (OH! and too bad they did not make a million)

so based on the rest of your logic with today's tools and all i believe you are in the wrong forum as the "preferred" photographic tool in 2009 is a digital camera. so you seem to be wavering in your ideals.....This is a matter of tools, what they can do, what costs they extract from us for doing those things and what we want to get done.

From a car, I want safe, quiet, comfortable, clean transportation. Those are the parameters that have always mattered to me. Had my age in 1956 been 21 rather than the 3 it actually was, I'd definitely not have purchased a Corvette convertible, even if financially able to. My expression above about "taking one new hybrid to a million 56 Corvette convertibles" wasn't based on cold financial calculation of the items' worth if sold. It was simply meant to communicate the relative value I place on those tools. Even considering your scenario where I could sell the Corvettes, resulting noise and air pollution as well as huge petroleum consumption would probably motivate me to take the single hybrid. Yeah, I'm one of those people who can place non-monetary aspects of decisions higher than the dollar-only bottom line. I try not to "know the price of all things and the value of none."

Please note that, with respect to the vintage lenses he discussed, in my response to Mark Sawyer I referred to "those who appreciate them." The characteristics of uncoated, undercorrected lenses don't appeal to me, and they aren't tools I seek. Many photographers do appreciate and seek such lenses. The used market provides them plenty to choose from; it doesn't provide anything like the "Series VIIc" I suggested to Cooke. I have never made a post which said vintage lenses "screwed up" uniformly sharp, full-scale prints made from the modern film emulsions and gelatin silver papers I prefer. Why is it acceptable for others to denigrate my aesthetic preferences?

Finally, as concerns your comments about my being in the wrong forum for 2009, I disagree completely. The best tool to achieve results I prefer is not a digital camera. The prints I wish to produce look like those that come from gelatin silver in-camera film negatives contact printed on gelatin silver paper, not like digital imaging. I don't consider using a view camera made of wood and titanium, sitting on a carbon fiber composite tripod, along with critically sharp multicoated recent lenses to be wavering in my ideals. Rather, my approach is consistent with using the most evolved tools to achieve desired results.

[eddie]

sal, upon you further explanation i understand where you are coming from.

maybe the example just threw me off. you said it was not 1956 and if it was maybe you would choose a different tool. well, it is 2009 and the tools you have chosen to use are not exactly the most modern. (i consider the hybrid in your example to be one of the most modern technical automobile machines) so by using your example i was thinking about it a bit differently. based on your above comment, "......a view camera made of wood and titanium, sitting on a carbon fiber composite tripod, along with critically sharp multicoated recent lenses" you are not really using the most modern equipment, as a matter of fact you are still using almost 20 year old technology, with your most modern piece! unlike your example of a hybrid which is only 4-8 year old technology and basically the 2009 stuff is younger than that.

that was my parallel

[Sal Santamaura]

Sal- I have the f12.5 version of the Wolly 159 W.A. Raptar, and while it may not be a recent design, it is multi-coated (WoCoated mark in purple on the lens face). It will cover 8x10 with limited movement. I've souped a couple of negs from it but not printed them yet, so I can't say for certain how good they are at the edge, but I would expect that on whole plate, they're still pretty good corner to corner. And it's super-cheap, especially compared to similar focal-length vintage optics.


Coated for sure, but multi-coated?...Scott, that was the question I would have posted if someone else didn't first. :)


Regarding the Wollensak Ser. III f/9.5 Ex. W.A. lenses:

I had a 6.25" f/9.5 version, uncoated, with clean glass. The design, I believe, had 9 (!) elements. I eventually acquired a coated f/12.5 version in the same length, and tested them against each other on my 8x10.

Unfair test, I know, but the resolution of the f/12.5 version was much better in the corners, even discounting the higher contrast of the coated lens.

Concerning coverage, the 6.25" faster version of the lens will barely cover 8x10---you have about 12mm of movement at infinity, with significant falloff even when the lens is centered. The significant movements offered by the f/12.5 lens are greatly appreciated.

The f/12.5 version of the Wolly lens is pretty good. But by reputation, the coated Cooke VIIb is supposed to be superior and just as small or smaller...An f/12.5 version of this lens seems to be one which might approach my MTF desirement. However, I've decided to stop fighting the dark screen such slow lenses cause. I'd much prefer a "VIIc" with f/6.5 maximum aperture. And, as John points out, Cooke's design is "supposed to be superior" to the Wollensak. I'll continue to wait for a 158mm "VIIc."

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Jason,

It pushes the size limits of most 4x5 field cameras, but it is not a heavy lens, even in the Ilex - I'll weigh it just for fun when I get home. Even the 14" isn't that heavy.

I concluded that if I was going to shoot fast lenses like this on 4x5, I needed something other than a small-board field camera. I'm using a nice Sinar Norma. So if you're really going to shoot fast glass on 4x5, a dedicated camera can be had for very little. I'm partial to the Norma, but I recently bought and traded a Cambo NX that would have worked just fine for the 9" combined lens for less than $100.

Cheers, Steve

Indeed, I use my 8x10 for big lenses with a reduction back, but have often thought about buying a Norma with shutter for just this reason. Sadly, my great uncle had a Norma (and oddly, my great aunt's name was Norma) and after he died I passed up his Norma in favor of his 5x7 Korona. The Korona didn't last long, but I bet that Norma (the Sinar, not the aunt) would still be with me...

[Mark Sawyer]

In defense of the f/12.5 Wollensak, I'll point out that while its shutter was set at the factory to open only to f/12.5, the removal of a small set screw allows it to open to about f/6. I tried mine there, and found it to be quite sharp enough for contact printing wide open, and no detectable focus shift closing down.

(I've also got a nice set of Cooke 158mm VIIb cells waiting for an appropriate shutter, if anyone can recommend a solution...)

[Jan Pedersen]

Mark, my VIIb is in a Synchro Compur but custom made spacers is still needed to make the cells fit.
Let me know if you need measurements for spacing.

[Steve Hamley]

Jason,

I've used an 8x10 with a 4x5 back on it, but it's more trouble to shoot 4x5 on it than on a dedicated 4x5. And it may well be cheaper to buy a $100 Cambo versus a reducing back for a 8x10, certainly so for most reducing backs for modern cameras. But either will work.

I occasionally use the Norma with lenses longer than I could with a field camera, if I'm not carrying an 8x10. If you're already carrying an 8x10, carrying a reducing back is usually easier than carrying a second camera.

Anyway, the Norma does double duty, and I used to have a 5x7 with a 4x5 reducing back which I regret selling, then I bought a nice 4x5/5x7 Norma outfit from Robert Fisher here on the forum (Thanks Robert). And a good Norma reasonably used and cared for will outlast us, not just aunt Norma!

The 9" f:4 in Ilex #5 weighs about 976 grams with Sinar board, filter adapter, and caps, so about 2 pounds, well within the ability of most cameras. The 14" f:4 Hyperion-Diffusion weighs 1430 grams mounted on a Sinar board.

Pitcher-1 is a small pitcher taken by window light against a black background at f:4 or a little wider as the shutter allows. You can clearly see the halo or glow. Pitcher-2 is the same in direct sunlight, again a little wider than f:4 as the shutter allows. There's a lot of "zip" in this shot because of the amount of light. Finally, pitcher-3 is the same with the lens at f5.6, which greatly reduces the halo effect. It also increases the contrast a lot by reducing the light being "thrown around". This is why I believe coating or multicoating is moot with soft focus lenses, the general flare from the soft focus effect is much greater than the difference between uncoated and multicoated.

Cheers, Steve

[gbogatko]

To me, the most important thing about this is that a major lens manufacturer thinks that there is a large enough market to support such a product. This could only occur if they felt that the commercial market was shifting enough towards the 'look' that classic LF lens can provide to warrant the expense involved in producing such a lens.

In other words, times -- they are a-changing.

Those of us who have been collecting such lenses might allow ourselves a small chuckle to see that our obsession is becoming modern -- perhaps "in vogue?"

George

[Don Hutton]

Here's a Cooke 158mm VIIb in a Copal 1 shutter - give's you some idea of how small and compact it is... The lens next to it is a Germinar 240mm - itself a small and very compact lens, but the Cooke is much smaller still.

This example is coated. The design shows a fair amount of field curvature wide open, but at f22 is razor sharp into the corners of 8x10, with some movement potential. The silver ring is a step-up ring I have sized to fit snugly over the front filter ring of the front element - this allows convenient use of modern 49mm filters or accessories. The lens requires adaptors for both front and rear elements to enable fitting into a Copal 1 shutter.

[Brian Bullen]

In defense of the f/12.5 Wollensak, I'll point out that while its shutter was set at the factory to open only to f/12.5, the removal of a small set screw allows it to open to about f/6. I tried mine there, and found it to be quite sharp enough for contact printing wide open, and no detectable focus shift closing down.

That is surprising to me. I have a wolly 12.5 in a copal 3 and when it is fully open, around f/6ish, it's very soft with halos and all. I'll post an example later. I wonder if the copal 3 has something to do with it.

[Mark Sawyer]

Brian ~ I just checked mine in the factory Rapax shutter, and it reads 29.92mm front to back rim. You might want to check yours.

Jan, (and anyone else with a VIIb for comparison) ~ I'd absolutely love to know what the spacing is on these! Mine came without even the barrel.

[Jan Pedersen]

Don, Nice and clear lens.
Here a comparison to a modern lens with about the same coverage.

[Brian Bullen]

Mark,
Mine appears to be the correct spacing but it's hard to get an exact reading, the lens is in a sunk type mount. SK Grimes did the work so I always assumed it was a job well done and except when it's wide open sharpness is never an issue. The print is missing so I uploaded a portion of a 4x10 neg.

Does anyone have samples from the Cooke 158 VIIb?

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Thanks Steve, those are wonderful samples. It is interesting that these lenses are so light. My 14" Eidoscope weighs less than the 14" Symmar-S I sold years ago, and half of my 360mm Heliar.

I would also love a modern lightweight ~150mm lens for my 5x7, but sadly don't see myself spending 3K on it.

[Jan Pedersen]

Brian, This one was taken with the 158 VIIb

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Mark, I have the solution for you. You can send me your lens elements and I can make a walnut barrel for it and put it to use for you? What do you think?

Jan, very nice image tonality. Makes me jealous.

Jim

[Songyun]

how does 158 VIIb compare with Wolly 159mm or Dagor 6 1/2"?
Wolly 9.5 is soft at edge.
How does 158 VIIb compare with modern 150mm lens (nikon SW, schneider SSXL)?

[John Berry]

Please explain. That makes no sense to me. Why engineer OUT what makes a lens legendary? I prefer single coated lenses. I am not anti-coating by any means. Own quite a few multie's myself. The few blades of the copal change the signature of the lens, and the multi-coating gives up 1/4 to 1/2 stop dynamic range over single coating in chrome films. In the studio where light is what you want it to be, no big deal. We go outside and I will kick any multicoated lens's ass with any of my red dot Artars, any day of the week. I use that little bit of expanded dynamic range to pull out detail from under a bench that multicoated lenses can't even dream about.

[timparkin]

Why engineer OUT what makes a lens legendary? I prefer single coated lenses. I am not anti-coating by any means. Own quite a few multie's myself. The few blades of the copal change the signature of the lens, and the multi-coating gives up 1/4 to 1/2 stop dynamic range over single coating in chrome films. In the studio where light is what you want it to be, no big deal. We go outside and I will kick any multicoated lens's ass with any of my red dot Artars, any day of the week. I use that little bit of expanded dynamic range to pull out detail from under a bench that multicoated lenses can't even dream about.

If multi-coating gives you half a stop advantage then you are losing half a stop of contrast in your pictures. What if I want to have that extra contrast? More contrast means more saturated colour which in overcast conditions is exactly what I want in many situations.

If I want a non-coated lens I'll by a red dot artar - If I want a multicoated pinkham and smith design then I have only one place to buy it...

Why create a new version of lens which is already available and which you already have and are very happy with?

Tim

[Don Hutton]

I've not seen a published, independant full lens test for any large format lens...

I owned a pair of XVas for a while (which enable you to have 5 focal lenghs) and here are my thoughts:

All combinations were adequately sharp for very large enlargements. Not the absolute sharpest lens(s) I've ever used, but at least as sharp as some other modern lenses I've owned. The optics have fabulous coating which is extremely flare resistant - better than any other modern lenses I've owned. The downside is that using the lens in the single cell configuration requires more bellows extension than a regular lens and with 8x10 I routinely find this to be an issue with prevailing air movement and longish exposures. Also, I found messing about with lens elements in the field to be fiddly and nerve wracking.... The lens (either singularly or as a double set) still does not cover the wide angle focal lengh, so inevitably, you'll need to carry another lens, somewhat detracting from the "one lens for everything" benefit of the Cooke. It's a fabulous lens, but not one which I believe, has a "very distinctive" signature. As a result, for my purposes, a bunch of other lenses suit me better. My current 8x10 lens set is based largely upon low weight and compactness - a 158 Cooke VIIb, a 210 Kowa, 300 Fuji C, 450 Fuji C and if I think I'll need it, a 600 Fuji C. Together, these lenses weigh only a little more than the Cooke XVa (less than a "pair") and I find them to be more versatile and perform at least as well.

[Jan Pedersen]

Jim, Thank you..

Songyun, i have only taken one comparison shot with the 158 Cooke and the 150SSXL and what is most obvious is the difference in contrast. On an 8x10 contact print it is difficult to see the difference in sharpness but an enlargement will show it pretty easy.
The uncoated Cooke is also more flare prone so a tight hood is esential if shooting outdors.

[Songyun]

Jim, Thank you..

Songyun, i have only taken one comparison shot with the 158 Cooke and the 150SSXL and what is most obvious is the difference in contrast. On an 8x10 contact print it is difficult to see the difference in sharpness but an enlargement will show it pretty easy.
The uncoated Cooke is also more flare prone so a tight hood is esential if shooting outdors.

Thanks. I guess that I won't be interested in this lens. :D

[Eric Leppanen]

I owned a pair of XVas for a while (which enable you to have 5 focal lenghs) and here are my thoughts:

All combinations were adequately sharp for very large enlargements. Not the absolute sharpest lens(s) I've ever used, but at least as sharp as some other modern lenses I've owned. The optics have fabulous coating which is extremely flare resistant - better than any other modern lenses I've owned. The downside is that using the lens in the single cell configuration requires more bellows extension than a regular lens and with 8x10 I routinely find this to be an issue with prevailing air movement and longish exposures. Also, I found messing about with lens elements in the field to be fiddly and nerve wracking....It's a fabulous lens, but not one which I believe, has a "very distinctive" signature...I owned a Cooke XVa for awhile, and my experience mirrored Don's. The dual-cell (311mm) configuration compared comparably to my 300mm Sironar-S. It had better flare characteristics (the best I have seen in any lens), less coverage (381mm versus 448mm, although the Cooke could be used beyond its rated IC if you don't mind a very soft, dreamy look) and comparable sharpness. The Cooke single-cell configurations were not as sharp as my dedicated focal length lenses, despite many attempts at tightening down and stabilizing my camera (Ebony SV810U at the time). How much of this was due to lens design versus the wind jostling the bellows (due to the extra long Cooke extension requirements) I can't say. Since I make large prints and am a sharpness junkie, I found the Cooke to be a very nice but very expensive 311mm lens with limited coverage, so I sold it. For someone making smaller or contact prints, and who doesn't mind fiddling with the lens elements in the field, it might be the ticket.

[Scott Davis]

Scott, that was the question I would have posted if someone else didn't first. :)

An f/12.5 version of this lens seems to be one which might approach my MTF desirement. However, I've decided to stop fighting the dark screen such slow lenses cause. I'd much prefer a "VIIc" with f/6.5 maximum aperture. And, as John points out, Cooke's design is "supposed to be superior" to the Wollensak. I'll continue to wait for a 158mm "VIIc."

It was my understanding that it was multi-coated, but I may have gotten my info from a bad source. Regardless, it is coated, and it covers whole plate, 8x10, and even 5x12 (although it gets a little fuzzy in the corners on 5x12). It is relatively flare-free even shooting night shots with intense point light sources.

I know the WoCoated logo came in different colors, and the colors allegedly had significance relative to the coating. Mine is the purple logo. It could be just an age thing, and not a coating thing.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I see that Badger has updated their website to include the 8x10 XVa

http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_list&c=246

[Mike1234]

Please forgive my inquiry in this forum. I know it's a little out of place but I'm having difficulty locating information about a lens I found in my stash of old optics. It's apparently somewhat rare and is sought after by those who know what it is and of what it's capable.

There seem to be a few Taylor-Hobson fans here, yes? :-)

This is a Taylor-Hobson Wide Angle Anastigmat 2 1/2 Inch Series VIIB f/6.5 front-mounted in a Compur-P shutter. The shutter has no internal aperture. The cells "might" be coated (extremely faint bluish reflections)... or this could just be oxidation... or my imagination? The glass is in mint condition as per observation with +10 binocular visors in addition to +3.5 reading glasses (+13.5?). The barrel is near mint with just a few tiny nicks in the black paint but otherwise shows no wear. The shutter is near mint if not for just a few tiny paint nicks and one ~35mm scratch running underneath its serial number. There is no "Cooke" designation to be found.

The only information I've located so far is this lens has a coverage of 100 degrees at f/32 and is designated for use on 3.25 x 4.25. I also know it's probably NOT coated but the faint bluish reflections are fooling me.

I'm truly grateful for any information you reply with. I found a couple of websites with some basic information but there are a few questions still unanswered.

Questions:
1. Will this lens cover 4x5 for field imagery (sans shifts or front tilt/swing)?
2. Approximately how much is this T-H is worth on the open market?
3. Is it possible this one actually is coated?

[Mike1234]

Mmm... maybe this is rarer than I thought... or perhaps there's just no interest. :-)

[Jan Pedersen]

Cooke series VIIb are great lenses. Perhaps the lack of interest is the short focal length you have. Most on the forum use larger formats but i know of a few who does shoot something smaller than 4x5
A 6.1/4" coated version just sold here on the forum today so the VIIb was coated at a certain time most are not.
Take a look at Seth and Laura' s Web site. Great place to go find some information on old lenses. Thanks Seth.

http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/cooke_2.html

[Mike1234]

Cooke series VIIb are great lenses. Perhaps the lack of interest is the short focal length you have. Most on the forum use larger formats but i know of a few who does shoot something smaller than 4x5
A 6.1/4" coated version just sold here on the forum today so the VIIb was coated at a certain time most are not.
Take a look at Seth and Laura' s Web site. Great place to go find some information on old lenses. Thanks Seth.

http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/cooke_2.html

Thank you, Jan. I'll check out the link.

[Ken Lee]

It would be nice if they offered the lens in barrel, with an aperture consisting of many blades. That could help lower the price, since shutter and mounting must contribute to the overall cost.

[Mike1234]

This one can be removed from the shutter but it's very tight. I'm afraid to try very hard for concern of damaging the aperture. I really don't think the shutter added that much to the initial cost but it probably does add to its present value.

That said, if it was removed from the shutter and if it actually does cover 4x5, this is the tiniest lens I've ever encountered that can do so. If the quality is as good as is inferred it's one heck of a gem and quite rare to boot.

[Carsten Wolff]

Mike,
I've used a few Cooke VIIb lenses. Apart from the 158mm, all I had were coated. Most of these came originally in barrel and were sold as front-mounts, for e.g. Epsilon shutters. The mid focal lengths go in the UK for about 100 Pounds without a shutter. My 108mm (4 1/4") version (in a Copal 0!) covers 5x7 nicely. Your 65mm might just cover 4x5 stopped down.
If its front-mounted your shutter MAY become the limiting factor for coverage. Don't hold up any hope for mounting it into a shutter though. Even on the 108mm version, the cell spacing is so tight, it basically touches the aperture-blades of the shutter.....

[Carsten Wolff]

Thinking about it some more, I would suggest the 2 1/2" Cooke sounds more like a 6x9cm proposition, rather than 4x5", similar e.g. to the WA Raptars.

[Arne Croell]

Mike,
IMy 108mm (4 1/4") version (in a Copal 0!) covers 5x7 nicely. Your 65mm might just cover 4x5 stopped down.

....Even on the 108mm version, the cell spacing is so tight, it basically touches the aperture-blades of the shutter.....
Interesting - my 108mm sits in a Compur 1, not a 0. The individual cells, with deeply recessed lenses, are one piece so it does not look that they were adapted from a different shutter. The cell spacing is indeed tight.