PDA

View Full Version : cooke series II anastigmat?



butterfly
11-Nov-2009, 08:39
Hi,

one of those impulse things of evil bay - I bought a lens, brass barrel marked ;cooke anastigmat lens series II f4.5'. The barrel is engraved 'Taylor, Taylor & Hobson , Leicester, London and New York'. It's mot a soft focus lens as far as I can tell - just has normal iris blades and no shutter obviously.

It's a beautiful thing (!).

However, I am thinking, is it a real Cooke, because I cannot find any information on this lens other than the closest thing would be a Cooke Aviar 7 inch 4.5. Is this what this lens is, or is it some other?

any information would be really helpful, and I am also wondering if the board hole size needed would relate to the copal sizes?

Thanks!

Steve

Steve Hamley
11-Nov-2009, 08:51
A picture or focal length would help immensely, but yes, Cooke (Taylor, Taylor, and Hobson) made many Series II f/4.s Anastigmat lenses.

The Lens Collector's Vade Mecum has quite a large section on TT&H lenses including a lot of information on the Series II lenses.

And no, this lens was probably designed before the parents of the people who first dreamed of a Copal shutter were born.

Cheers, Steve

butterfly
11-Nov-2009, 09:15
Hi,

It is marked 7 inch f4.5. The retaining ring is engraved with the TH logo. The serial number is 55979.

Forgive my ignorance, I've never heard of the Vade Mecum. I'll look it up.

Regards

Steve

Steve Hamley
11-Nov-2009, 09:23
Steve,

Nothing to forgive, you can find it here:

http://antiquecameras.net/lensvademecum.html

Dan posts here as "CCHarrison"

I have a 7" Series II f/3.5 without the soft focus that I like very much. Usually lenses this short didn't have the diffusion mechanism. I also have a Series II 10.4" with the diffusion that doesn't diffuse that much, but I like the way it renders in contrasty light very much.

Give yours a try on a still life close to a bright window or in bright overcast and I think you'll be very pleased with your purchase.

Cheers, Steve

CCHarrison
11-Nov-2009, 09:26
From "Camera...." 1904:

"In our November issue we announced two new series of Cooke anastigmats and now give an illustration of the series IV lens. It works at a full aperture of F 5, 6, and is designed for the finest portraiture, for high-speed photography, and for difficult photographs in poor lights. The series II lenses working at F 4.5 are intended for still more trying conditions, and the makers guarantee sharp definition with the diaphragm wide open to the extreme corners of the plate specified for each lens.. The Cooke anastigmat has the advantage of an extremely simple construction. It consists of three thin glasses which obviously admit more light than does a combination of six, eight or nine. The difference in lighting is distinctly noticeable in
practice, and the makers invite fair comparison between Cooke lenses and others of the same focus and aperture. They have a delicate screw-adjustment for the final corrections of the lens. Sensitive and efficient, the adjustment always remains rigid, and besides increasing accuracy, it is immensely more durable than the old-fashioned balsam, with no disadvantage of any kind. With its help can be secured the most critical definition throughout the plate for which each lens is listed, and one uniform excellence is attained.

These advantages are fully developed in the new series, and result in objectives of greater rapidity and defining power, with a more uniform excellence than has hitherto been possible in lenses having these large apertures. The series II, excel for portraiture by the adjustability of the back glass. This enables the photographer to secure at will uniform sharp definition, or to diffuse any required softness evenly throughout the plate. The value of this device can best be appreciated by the professional photographer.

The success of Cooke lenses in America during eighteen months has been unique. In government departments again and again they have replaced what were but recently considered the finest anastigmats for copying and enlarging. In astronomical research they are now used perhaps more than any other photographic lens. For photo-engraving Cooke lenses are chosen increasingly by the most critical workers, while the best amateur and professional photographers praise them on all sides."

Also

"Cooke Lens, Series II. Full aperture F. 4.5. These ultra-rapid anastigmats are designed for the finest portraiture, and for subjects demanding extreme speed. Like other Cooke lenses, they give definition at the margins of the plates equal to that at the center, and are quite free from that peculiar streakiness or marginal definition familiar to the professional photographer."


Dan

butterfly
11-Nov-2009, 11:11
That's great information! Many thanks everyone. Need to sort out a board and I'll give it a try!

richardman
28-Dec-2013, 14:15
I just got one of these too! What a beautiful lens! Here's an image on a homemade lensboard and using a lenscap for a one second exposure. Monday it will go off to SK Grimes to get it probablyer mounted on a shutter!

http://richardmanphoto.com/PICS/20131228-Scanned-233-Edit.jpg

Here's the lens on the Chamonix F1, I did blacken the inside of the lensboard :-)

http://richardmanphoto.com/PICS/20131228-L1021370.jpg

Hugo Zhang
30-Dec-2013, 12:54
Richard,

Nice one! I have just received one too, a 7" Cooke Anastigmat serie ii in black barrel and I will try it on my Graflex Super d. :)

richardman
31-Dec-2013, 01:45
Just sent it off to SK Grimes for a front mount shutter, but this may seriously be my favorite lens!

http://richardmanphoto.com/PICS/20131230-Scanned-238-Edit.jpg



http://richardmanphoto.com/PICS/20131230-Scanned-239.jpg

Roger Hesketh
31-Dec-2013, 02:27
Richard,

Nice one! I have just received one too, a 7" Cooke Anastigmat serie ii in black barrel and I will try it on my Graflex Super d. :)

Hugo this lens was one of the original equipment options for the 4x5 Auto Graflex. Just a tidge shorter if I remember correctly at 6.2"

Ian Greenhalgh
31-Dec-2013, 06:25
I have a 5 3/8" one made in 1912, stunningly good for such an old and simple lens.

Hugo Zhang
31-Dec-2013, 14:38
Hugo this lens was one of the original equipment options for the 4x5 Auto Graflex. Just a tidge shorter if I remember correctly at 6.2"

Roger

it is a 7 inch one. See the link of pictures:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/151190400537?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649

8x10 user
31-Dec-2013, 14:47
Historical COOKIE Anastigmat


Roger

it is a 7 inch one. See the link of pictures:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/151190400537?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649

John Kasaian
31-Dec-2013, 15:07
Got a 13" one in a Betax on the 5x7. Happy Happy Happy:D

8x10 user
13-Jan-2014, 12:07
Nice portraits!


Just sent it off to SK Grimes for a front mount shutter, but this may seriously be my favorite lens!

http://richardmanphoto.com/PICS/20131230-Scanned-238-Edit.jpg



http://richardmanphoto.com/PICS/20131230-Scanned-239.jpg

goamules
30-May-2015, 13:26
The postman left this on the door today, I've been anxiously awaiting it. I'm a sucker for Volute shutters, especially since they usually had the top of the line lenses in them. I don't buy a lot of Cooke lenses, now that their portrait versions are selling in the multi thousand dollar range. Yet I do love the workmanship and quality of all their products, even some of the sleepers like this one.

Cooke Anastigmat Series II

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8807/17655450514_293ea85770_c.jpg

William Whitaker
30-May-2015, 18:39
Lensvy = Lens Envy or something like that. Nice one Garrett! That's a beaut in that Volute! ;-)

goamules
31-May-2015, 07:41
Thanks Will, even if it had just a common lens, I would have wanted it for that Volute. I just put it on my 8x10, and it covers easily. So that was a surprise.

William Whitaker
31-May-2015, 07:57
I just put it on my 8x10, and it covers easily. So that was a surprise.

Yes, it is surprising. I have a Cooke marked 8" f/4.5, Series II, 5x7. And that's just what it is. At one time I had tried to use it on 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 and it definitely did NOT cover, having a very sharp cutoff. Mine is in a barrel. Still a pretty lens. But a shutter would make it a lot easier to use. And a Packard just isn't as pretty as a Volute.

IanG
31-May-2015, 09:23
It's time I used mine , I have 4 TT&H Cooke Series II lenses, ideally I should get another flange and use my 6" on one of my Speed Graphics, or fix the 5x4 Marion Soho Reflex. The other 3 are all 5", one's a T-P Cooke Anastigmat, the other two Cooke-Luxor Anasigmat, all 4 are in excellent optical condition. The 5" does cover 5x4.

I'm impressed with Richardman's images so thank you Garrett for resurrecting this thread :D

Ian

goamules
31-May-2015, 13:50
Here is the corner of my 8x10 camera, note it covers a lot further than the 5x6 marker.

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8800/18132761309_f9e65abeb2.jpg

I put it on my wholeplate camera, and just shot two sheets, one wide open, one at F8. In the soup now.

IanG
1-Jun-2015, 01:23
Garrett, your lens appears to be marked 5x8 not 5x6, according to Cooke the 8" covers Half Plate (1919 TT&H Cooke BJP ALmanac advert) the marked 5x8 is the nominal coverage with movements for a Half plate lens. It should cover 7x5 OK but with less room for movements.

I know my 6" covers 5x4 with plenty of room for movements, the Soho Reflex has front rise/fall, tilt and swing, I just tried one of the 5" lenses on a 7x5 camera and it just cuts off the corners so will cover 5x4 well. TT&H Cooke don't listed the coverage for the 5" lenses which were made for Quarter plate and 6.5x9 SLRs, it's the shortest FL that can be used on the smaller the Thornton Pickard Ruby Reflex cameras.

Ian

goamules
1-Jun-2015, 05:18
My ground glass on this 8x10 is marked that size for a wetplate holder I use. I then moved the lens to a permanent lensboard on my 6 1/2 X 8 1/2 Rochester, where it covered very well.

John Kasaian
1-Jun-2015, 07:55
Terrific lens! I've got a 13" in a Betax:cool:

Louis Pacilla
1-Jun-2015, 09:42
Terrific lens! I've got a 13" in a Betax:cool:

Hey John are you sure you have a Series II f4.5 13" as it would be a Cooke Portrait in series II at that FL and it will NOT fit in shutter. You sure you don't have the series w/ max aperture of f8 or f6.5. It's kind of a different animal.

IanG
1-Jun-2015, 10:03
There was a13" f4.5 Series II, TT&H Cooke state that the 8" & 13" include a new diffusion adjuster (in 1910) it wasn't sold specifically as a Portrait lens. The Cooke Portrait lens at that point was a IIa f3.5 12".

Ian

goamules
1-Jun-2015, 13:59
Here is a good rundown of both the soft focus Cooke Portrait Anastigmats, and the non soft focus Anastigmats. Note, there is an Anastigmat IIa at F3.5 (near top), and a Portrait Anastigmat IIa at F3.5 with the soft adjustment (towards the bottom of the page).
Click for entire catalog
http://www.cameraeccentric.com/img/info/cooke_1/cooke_1_05.jpg (http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/cooke_1.html)

Emil Schildt
1-Jun-2015, 15:42
aah - the IIa..

I LOVE mine..

John Kasaian
1-Jun-2015, 15:46
Hey John are you sure you have a Series II f4.5 13" as it would be a Cooke Portrait in series II at that FL and it will NOT fit in shutter. You sure you don't have the series w/ max aperture of f8 or f6.5. It's kind of a different animal.
I'l have to go look for it and report back!

8x10 user
1-Jun-2015, 18:13
I found a missing link Cooke that is marked as a Series II Anastigmat (without "portrait") however there is indeed a soft focus mechanism between the lenses. Its odd as one the other early Cooke portraits that I have seen was marked portrait however instead of a mechanism you just screwed in the rear lens for more softness.

IanG
2-Jun-2015, 00:25
I found a missing link Cooke that is marked as a Series II Anastigmat (without "portrait") however there is indeed a soft focus mechanism between the lenses. Its odd as one the other early Cooke portraits that I have seen was marked portrait however instead of a mechanism you just screwed in the rear lens for more softness.

That's the lenses I referred to in Post #26, my mistake it's the 10" (not 8) & 12" that have the diffusion adjuster (BJP Almanac 1910).

It appears from later TT&H Cooke BJP Almanac adverts that Cooke differentiated (probably after WWI) between the shorter Focal length Series II lenses for formats up to Half-Plate -for High Speed Pictures on Hand & Reflex cameras, and the Series II Portric for Rapid Studio work. The same can be seen in the B&J Cooke lens catalogue 1920's on Camera Eccentric where the IIa's are split the same way.

The Series II & IIa ranges are only split in adverts and catalogues for marketing, the shorter lenses 3 -8" are available in shutters, barrels, sunken mounts, the longer lenses 9" - 18" aimed at studios for portraits hen the Portrait marking.

Ian

goamules
21-Jun-2015, 20:30
I shot it on wholeplate, one wide open, this one at F8. Both were quite sharp. I like this lens.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/540/18418511924_10eb41e635_c.jpg

jesse
22-Jun-2015, 09:42
I shot it on wholeplate, one wide open, this one at F8. Both were quite sharp. I like this lens.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/540/18418511924_10eb41e635_c.jpg


This is nice!

jesse
22-Jun-2015, 09:44
My 16 inches Cooke Portrait Series II

135839

Mark Sawyer
22-Jun-2015, 12:25
I like this lens...

I can see why! :)

goamules
22-Jun-2015, 12:41
Yeah, it's in a shiny, jeweled Volute shutter. It has fancy gold engraving that reads "Cooke." Oh....and it takes great pictures. I'm impressed by the contrast, but that was quite a dynamic range shot.

8x10 user
13-Jul-2015, 11:15
Here are some pictures of one. 136806136807136808

I'm fairly sure this one covers 8x10, the coverage on the earlier cooke's seems to be surprisingly large. Perhaps they cover even more then a dagor when used wide open?


That's the lenses I referred to in Post #26, my mistake it's the 10" (not 8) & 12" that have the diffusion adjuster (BJP Almanac 1910).

It appears from later TT&H Cooke BJP Almanac adverts that Cooke differentiated (probably after WWI) between the shorter Focal length Series II lenses for formats up to Half-Plate -for High Speed Pictures on Hand & Reflex cameras, and the Series II Portric for Rapid Studio work. The same can be seen in the B&J Cooke lens catalogue 1920's on Camera Eccentric where the IIa's are split the same way.

The Series II & IIa ranges are only split in adverts and catalogues for marketing, the shorter lenses 3 -8" are available in shutters, barrels, sunken mounts, the longer lenses 9" - 18" aimed at studios for portraits hen the Portrait marking.

Ian

IanG
13-Jul-2015, 12:05
Here are some pictures of one. 136806136807136808

I'm fairly sure this one covers 8x10, the coverage on the earlier cooke's seems to be surprisingly large. Perhaps they cover even more then a dagor when used wide open?

According to TTH Cooke it's an 8x5 lens, actual coverage though includes room for some movements so it may barely/just cover 10x8.

Here we run into semantics as a lens may have a large image circle but be very poor at the edges and corners even stopped down. Also expectations change a lens good for contact prints mat be very weak when the negatives are enlarged.

I have a number of lenses that illuminate significantly larger formats than they were designed/sold for, I know they won't be ideal/optimum at those larger formats but they could be interesting.

The Lomo approach is definitely not new Emmet Gowan and others used lenses past there useable coverage many years ago :D

Ian

goamules
13-Jul-2015, 12:24
Mine is a 5x8 too, but covers 8x10 easily. I look for no darkening of corners, when I differentiate between "covers" and "is useful on". If there are some edge affects, like a curved field, I usually like that. Note that my above shot was on 6 1/2 X 8 1/2, somewhat larger than 5x8. If you are doing architectual work or copy work, you need a lens that really was made for that size. But art work...not so much.

8x10 user
13-Jul-2015, 12:30
Coverage seems to vary among the Series II lenses, earlier ones have the most coverage but do not include lens shades. Cookes numbers are inconsistent in regards to coverage, the 8" versions say the will cover 4.5 x 3.5 while my 7" is clearly marked for 5x7. Its hard to say if cookes later figures are based on coverage, sharpness, or recommend perspective. Most portrait lenses manufactures recommend longer FL's for perspective reasons. Sometimes it's nice to have a wider option. The 7" is the widest lens I use with my "classic" 5x7 kit.

goamules
13-Jul-2015, 12:41
I don't know if these Cookes can be called it, but I like moderately wide lenses for landscapes. I know Dagors are, at about 70 degrees view if I recall. And I know Petzvals are not, at about 40 degrees!

IanG
15-Jul-2015, 12:11
I posted a thread either here or on APUG about my 105mm f3.8 Xpres which illuminates 5"x4" as does my 105mm f4.5 Tominon at all apertures, I've yet to test them. I've no current plans to use them on formats they weren't designed for but would like to know what the short fall are in terms of fall off in sharpness.

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

Ian

goamules
15-Dec-2017, 17:45
I got another Aviar last weekend, at 10" that is coated for some reason. No, there is no Burke and James rework markings on it. But the barrel looks 1930s or 40s to me. It's funny how an F4.5 Portrait Series with the soft focus adjustment in this size will go for $1500, but the same lens without the variable elements will sell for $31. Looking forward to using it.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4580/39048799812_93f3362e26_c.jpg

Dan Fromm
15-Dec-2017, 19:16
Garrett, what's your new Aviar's serial number? The VM says that TTH started coating sometime in 1942-3, puts s/n 303,000 in '43 or '44. I've had a 5"/4.5 Aviar s/n 292229 that was coated. It came from England, bore no B&J markings.

goamules
16-Dec-2017, 05:22
Its 415830. I guess I was going by the old look of the black lacquer. But it must be later than 1944 then.

This catalog is from the 1930s.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4641/38205925445_e86c6171d4_b.jpg

Jim Galli
16-Dec-2017, 16:14
I think we're starting to mix up apples and oranges here, even though Cooke did not help calling both a Series II. The Aviar is a dialyt. Not a triplet. So perhaps Cooke's Series no. had more to do with max aperture than lens type? Now a coated Cooke Aviar is a thing to behold. It may just crowd the sharpest lenses on earth, and they have spectacular bokeh wide open.


http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Portraits/CocaCola14AnastigCookeS.jpg
coca~cola, Cooke Aviar Anastigmat 14" @ f5.6

Dan Fromm
16-Dec-2017, 17:11
Um, Jimbo, trade names have little to do with much, possibly nothing to do with anything. If you think that TTH's revision was confusing, take a look at Berthiot's of around 1912.

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

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

Jim Galli
16-Dec-2017, 17:45
Um, Jimbo, trade names have little to do with much, possibly nothing to do with anything. If you think that TTH's revision was confusing, take a look at Berthiot's of around 1912.

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

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

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

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

goamules
16-Dec-2017, 18:12
... The Aviar is a dialyt. Not a triplet....

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

Jim Galli
16-Dec-2017, 18:22
Triplet diagram is here;

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

Dialyt is here;

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

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

Dan Fromm
16-Dec-2017, 18:27
Yes, thinking about my previous observation that a 4.5 would always be a series II no matter the makeup breaks down quickly when both Series IV and Series VI are f5.6. So of course you're exactly right that there is no rhyme or reason involved.

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

It was an Aviar. I've had only one TTH triplet in my life and I sold it through this site, didn't give it to you.

Jim Galli
16-Dec-2017, 19:26
It was an Aviar. I've had only one TTH triplet in my life and I sold it through this site, didn't give it to you.

Oh sure. Make me risk my life going up the rickety wooden stairs in the ice and sleet and rain and snow to check. And . . . . . .. . it's an Aviar. 5" no change. How does he do it. The man's almost always right. Until he gets to politics.