Lens Blasphemy

[Steve Hamley]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

It's better carry one lens in the field than three, especially if you're hiking.

[CP Goerz]

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]

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]

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]

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.