Thanks, I'd like to see the article and comparisons mentioned!
Thanks, I'd like to see the article and comparisons mentioned!
Exactly right, but the Cooke is a copy of the Series IV P&S visual quality, not the Series 1 or 2. The Series IV #2 that sold here for $2,000 last week is a thousand times more attractive than the Cooke to me. To each his own though.Originally Posted by George Kara
If someone wants to send me their Cooke, I have 9" Hyperion and 9-ish inch Eidoscop that we could shoot side by side. My nearest Series IV is 12" though.
95% of the people with great glass are incapable of making photographs that justify the expenditure. Even Cooke cannot find a great photograph to post as an example of the best use of their lens. If you like the look of the lens, find a high quality rapid rectilinear (Darlot, Voigtlander, Suter, Wollensak (Versar, Voltas)) and work with that instead. Note: there are many, many RR's out there made by other companies that will never sharply focus, so buy carefully.
Comparing the Series IV P&S (or the Cooke PS945) to a RR, even a fast one is more than a stretch. I have the f4 Euryscop and it is simply a very sharp very fast rapid rectilinear. Versar's and other extra repid f6 aplanats are simply less fast very sharp lenses. I do love the look they give and the nice bokeh of the ultra simple design, but I class them very differently than a P&S IV or an Eidoscop. The Nicola Perscheid and it's family members had some math that gave them the glow. They may be a modified RR, but the magic is in the mod. Eve was a modification of Adam, but Oh my!
That may be largely true, but a good RR will provide some important features, a wonderful transition from focus to out of focus, a concentration of forces in the center 20 degrees of the lens, and other less effable qualities to the light bending. I would say, become a master of humbler lenses before buying a Cooke. Otherwise it is like giving egg tempera to a finger painterteen. Its just going to be mud. Interesting mud perhaps, showing a trace of the brilliant capability of the medium, but a waste of money. Collectors are selfish, unless they loan out their "instruments" in the way that owners of Guarneri's loan out their violins.
Definitely a feature enhanced model!
When I was 16 I thought my father the stupidest man in the world; when I reached 21, I was astounded by how much he had learned in just 5 years!
-appropriated from Mark Twain
And I'm not just ribbing you...
When I was 16 I thought my father the stupidest man in the world; when I reached 21, I was astounded by how much he had learned in just 5 years!
-appropriated from Mark Twain
I ve searched pretty good, and examples of head portraits are few and far between. The photo on the Cooke site-the male portrait on the left of the page is nice...don t know if it is a contemporary photo or not. Many have suggested a side by side comparison of the effects of different portrait lenses including the PS 945. This comparison doesn't seem to exist. The argument that one needs to learn the lens...it should not be rocket science to product a full aperture portrait with this lens...one purchases the lens for how it renders light in respect to other lenses. If there is no difference in the rendering or if it is to subtle to readily identify, then there is not much to sell here, in my not so humble opinion.
Dave, FWIW I think you should get one and produce brilliant work on full plate with it.
Just when ya thought you had yourself talked out of it.
Paul, if you'll PM me your email address, I'll send you Ted's article...otherwise, my recollection is that it was the Nov/Dec 2005 VCMag (I'd post it here but don't want to incur "the wrath from high atop the thing" in New Mexico).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks