MJ KERBER
10-02-2008, 06:21 PM
Today, we tested our Cooke 18-100 alongside the Red 18-85 (provided by Video Resources).
Look for Matt Uhry to post a link to the footage sometime fairly soon (can't speak to his exact schedule/timeline for doing this...maybe tonight). And I'm sure he'll include an intelligent, knowledgeable written breakdown/opinion.
This wasn't meant to be an absolute, scientific study of each lens. Nonetheless, I think it's valuable and can give one the confidence to purchase and/or shoot with the lens and know what they can expect. Of course, it's best to see the results (coming soon) or do the tests yourself and assess from there, but the following is a basic rundown of some attributes and characteristics:
PHYSICALITY/BUILD:
As you've seen, it's big. A little shorter than the Cooke 18-100 but definitely a larger diameter housing overall. Anyone ordering should get a carry handle. A.C.'s with small hands should be careful ; ) Did it need to be that big because of the size of the optical elements? Questionable. Our 138mm ring wouldn't fit because of the front element's size, so an adapter will be needed. Our Chrosziel FF, with its current lens rod bracket, will not clear and mount. Another work around to address. By no means deal breakers, but it would be nice not to have to tweak and reconfigure.
With the Cooke 18-100, the above issues don't exist in the same way. It fits the 'standard' a bit better.
Absolutely needs a solid support bracket and there is very little non-moving, flat real-estate on the lens to make it work. Doable, but too bad this wasn't factored into the design. On the Cooke it's a non-issue.
Iris, Zoom and Focus all feel smooth. The dampening on the focus felt a little heavier than our Cooke's, but overall not an issue. PRO for sure.
IMAGE (**Note: All footage was shot wide open--T3 on the Cooke 18-100 and--T2.9 on the Red 18-85):
Fall off: The 18-100 is known to fall off fairly noticeably on the edges and corners. The 18-85 exhibited less fall off--field illumination was more even. This happens to be the only characteristic where the 18-85 really had a tangible, useful advantage (shooting greenscreen, etc.) over the 18-100.
Ramping: The 18-85 did not exhibit any noticeable ramping to my eye. It looked like a true T2.9 throughout the zoom range.
Chromatic Aberration: 18-85 is comparable to the Cooke. Both are good.
Breathing: 18-85 is comparable to the Cooke. Neither is great/perfect, but both are acceptable in many shooting situations (these are zooms after-all).
Distortion: At 18mm the 18-85 is comparable to the Cooke. Noticeable on both.
Edge to Edge Sharpness: The 18-85 has a slight advantage over the Cooke.
Flare: Not scientific by any means, but the Cooke exhibits more interesting, beautiful flares. The 18-85 reigns it in a little more, so it's objectively a little more forgiving/better but if you WANT a nice flare, then...
Flavor: The Cooke exhibits a certain warmth and "dimensionality" (to borrow from Matt) that other, perhaps objectively better zoom lenses don't exhibit. The Red lens feel a bit more clinical. Some may prefer the 'look' of one lens over the other for specific situations. Forget fall-off, forget edge to edge sharpness, how does each lens speak to you on other, more subjective levels? Our test didn't fully explore the above notion, but sometimes it doesn't take much to recognize those things.
CONCLUSION:
The Red 18-85 is an exceptional lens, especially when you consider the price point.
The Cooke 18-100 has some definite build/physicality advantages over the 18-85.
Objectively, when it comes to imaging characteristics, the 18-85 seems to have some advantages (fall-off and edge to edge sharpness) over the Cooke.
Subjectively, I prefer the Cooke's 'flavor' over the 18-85, but I would not hesitate for a second to use the 18-85 if I wanted its look for whatever I was shooting. I'd like to keep both lenses in our arsenal if possible.
If you're on the fence about purchasing the 18-85 and $10,000 is your budget, I would pull the trigger right now (although the wait time for delivery is another factor to consider).
Hope the above is helpful in some way.
-Michael Jacob Kerber
D.P. / L.A.
Look for Matt Uhry to post a link to the footage sometime fairly soon (can't speak to his exact schedule/timeline for doing this...maybe tonight). And I'm sure he'll include an intelligent, knowledgeable written breakdown/opinion.
This wasn't meant to be an absolute, scientific study of each lens. Nonetheless, I think it's valuable and can give one the confidence to purchase and/or shoot with the lens and know what they can expect. Of course, it's best to see the results (coming soon) or do the tests yourself and assess from there, but the following is a basic rundown of some attributes and characteristics:
PHYSICALITY/BUILD:
As you've seen, it's big. A little shorter than the Cooke 18-100 but definitely a larger diameter housing overall. Anyone ordering should get a carry handle. A.C.'s with small hands should be careful ; ) Did it need to be that big because of the size of the optical elements? Questionable. Our 138mm ring wouldn't fit because of the front element's size, so an adapter will be needed. Our Chrosziel FF, with its current lens rod bracket, will not clear and mount. Another work around to address. By no means deal breakers, but it would be nice not to have to tweak and reconfigure.
With the Cooke 18-100, the above issues don't exist in the same way. It fits the 'standard' a bit better.
Absolutely needs a solid support bracket and there is very little non-moving, flat real-estate on the lens to make it work. Doable, but too bad this wasn't factored into the design. On the Cooke it's a non-issue.
Iris, Zoom and Focus all feel smooth. The dampening on the focus felt a little heavier than our Cooke's, but overall not an issue. PRO for sure.
IMAGE (**Note: All footage was shot wide open--T3 on the Cooke 18-100 and--T2.9 on the Red 18-85):
Fall off: The 18-100 is known to fall off fairly noticeably on the edges and corners. The 18-85 exhibited less fall off--field illumination was more even. This happens to be the only characteristic where the 18-85 really had a tangible, useful advantage (shooting greenscreen, etc.) over the 18-100.
Ramping: The 18-85 did not exhibit any noticeable ramping to my eye. It looked like a true T2.9 throughout the zoom range.
Chromatic Aberration: 18-85 is comparable to the Cooke. Both are good.
Breathing: 18-85 is comparable to the Cooke. Neither is great/perfect, but both are acceptable in many shooting situations (these are zooms after-all).
Distortion: At 18mm the 18-85 is comparable to the Cooke. Noticeable on both.
Edge to Edge Sharpness: The 18-85 has a slight advantage over the Cooke.
Flare: Not scientific by any means, but the Cooke exhibits more interesting, beautiful flares. The 18-85 reigns it in a little more, so it's objectively a little more forgiving/better but if you WANT a nice flare, then...
Flavor: The Cooke exhibits a certain warmth and "dimensionality" (to borrow from Matt) that other, perhaps objectively better zoom lenses don't exhibit. The Red lens feel a bit more clinical. Some may prefer the 'look' of one lens over the other for specific situations. Forget fall-off, forget edge to edge sharpness, how does each lens speak to you on other, more subjective levels? Our test didn't fully explore the above notion, but sometimes it doesn't take much to recognize those things.
CONCLUSION:
The Red 18-85 is an exceptional lens, especially when you consider the price point.
The Cooke 18-100 has some definite build/physicality advantages over the 18-85.
Objectively, when it comes to imaging characteristics, the 18-85 seems to have some advantages (fall-off and edge to edge sharpness) over the Cooke.
Subjectively, I prefer the Cooke's 'flavor' over the 18-85, but I would not hesitate for a second to use the 18-85 if I wanted its look for whatever I was shooting. I'd like to keep both lenses in our arsenal if possible.
If you're on the fence about purchasing the 18-85 and $10,000 is your budget, I would pull the trigger right now (although the wait time for delivery is another factor to consider).
Hope the above is helpful in some way.
-Michael Jacob Kerber
D.P. / L.A.