Cooke 18-100

[Matthew Rogers]

I am looking at getting a Cooke 18-100 when I get my Red, but would like to know more about it. There's not much info on the net that I can find, except that it was released in 1987/88 and it weighs about 13 lbs. I would love to know more of what people think about the lens as far as contrast, sharpness, etc. I am mainly going to be using it for commercials/corporate work and I believe that it will work perfectly for it. Just would like to get feedback.

Thanks,

Matthew

[donatello b]

guessing ... look at most movies/commercials from made 1988 to 2000 and it was probably used somewhere in it .... it's a lens still used often today on movies and commercials ...
IMO this is not a one person lens ( as in just you on camera and no assistant of somekind ) ...

[Matthew Rogers]

guessing ... look at most movies/commercials from made 1988 to 2000 and it was probably used somewhere in it .... it's a lens still used often today on movies and commercials ...
IMO this is not a one person lens ( as in just you on camera and no assistant of somekind ) ...

Yeah, I knew it was still used quite often, as I've seen it in many rental catalogs. Considering that it's still running $13,000 used, I would hope that it's a good piece of glass. I guess one of my questions is, has Cooke changed anything about the design since 1987? Does it still have the same coating, glass, build quality, etc?

Why do you say it's a two person lens? Because it's long or weighs so much?

This is where it's frustrating to live in some place that has TONS of video work, but very little cine style shoots--it's hard to touch cine style camera equipment.

Matthew

Matthew

[Matt Uhry]

I think the 18-100 cookes are nice. It's very well corrected for distortion and breathes minimally, reasonably even field illumiation, good contrast, flare resistance and good resolution. Covers full app super 35.

It's the classic studio zoom. The Angenieux 17-102 never caught on. Today if you were in the mood to spend $60k the Angenieux Optimo 17-80 might be the other good choice in this range. ( it's also a T2.2 )

As far as I know there are not any versions of it - or all the versions are pretty much the same. Some might have a rear gelatin filter capacity which is a nice upgrade.

It's heavy, not good for handheld! You will always need support and probably a 6x6 mattebox on the Red.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Hans von Sonntag]

Yeah, I knew it was still used quite often, as I've seen it in many rental catalogs. Considering that it's still running $13,000 used, I would hope that it's a good piece of glass. I guess one of my questions is, has Cooke changed anything about the design since 1987? Does it still have the same coating, glass, build quality, etc?

Why do you say it's a two person lens? Because it's long or weighs so much?

This is where it's frustrating to live in some place that has TONS of video work, but very little cine style shoots--it's hard to touch cine style camera equipment.

Matthew

Matthew

Hi Matthew,

got my own Cooke 20-100 and shot a lot with its successor, the 18-100.

There is little choice in the market if you are looking for a true 35mm cine-zoom with such a versatile zoom range. Both lenses are great and very similar - in the end the 18-100 is a bit shorter than the 20-100. If you are into wide angle shots the 18-100 will serve you better. The 20-100 in pristine condition is about 3-4 k, and the 18-100 which is still in production afaik is considerably more expensive. I find the 20-100 a bargain.

Although the 18-100 and 20-100 are huge lenses compared to 2/3 zooms (app.50cm long, 4.5 kilo) and designed in the 70ies they are modern zooms with inner focus and a huge front element. They need rod support. As Matt said, very little breathing and the need of a 6x6 Mattbox. The destortion is ok as long as you don't shoot packshots. As almost with any zoom there is a little ramping in the end wich can easely be elimated by stopping down to T4.

I love the unique depth in the picture that the Cooke 20-18, 18-100 produces. It's soft and gentle to the actors and by way not as sharp as a Zeiss prime. It's hard to mix these two worlds. Lovely lenses which will hold their value as along as 35mm/Red exists.

If you are looking for a handheld option go and check the RED 18-50. I would miss the long end, and I haven't worked with it yet, so I cannot comment really on this. If it will be as good as the new lightweight zooms from Zeiss, Cooke and Angeniex then it will be a bargain since it costs only a third - but still missing the long end....

One great thing about Red is the ability to use cool old glas on a hyper-modern camera. Its like playing a 68' Stratocaster in an high-end digital sound Studio.

Hans

[laguun]

One great thing about Red is the ability to use cool old glas on a hyper-modern camera. Its like playing a 68' Stratocaster in an high-end digital sound Studio.
Hans

that perfectly sums it up.

[Matthew Rogers]

Although the 18-100 and 20-100 are huge lenses compared to 2/3 zooms (app.50cm long, 4.5 kilo) and designed in the 70ies they are modern zooms with inner focus and a huge front element. They need rod support. As Matt said, very little breathing and the need of a 6x6 Mattbox. The destortion is ok as long as you don't shoot packshots. As almost with any zoom there is a little ramping in the end wich can easely be elimated by stopping down to T4.

If you are looking for a handheld option go and check the RED 18-50. I would miss the long end, and I haven't worked with it yet, so I cannot comment really on this. If it will be as good as the new lightweight zooms from Zeiss, Cooke and Angeniex then it will be a bargain since it costs only a third - but still missing the long end....

Is the concern about using either one of those lenses is the fact that they are so long/heavy or that you need rod support for the lenses? I am just scared about not having enough reach since I am used to using a ENG style lens--though, I normally only use the far part of the lens when I am shooting interviews to get a shallower DOF. A 6x6 mattbox also scares me because that's much harder to lug around. I was hoping to get away with a 4x5.6 because I swear I read somewhere that the 18-100 would fit in that. Mostly I shoot interviews and corporate b-roll, but starting to get into more commercials (I'm not worried about needing a big zoom for those.)

I'm starting to think that the 18-85 is a better option, and should be released around the same time that I get my camera. Is it going to be a bigger zoom like the cookes, or hopefully a little smaller?

Matthew

[Matt Uhry]

A 6x6 mattbox also scares me because that's much harder to lug around. I was hoping to get away with a 4x5.6 because I swear I read somewhere that the 18-100 would fit in that.
Matthew

It might be possible that the 4x5.6 will work on the Red, but you need the 6x6 for full app Super 35 and the matte box needs to be jammed back all the way to cover. The horizontal x5.6 is probably will cut into a bit the look around area and be a bit fussy about having to be pushed all the way back and aligned perfectly, remember even though we often call it a 6x6, a MB-14 is actually 6.6 x 6.6 .

I don't like the giant matte boxes either...

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Mike Prevette]

It will be nothing like your ENG experience, except for the fact they are made with glass, and are round in shape. You will definitely need a full support package (rods+bridge plate) and a 6x6 matte box. You will also need a zoom motor and microforce if your planing on ever doing any zooms with it. It's an ok lens, never really blew me away, but I'm used to the HR's now.

_mike