Red Lenses made by Cooke? BS or what?

[PaulClements]

On the Cooke wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooke_Optics) it says that "Cooke Optics also makes two lenses specifically designed for the RED ONE 2540p digital cinema camera."

I presume this is wrong is it not? Unless they are making their own lenses for Red One and this is not referring to the two Red lenses?

If this has been brought up before then I apologise.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Interesting,

maybe Cooke and RED already working together but all the thing is still "wrapped" like in every serious business.
As we know in the "gear-we-use.htm (http://red.com/gear-we-use.htm)" page Cooke is on the list
and is also beloved Jim's RED lenses choice. A near future will tell us more about it for sure.

[Mark Mannschreck]

Sweet! That just can't be a misprint... Would Cooke really make TWO lenses purpose built for just the RedOne if they weren't Red branded?

I think the Red lenses will be Cooke Optics!

Wikipedia rules.

[Júlio Taubkin]

Wikipedia is public acess. I wouldn't trust it for business anymore I trust my barber. If it turns out to be true, great, though...

[Stephen Williams]

Hi.

I think it is fairly unlikely, Cooke make about 2 sets of lenses a week, I don't think they could gear up to make the volume required. I would like to be wrong!

FWIW I do think the Red 300mm looks like the Cooke 65mm with SF attachment! (That is a major compliment BTW)

Stephen

[Mark Mannschreck]

I guess it could easily be misinformation going back and noticing I could even edit the page without being signed in...

Still. I'm hoping it's not.

[PaulClements]

I have always wondered about the production of the lenses, since it is a very specialised topic. Whilst Cooke only make a few lenses a week, as pointed out, if they were making such a large volume for a third party to be rebranded because they were being mass produced rather than hand built it would make some sense, effectively they would be overseeing the production on behalf of Red.

I still think it's bull tho, this would've come out sooner if possibly the worlds best manufacturer of lenses was involved in any way shape or form with Red surely?

[Jeff Kilgroe]

As noted by taubkin, Wikipedia isn't always 100% reliable.

I suppose this could be true about Cooke making the RED lenses. I suppose if they contracted enough production, prices could be driven down for specific items like this. I would love for this to be true.

...But I'm highly skeptical and will consider it to be nothing more than a wishful rumor until I read an offical statement from Jim or others at RED.

[Finner]

Which begs the big Question

Graham, Stuart, Jarred, Jim who is building the RED glass for you?

You have already sold quite a few so why is it such a big secret?

[PaulClements]

Well IF (and I stress the IF quite a bit) Cooke were infact involved in making the lenses then I'd imagine they'd want it to be hush hush and would have all sorts of agreements that at no point could it be mentioned. At the end of the day if people thought that you could buy a Cooke Zoom (Albeit a mass produced version) for less than $10k, why would anyone bother with their normal products.

That said I still reckon it's more likely that it's likely an Asian manufacturer producing such a large quantity of glass at that price, for Red.

[Evin Grant]

This is either misunderstanding or out and out speculation. Jim/Oakley have plenty of know how to make their own lenses, and Cooke wouldn't want to build a competeing line of cinema glass priced less than half their own that doesn't even have thier name on it.

[Mark Mannschreck]

Cooke Design/Asian Production?

I mean Spike is shown with Cooke glass, tests shot with Cooke glass, and "gear we use" on the website is Cooke glass. It isn't such a stretch. Jim even suggested I buy some Cooke glass when I needed to make some year end tax purchases.

Maybe if we can find out who WuffyZ is...

[Sanjin Jukic]

This is either misunderstanding or out and out speculation. Jim/Oakley have plenty of know how to make their own lenses, and Cooke wouldn't want to build a competeing line of cinema glass priced less than half their own that doesn't even have thier name on it.

Production of the best CINE lenses needs years or even decades of experience, research and development just in the CINE lens field. I would say that Jim/Oakley have another experience that is production of Oakley Sunglasses. But who knows?...

[Nick Shaw]

This is either misunderstanding or out and out speculation. Jim/Oakley have plenty of know how to make their own lenses, and Cooke wouldn't want to build a competeing line of cinema glass priced less than half their own that doesn't even have thier name on it.

It doesn't make logical sense to undercut your own products. But I suppose if the Cooke branded lenses were known to be of (even only slightly) higher quality than mass produced RED badged ones, then people would have a choice, and many would still go for the Cooke if they could afford it. After all it is what happens in many other areas. Supermarket 'own brand' products are often made by the manufacturers of the branded version. Not that I'm likening RED lenses to supermarket generic groceries of course!

[PaulClements]

It doesn't make logical sense to undercut your own products.

Actually it makes alot of sense in a cottage industry. You have your high end products and name that you will always profit from but you don't lose out to a newcomer making cheap glass because you are infact making the glass for them. The deal for producing so many lenses would be at least a $1 - $2 Million, and the production costs for lenses not built by hand individually will be alot lower. That makes a fair bit of sense when you really think about it and your name doesn't get damaged because it is not related to the product.

All of a sudden Red introduces alot of people into a market that require Cine lenses. Supplying such a large quantity of individuals with a cheaper cine lense is an ideal opportunity for a company of Cooke's scale.

But I still doubt they are making them hehehe!!! :)

[Martin Drew]

Looking at the history the Red reference was added on 4 January 2007 by a Canadian contributor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wuffyz

[Martin Drew]

Checking out his other contributions on Wikipedea and contributions to other forums, he doesn't appear to be someone "in the know" So I think this is BS.

M

[Ben Feuer]

Time will tell. But as others have pointed out, it's not a totally preposterous idea. Is Apple Computer "undercutting" its Macbook Pro market by making the Macbook - or is the smaller margin compensated by greater sales volume? In the end, it's all about making a buck.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I find it curious that no one from RED has chimed in on the matter. But at this point, they probably don't want to spill the beans. Made by Cooke or not, I doubt they're ready to disclose all the details about the lenses.

[Stephen Williams]

I find it curious that no one from RED has chimed in on the matter. But at this point, they probably don't want to spill the beans. Made by Cooke or not, I doubt they're ready to disclose all the details about the lenses.

Hi,

I don't think we will ever know.

Stephen

[Blaine Golden]

Wikipedia is an interesting source of information as long as you understand that it can be at times less than reliable. Anyone can put information in it and its veracity can only be determined by further research. If I can't find the information from some other source, I find it interesting but suspect at best.

[Mark Mannschreck]

Digging deeper into the Wikipedia Cooke thing I found some usertalk by a "Babsannie" who says he/she is a director of the company and has a number of changes to the Cooke info including:

"Cooke Optics also makes two lenses specifically designed for the RED ONE 2540p digital cinema camera." This is not true. Cooke has not made a lens specifically for the yet-to-be released RED camera.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Babsannie

[Sanjin Jukic]

Business connection between Cooke and RED is just one more rumor about the RED ONE.

[Steve Gibby]

I'd say that by March when the RED One specs are finalized and published, or by NAB at the latest, that RED's relationship with Cooke, if any business relationship exists, will be answered. Until then, all the speculation and extrapolation in the world won't definitively answer the question...

[Sanjin Jukic]

Agree.

[Moir]

I guess if the rumour is true, Red won't confirm it; and if it isn't true, it's not necessarily something they would want to deny!!

[Steven Parker]

I guess if the rumour is true, Red won't confirm it; and if it isn't true, it's not necessarily something they would want to deny!!

Well said!

[Sanjin Jukic]

RED+Cooke rumor has no answer until now.

Silence.

And this sort of "silence" could have something like from Lao Tzu's:

"Those who know do not speak;

Those who speak do not know."

[Mark Mannschreck]

"Cooke Optics Announces Red Digital Cinema Support for /i Technology"...

Well it seems that Red has now incorporated support for cooke's /i into camera... Hmmm

Maybe because the RED LENSES ARE COOKES

[Chris Gearhart]

Paul, what will the DOW be on April 12th? PM me.

And only me.

[Michael Hastings]

I agree with you that this would be perfectly sensible for a normal company making their first camera, and it wouldn't be bad for Cooke to make a private label lens - that stuff happens all of the time. Given all that, I think Jim wants to make his own lenses and given the tooling, optical manufacturing and coating equipment, and design capability Oakley has, it is probably feasible. I think they will make their own from scratch or possibly the 300 and/or 17-85 would be repackaged optics from Nikon or Canon - with the quantity they already have on order it wouldn't be hard to just bulk buy those lenses (or just the elements) and make their own shell, gears, etc.


Actually it makes alot of sense in a cottage industry. You have your high end products and name that you will always profit from but you don't lose out to a newcomer making cheap glass because you are infact making the glass for them. The deal for producing so many lenses would be at least a $1 - $2 Million, and the production costs for lenses not built by hand individually will be alot lower. That makes a fair bit of sense when you really think about it and your name doesn't get damaged because it is not related to the product.

All of a sudden Red introduces alot of people into a market that require Cine lenses. Supplying such a large quantity of individuals with a cheaper cine lense is an ideal opportunity for a company of Cooke's scale.

But I still doubt they are making them hehehe!!! :)

[Jeremy Hughes]

So I guess it's not true.

[James T Mather]

Is this not what they are referring to:

http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/active/969366DFA123E6EC8525738B007695E8

priced somewhere around 90,000 I think.

[hdcrew]

If Cooke don't make them and now that Optex no longer exist I can only think of one other UK based company that converts still lenses, could Van Diemen lenses be a possible manufacturer of the RED 18-50?

www.vandiemen.tv

Nick

[Cüneyt Kaya]

isnt it like cooke gives the blueprint, and a northamerican manufactorer build them for RED...

[Stephen Williams]

If Cooke don't make them and now that Optex no longer exist I can only think of one other UK based company that converts still lenses, could Van Diemen lenses be a possible manufacturer of the RED 18-50?

www.vandiemen.tv

Nick

Hi,

Van Diemen are not doing very much lens work, they sold much of their equipment. Much more likely IMHO is somebody who used to work at Optex or Van Diemen. From the 18-50 lenses I have seen, I get the feeling it is a small shop that got overwhelmed with a very big order.

Stephen

[Matthew Duclos]

Mmmmmm.. Cupcakes.

[filip kovcin]

try this - rent cooke S4 lens. take a CLOSE look at focus ring. try to identify type of material which is made of... then, take a close look at red zoom lens... focus ring... type of material... looks similar or identical? hm...


filip

[Charles Angus]

How is that relevant?

[Matthew Duclos]

hahaha.. material?? Every cine lens for in the past 50 years has been made of aluminum with the exception of internal components and specialty lenses.

[Michael Morlan]

Is this not what they are referring to:

http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/active/969366DFA123E6EC8525738B007695E8

priced somewhere around 90,000 I think.

I believe that is exactly what the Wikipedia entry refers to. Perhaps it could be better written. What I love about that "Cooke Joins the Revolution" campaign is that they simply re-branded their lenses with "Red" and charged several thousand more for them.

Some revolution.

Michael

[fREDeric ChAMbERlAnd]

Hi Michael,

Just to clarify, they don't charge "...several thousands more...".
The Red branded S4's are the exact same price as the "regular" S4's.
I did the exercise and asked for a price list.
The only "bonus" when you get the RED set of S4's is the "free" case they come in.... (so about a 1% savings towards the regular set).
Price is just under 100 000$ for the RED set.
cheers.

[Mitch Gross]

Cooke is not making the 18-50. I know who is and so apparently does a certain Mr. Duclos. He would know better than I as lenses are what he does for a living day in and out.

Cooke is up to something new that's very exciting but it ain't the 18-50.


I prefer pie to cupcakes...

[Damien Molineaux]

Cooke is not making the 18-50. I know who is and so apparently does a certain Mr. Duclos. He would know better than I as lenses are what he does for a living day in and out.

Cooke is up to something new that's very exciting but it ain't the 18-50.


I prefer pie to cupcakes...

Ouh, Mitch you're teasing us. You are in the know...

I'm guessing I know what you're talking about.

Serve me that pie please, I've been waiting for a looooong time.

;-)
Damien

[Mitch Gross]

That would be for Cooke to say, not me.

Many companies have R&D projects that in the end never deliver a product to market. Sometimes it's because a product doesn't perform as well as expected and sometimes it's because the result would be too expensive to sell enough units to merit going forward. I know of more than one proposed lens design that in the end never came to market because they realized that they could never recover their costs without charging a fortune for the glass.

[Matthew Duclos]

The cake or pie debate has been going on for ages.
Fortunately I know the baker and his ingredients.
You're all wrong. Sorry.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Riddle me this, lens heads. What would happen if I set out to make a lens that had the operational characteristics of a B4 mount EFP lens but projected an S35 sized image onto a single plane sensor and mounted via PL?

Yes, that's right, I want focus and iris control on the barrel and a range adjustable servo zoom on a rocker in a handgrip. I'd like the angle of view on the wide end to be at least 90 degrees with a 10 to 1 zoom ratio. I'd like the weight of the lens to stay under 10 lbs, it needs to be T2.4 or faster, internal focus and I want to fit my Arri MB20Mk2 on it.

Yes the RedOne is a Digital Cinema camera, a damn fine one, but configured correctly it can dominate other production genres as well. I know that sight focusing at 4K is no picnic but at a decent stop it can be done. The question is, could such a lens be made if there was enough of a market or will the laws of physics kill my dream - sorta like that whole flying thing I tried off the roof as a youngster...

[Mitch Gross]

Angenieux didn't make the Optimo 24-290 more than two feet long and 25+lbs just for fun.

[Matthew Duclos]

LOL. Awesome answer there Mitch.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Now comes the inevitable "but it's sooo expensive."
You get what you pay for!!

[Jaime Vallés]

Angenieux didn't make the Optimo 24-290 more than two feet long and 25+lbs just for fun.
What about RED's own 18-85 lens, but with a Servo-Zoom rocker built in on the right side? Maybe as an optional attachment?

Granted, it's not 10x zoom, but it would be a great start, if possible.

[Harry Clark]

You probably could have that lens, Blair. But it would have aperture ramp, it would probably porthole at the wide setting, it would certainly breathe (in order to make cine lenses NOT breathe, elements move in opposite directions on a cam system as you focus. This makes lenses bigger and heavier) And it would likely have a short service life, as most components would have to be plastic or REALLY thin aluminum to make the weight of an ENG lens. There would be slop in the servo motors (just like in my pricey HD zoom lenses) and you certainly could not have T2.4, because in order to make the widest aperture you'd need a front element the size of a salad plate, not an MB-20.
There has to be some compromise in the design of a lens, because it follows the laws of physics. Professional cine lens designers (and DPs) most often choose size and weight as the compromise because they only care about what ends up on the screen, not that your eager 25-year old 2nd AC had to hump the thing around the beach all day (he's thrilled to be there and hump it around anyway)
Cheers,
Harry

[Stephen Williams]

I believe that is exactly what the Wikipedia entry refers to. Perhaps it could be better written. What I love about that "Cooke Joins the Revolution" campaign is that they simply re-branded their lenses with "Red" and charged several thousand more for them.

Some revolution.

Michael

Hi Michael,

That Wikipedia entry was written a very long time before the Cooke Red set was announced.

Stephen

[Christopher Adams]

In the latest issue of I think HDVideoPro or something there was an AD for RED versions of their lenses! Also there was an article on RED there as well.
SO I think they exist!

Hi Michael,

That Wikipedia entry was written a very long time before the Cooke Red set was announced.

Stephen

[Stephen Williams]

In the latest issue of I think HDVideoPro or something there was an AD for RED versions of their lenses! Also there was an article on RED there as well.
SO I think they exist!

Hi,

Sure the Red Set from Cooke exists, but they are no different from the S4's except for Red lettering.

Stephen

[Blair S. Paulsen]

OK, how about a 10-100mm T2.6 under 16lbs?

Yes, I know it will be expensive, but high end HD zooms run $30K plus as it is.

Would making it T3.5 or higher be the only way to keep the weight and size reasonable for handheld? In my experience doing doco or verité style interiors in available light can be pretty difficult north of T 2.4. Just wonderin'

[Matthew Duclos]

OK, how about a 10-100mm T2.6 under 16lbs?

Yes, I know it will be expensive, but high end HD zooms run $30K plus as it is.

Would making it T3.5 or higher be the only way to keep the weight and size reasonable for handheld? In my experience doing doco or verité style interiors in available light can be pretty difficult north of T 2.4. Just wonderin'

Zeiss 10-100mm T2, done.
Although, thats only a 16 format lens. sorry.

[Stephen Williams]

Zeiss 10-100mm T2, done.
Although, thats only a 16 format lens. sorry.

Hi,

It breathes a great deal.

Stephen

[laguun]

OK, how about a 10-100mm T2.6 under 16lbs?

Yes, I know it will be expensive, but high end HD zooms run $30K plus as it is.

Would making it T3.5 or higher be the only way to keep the weight and size reasonable for handheld? In my experience doing doco or verité style interiors in available light can be pretty difficult north of T 2.4. Just wonderin'

We are using the angenieuxs 9.5-59 f1.6/t1.9 a lot, especially for doc and highspeed.

Its 16, but covers Reds 2KS16 from ~13/14mm-59.
Its ultracompact and very leightweigt, <1kg iirc.

It ramps and breathes a bit, so its nothing for snobs.

Image quality is fine.

[laguun]

an red 2K 9.5-59f1.6/t1.9 shot...

http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/big/3raj-a.jpg

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

Is that really T1.9, seems like more DOF than I would expect, but then I have never analysed 2k on a Red.

Stephen

[laguun]

Hi,

Is that really T1.9, seems like more DOF than I would expect, but then I have never analysed 2k on a Red.

Stephen

i dont know remember that particular shot, its to long ago.

But that clip was shot pretty wide open as the DOP back then didnt understand RAW - he was a film addicted beforehis first red shot - and exposed everything for ASA100 & ASA80...

The Angenieux 9.5-59f1.6/t1.9 cine however is sharp wide open, its main weakness is however that it has a blurry vignette from 9.5-13/14 on S16/2K.