cooke zooms....what to look for?

[Adrian Correia]

Hey guys,

Between the Cooke 20-100 or the 18-100 is there one which you guys prefer, and is there anything I should look for (beyond the obvious things like general condition, appearance of mold, etc...).

Thanks!

Adrian

[Evin Grant]

The 18-100 is a newer and higher performance lens but both are great work horses that'll do quite well.

[Dan Blanchett]

I'm looking at these myself. I have no personal experience so don't hold me to this, but I recall reading that the older 20-100 zoom has elements that cannot be reused because the housing is sealed (which is one reason why it's cheaper). But if price is an issue, I've seen 20-100 zooms for under $5000, while most 18-100 zooms seem to be in the $8500-$12,000 range (and up). I recently saw a really beat up looking 18-100 for $5000. The glass looked clean, and at that price, it might be worth taking a chance.

[Finner]

the 18-100 is a far superior lens.

[Adrian Correia]

you guys rock, thanks!

[Alexis Hanawalt]

Check to see if the lens you're buying has the gel filter holder in the back end - if it's missing, (which is common,) the simple part is $500 from Cooke (and you probably want to camera tape over the open slot.)

The lenses are similar in quality and most other attributes from size to weight, etc. While the 18-100 is newer, the list of classic films through the mid-80's that used the 20-100 extensively is a long one.

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

I have seen 20-100's sell on Ebay between $1650- 3500, over the last 4 years. Priced above that they never sell.

Stephen

[Emanuel A.]

Stephen,

Between a $2,000 Cooke 20-100mm and a $700 Angenieux 25-250mm, which one would you prefer? For the RED ONE, sure.

Cheers,
Emanuel

[Stephen Williams]

Stephen,

Between a $2,000 Cooke 20-100mm and a $700 Angenieux 25-250mm, which one would you prefer? For the RED ONE, sure.

Cheers,
Emanuel

Hi Emanuel,

The Cooke any day, I dismantled a 25-250 to use the glass as a prop I already made that decision.

Stephen

[Mr. Paul White]

Was your Angenieux so useless?

[Stephen Williams]

Was your Angenieux so useless?

Hi,

Relative to a modern lens yes. Breathing, Flair, sharpness wide open, chromatic aberrations, Portholing, you name any lens problems you ever heard about they were there if you looked for them. I am sure it's good enough for some people.

Stephen

[Caesar]

And the Cooke 20-100 mm? Aren't there the same problems?

[Matt Uhry]

And the Cooke 20-100 mm? Aren't there the same problems?

In a word, no. 20-100's were and still are quite good. They can hang with modern glass, a little lower contrast and more flare prone, I would consider a good condition lens to be usable for normal shoots.

Ang. 25-250's are super retro exibiting every flaw known to lens. ( flaws are not necessarliy a bad thing thought, some look cool ) Think of those zoomy flary 70's movies, "Easy Rider"

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Stephen Williams]

And the Cooke 20-100 mm? Aren't there the same problems?

Hi,

The Cooke 20-100 was a breakthrough in lens design when launched in 1971. It was as sharp as prime lenses available at that time, and had the first expanded focus scale.

Stephen

[Michael Schrengohst]

Ang. 25-250's are super retro exibiting every flaw known to lens. ( flaws are not necessarliy a bad thing thought, some look cool ) Think of those zoomy flary 70's movies, "Easy Rider"

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

Cool I can't wait to see some retro flicks being made with the RED!

[Felipe Jaco]

Is it better to have a set of Nikon Nikkor or Zeiss still lenses or RED zoom lense to cover all that positions(angles)?

[Jason Mitchell]

Does anyone have an opinion on the Cooke 2.8 18-90mm?

[Finner]

Does anyone have an opinion on the Cooke 2.8 18-90mm?

The cooke 20-100 is a good option instead.

[Adrian Correia]

Daren,

I'm going the 20-100....

[Finner]

Ya I figured you would Adrian. Hope you got a good deal.

[Adrian Correia]

not worth going the extra eight grand....think this lens requires the a 6x6 or could I get away with a 4x5.65 - I know VFS is supposed to be 5.65x5.65 and that would probably work.

[Ben Feuer]

Everyone -

Be VERY CAREFUL buying lenses on the open market. I was looking for a used 20-100 and heard from about five different vendors - the only one I found to be *mildly* trustworthy was Visual Products, and I haven't seen the glass yet so I'm withholding judgement.

The main thing to watch out for is being overcharged. Couple folks tried to take me to the cleaners; I.E. 6000 for a 20-100, sight unseen. The reason? "Oh, well you can't trust that glass you find on eBay..." How do I know you're any better?

The other thing to watch out for; *know what you want before you call*; another vendor (who claimed to have been in the business for 20 years, no less) tried to sell me an 18-90 at a premium, citing superior speed as "better for RED" (and somehow failing to mention the massive flaring et cetera). He might have gotten away with it too, if he hadn't been asking $5500 for it. Now he's hawking it on eBay, I suspect. This same joker made no distinction in weight or quality between the 25-250 Cooke and the 20-100 Cooke when I asked him point-blank.

And remember whatever you get, you're paying *minimum* 200 on top of that to have it checked out at Abel Cine Tech or wherever.

People talk about the scammers on eBay, but I've never gotten scammed there except (almost) once on a laptop. Seems to me the scammers in the private market are far worse.

[Jeff Barklage]

The Cooke 18-100 is a WONDERFUL lens!
At a true T3, it's very fast and this lens is extremely sharpe.
There is no 'breathing' during focus racks.
Yes, it is sort of a 'big' lens, but that is also why it is fast.
You will need a true 6x6" mattebox when working with filters when the lens is set at full wide [18mm].
At slightly longer focal lenghts, you can easily get by with a p-size [4x5.65] set of filters & trays.
Too bad the old 5x6" filter size never really caught on, that would have been perfect.
The 18-100 does have a very slight 'barrell' effect when you are at the wider end of the lens and have some very straight horizontal lines in the shot. Usually this is never even realized by the viwer, but when you put this lens up on a len projector, you might notice this ever so slightly.
I've shot with mine on several pictures and projected onto 45' screens, simply beautiful!!!
This is my favorite zoom.
I also have a Cooke 25-250 Mk-2 zooms, which, again, is superb.
It's a T4 lens [F3.9] and is super sharp. You will see an ever so slight breathing in the 10:1 series of zooms when doing serious focus racks. These lenses have a very slight 'pin-cushion] effect when you are at the wide end of the lens and are looking at a chart or anything with super-straight vertical lines, again, the viewer watching a film would not see this, only when shooting a chart would it become at all noticable.
The 18-100 is so sharp that it intercuts very well with the primes.
And, since it's Cooke, there is no internal flaring or ghosting which the great lens coasting they have!

[chuck colburn]

Hear hear, well said.

[Harry Clark]

I have an 18-100 and a 20-100. They are very nearly the same lens, but the 18-100 really benefits from modern glass and coatings when it's wide open or in a "flarey" backlit situation.
Going forward, I think it would be worth the extra $$$ to get the 18-100.
EITHER one requires 6x6. The 18-100 needs 6" round diopters, if you wanted to use diopters. The 20-100 can get away with the smaller 138mm.
They are not small ENG or SLR lenses. They are professional cine lenses that will require support rods, brackets, external Microforce controller and motor, and a 6x6 mattebox. So there is more to it that just the lens. But either one would be a terrific choice, assuming they're in good shape optically and mechanically.
One particular bugaboo to look for is zoom tracking. I'm not a lens tech, so I'm not certain why this happens, but all cine zoom lenses over time seem to develop a tendency to "drift" while zooming. Perhaps the track that the optics slide on get a worn spot? I'm not sure. I know that my 18-100 developed a "dive" (very subtle) when zooming in. Usually there is no problem, because the subject is moving, the camera is moving and or panning, etc. But it can be distracting on a subtle push on a product shot or static frame. It's fixable, no problem, but the cost to fix it should be factored in to what you're paying for the lens. When you're evaluating the lens for focus, light transmission, etc., take a look at the chart as you zoom in. Put the crosshairs right on the center mark of the chart. Does the lens drift while you zoom in or out?
Well said by the other posters regarding testing. Get the lens sent to your local rental house and pay them to evaluate the lens with you. You're in CT with me? Head down to NYC and see Charlie Tammaro at CSC or give Mitch Gross at Abel a call. Ask how much it would cost to have the lens tech run through the lens with you. Have the lens sent from Visual Products or wherever directly to CSC or Abel. If you do see a tracking or other problem, call Les or Guy at ZGC in New Jersey for further evaluation. I'm pretty sure neither CSC or Abel would do this sort of repair (Mitch? True?) but ZGC is the US headquarters of Cooke so you're in good hands there.
THEN you can buy with confidence.
I'd be very wary of spending that much money on something sight unseen.
Then again, I've never held a Red one, or even seen one in person, and I wired them $23,000+ ... WAIT... what have I done? ;)
Cheers,
Harry

[Hans von Sonntag]

Hi,

We've got the 20-100, and I shot a lot with the 18-100 so I know there is a slight difference in flare and may be over all sharpness but not much. IMHO you can tell only by a side to side comparison.

The downside of the 20-100 is obvious, it lacks 2mm on the wide side and for many the 18mm is a "magic" number because it's the classic wide angle Zeiss Super Speed prime.

The advantage of the 20-100 is the price. The difference is not small, around 200-300%. Aditionally the front diameter of the 20-100 is 144mm which does fit on a comparable light mattebox like the Vocas MB450 whereas the 18-100 has 150mm that makes the already big lens even bigger.

I had an interessting chat with Arri about their MB-20 and the possibility to make it work with the 20-100. They are positive about that and soon I'll get some feedback. That would be great since an additional MB14 is not only an remarkable extra investment but also pretty bulky.

The MB-20 will accordingly to Arri also work with the 18-100 because The RED sensor is a bit smaller than S35 (which slighty vignettes).

Hans

[Harry Clark]

Hans,
Keep in mind that cutting off any significant area of the lens front will affect its light transmission, ESPECIALLY wide open. That's why I steer my ACs away from using hard mattes unless it's really necessary. They don't arbitrarily make those lenses large. It needs a wide front to gather light.
So you might inadvertently make your T.3.1 Cooke a 4.5 Cooke and never know it, keeping the downside of poorer wide-open performance but losing the upside of the faster stop and less location lighting and smaller units.
Spot on with the comparison of the two. That extra 2mm on the wide end DOES matter! Yes, you really might need a side-by-side to see the difference in flare factor and resolution. But I'm guessing 4K to the big screen will require the most performance we can get from optics.
Cheers,
Harry

[Mitch Gross]

Well said by the other posters regarding testing. Get the lens sent to your local rental house and pay them to evaluate the lens with you. You're in CT with me? Head down to NYC and see Charlie Tammaro at CSC or give Mitch Gross at Abel a call. Ask how much it would cost to have the lens tech run through the lens with you. Have the lens sent from Visual Products or wherever directly to CSC or Abel. If you do see a tracking or other problem, call Les or Guy at ZGC in New Jersey for further evaluation. I'm pretty sure neither CSC or Abel would do this sort of repair (Mitch? True?) but ZGC is the US headquarters of Cooke so you're in good hands there.
THEN you can buy with confidence.

We can certainly work on Cooke zooms and would be happy to do so. I'm sure CSC would as well. Our Service Department does plenty of work on client-owned lenses. Hey, as long as we can get the parts we'll be happy to fix RED lenses as well!

Mitch

[Matt Uhry]

The 18-100 is still made and sold today. Spare parts are probably going to be easier to get in the future. Lots of used 20-100's kicking around - oh wait they all are gone now... what happened ?

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Harry Clark]

There you go Mitch. I wasn't sure if you guys serviced client lenses. Good to know.
I have to call Charlie later today to see about that A/B QR-RED plate.
Cheers,
Harry

[Hans von Sonntag]

Hans,
Keep in mind that cutting off any significant area of the lens front will affect its light transmission, ESPECIALLY wide open. That's why I steer my ACs away from using hard mattes unless it's really necessary. They don't arbitrarily make those lenses large. It needs a wide front to gather light.
So you might inadvertently make your T.3.1 Cooke a 4.5 Cooke and never know it, keeping the downside of poorer wide-open performance but losing the upside of the faster stop and less location lighting and smaller units.
Harry

Harry,

I assume that you refer to the usage of a MB-20. Well, I hardly use hard mattes they can also create some weired ractangular flares (don't know how to decribe other). So yes, cutting off some area of the lens has its obvoius downsides. You're are probably right concerning the 18-100. But the front lens of the 20-100 has already a metal matte that perfectly fits to the MB-20. It's also true that stopping down a 20-100 to just a tad before f4 does hardly change the exposer. For that reason it would be interesting to unmount the metal matte...

The main problem with MB-20 and the 20-100 is the fact that there is no rear adaptor plate yet. This is what we try to solve some how.

Thanks a lot for your insights!

Hans

[Harry Clark]

Don't shy away from 6x6 just because the matteboxes seems big and heavy. I often will use the Arri LMB-4A clip on 6x6. Very lightweight. Emery Soos at Lentequip in Canada makes a variety of step-down rings to accommodate various sized front elements, even custom ones.
6x6 is a great size to buy into. It facilitates the use of grads for one thing, sure to become more important in the world of digital. Also, if you already own your favorite filters in 6x6 and want to use a 10mm or Optimo or Master Zoom you're all set.
FWIW, I removed the front mattes on my Cookes.
Cheers,
Harry
ps- yes, the bokeh on long lenses with a matte becomes square and is really distracting...

[Hans von Sonntag]

6x6 is a great size to buy into. It facilitates the use of grads for one thing, sure to become more important in the world of digital.

Hi Harry,

Good Point!

Hans (who likes the LMB series a lot)