Cooke 9-50mm T2.5

[Evin Grant]

Anyone use this lens, is it any good, how sharp is it?
I'm thinking this is an affordable option for 1080/2K applications.
Yea I know it dosen't cover S16 but if I'm shooting 2K RAW I can punch in in post. They are pretty affordable ($1500 used). If it's up to snuff optically it might be the run and gun option I was looking for.
http://www.isaia.com/images/products/127450338475592500.jpg

[Ólafur Rögnvaldsson]

Hi Evin

First, many many thanks for your tests on the Nikon lenses and all the useful info you have posted. I think it’s fantastic how generous you are with your time. This is great help to me as well as others and my choice really stands between buyig a set of Nikons or using my Cooke Videtal before I get my RED zoom.

My COOKE VIDETAL B4 LENS is 8 - 44mm, f/2.0 - and as far as I can see it looks exactly the same as the one you are asking about except for the mount. As far as I know Cooke just took their (super) 16 and put a B4 mount and a terrible servo that never really worked (around 1990) to make this video lens. Not sure about other modifications.

I don’t know the history of the Cooks well but maybe someone knows exactly the connection between these lenses - if they have the same glass etc.

http://www.axfilms.com/indexen.php - trailer

here you can see a trailer for a tv dramaseries that I shot entirely with the Cooke Videtal (on 790 Sony DigiBeta)

I think it´s beautiful glass - I have no problems with the sharpness - I love the softish Cooke character which ment that I never used any promists/softfx etc. filters that I used to do in the ninetees with all Japaneese glass. Made video look like film . . Downside is the limited range.

Hope this helps - if this info is relevant I can say more - also used to shoot with Cooke super 16 for 35mm blowup with good results - but . . .out of time . . for now . .

Olafur

[Stephen Williams]

Hi Evin,

It should be very good, worth testing.

Stephen

[fightordie]

People say it has good color reproduction. I think cinema technic does a super 16mm conversion for it for a couple grand.

[Brainstorm]

Hi Evin,

Abakus do an adapter for this lens which will convert it to S16. http://www.abakus-scientific.com/Format_Converters.htm

CinemaTechnic appear to have gone into receivership and aren't taking any further orders for their adapter.

Cheers
Brainstorm

[Matt Uhry]

Hi Evin,

The cooke 9-50 is really nice well corrected and solid. It doesn't breathe much at all and has very low distortion. It's a bit lower in contrast than the competition like Canon's or the modern Angenieux 16 lenses. Tends to flare a bit easier than newer lenses but it's more of a distinct flare, not a veiling flare or fuzzy stuff around the highlights. used to like this lens alot, but the canon 8-64 kind of repaced it for me - that became my go to 16mm wide zoom

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Evin Grant]

Matt, the Canon seems nice but he Cooke is a much better deal, do you think the Cooke resolves as much? Low contrast isn't necessarily a bad thing in run -n-gun where the light is usualy contrasty anyway.

[donatello b]

i've like the cooke ...i alway order it ...and i have never shot a whole project on it .. i always end up sending it back ... for me it is not long enough .. 50mm is good but i need just a little more - the 8-64mm works for me on interiors and i need longer on exteriors .... overall it's the zeiss 10-100 T2 but it breathes HEAVY 10-18mm and i find ways to hide it ... just haven't found a single zoom that does it all ....
$1500 is cheap ... most that i have seen in good condition are around 3500 ( S16 5-5500)..

[Matt Uhry]

Hey Evan,

It's a good deal assuming it's in good tune. Based on what I know about your tastes in lenses, I think you will like it very much. Why not buy it and shoot with it for a few gigs and if you don't like it sell it... you don't have much to loose with it priced that well.

"If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough." Robert Capa

Matt Uhry ( no dig here Donatello, I'm a co-owner of a 1000mm 5.6 made to film rockets at the edge of space )
www.mattuhry.com

[Martin Drew]

CinemaTechnic appear to have gone into receivership and aren't taking any further orders for their adapter.

I think you'll find it is Optex which went down the pan, they did the conversion kits. As far as I know CinemaTechnic are still going strong.

[Brainstorm]

I think you'll find it is Optex which went down the pan, they did the conversion kits. As far as I know CinemaTechnic are still going strong.

Ooops! Thanks for the correction Martin. :umm:

[zak forrest]

what is the length of this lens?

[Harry Clark]

I have a mint 9-50 that I used for may years with my SR 1 and SR3 cameras. It's every bit as sharp as my Canon 7-63, and I think, flares less and in a more predictable way. Mine is Arri Bayo, so I use a PL adapter.
I also think that since the 16:9 (or 1.78:1) shape is more rectangular than the 1.66:1 Super-16 aperture, that the vignetting on the corners will be masked when used with Red one. If that proves true, I may have mine overhauled and fitted with a PL mount.
In any case, as you zoom in, in will cover at some point.
A great lens. Focuses very close, NO breathing, rugged and serviceable Cooke product.
I'll certainly make use of mine when light weight is more important than full 4K chip size (run-and-gun, 120 fps, etc.)
Also, FYI: this lens was popular for a long time with tabletop TV commercial guys. Since it's so small and optically top-notch, we used to put a 2X extender and PL adapter on it to make it cover on a 35mm frame. Worked great! This was before probe lenses like the Revolution.
Cheers,
Harry