Red 18 -50 vs Cooke

[Media Button]

Has anyone done a comparison between Red lenses and Cooke?
Everyone says that the Red lenses are good, so what would be nice to know is how much of a difference there is between Red and Cooke. Not only optical quality, but build quality etc.

[Finner]

Has anyone done a comparison between a Mustang and a Lamborgini?
Everyone says that the mustangs are good, so what would be nice to know is how much of a difference there is between Mustang and Lamborgini. Not only speed, but build quality etc.

This is essentially the question you are asking and there is no real answer to it. I've shot cookes and own one and they are very good. I've shot red lenses and they work and have some good and some bad points. All the information on red lenses are on this forum just use your search button for "red 18-50".

In the end a Mustang works but is no Lamborgini.

A red lens works but it is no Cooke.

[Media Button]

Thanks for the input. I guess Im trying to gauge if the "mustang" will be good enough for most projects.
Will I be happy with the results 95% of the time or kicking myself 95% of the time for not buying Cooke's.
I know there are lots of factors involved in a decision like this, budjet, etc.
Just nice to hear peoples comments who have experience with both.

[chuck colburn]

What Finner said.
Beside the overall optical and mechanical quality of the Cooke one has to be concerned about quality control and individual variation of lower price lenses.

[Barry Green]

Well, the adage is: "buy the best, and you only cry once -- instead of every time you pull it out to use it."

Mike Seymour seems happy with the 18-50 at its price point, he says it "punches way above its weight." But as he points out, it's a $6,500 lens, and the closest comparable Cooke is the 15-40 which goes for $47,500. That additional price buys you exquisite silkiness and precision, and maybe a little bit better optical performance.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

if its down too.. "do i buy a red 18-50 or a cooke or plural cookes" buy the red 18-50, rent the cookes. less liability

[Alexander Nikishin]

I'd take the RED 18-50 over a Cooke 20-100 anytime.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I'd take the RED 18-50 over a Cooke 20-100 anytime.

I'd take a brand new '08 Mustang over a '65 Ferrari with 450K miles on it and 11 previous owners. When you're talking the Cooke 20-100, that's essentially what you're looking at. The 18-100 is the updated replacement model and it's still 20 years old.

Just wanted to reiterate what Finner and others have said about the RED 18-50. Optically it's pretty darn good. Mechanically, there are some compromises. It's a good lens considering the price, but it isn't a Cooke 15-40 or an Arri/Zeiss LWZ 15.5-45. Yet it's 1/3 the price. In the right hands it can make pretty pictures, we have seen lots of proof of that here.

IMO, here's the 18-50's best features:
Size, weight, close focus / macro ability, optics quality, price.

Here's it's worst features:
Kinda slow, loose mechanics, gritty movement, no witness marks.

[David W. Jones]

Having driven both a 65 Ferrari 275GTB and the new Mustang, given the choice there is no way in hell I would choose the Mustang over the Ferrari.
But that has absolutely nothing to do with choosing lenses.

Set a budget, select a lens or lenses that fit your shooting range within that budget. Rent those lenses that are outside of your budget.

[Daniel Reichenbach]

4K and 18-50 is a very good choice if you go down to HD/PAL. For night shots indie style (avalaible light and some kickers and fills) it is a bit slow. For big screen, not shure, haven't tested yet. Compared with the Cooks, Zeiss and Angenieux, there IS and should be a difference. Focus pulling for example is VERY difficult. For 2K it is better, you go to 5,6-8 but then you loose the DOF. The rest is up to your needs and budgets.