I just found my lens

[Curt]

I just found my ultimate lens, I just need to sell something to pay for it, like my truck or something.

http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=161

 

[jstraw]

I've got GAS over that lens myself.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Ah Yessss! The Cooke Series XVa Triple Convertible.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ideally you need to buy two to get the best flexibility, see the Cooke website.

Then win a lottery

Ian

 

[jstraw]

egads

http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/secondary/xva

 

[Pinholemaster]

Good lens. I own #76. Use it a lot.

See it in use: Dead Link Removed

 

[coriana6jp]

I will second Walter's comments. I have No. 92. Its a great lens, and I love it. Check my gallery there are a few shots made with it.

Gary

 

[Robert Hall]

Hey Walter, my Canham didn't come with one of those!

 

[Bob F.]

If you think that's a lot, check out the prices of Cooke cine lenses: don't even think about zooms...

Cheers, Bob.

 

[jstraw]

I'm wondering what I'll see on my ground glass if I start playing around with removing front or rear elements from my various lenses that are presumptively not "convertible."

Maybe some wonderful weirdness.

I intend to find out tomorrow, while riding out the crappy weather.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

It seems like a nice lens, but whenever I've considered it, I'm always reminded that it's about the same price as a set of 300, 450, and 600mm Fujinon-C's. I've asked people who have owned both, and my impression is that they've found the Fujinons to be sharper than the single cells of the Cooke, and then there's the tradeoff of the compactness of a convertible vs the convenience of separate lenses that don't require conversion, the consistent speeds of a single shutter vs. the security of three independent shutters.

 

[Robert Hall]

What about bokeh? Does the Cooke not have a nice bokeh?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

So I've heard.

 

[Robert Hall]

Anyone care to confirm that?

 

[Curt]

I'm wondering what I'll see on my ground glass if I start playing around with removing front or rear elements from my various lenses that are presumptively not "convertible."

This could be contagious, a table top of elements and shutters, and having to put them all back together. It could take some time, but the discovery could be like gold mining. Who knows you might strike it big! When done you might have more than you started with.

 

[JG Motamedi]

Are the lenses actually available? I know that a number were shipped last year but I was under the impression that Cooke has stopped making them for the time being. Or perhaps this is just an evil rumor?

 

[Robert Hall]

If I understand correctly they make a yearly run. More are expected shortly.

 

[coriana6jp]

It seems like a nice lens, but whenever I've considered it, I'm always reminded that it's about the same price as a set of 300, 450, and 600mm Fujinon-C's. I've asked people who have owned both, and my impression is that they've found the Fujinons to be sharper than the single cells of the Cooke, and then there's the tradeoff of the compactness of a convertible vs the convenience of separate lenses that don't require conversion, the consistent speeds of a single shutter vs. the security of three independent shutters.

I am no so sure about that. I have tested mine against both a Fuji 300mm CMW, a Fuji 300C and a Nikon 450mm M f/9. Which I have kept, even though they don't get the use theu use too. I find the Cooke has better color rendition and the sharpness is pretty much equal, until you get below f/64. Once you are down below that the others have the advantage, though its only slight. For 8x10 contact prints, which is most of what I do, the results look better with the Cooke, at least to my eyes.

The one disadvantage of the Cooke, is it extra bellows extension needed to use it at 645mm, actually takes about 730mm of bellows.

I am very very very happy with mine.

Gary

 

[Tomasz Segiet]

Concerning the evil rumours...

I have #112 - wonderful lens, although I have a minor (hopefully!) problem with coating that I'll address to the apug community later, as soon as I make a d* photo of it. Returning to the rumours: I contacted the seller, Robert White, telling him about the defect, and he wrote that "[...]Sadly they have stopped making camera lenses as they cannot keep pace with demand for their real business of the cinema lenses [...]". It seems therefore they really did stop, however maybe not forever...

 

[jimgalli]

...or...you could buy a beat up original one from me for $900 bucks. It's in a #4 Ilex shutter, is 100% useable, makes awesome negs, and best of all, it's ugly as cancer. You won't have to worry about theft or people drooling all over it.

 

[Jim Noel]

Jim,
I don't know how you are going to work with such a modern, highly coated, non-flare lens. It seems out of your wonderful style.
If I had not just bought a great 7x17 outfit I would certainly be imterested in your original Cooke.
Jim

 

[vet173]

If you think that's a lot, check out the prices of Cooke cine lenses: don't even think about zooms...

Cheers, Bob.

Just what I was thinking.

 

[vet173]

What about bokeh? Does the Cooke not have a nice bokeh?

In a copal shutter? Not as nice as it could be in a shutter with a decent amount of aperture leaves. For that amount of money I would much rather have an old one, even if it cost more.

 

[Changeling1]

Have you checked out Wisner's

I just found my ultimate lens, I just need to sell something to pay for it, like my truck or something.

http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=161

Convertible Plasma Set? http://www.wisner.com/Page15.html
These are much more in keeping with the spirit of "traditional photography".

 

[Ole]

I bought a 300mm Symmar convertible instead. The Compound #4 shutter has lots of aperture blades, and the same threads front and back. That makes it a potential "triple convertible" - 300mm f:5.6, 500mm f:12, and 620mm f:14.

Price? A lot less than the Cooke - either one of them.