mikewhi
Member
Hi:
Anyone have any opinions about the review in the July\August issue? Personally, I was left feeling like it was a marketing piece for Cooke. There were many subjective comments like:
'I can only describe the image as having a "lushness".'
'There was "air" in the image.'
'Like looking at the world after a spring rain'
Since when did 'lushness', 'air' and 'spring rain' become the benchmarks for lens performance?
The author said he was going to compare the performance of this lens to vintage convertible lenses, but that it was so much metter than them that it would be a waste of time and that the Cooke lens can hold i't own against modern lenses. Well, if that's the case, why not compare it to some of the modern lenses, then? Compare it in all 3 focal lengths. He says that the projected image does not lose quality wide open when used with a single element, but offered no proof. All we get is one somewhat blurry and flat picture of some cactus. Does he tell us how lines per mm the lens will resolve at each focal length compared to a good modern lens? That would interest me. The one technical figure provided was copied off the Cooke web-site.
At the end, he even tells us that we should rush out an buy one because the supply is limited (Operators standing by!!).
There was some unseful information on using the lens and a good description of it's use in the field. But at the end I had no hard information that would make me want to go out and buy one. It all seemed like hype to me.
It could well be that the reviewer is right and I should rush out and but one, but at some $2500 (or more) for the lens, I'd need more than hype to get me to do it.
Does anyone own one of these lenses? Can you give us some feedback on it's performance? Something other than 'I love it', etc? Have you done any comparision with it and modern lenses of similar focal length shootint the same scene and comparing prints.
If this lens is a great one, I'd like to get one (I understand another batch is being manufactured as they sold out the first?).
-Mike
Anyone have any opinions about the review in the July\August issue? Personally, I was left feeling like it was a marketing piece for Cooke. There were many subjective comments like:
'I can only describe the image as having a "lushness".'
'There was "air" in the image.'
'Like looking at the world after a spring rain'
Since when did 'lushness', 'air' and 'spring rain' become the benchmarks for lens performance?
The author said he was going to compare the performance of this lens to vintage convertible lenses, but that it was so much metter than them that it would be a waste of time and that the Cooke lens can hold i't own against modern lenses. Well, if that's the case, why not compare it to some of the modern lenses, then? Compare it in all 3 focal lengths. He says that the projected image does not lose quality wide open when used with a single element, but offered no proof. All we get is one somewhat blurry and flat picture of some cactus. Does he tell us how lines per mm the lens will resolve at each focal length compared to a good modern lens? That would interest me. The one technical figure provided was copied off the Cooke web-site.
At the end, he even tells us that we should rush out an buy one because the supply is limited (Operators standing by!!).
There was some unseful information on using the lens and a good description of it's use in the field. But at the end I had no hard information that would make me want to go out and buy one. It all seemed like hype to me.
It could well be that the reviewer is right and I should rush out and but one, but at some $2500 (or more) for the lens, I'd need more than hype to get me to do it.
Does anyone own one of these lenses? Can you give us some feedback on it's performance? Something other than 'I love it', etc? Have you done any comparision with it and modern lenses of similar focal length shootint the same scene and comparing prints.
If this lens is a great one, I'd like to get one (I understand another batch is being manufactured as they sold out the first?).
-Mike