View Camera Review Of Cooke Triple Convertible Lens

[mikewhi]

Don't read anything into the silence, just been busy with my day job. I have confirmed that the lens does have a small focus shift when stopped down. When I focus wide open and the stop down to between f22-f32 the image goes slightly out of focus. It also loses some resolution. Neither problem is particularly bad, the focus shift is very small but it is there. I imagine in practice that DOF would help with the loss of resolution. I haven't done enough shooting with it outdoors and printing of negatives to say anything definite about the sharpness. But at 8x10, even a 16x20 print would still be great. I was looking on the groundglass with a 10x loupe thru 1.75x reading glasses so the magnification was very high. Plus, I was shooting really close up with the subject about 12 inches or so infront of the lens.

I will have to use it out in the field more and with the weather improving around here I will be able to do that soon.

-Mike

 

[HenceForthWith]

Beats being a whiner that expects others to do their work for them...

It's your world "WarEaglemtn", everyone else just exists in it...

"Feel free to purchase one and post the results"

HenceForthWith... you are a Ass.

 

[jd callow]

Mike,
This is a great thread. Although, I am less interested in this Cooke lens then I am in their portrait lens I find your posts a good asset.

Now if only I had the money (~3,600.00 USD) to go out and buy the Cooke portrait lens I too would post a lens critique.

 

[Jorge]

Mike,

Now if only I had the money (~3,600.00 USD) to go out and buy the Cooke portrait lens I too would post a lens critique.

Yeah, I think we need to boycott Schneider for making lenses we all drool over but cannot afford....them fine art lenses would be my choice for review..

 

[mikewhi]

Yeah, those XXL lenses look cool - who cares if they perform - they look like a Ferrari or something. Or one of those cool bathroom water faucets that people deisgn houses around. Seriously, even the 500mm covers 20x24! I wonder what they're like.

I will get more info up on the Cooke as soon as I can, but I think the info about the focus shift and resolution change are interesting. Clive Russ ensures me that the tonality of images from this lens are superior. I certainly liked what I saw compared to my G-Claron, but havent' had time to compare it to anything else yet.

I think Cooke is really charging a LOT for that portrait lens - it won't even cover 8x10. I guess that's ok for a portrait lens (who wants an 8x10 or your aunts face with tose hairs and warts after all). But over $3k? Yikes. I bet portraits from it printed on Ilford Warmtone would be great.

-Mike

 

[Gerry]

In years past Steve has published many of my articles in View Camera, VERBATUM, with text, photos and graphs. Verbally chastizing anothers work in a public forum shows a definite lack of character and disrespect for the members of this forum. If a person can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

Keep up the good work Steve!

Gerry Russell

 

[mikewhi]

In years past Steve has published many of my articles in View Camera, VERBATUM, with text, photos and graphs. Verbally chastizing anothers work in a public forum shows a definite lack of character and disrespect for the members of this forum. If a person can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

Keep up the good work Steve!

Gerry Russell

What public chastisement are you talking about?

-Mike

 

[jd callow]

Hmmm,
So yeah Mike we look forward to more info and even more for the examples.

 

[Graeme Hird]

What public chastisement are you talking about?

-Mike

Mike, I think Gerry just made a mistake with his first post on the forum. Perhaps he (thought he) was responding to some other thread in which Steve Simmons was being harangued (.... again.)

Cheers,

 

[Gerry]

Not you Mike. I thought some pointed comments made by another member reguarding VC were uncalled for. There are better ways to make ones point.

Your original post was very succinct and brought out some very good issues. Sorry if I offended.

Gerry

 

[mikewhi]

Well, the weather finally is getting better here in the northwest and I got out today for several hours with my 8x10 and Cooke XVa. I wen to a park near on the water's edge and I photographed around rocks, trees, etc. I used the lens in all 3 focal lengths and here are my impressions.

First, this lens is amazing wide open. It is very bright and very very sharp. I used a 10x loupe and a pair of 1.75 reading glasses so the magnification was very high. I could focus on lichen on rocks and it was very sharp showing all detail and bright colors. I could focus on grass with those wheat-like tips on them and from about 75 feet away I could see all the tiny parts of the tip of the tall grass. Grass and tree branches at far distances were sharp and clear. I could see a lot of detail in rocks and tree trunks. I saw no abberations. I tried very hard to reproduce the focus shift that I noticed in the darkroom doing close-up photography on flowers. I could not reproduce it in the field. I did not notice degradation in the image when I stopped down. I took a few 8x10's (EFKE 25) at f90, too.

It is very easy to switch elements around. I am very glad I got the rear caps from SK Grimes. It makes it safe to cap the front and rear of the element and pop it into a pocket.

After today, I am pretty much sold on the lens. I beleive it was a great purchase and I am very happy to own the lens. This lens projects great images in single cell and with both elements combined.

If any of you were holding back, maybe this will help you decide.

I personally don't think posting a scan with the APUG limitations would show any difference at all between this lens (in any configuration) and any other good modern lens. I'm sure you could not get enough info scanned to see any difference at all.
I am also sure it would beat the pants off any vintage lens. Today, I also used a Goerz-Dagor Carl Zeiss Jenna 24cm f9 (reputed to be very sharp) and the Cooke was much better and far far brighter.

-Mike

 

[mikewhi]

I just tried this lens on my 7x17, all combinations. All 3 cover the format easily, with tons of room for movements. With the front element alone, I could adjust the front rise\fall to the maximum on a Canham 8x10 and I lost no coverage. The lens is very sharp wide open. Looking down on a city below me with some store signs over a mile away, I could read almost all the letters in a Kelly Moore paint store-front sign but as I stopped down, it quickly lost resolution and I could not make out the letters even after about 1.5 stops. Even slightly re-focusing didn't improve it.

I will be shooting with some more in the next few days, doing both 8x10 and 7x17 and I will give some more field reports.

-Mike

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Thanks for the reports. Keep 'em coming.

 

[Steve Hamley]

Yep, Thanks Mike.

Steve

 

[mikewhi]

Small update. I was at Mono Lake this afternoon\evening and I shot exslusively with the 7x17 (I have only 4 holders so I had to be selective). I had one situation where I tilted the tripod head up so the horizon was very near the bottom of the frame. I then straightened the front and rear standards (effectively a large rise). I had a 305 G-Claron on and it ran out of coverage in the corners. I popped the XVa on in it's 311mm configuration and it covered everything very nicely.

I am finding that I am more comfortable leaving some of my other lenses behind now and I'm saving a lot of weight. My Nikkor-W 360, Symmar-S 480 and 305 G-Claron are now basically extra weight. I do take along my 240mm Dagor as a wide lens and it conveniently screws right into the front of the Copal #3 shutter that I use with the XVa, so I have one shutter and 4 focal lengths with this package.

I am still very happy with the performance of the XVa wide open. Since it was bright outside today, I could stop down to f64 and see quite well on the groundglass. It is defenitely not as sharp an image at f64 as when wide open. At the lake, there were some small tufas and flocks of small white birds at infinity, easily resolved quite sharply wide open but became a little fuzzy at f64 and re-focusing didn't help. Still, with 7x17 contact prints, I'm sure the image(s) will be quite acceptible.

I am off to Bristlecone Pine tomorrow with a friend. I will be shooting 7x17, 8x10 and possibly 5x7 with the XVa again. I wil be shooting at closer than infinity I imagine, so I'll write again with more impressions.

-Mike

 

[Dave Wooten]

Thanks for these updates Mike,

How limited are you with DOF when wide open...seem like that could be a problem when using camera movements and not being sharp when stopping down, or am I missing something....having one lens for three focal lengths at 7 x 17 certainly gets my attention.....at what F stop does the diffraction become noticable?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yes, I'm also more interested if the 311mm configuration can cover 11x14".

 

[Dave Wooten]

I'm thinking it would cover 11 x 14 if it adequately covers 7 x 17 @ 480mm circle?

 

[mikewhi]

Yes, I'm also more interested if the 311mm configuration can cover 11x14".

I know the Cook web-site lists the following regarding coverage:

1)Maximum Useable Image Circle at 10 Feet and Less(Use Aperture) of 420mm @ f\16.

2) Maximun Useable Image Circle of 381 deg @ f\16. Angle of View of 63 deg @ f\16.

Minimum image circle for 11x14 seems to be 455mm. All I can tell you is that the 311 configuration covered 7x17 with pretty extreme front rise. I used the technique of tiltling the tripod back and straightening the standards because I could not reach the front standard and keep my eye on the groundglass at the same time.

I will be working with the 8x10 and the XVa outside tomorrow and I'll check to see how much excess covering power there is with the 311 configuration. I'd assume Cooke is conservative with their specs above and that it may well cover 11x14, but we'll see.

-Mike

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Thanks, Mike. Going way back to the beginning of this thread, the real question to me is whether it would be better to have a suite of all 3 Fujinon-C lenses (300, 450, 600) or the Cooke, which are about the same price, considering that I'd be purchasing a shutter as well for the Cooke. The Fujinon-C 300 does not cover 11x14", but it would be handy to have a compact 300 for other formats.

The focal length I really need is a 600 for 11x14", but the possibility of modernizing all my long focal length lenses around there is kind of interesting to me. I have a 12" Dagor that can cover 11x14", but only if I use it in barrel or have it remounted in a shutter--I currently use it front mounted on an Ilex 5, which is fine for 8x10", but vignettes on 11x14".

 

[mikewhi]

Thanks, Mike. Going way back to the beginning of this thread, the real question to me is whether it would be better to have a suite of all 3 Fujinon-C lenses (300, 450, 600) or the Cooke, which are about the same price, considering that I'd be purchasing a shutter as well for the Cooke. The Fujinon-C 300 does not cover 11x14", but it would be handy to have a compact 300 for other formats.

The focal length I really need is a 600 for 11x14", but the possibility of modernizing all my long focal length lenses around there is kind of interesting to me. I have a 12" Dagor that can cover 11x14", but only if I use it in barrel or have it remounted in a shutter--I currently use it front mounted on an Ilex 5, which is fine for 8x10", but vignettes on 11x14".

As far as I can tell, all 3 focal lengths in the Xva will cover 11x14. I will know more tomorrow, but the largest format I have with me is 7x17. I can check that they all 3 cover th 17" dimension and check the movements. The Canham back slides back and forth a long ways so I should reach the limit of the lens at infinity and maybe closer (but not further<g>).

I guess you'll have to decide what your priorities are. If weight does not matter and you want the best performance at each flocal length and you plan on elarging, I'd go with the seperate lenses. If you plan on contact printing, then the extra performance of the seperate lenses is negated - the XVa will make very nice contact prints at all focal lengths. There is a lot to be said about the weight savings, if that is a concern. If you only work out of the car, I guess it doesn't matter what the lenses weigh.

If coverage is the deciding factor, charts can help but apparently the Cooke chars are too conservative based on my experience with the 305 G-Claron and the 311 configuration on the XVa.

So, if you plan on enlarging and if weight does not matter and the seperate lenses more than cover your largest format, stick with them. If weight and compactness matter and you are going to contact print, the XVa seems like an ideal lens. The question just remains if it covers 11x4 adequately.

One person you can ask is Clive Russ (www.cliveruss.com). I dealt with him personally and via e-mail to buy my lens. He got the first prototype from Cooke and knows the lens intimately. He can advise you about it's applicability on 11x14. You might mention to him what I said about the 7x17. He is a good man, a real gentleman and good to do business with. I'd suggest buying one from him if you decide to get one.

Take care.

-Mike

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Thanks, Mike. I don't work out of the car primarily (I don't even own one), but weight isn't the issue with this particular choice, given that either combination would probably be lighter than or similar to my current arrangement. This is mainly for 8x10" and 11x14", which I contact print, but I might occasionally want to be able to use them on smaller formats. Right now, I'd say the coverage of the 311 would tip the scales.