Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

I have to choose between Cooke 18-100 & Angie 30-80 Rouge

Lenny Manfred

Lenny Manfred

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
Messages
825
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Los Angeles
I am about to make a lens purchase for my RED package of either a new Angenieux DP 30-80 Rouge or an recent and really great condition (yellow numbers) Cooke 18-100. Please, gods of wisdoms here on REDUSER, share your wisdom.

FYI, I also own a brand new Century 17-35 (canon conversion) T3 that i plan to keep in the mix.

Enlighten me!
 
They are very different.

The Cooke is heavy and large and has a very versatile range whereas the Angenieux 30-80 is a leightweight zoom and needs a second shorter zoom to make a meaningful set. You should rent the 30-80 to test wether it works well in combination with your short Century zoom which I haven't used yet and hence cannot comment on.

Besides the physical difference the Cooke 18-100 has a unique flavour, a very special kind of 3D feeling the 30-80 has not. I assume this because I've used Angenieux's 28-72 quite often which is very similar to the 30-80 Rouge.

The 30-80 has the advantage that you can use it hand held. But then you own the Century 17-85 which is even better for hand held because the shortest focal length of 30mm is in my opinion too long for a versatile handheld zoom.

Bottomline: You are better off with the Cooke 18-100.

Hans
 
Hans von Sonntag said:
They are very different.

The Cooke is heavy and large and has a very versatile range whereas the Angenieux 30-80 is a leightweight zoom and needs a second shorter zoom to make a meaningful set. You should rent the 30-80 to test wether it works well in combination with your short Century zoom which I haven't used yet and hence cannot comment on.

Besides the physical difference the Cooke 18-100 has a unique flavour, a very special kind of 3D feeling the 30-80 has not. I assume this because I've used Angenieux's 28-72 quite often which is very similar to the 30-80 Rouge.

The 30-80 has the advantage that you can use it hand held. But then you own the Century 17-85 which is even better for hand held because the shortest focal length of 30mm is in my opinion too long for a versatile handheld zoom.

Bottomline: You are better off with the Cooke 18-100.

Hans
Click to expand...

very good points. i have though about that too, the 17-35 might be all the hand held lens i need. and i heard about the special "look" of the 18-100, and how it takes down the "video look" (harshness) on the red, to make it look more film like. the thing about the 30-80 is that, business-wise, i wonder if getting the newest, latest lens that people are talking about will make my package more popular over having and old workhorse of a lens, but that many people have in different variations of condition, at different price points.

the 18-100 i am getting is very clean, carefully looked at by the lens guy at this company, and it's a more recent version of the lens, with the yellow numbers, but i think i am not getting a really good deal. $18,000 for this lens, while the 30-80 is the latest technology and it's $20,000. another issue is that my current matte box is not a good fit for the 18-100, while the 30-80 fits perfectly, so i would have to spend another big chunk of change for a good matte box if i am not going to mickey mouse things.

plus, even if i don't plan to use the 30-80 for hand held work, it does make life a lot easier, especially when shooting guerrilla style, which is often the way we shoot.
 
$18K for the Cooke may be an OK price or it may be too expensive. Do you know how old the lens is? Right now the 18-100s out there for sale are a bit over-inflated, just like primes. A fair price for an 8 to 10 year old 18-100 in great condition would be $12K-$15K. Price will go up if the lens is newer than that and depending on how much use it has. I have been hearing some rumors lately that the 18-100 is to be replaced with a completely new lens design, with all the latest CXX features and /i data capability. Makes sense to me and the 18-100 has been gone from the Cooke website and other sites like ZGC for some time now.

I agree with Hans. If you are choosing between the two lenses, the Cooke 18-100 is a better overall choice. To me, the 30-80 Rouge is an oddball. Their upcoming 16-42 for the same money is a much more useful design.
 
i have decided, i am going with the Rouge. the 18-100 is nice, but that is just to big and heavy, and i am making my package a handled/jib/steadicam package, to separate me from the rest. thanks you guys.

i should have the lens by the end of next week, i will let you guys know how i like it.
 
How do you like the 17-35 Century I hear good reports of it, Also what price are they abouts ?

thanks,

Dave
UK
 
I think those centurys are in the 13 grand range.
 
Has anyone tried the Elite zooms. They have a 25-80 3.2 at slowmotioninc. I think that is in the 15 grand range.
 
Matthew Duclos said:
good choice.
Click to expand...

hey, thanks, your opinion played a big part in my decision.

yes, i am aware of the fact that the rouge will not work on 35mm cameras, or the D-21 for that matter, and initially, at NAB, when i saw that, i felt that was enough for me not to get it, because i have always had this fantasy that someday i will actually buy a film camera and shoot film... but, really, i have been shooting for 25 years, and it did not happen yet, and with cameras such as the red, i see less reason for it to happen now, and, for the money, there really isn't another zoom lens out there that i can purchase today, new. i like new. i am anal, i don't like scratches on my gear, the 17-35 i bought was new, and that made me happy.

about the 17-35, the focus rotation is short, but this is a wide angle, so focus is not as critical. otherwise, i love it. I bought mine new, for just under $15,000, and i like it a lot. it is small, light, and to my somewhat trained eye, it looks good too. i hear there is variation of quality from lens to lens, and some older ones can have mechanical problems, but, from what my independent lens expert friend tells me, i got lucky with my sample, so, from my experience, i can only sing praises for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top