Cooke lens questiona

[Mark Kern]

I had a set of Cooke Mini/S4s and they are indeed great lenses. Unfortunately I started to tire of the Cooke look which I felt was slightly yellowish, lower contrast and um...buttery? I knew about he coatings, but the spherical design makes a lot of sense to me on the "dimensionality" that you do seem to get with these lenses.

But I've always been a Leica fan. I wish my S2 lenses would mount on my Dragon. But I am going to be shooting a lot in the upcoming week with a set of Leica Van Diemens that I bought here on Reduser a couple of years ago. Looking forward to that.

In terms of a lens's "look" I do find that its a *bit* of self fulfilling prophecy. We choose lenses for certain situations, and therefore reinforce the reputation of the look as we maximize the strengths of each glass for the common situations they excel in.

 

[bevan goldswain]

'Just what is it'?

Great marketing is what it is.

As Phil said, every manufacturer has a look. Every lens actually has it's own look. The fact that the words Cooke and look rhyme has a huge part to play in why we talk about it so much. The kind of mystery that gets attached to wine is very similar to the stories we tell ourselves about lenses.

Don't get me wrong, I think the images these lenses make are beautiful. Just remember that each lens has their 'look' and each is the sum of a number of very unmysterious factors.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Actually, this is not exactly the case. Most of the companies that make lenses, coatings, etc. you never have heard of. Zeiss is more like Nike than Cooke. They design, but they don't manufacture much these days. Cosina is only one of many factories/suppliers that they work with for instance.

However, I will only mention it once more. For me Cooke is less about the mechanics, than it is about the coatings. In fact this could be said of almost all the manufacturers today, including Canon. We have known how to grind perfect lenses for a very long time. However, the real signature is in the design for their transport in a metal tube and the coatings. Most of what people attribute to Cooke is actually that level of flare in their coatings related to skin tones. This is what gives the softness, while the other layers retain sharpness. No other manufacturer does this.

What part of what I said is not exactly the case?

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

What part of what I said is not exactly the case?

#3

3rd, There really isn't that many companies who continuously make cinema lenses. Schneider, Zeiss, Canon, Leica, Fujinon and Angenieux. The latter two are currently zooms only. All of these lenses have subtle differences which make them ideal in different situations. It would be a less interesting world if they all looked the same, even if they all looked like beautiful Cookes.

Actually, there are many companies making lenses. Just that we will likely never know their names. We know only the "umbrella" companies.

 

[Michael Lindsay]

In terms of a lens's "look" I do find that its a *bit* of self fulfilling prophecy. We choose lenses for certain situations, and therefore reinforce the reputation of the look as we maximize the strengths of each glass for the common situations they excel in.

I agree a lot of this goes on.... You also get the situation where a jnr directors/dp insist on one lens set over another forgetting the look primarily comes from the DP's full range of skills, key production design choices, very clear communication and a wide production resources to allow all to deliver.