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 :)

Cooke Zoom

M

martinnoweck

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
994
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Hi everybody,

i got an interesting offer for a cooke zoom 9,5 - 47mm (T1.4) for super16mm use. any thoughts on this lens? does it really cover super16 oder only regular 16mm?

thanks in advance - best wishes,
martin
 
I suspect you have your lenses confused. It sounds like you are crossing an Ang. 9.5-57 with a cooke 9-50. Neither of which cover super 16, but they will cover Red 2k fine.

Nick
 
nick,

thanks for the reply - i will check on the confusion and post it here ;-)

any thoughts about the quality of the cooke 9-50?

regards,
martin
 
The cooke 9-50 is an excellent little lens. I was just talking to a friend of mine the other day about how in retrospect, we wish we still had our 16mm glass from our SR packages, and he was particularly missing the 9-50.

Nick
 
I have a really nice 9-50. It covers in 2K, but not 3K.
The Super-16 version is 9.4-53, and there is a "conversion" version that is 10.4-54 I think.
I'm hanging on to it for 2/3" Scarlet, or perhaps I'll sell it when the 16mm glass bubble swells. :)
Cheers,
Harry
 
IIRC, the converted version that Harry speaks of is a modified Cooke 20-100 and after the modification, it yields a nice T1.6 that covers 16mm / RED One 2K.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
IIRC, the converted version that Harry speaks of is a modified Cooke 20-100 and after the modification, it yields a nice T1.6 that covers 16mm / RED One 2K.
Click to expand...

Jeff is right - it's a converted 20-100, a big lens used for TV on 16mm. They have one @ Panavision Hollywood that is referred to as the Hart to Hart lens. I guess that show used it for years.

Not to be confused with the 9-50. Be sure you realize how big and heavy it is before you commit.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
wow, so many glass aficionados on this thread - thank you very much for your thoughts!

as so many of you gathered in this thread i have another question ;-)

i have another offer


cooke prime set
9mm - 12.5mm - 17.5mm - 25mm - 32mm - 50mm
all of them T2.3
come with adapter to pl.

any thoughts on the age and the quality of this set?
suitable for 2k or 4k?

i searched the cooke website but did not find a matching set.

best regards,
martin
 
martinnoweck said:
wow, so many glass aficionados on this thread - thank you very much for your thoughts!

as so many of you gathered in this thread i have another question ;-)

i have another offer


cooke prime set
9mm - 12.5mm - 17.5mm - 25mm - 32mm - 50mm
all of them T2.3
come with adapter to pl.

any thoughts on the age and the quality of this set?
suitable for 2k or 4k?

i searched the cooke website but did not find a matching set.

best regards,
martin
Click to expand...

The 9mm is for 2K. Check to find out if the lenses say kinetal. If they do, they are for 2K only. The 50mm kinetal may cover 4K though. Also make sure the PL mount is the Arri Quick release version or the lenses will not focus since the Standard mount rotates with the focus.
 
As Steve pointed out, those should all be Kinetal 16mm. There is in fact just such a set on ebay right now.

martinnoweck said:
wow, so many glass aficionados on this thread - thank you very much for your thoughts!

as so many of you gathered in this thread i have another question ;-)

i have another offer


cooke prime set
9mm - 12.5mm - 17.5mm - 25mm - 32mm - 50mm
all of them T2.3
come with adapter to pl.

any thoughts on the age and the quality of this set?
suitable for 2k or 4k?

i searched the cooke website but did not find a matching set.

best regards,
martin
Click to expand...
 
Harry was just showing his age, and now here I go too.

There is an ancient Angenieux 9.5-57 T1.9 that was probably the best of the old little black zoom lenses that Ang. made for decades. The T-stop had the widest aperture marked in blue and you had to pull a little stop pin in order to get there, Ang.'s way of saying "this lens really falls apart this wide open -- go there only if you must." This lens was for regular 16mm and could only cover Super-16 from about 25mm and up. Of course it would cover the RED at 2K since that is sub-regular 16mm in size. If you can find an HEC version (High Efficiency Coating) then it is not that terrible a little lens.

The Cooke 9-50 T2.4 was an industry standard for regular 16 for many years. The factory Super-16 version was 10.4-52 T2.8 and there was an aftermarket (by Optex) S-16 conversion that made it 10,8-60 T3.

A few years back, Cooke began offering conversions to take it's industry standard 35 format lenses, the 20-100 and the newer 18-100 and magnifying the image projection down to only cover S-16. By focusing all that light onto a smaller image area the glass became a very fast T1.6. Focal lengths were converted to 9.5-53. Check out the conversions here:

http://zgc.com/webstore.nsf/vindex/cooke_lenses
 
Mitch,

Had any experience with the Angenieux T1.3 16-44mm S16 zoom?
 
"Had any experience with the Angenieux T1.3 16-44mm S16 zoom?"

i used it once because i needed the speed (& budget) ... we had to reshoot part of the scene a few weeks later because of the actors performance ( used 10-100 T2 zeiss for reshoot) .. few of the Ang C/U shots did make it into final release ... i cringe everytime they pop up in the 35mm blow up - the wide shots (16mm was not reshot) are slightly soft (could be just the lens we rented) ...
shot C/u at 32mm (2.2 ...ISO 100 film) and again the Ang was soft compared to zeiss at 32mm.
 
Mitch and Arrineck are right about my intended reference... I was referring to both the factory and aftermarket evolutions of the venerable 9-50.
But the 20-100 (or 18-100) conversion that Matt speaks of has always intrigued me. I've never seen one, and in fact wonder how many even exist.
It would be interesting to shoot with.
Cheers,
Harry
 
Ha!
Sorry... tried posting from my iPhone.
:)
Harry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top