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 :)

FOR SALE COOKE 18x100 T3 ZOOM

Tony Covell

Tony Covell

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 10, 2008
Messages
728
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
South Coast [ Sussex ] very near to London UK.
A SUPERB COOKE 18x100 T3 ZOOM. PL Mount. With Arri removable support band and pillar. Scales Imperial and Metric. Cased ready to shoot. Price $17,500 usdollars. Offers considered. Shipping FOC paid anyplace. Insurance at cost. Please contact tonycovell@talktalk.net based London.
Thanks very much for the interest on this lens IT IS NOW SOLD for the asking price!:bye2:
 
w/ $9999 Red 18-85 there.. $17500?.. yes right :sarcasm:
 
Yes you are correct ? :whistling: but do you want a prime lens that gives absolute quality for every mm of angle throughout the range that also zooms. OR A Remounted Stills lens? IF you have never seen the images from a Cooke product then I think you really should not criticise the products. These lenses have shot most early films and even some today and commercial photographers swear by them. For Quality and price its a no contest.:ninja:
For those who know price is not really the issue. Tony Covell
 
The 18-85 Red is no rehoused still lens. It has it's idiosyncrasies but it's a better performer optically than the Cooke 18-100, certainly in the corners.

Here's Matt Uhry's side by side test...
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19957&highlight=cooke+18-100+18-85

There are still plenty of reasons to get the Cooke (Bokeh). I love my 25-250 MII especially on people, I'd imagine the 18-100 is similar.
 
This is a very interesting statement " The Red 18 to 85 is no rehoused still lens" This intrigues me; as somebody who knows about lenses I would love to hear what you think it is; and where it is made. I also would like to know how the Focul depth was checked before the tests and were both lenses in ex tested workshop condition? Any tests like this has to have a full lab test condition put upon it. Here in the UK we have been invited to see tests that frankly leave much to be desired. They [presenters] cannot say what camera was used how the test was conducted or any basic requirement that as a film person we would be expected to supply as part of the screening and lecture.
Finally COOKE is absolute and thats a fact!! Kindest Tony Covell.
 
I have to agree with Evin here. The new RED 18-85 is not a rehousing or redesign of a still lens. As Jim has said, it's a complete ground-up new design, new sheet of paper. And it shows. Everything about the lens is "Pro" although I have three complaints about it overall. First and foremost, the lack of an integrated means of attaching support is just a strange thing to not have. Second, WTF? No drop-in filters? and third... That 138mm front thread leaves people looking for non-standard adapter rings if they want to front-mount a filter without a large mattebox.

I finally got my hands on an 18-85 last week and worked with it for over 2 days. The performance is great. IMO, it's technically superior to the Cooke 18-100 (which I do own a very nice one of these), but has a few little quirks. Bokeh highlight on the RED lens is "funny". Out of focus highlights have a "bubble" look whereas on the Cooke they just melt into creamy goodness. Sorry for that, but I can't think of a better way to describe. Not that the RED is bad in this regard, it's just different. The one thing the RED lens does lack is the warmth and texture of the Cooke. Some people call this the "3D look", but to me, it's just the way the bokeh carries a nice organic texture and feel, it adds a lot more dimension to the image vs this RED lens or an Optimo or others. The RED lens is tack sharp, has better illumination... both of those characteristics are far better in the corners too in comparison to the Cooke. If I did not already own the Cooke, I would buy the RED 18-85 and would not look back. I would have bought the 18-85 if it had /i data support.

Tony, can you tell how old your Cooke is? Looking at the picture, I can see it's one of the older housing designs. I'm thinking it's 15 years ++
 
Lens Comparison Tests

Lens Comparison Tests

Need to weigh in with a dose of Solomon-style judgement here. While Mr. Covell's lens may have been offered somewhat north of typical market value, in fairness, he has invited offers. He is an industry veteran and knows from whence he speaks.

However, he has obviously misspoken by calling the RED 18-85mm a re-housed stills lens. RED should not be underestimated in its ability to perform high level R&D backed up by creative manufacturing solutions.

On the other hand, the task of performing rigorous, valid optical testing is enormous. Mr. Covell rightly brings up the question of camera flange-to-image plane calibration (still a murky subject for RED ONE owners), lens back focus and the relative condition of the optics involved. It is simply not valid to compare used units to new, unless the old unit is virtually new, or freshly serviced to a high (and documented) degree. Few of the people posting on these forums would recognize a valid, documented lens test or MTF curve, because these things are outside their experience. They come from the world of manufacturing and engineering, not the world of production.

My 2 cents
Charles
 
I think Mr. Covell is mistaking the Red 18-50 (which is indeed a rehoused still lens), with the new 18-85.

I've never seen a still zoom lens in that focal length range of even remotely the same size as the Red 18-85. I suppose it could be a rehouse, but I really really doubt it.
 
Matt Uhry is a very experienced DP and his 18-100 is very good condition with regular trips to Paul Duclos I have no doubt that the tests he performed are indicative of real world performance. Is it really so surprising that a new 2008 design performs better than a 20+ year old design, Cooke or not? It's a testament to the quality of the Cooke that they are even comparable. Don't get me wrong I think the 18-100 is a great lens and given the choice I'd choose it over the Red 18-85 but only because I own a Cooke 10:1 with witch to match it. Otherwise a new 18-85 is by far the better deal. With any luck Red's lenses and the economy will start to bring PL mount lens prices back down to earth.
 
Fair enough; But I did not intend to give any impression that His tests were faulted, However IMO one must do the tests for comparison the same way we would conduct a 35mm camera test or its not meaningful. BUT you still have not answered my query which is:- what do you think the RED 18 - 85 lens is or was before it was launched upon the market. I know it cannot surely hold focus at any position thro its zoom range as he Cooke can! By chance this discussion was also taking place over coffee in Pinewood today and experienced Guys were saying exactly what I discussed above earlier. The conclusion was the same, what are we dealing with?
The price is maintained IMHO by the shortage of glass that has resulted from New Red owners looking for quality images. While the Red cameras are released in quantity as they are the shortage will continue. I am; it must be said; a RED fan! Bigtime!!
Bye the way This lens, here for sale, is now SOLD for the full asking price. SO I and my Redowner are both very happy tonite. Cheers. Tony Covell.
 
Thanks for the input. The lens was/is superb BUT now its SOLD! full asking price.
I will continue to make my point about how tests are shot its SO very important. We must try and dispel spoken myths for the true way ahead. Kindest Tony Covell.
 
If anybody else needs one of these, let me know, I am selling one from about the same time for 13K
 
Tony Covell said:
Very interesting thought. But where or what is/was it before it became the 18 to 85 ?
Click to expand...

But that is an awful big assumption, Tony. Would it be so hard to believe that before the lens was a RED 18-85, that it was simply nothing? That it started as an original design by RED? The box for the 18-85 and the new 300 both state the country of manufacture to be Japan. This could mean lots of things or it could mean nothing.

Having worked with the 18-85 and now that I have the 300mm Pro in my hands, I fully believe RED's claims that these are their own original designs. It's obvious that they're not being made at RED's HQ, but we can only speculate as to what facilities and arrangements have been established for manufacturing.

Oh, and for what it's worth, the 18-85 holds focus through the zoom range just fine. Every bit as good as my Cooke 18-100 does. Seriously, you should take one for a test drive. But this is the kind of uphill battle RED faces in gaining acceptance for their lenses. The 18-50 has done a lot to tarnish RED's lens reputation.
 
Wow, the Cooke/Technovision 18-90 I sold went at an incredible bargain compared to what's on the market right now. Guess I missed the boat on that one.
 
albert rudnicki said:
By the photos you've posted the lens looked like a MKI way over priced beat up rental glass. Your arrogance and assumptions aggravates me to the point I had to :sick:
Now I am better, and I am happy for you and hope you'll have nothing else to sale here.

Sorry to everyone that got offended.
It's Friday night after all:)
Click to expand...

Is that a barf icon? How cool.. needed that b4.


Billy
 
I am sorry as well! If you want to believe that I would sell a beat up cooke for excessive money then thats your perogative. The comments I make upon lenses are from many years of experience with cameras, lenses, grip, the whole shebang. Red has brought many new things to the biz that I applaud. For example it has reformed and is changing the budget movie that was previously shot on a cheap Sony. Nothing about content but quality images is where I come from. IF you want to bury your head in the sand and believe all you read then thats fine by me. However; You are correct before the 18 to 85 their was nothing. Look at PV they have been remounting beautifully other manufacturers lenses for years and in some cases improvng them. However, we do know what they started out as. Glass does not just happen its an expensive business and at the retail price RED 18 to 85 is sold at something has to be interesting.
I repeat.....Testing must be done in as near lab conditions as possible with all the Questions answerable. If you want to read about test conditions go look at CML or ASC or BSC logs. I love sharp pictures; what the DoP does afterwards is art. Nuff said!!
Thanks to those who did understand where I was coming from. Finally I will have more kit for sale in the future at fair prices and no gimmicks.
Tony Covell
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top