Red or 2nd Hand Cooke Zoom?

Thanks for your posts Stephen, you have me rethinking my 'Nikon Solution'.

Just wondering if anyone can recommend a 'testing' procedure for used lenses for someone like myself, all the way down in Australia, ordering lenses from the USA by phone?
 
Stephen W said:
But the fact is, for the same price (or less) I know I can get a superior quality lens by buying a 20-30 year-old Cooke (as long as I'm careful and get it properly tested).
Click to expand...

Horses for courses.

Older cine lenses have specific details and aesthetics, as do newer lenses. Then you take into account the differences between manufacturers, and you've got another set of differences...

It needs repeating, Jim's 90% figure was for the RED zoom compared to the NEW compact zooms that are currently on the market. For the price, if it is even near that, it will be an incredible tool. That's why I've reserved one. It's an all purpose lense, that's sharp, lightweight and doesn't take anywhere near the lights that 30 year old lenses do.

Stephen W said:
A Cooke Mk1 25-250 from Panavision UK still rents out for £250 a day. The fact it's 30+ years old is irrelevant - it's precision optics and, though more modern lenses may be lighter and possibly a bit faster, the quality of the image is still of the highest standard.
Click to expand...
Really ? It breathes like a horny crank caller and beyond 180 can be problematic - plus it's certainly less sharp than modern lenses. By no means is it a piece of junk. And if I was going for a certain aesthetic, then I wouldn't hesitate to use one. But, for my money, with modern lenses that are faster, lighter, sharper and can easily be found in good condition, there's a lot of positives going for them.

Choose what makes sense for the project.

Personally, I want an all purpose lens with the aesthetics and details of the NEW Arri or Cooke zooms, and for everything else, I'll rent for the specific needs of the project. :beer:
 
cook lenses have been by far my favorite lens.. I expect the Red Zoom to be close in quality, mostly because of the better manufaturing techniques used nowadays, compared to Cooke who uses the old-school philosophy of hand assembled long-process (relatively) low tech construction.

if you could find a good 10 year old or newer used cooke zoom for the same price as the Red lens it may be a hard choice. But knowing Red.. they will probally do something innovative to seperate the zoom from the pack.
 
The "Nikon Solution" may be fine for what you want to use it for - as someone's already said, it's horses-for-courses. Personally it's not a route I'm planning on taking.

Don't get me wrong, I expect the Red Zoom will be excellent and the price is fantastic. The only thing that's really wrong with it is won't be available till several months after the camera!

I guess my beef is that people seem to think Red Zoom will be so much more fantastic than, say, a second-hand Cooke. What people don't seem to grasp hold of is that optics aren't like electronics. Yes, there have been advances over the years but actually the optical quality of even a well-kept 30 year-old lens is brilliant. OK so breathing may be an issue (hey, didn't stop 'em shooting Superman:The Movie on a Cooke Mk1!) compared to newer lenses, but the precision that was put into engineering these things in the first place means they stand the test of time (and not just Cooke - I tend to refer mainly to them as they're just down the road!)

Now if Jim had said "Red Zooms will be as good as Cookes, only quarter of the price" there'd be no argument (I'm assuming he used the 90% figure 'cause he reckons it isn't actually as good as a Cooke and thinks it's a good idea to be honest).

From my point of view, I can't have a Red Zoom when the camera ships. Of the alternatives a second-hand lens (Cooke, Zeiss, Angenieux) is not only my favoured option but puts me in a position where (if I buy wisely) it would render the need for a Red Zoom redundant, cause the quality would be better anyway :) The only problem is the time and effort to find a good one at an affordable price.

The point I was making about weight is that 7lbs (although good) isn't significantly lighter than a comparable modern zoom from one of the other manufacturers, so if you think "I can't use Red for ENG with a Cooke Zoom cause the lens is too heavy", then you'll have much the same problem with a Red Zoom! But like I said, the camera's light so the overall package shouldn't be an issue.
 
Stephen W said:
The "Nikon Solution" may be fine for what you want to use it for - as someone's already said, it's horses-for-courses. Personally it's not a route I'm planning on taking.

Don't get me wrong, I expect the Red Zoom will be excellent and the price is fantastic. The only thing that's really wrong with it is won't be available till several months after the camera!
Click to expand...
I generally agree even if I will be with the "Nikon Solution" precisely 'cause those reasons too. Besides I think this will be the most common RED users option. Also 'cause it is an affordable one. I've seen a lot of comments on the film gear, used and rentals alternatives and so on. But I believe the real world around the corner it is a little bit more real than we'd like our dreams to be realized through virtually no effort at all on our real budget possibilities.

And for the market demands. Other point you mentioned from your post: «The only problem is the time and effort to find a good one at an affordable price».

IMHO, the average RED user will be the DVX/HVX/XL-H1/Z1/HD100 user, so the still photography via * was what a brilliant-indie-moviemaking-provider like Jim Jannard could offer since the beginning. And we must be grateful to this dvxuser.com community 'cause this achievement. 700 reservation(s) holders is coming from here not from the cinematography.com forums. To those who don't believe it, see who are the supporters there and you'll see they aren't the film side posters. I can refer a recent episode from a friend of mine working on the advertisement business to who I tried left the RED pill. And he answered on abandon the film arena: "I would but I can't!" Just 'cause they don't want to earn less than what they can with the film aura and its myth which they have been offering since its inaccessibility argument. In order to increase the bill presented to who will pay it.

I guess my beef is that people seem to think Red Zoom will be so much more fantastic than, say, a second-hand Cooke.
Click to expand...
Understood. Mine is when some people (even if I would friendly suggest -- unlike you) make a point just to try to convince themselves of their own options, investments and purchases.

What people don't seem to grasp hold of is that optics aren't like electronics. Yes, there have been advances over the years but actually the optical quality of even a well-kept 30 year-old lens is brilliant. OK so breathing may be an issue (hey, didn't stop 'em shooting Superman:The Movie on a Cooke Mk1!) compared to newer lenses, but the precision that was put into engineering these things in the first place means they stand the test of time (and not just Cooke - I tend to refer mainly to them as they're just down the road!)

Now if Jim had said "Red Zooms will be as good as Cookes, only quarter of the price" there'd be no argument (I'm assuming he used the 90% figure 'cause he reckons it isn't actually as good as a Cooke and thinks it's a good idea to be honest).

From my point of view, I can't have a Red Zoom when the camera ships. Of the alternatives a second-hand lens (Cooke, Zeiss, Angenieux) is not only my favoured option but puts me in a position where (if I buy wisely) it would render the need for a Red Zoom redundant, cause the quality would be better anyway :) The only problem is the time and effort to find a good one at an affordable price.

The point I was making about weight is that 7lbs (although good) isn't significantly lighter than a comparable modern zoom from one of the other manufacturers, so if you think "I can't use Red for ENG with a Cooke Zoom cause the lens is too heavy", then you'll have much the same problem with a Red Zoom!
Click to expand...
Yes, if possible it would be lesser than that but I wouldn't say the same maybe just because your last statement: «But like I said, the camera's light * so the overall package shouldn't be an issue.»

* EDIT -- Last but not least, this is one of the best features that Jim can supply. And as it's easy to find I will go with three units of his lenses.
 
Last edited:
Jarred Land said:
cook lenses have been by far my favorite lens...

if you could find a good 10 year old or newer used cooke zoom for the same price as the Red lens it may be a hard choice. But knowing Red.. they will probally do something innovative to seperate the zoom from the pack.
Click to expand...

Out of curiousity,

If you had to choose ONE lens to shoot a feature on, out of the used Cookes (besides the new S4's) which would it be ? And out of these choices, which model #?

- A used Cooke zoom + the approx. price ?

- One used Cooke prime lens (a 50mm ?) + approx. price ?

Being in T.O (as you know) I've had a biootch of a time tracking down lightly used lenses from reputable sources that are priced competitively. And i wouldn't buy a lens, unless I could personally test it and take it to a lens tech. The couple of DP's I know who did a private sale (non-advertised) priced their "exquisitely" maintained lenses at a premium, because they knew they could get it (which is fair play)... even a rental house or two was bidding. :(

Maybe I should just keep RED # in a box, till the zoom arrives. :laugh:
:beer:

(Ps I know you wouldn't shoot a feature on One lens, but indulge me.)

RED #'s rebel with a clue
 
Stephen.. buddy.. there have been amazing upgrades to glass and lens design in the last 30 years. The reason people still use the old glass is that, yes, it is really good, but also that they where a huge investment $$wise and so why would't you still use them. I have a lot of old lenses, I still use them, but I'm just saying that there is a very good chance with today's technology to make better lenses at a fraction of the price. I expext the red zoom will compare nicely with 30 year old zooms.
Aloha
-A
 
From my point of view, I can't have a Red Zoom when the camera ships. Of the alternatives a second-hand lens (Cooke, Zeiss, Angenieux) is not only my favoured option but puts me in a position where (if I buy wisely) it would render the need for a Red Zoom redundant, cause the quality would be better anyway :) The only problem is the time and effort to find a good one at an affordable price.
Click to expand...

I dont think anyone knows as of yet (including red develpment team) just how good their red zoom will be compared to the competition. But i am sure that Jim Jannard will try his utmost to source the best glass possible and build the best zoom he possibly can. Remember this is his field of passion and love (photography/film). When you are a talented and smart thinking individual with a passion for something you want, you can sometimes come up with something better than most people expect.

With the red camera Jim gathered a small talented team and sourced/developed? a great sensor that makes red so damn special. Will he do the same with red lenses? Will red adopt the same dedication to producing red lenses as they have to producing red camera? Is it feasable? What i am saying is that red team are known to you guys as talented idividuals involved in the field. Are there well known individauls in the field of lens making say at Cooke (as an example) that could if they changed jobs and moved to er.....red, design a superb lens if given half the chance. How important do individuals contribute in the production of high quality lenses? So far we have been told that the red 300mm prime is likely to be available at or around the same time as the camera. I recall a remark ( i could be wrong here?) by one of the red team that the red 300mm prime is wickedly sharp. How did they manage to find the time to make even one red 300 prime to know that? Is the red prime a canon still 2.8 300mm lens modified and rebadged as a red cine prime? I am not saying this to infer anything negative just to try and establish some kind of guidline as to how red are going to make red lenses. I no nothing about the equipment required, but do the other lens makers know how cooke make such damn sharp lenses? Do other known cheaper lens makers realise the work/cost involved and just settle for making a cheaper lens with slightly less quality knowing their cost/profit ratio is acceptable?

I have no doubt that whatever/however red make their lenses they will represent better value than what other cine-lens makers have so far provided. Quite frankly in a market such as the cinema world i would **** my drawers if i had to pay what the current going rate is for top quality lenses. So red will provide the cheaper alternative without the worry of wondering/hoping that the second hand lens you just sent away for is going to be a dud or whatever. I have no doubt that there are bargains out there for sure, if you are lucky. I doubt the bargains will come from a dealer who afterall knows the going rate for what he has to offer. More likely you get what you pay for on that score. At least with red you are more likely to get MORE for what you pay:)

Whether the quality of a red lens is comparable to any of the new Cooke lenses has yet to be established. It is reasonable and sensible to expect not, most did with the camera.........but. Perhaps the key to all this lies with the glass sourced just like the sensor is to the camera.

Michael
 
It's already been established that the Red lenses are a low-cost alternative that don't offer the same quality as the Cooke's etc. Jim said so! But I agree that they're likely to be excellent quality nonetheless.

I understand Oakley are manufacturing them, so the experience of lens design and production is already there. They've knowingly created something that offers 10% less quality for 75% less cost - a great trade off! The lens prices matches the camera price nicely (a Cooke Zoom is twice the cost of the camera!) and, from what we've heard, give excellent results. But I think expecting optics that compare with lenses that cost $40,000 - when Jim himself has stated that they won't and aren't intended to - is a touch overenthusiastic.
 
Poi Boy said:
As overenthusiastic as a 4K camera for $17.5 ???
Click to expand...

The difference of course being that they've told us the camera is ultra-massively brilliant whilst also being extremely cheap, whereas with the lens they've said it's cheap but that the quality isn't as good.

To expect that they'll then provide a lens that's actually WAAYYY brilliant compared to the others yet also cheap is, yes, overenthusiastic.
 
i don't think Oakly is making the glass .. there are not that many company's that make/polish glass for lens ... so i believe that RED will be getting their glass from a couple maufacturers .. it might be the rear glass is made by Y company , front glass from T company and other glass in lens from Z company .. i believe it's the same with other lens company's -
many think panavision makes their own glass - if you read their SEC filings they clearly state the manufacturer and polisher ...
 
Given a company such as Cooke only makes 110 sets of their S4 Primes in a year I can't imagine there'd be many quality companies with the available resources to construct so many lenses in the time. As such I would think that Oakley have ample professionals and equipment to construct the glass themselves and bring in certain experts that are necessary. Cine glass is of course a cottage industry but the ammount of lenses Red will be selling will require a serious production line of the highest calibre... I doubt Jim would want to see that taken out of his control by a third party. Whilst I can be no more sure than you I still think it is likely Oakley (or a stem created off of Oakley) will be used.
 
With Oakley's deep background in optics and Jannard's experience and passion for optics, I fully expect RED lenses to be exceptional in quality. I've reserved a RED 18-85 zoom, which will get tons of use as my all-purpose lens. With the 18-85 zoom shipping months after the camera, I plan to adapt my Nikon manual still photo lenses for general RED use until the RED zoom ships. For high-end projects while I'm waiting for the RED zoom, I'll rent what other lenses I need on a per-project basis. I've also ordered the RED 300mm f2.8 lens, which I'll use extensively for shooting long focal length material: nature, sports, etc.

As D_and_G has well said - horses for courses. With image formats that range from 2540p down to 720p, and mounts that include PL, Nikon, Canon, and B4, there will be great flexibility of choice on what horse to put on what course - for each individual project we do. I'll analyze the aesthetic and operational needs of each of my projects - and then shoot in the image format, lens format, and lens focal lengths that best suit that project. Old lenses versus new lenses? It’s a matter of aesthetic and ergonomic choice for each project. I think the inherent flexibility of the RED camera system is it's main strength. Now if most shooters were as flexible as the RED camera system, we'd really be getting somewhere...

RED One just for high-end cine-style projects? That's ludicrous. If that's the case, why has RED included the 1080i and 720p formats, and mounts for Canon, Nikon, and B4 2/3" lenses? Saying shooters that don't come from a film background somehow won't be able to adapt to using RED is kind of like saying that shooters that do come from a film background won't be able to adapt to using RED - because RED's electronics evolved directly from the video industry. Learning, progressing, and adapting are the hallmarks of true motion media professionals. No matter how much we like to stay in our comfort zones, the fact remains that it's a convergent motion media world. Traditional film shooters now have to learn how to use video electronics, and traditional video shooters have now have to learn how to use cine-style lenses and accessories. Those of us who have enjoyed long, successful careers of cinematography, videography, and photography, don't see those disciplines as separate little tribes, but rather as closely-related skill areas. I think its time to cease maintaining the pre-convergence divisional walls in motion media production, and to let them simply crumble away. Unfortunately, technology tends to progress much faster than it's users attitudes...

Gibby
RED One cameras #8 and #700
RED 18-85mm, RED 300mm, various primes, various Nikon lenses, various B4 2/3" lenses, rental account waiting...
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
 
Gibby said:
Learning, progressing, and adapting are the hallmarks of true motion media professionals. No matter how much we like to stay in our comfort zones, the fact remains that it's a convergent motion media world. Traditional film shooters now have to learn how to use video electronics, and traditional video shooters have now have to learn how to use cine-style lenses and accessories. Those of us who have enjoyed long, successful careers of cinematography, videography, and photography, don't see those disciplines as separate little tribes, but rather as closely-related skill areas.
Click to expand...

Well put. A little cross-discipline humility keeps one learning and getting better, no matter what the field. The less provincial the better the career.
 
D_and_G said:
Out of curiousity,

If you had to choose ONE lens to shoot a feature on, out of the used Cookes (besides the new S4's) which would it be ? And out of these choices, which model #?

- A used Cooke zoom + the approx. price ?

- One used Cooke prime lens (a 50mm ?) + approx. price ?

RED #'s rebel with a clue
Click to expand...

Hi,

A Cooke 20-100 or 20-60 costing $2-3000. I bought both in that price range on Ebay. From a dealer $3-4500. FWIW they have better resolution & less distortion than Nikon primes!

The only 50mm non S4 Cooke would be Speed Pancro ser II, in Arri Std mount about $250. (The original Speed pancro from 1930 is not very sharp!) I would not recommend one for use on a Red, go with a Cooke zoom!

Stephen
 
Stephen Williams said:
Hi,

A Cooke 20-100 or 20-60 costing $2-3000. I bought both in that price range on Ebay. From a dealer $3-4500. FWIW they have better resolution & less distortion than Nikon primes!

The only 50mm non S4 Cooke would be Speed Pancro ser II, in Arri Std mount about $250. (The original Speed pancro from 1930 is not very sharp!) I would not recommend one for use on a Red, go with a Cooke zoom!

Stephen
Click to expand...
I'm curious Stephen, when making lens purchases such as a Cooke zoom on ebay or, indeed, any other online site, how would you verify a lens of that age is in good working order?

Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top