Canon K35 25-120

nsoltz

Veteran
Anyone had experience with this lens? Coming from the background of Canon and Fujinon video lenses, I'm learning a whole new world in cine lenses!

Ned Soltz
 
From my experience as opposed to primes old zooms are total crap. The zoom lens tech made a huge leap in last 5-8 years... Before then it was 10 years behind primes. New zooms are equal- if slower...
 
I suppose we could single out Cooke as "exception"-sort of.
Have you seen the 17-80 Optimo @ T2.3? or any of the latest still Nikons for that matter?
But I absolutely agree that lens is by far an "artistic" choice: whatever fits the director's/DP artistic vision- there is no right or wrong here.
I assumed here that the OP was asking about a general purpose lens i.e sharp, contrasty, neutral color, etc..
 
In support of Jaceks statement, I have an Angenuiex 25-250 HP in my possession right now. A $6K lens currently, new in I think early 80s?

Not nearly as sharp as my Red 18-50 and 50-150, ESPECIALLY wide open. New Japanese tends to trump anything older than 10 years from Ang, it seems.
 
Correct... I am looking for a general purpose zoom to use as variable prime with decent sharpness when shooting open, neutral color, good contrast, etc. I can always rent when needed. What I'm really looking for is used Red 18-50 and 50-150 and these are pretty scarce these days. Nikon 28-70 and 70-200 are other choices.
 
I had one years ago along with the K35 prime set. The K35 primes were in my opinion much better than the zoom.
If you could find one in good shape for a low price it might be worth it, but they are expensive to service, and there are much better macro lenses on the market if that function means anything to you.
If you aren't worried about size and weight, then contrary to some opinions, the Cooke 18-100 is in my opinion a best buy in the cine zoom lens world, with the Cooke 20-100 a close second. Both of which can be used as actual production zooms due to the lack of breathing. I have shot with the Red 18-50, and in my opinion my old Cooke 20-100 renders a much better looking image to my eye than the Red/Sigma 18-50. Not to mention it's double the focal length. If I were shopping for a low cost modern zoom, I would likely bypass the Red 18-50, and get the RPZ 17-50, although it is more of a vari-prime due to the heavy breathing exhibited in the lens. With that said, I decided on an old Cooke 20-100 over the Red zooms. Yes it's big and heavy, but it's filled with that yummy Cooke creamy goodness that my Zeiss lenses just don't have.

All the Best!

Dave
 
Yes it's big and heavy, but it's filled with that yummy Cooke creamy goodness that my Zeiss lenses just don't have.

It would be fun to compare nice images of faces from a good Cooke lens to those simultaneously shot from something modern with the skin detail turned down, just to see how much they are alike or different.
 
Back
Top