Cooke 20-100mm to replace which lenses...

Duke M.

Duke M.

Veteran
I saved up my nickels and dimes, and today I'll make the decision on whether to buy a classic Cooke 20-100mm T3.1/F2.8 PL zoom lens. It's a beast at about 11 lbs and needs support, but images are subtly magical. It seems to warm skin tones without affecting other colors. It also has a strange ability to be sharp everywhere, but not over sharp on skin. This lens is long in the tooth, but was revolutionary at the time and sold for $30,000 when new.

My zoom line up right now is Tokina 11-16mm, Nikon 17-35, 28-70, and 80-200 all in F2.8. (The Tokina will stay unless I get the PL version.)

The 28-70mm zoom range is completely covered by the Cooke zoom. The only reason to keep it is for my DSLR (where it seems to reside much of the time anyway.)

My thought was do I really need the 17-35mm? Its a great lens, perfect for indoors and nice and sharp with all focus extension being internal (ie. matte box friendly.) Its range is covered by all but 3mm.

Or will I really want to keep this 17-35mm lens for hand held? Wider lenses tend to show less jiggling. Plus it only weighs about 1.5 lbs instead of 11 lbs for the Cooke. I really do very little hand held work though and have faster primes for natural light indoor work.

Any opinions? Maybe Timur has some advice.

Also, matte boxes that fit? Seems like a 144mm front diameter.
 
Last edited:
Congratulations on the new lens purchase, Cooke lenses are truly as you said magical. I also have a 17-35 that needed service so I sent it into Authorized Camera Service in California. In the meantime I needed a wide angle zoom for a shoot last week and on the recommendation from Grug a senior member on this forum I rented a 14-28 Nikon from Lens Rentals. I shot the corporate 24P S-Log and I’m now editing the piece in Avid MC. I’m thinking of asking Duclos if they could modify a 14-24 as they did the 17-35, I would then sell the 17-35 and buy the new Zeiss ZF.2 35mm prime mod from Duclos. I found the 14-24 to be wider more; where I like it when hand held and still had enough on the tight end for quick H-H interviews with some DoF in the background. It is amazingly sharp throughout the zoom range. Still wish I could buy some Cooke lenses, but right now (this economy) know it would not be a smart business buy, good luck with the lens!
 
Congrats Duke. My setup with a 28-70 is around 20 lbs and up, depending on the outboard stuff required. You are going to need a tripod that does at least 30 lbs like the O'Connor 1030b for those times when you are packing a recorder, battery hanger & batts, wireless stuff, rails, FF, mattebox, monitor, etc.

There are some stories on the various forums of using the Red 18-85 which is in the same weight vincinity as the Cooke you are contemplating. Might want to check those out for some field experience with these heavy zooms.

Myself, I would be keeping the 17-35, the 28-70 and the Tokina 11-16 for times when you need a lighter rig. The resale on these lenses isn't worth the value they have to me in terms of flexibility and quality of image.

Good on you if you can pull it off.
 
The 17-35mm is a lovely piece of glass, I'd suggest holding on to it if it's possible to. But if you need to offset more of the 20-100mm - you are already covered on the wider end with your tokina, so it'd be the lens you'd miss least I imagine.

As to whether you should by the Cooke, it's a tough call to make without knowing how you like to shoot. It's a big lens, but not a HUGE lens, so your support requirements aren't as substantial as the big Angies (for example), but moving and supporting the camera does become trickier (as Andrew mentioned, you'd have a similar experience with the Red 18-85mm). So I think the question you need to know the answer to is - whether having that 20-100mm zoom range, will speed up your work by a greater amount than the added bulk will slow it down?

For me it's pushing the limits of what I want to deal with support-wise, so unless I'm studio-bound I tend to avoid renting lenses that large - but if it fits your needs, that Cooke glass is just a dream!

Happy decision-making.
 
Duke a couple of things to add to your shopping list are 19mm studio spaced bridge plate, an 18" ARRI dovetail plate and the lens support bit (which you mentioned). From my looking the stuff from Wooden Camera is a good buy, you can get long 19mm rails from Allstar as well as long ARRI dovetails. And you would be supporting the smaller outfits in using these two.

http://www.woodencamera.com/

http://allstar-cine.myweb.hinet.net/

If you go the studio spaced route you will also have to buy a studio spaced rails bit for your battery hanger. Wooden Camera sells them.
 
I think I'm okay on the tripod for now. My sticks are VZ-TC100a Varizoom and rated to 100lbs. My fluid head is a Libec H60, which is borderline but rated to 28.5 lbs, but I think it will work okay if the camera is well balanced. If not I'll just replace the head.

I tend to shoot more of a studio style, even though many shoots are not in a studio. For me a working tripod is essential.

I do note that my matte box won't fit because the front is 144mm (5.65") and my regular matte box is 4x4". If I go to an O'Conner O-box it mounts on the lens so no need for rails for that. I do have some stainless steel rails ordered in 15mm. It would be nice to not have to change rails back and forth.

Does anyone know if you have to go with 19mm rails? The mounting block is about 9" out from the camera so its not as much leverage as putting something 15" out.

@Andrew - I like to support the little guys. I'll have a look.

@Grug - The lens is 15" long. How big is huge? LOL
 
Last edited:
Me, holding my new baby lovingly in my arms. Ain't she sweet?

To give you an idea of the size of this lens, I'm 6'4".

asset.php
 

Attachments

  • DukeCookeS.jpg
    DukeCookeS.jpg
    65.4 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Congrats on the lens. Wish I could save the pennies for one :(

I love the Cooke look. The support requirements though add to cost and complexity. I would personally prefer 19mm studio rods considering that the PL mount of the F3 is itself an add-on mount. I would worry about damaging both mount and camera and as a result would come down on the side of the most support possible.

Ned
 
nsoltz said:
Congrats on the lens. Wish I could save the pennies for one :(

I love the Cooke look. The support requirements though add to cost and complexity. I would personally prefer 19mm studio rods considering that the PL mount of the F3 is itself an add-on mount. I would worry about damaging both mount and camera and as a result would come down on the side of the most support possible.

Ned
Click to expand...

Timur Cirvan told me that people in CA use 15mm steel rods. I'll try them since they are already on the way and if I detect any flex I'll go the 19mm route.

@ Ned - Ya gotta save your nickels and dimes instead of pennies. :cheesy:
 
Duke M. said:
Timur Cirvan told me that people in CA use 15mm steel rods. I'll try them since they are already on the way and if I detect any flex I'll go the 19mm route.
Click to expand...

Clarification. LOS ANGELES uses studio 15, mostly. You know the deal between LW15 and studio 15, correct?

Anyway, if you buy a baseplate and dovetail rig, and you want to be able to rent zooms in LA, you will have an easier time if you buy a studio 15 baseplate. Same goes if you want to rent your Cooke, people will expect a studio 15 lens support in the case.

19 was relatively rare in LA until all these people bought Reds in 2008/2009 and didn't know any better. Now 19 is around, but the most entrenched rental places still try to stick to studio 15 for all their lens AKS.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Nate--19 is overkill and was designed for the days of HUGE rigs. I don't think you could even bend an aluminum 15mm rail, let along a steel one.

I have 15mm steel rods (studio) and they work fine on my 18-100. Most baseplates (Element Technica and Wooden are great) you can run studio and lightweight spacing at the same time.
You'll need a bridge/support for that lens--Arri, Element Technica, Zucuto work (listed in order of preference and cost).

Don't forget to make your follow-focus considerations when choosing your set-up. Studio spacing is generally less options and more expensive.

ps. I'd keep that smaller zoom too. The Cooke is a BEAST and you'll discover that the effort/opportunity to use it is less than the smaller lens. (I love mine and often joke to me crew that "the magic will start" when I bust it out, but it requires commitment. :happy:
 
Nate Weaver said:
Clarification. LOS ANGELES uses studio 15, mostly. You know the deal between LW15 and studio 15, correct?
Click to expand...

LW15 is 60mm CTC; studio 15 100mm CTC and 19mm is something like 110mm CTC right?

I live about 40 miles south of Los Angeles so most of my pro equipment seems to come through LA.
 
First off, I would keep all your other zooms as you will still want a light weight zoom configuration.

Second, when I use my Cooke 20-100 I add an Allstar Arri style dovetail baseplate with 19mm rails mounted under my Zacuto baseplate with 15mm LW rails. This allows mounting of a Berkey lens support on the 19mm rails, and my follow focus and matte box mounted on the 15mm rails, and keeps all the rails positioned at the correct standard locations for universal mounting of accessories.

Good luck & enjoy!

Dave
 
I can see that the Studio 15mm steel rods would support. What I had in mind was David's combination of 15mm LW and 19

Ned
 
I agree that a 15mm s/steel rods set-up will work with the Cooke, ( I wouldn't use aluminium rods ). I have used them all the time with my S16 Aaton film gear with that lens. However Ned's point about the build/PL mount on the F3 is to my mind the most important consideration. I don't have a scale with me here to weigh the F3, nor do I have my 20-100 either, but I am willing to bet that the Cooke is probably heavier than the F3.
If your shooting is as you say pretty much always on sticks, i'd go with the heavier rods and support if only to save the possibility of putting too much strain on the F3's front. I don't worry about that issue so much with the Aaton's, they are built far more ruggedly and designed to work with heavier cinema lenses......However, I'm still careful with any heavy glass on whatever camera it's mounted.
 
What I'm considering now is something like this:

I have a Zacuto baseplate already with LW15mm rods that I run out the back to mount my Samurai behind the camera.

I'll allow a couple of inches of those rods to stick out on the front of the camera. On those two inches I'll put two of the double rail clamps/bridges. These will be LW15mm on top with 15 studio and 19mm on the bottom. By having two solid brackets on two sets of rails (minimum of 4 connection points) it should be rigid.

That's sort of what I've been doing with the lenses that don't need support, when I just want to mount a FF and matte box. It allows the front rails to be removable for packing and shipping but the baseplate and rear rails stay on the camera.

Then I can try the 15mm studio rails or 19mm rails, or both at my leisure. Honestly though I don't see why LW15mm should be any more sturdy than 15mm studio if the rods and bridges are rigid.

Does anyone see a problem with that idea?
 
Duke M. said:
Then I can try the 15mm studio rails or 19mm rails, or both at my leisure. Honestly though I don't see why LW15mm should be any more sturdy than 15mm studio if the rods and bridges are rigid.

Does anyone see a problem with that idea?
Click to expand...

[edit: I misread what you described, missed the mounting studio 15 off of the LW15. It might work, I think it depends on the tolerances of the adapter brackets you use. I personally wouldn't do it. Too much gack. Also, the bracketry and studio rods will likely hang below the front edge of your head, limiting how far back whole rig can go to balance. And with that lens, you WILL need to slide the camera very far back to balance.]

By the way, LeavingTheCandy, I wasn't saying 19 is overkill, just saying it's not needed for most setups. It's a good call when renting a 11-1 Optimo. That's the first lens I can think of that really puts 19 to use.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top