Cooke opinions ... am I nuts?

K

Ken Hull

Well-known member
Well, I've reached a point in my life where I can afford some new equipment. Something I've been hearing about for several years is how great Cooke lenses are. They give wonderful creamy skin tones, while still maintaining their sharpness. Shane Hurlbut ASC recently put some examples of Cooke images on his blog. Wow! I'm convinced. But I go into sticker-shock every time I see the prices of the 5/i or S4/i lenses. However, the mini S4/i lenses cost substantially less. I could afford a couple of the mini S4/i's, but a lens arsenal should consist of more than 2 lenses.:(

So, I have this crazy idea: Where the Cooke's really shine is in images of people ... like close-ups and medium shots. What if I got Cooke mini S4/i's in 32mm and 50mm, then get a Zeiss Compact Prime 21mm for establishing shots and other very wide shots. And maybe a G.L. Optics 100mm Macro for when I need a telephoto or a macro lens. Is this plan reasonable, or is it pure insanity? I understand the "looks" of the different brands would not match, but all the shots that really feature people and skin tones would be with Cooke's. So I theorize that they would intercut (with minor adjustments in post), because the Cooke shots are of skin tones, while the other shots are of landscapes, buildings, or whatever.

What do you think? Am I completely nuts? :shocked: Feel free to "blast away" with your opinions!

-- Ken
 
If you're at the level where you're contemplating Cooke lenses, you're dealing with color correction and color grading. So, talk to the person who's going to be doing your "minor adjustments in post" and learn what their experience is. In other words, what the extra work in post is going to cost.

Personally, I suspect that the extra work in post will be surprisingly small. Modern coatings on lenses have pretty much minimized manufacturer-to-manufacturer color variations. The bigger differences will probably be right where you think they will be -- sharpness, smoothness, and bokeh. And these are difficult to change in post.

Worst that can happen is you end up selling your Cookes. Or, buying the rest of the set. :grin:
 
If you are as critical as I am, then the qualities that would drive me to want to use a Cooke lens for portraiture would also drive me nuts in seeing the difference between lens designs. I find that Cooke lenses look decidedly different from Zeiss primes, as do other brands. They each have their qualities. If you'll notice what's good about using them at all you will likely notice how they don't match the others.
 
Mitch Gross said:
If you are as critical as I am, then the qualities that would drive me to want to use a Cooke lens for portraiture would also drive me nuts in seeing the difference between lens designs. I find that Cooke lenses look decidedly different from Zeiss primes, as do other brands. They each have their qualities. If you'll notice what's good about using them at all you will likely notice how they don't match the others.
Click to expand...

I've been bitten by this. You don't want to end up there.
This is why great DPs will actually spend a lot of time choosing lenses in PRE-PRODUCTION.
This phenomenon led me to using not only a full set of only Nikkor primes, but versions of each focal length that I chose specifically to best match the others, despite occasionally preferring the look of certain versions of a length if taken by itself.


But Cookes - well, I suppose you can always take out a second mortgage on your house, right?
(My attempt at "lens humor".)
 
I'd love to own a set of Cookes, but I'm out of the market for sure. Getting the two lenses and matching will be a nightmare as stated before...especially with cookes.

I just received a set of Sony Cinealta PL lenses today, and it's a steal with the $8k instant rebate (avail til 4/24) if you need a nice "budget" set.
 
I may have my DVXUser membership revoked, but I have watched Shane Hurlbut's oohing and awing over the Cookes --- I just watched it again --- and I don't see it. I almost feel like it's one of those sociological experiments. You know, where they put an unsuspecting subject in a classroom with a bunch of others who are all in on the game. The teacher draws two lines the same length on the chalkboard and asks which one is longer. Everybody says the top one, even though they're both the same. It's to see if the test subject will cave to peer pressure and say that the top line is obviously longer too.

I have seen side-by-sides where you can tell the colors are a little better, but it isn't worth it to me, especially with modern color-grading software. Now like you said, the mini-S4s don't have quite the premium. Still, you're talking several thousand dollars per lens. There are just so many things you could spend that money on.

Now if a Hollywood studio picked me to be the director of photography for a multimillion-dollar movie and said, "Go down to Clairmont and pick out some lenses for us to rent for you," would I choose Cooke? Almost certainly. And that is the main scenario in which these lenses have been used.

But if I'm an independent shooter, buying lenses --- not renting them --- I would take much greater pleasure collecting a few vintage cinema lenses with some character or finding a great deal on an underappreciated stills lens.
 
Last edited:
So Combat,
Looking at the 21mm comparison, would you say that the Cooke image is about a half-stop darker, and that is the only reason it has more of a 3D effect?
If so, I might agree with you on that point. But in other shots I've seen a nicer face rendition with the Cookes. Of course, we're looking at all these images over the internet, and on computer monitors, so we're probably not seeing exactly what Shane and his friends saw on the 40' screen.


The overwhelming opinion is to drop the 2-Cooke idea, so I will. For now I'll hang on to my Nikkor collection. Rob's suggestion regarding the Sony lenses is tempting, but I would need more data on their performance. In any case, I thank everyone for the advice.
 
Last edited:
combatentropy said:
I may have my DVXUser membership revoked, but I have watched Shane Hurlbut's oohing and awing over the Cookes --- I just watched it again --- and I don't see it. I almost feel like it's one of those sociological experiments. You know, where they put an unsuspecting subject in a classroom with a bunch of others who are all in on the game. The teacher draws two lines the same length on the chalkboard and asks which one is longer. Everybody says the top one, even though they're both the same. It's to see if the test subject will cave to peer pressure and say that the top line is obviously longer too.
Click to expand...

Very interesting. To my eyes, it's night and day between the Leicas and the Cookes. I've always found something about the Leicas' image a little off, and Shane's video is the one that finally explained to me why, seeing the two compared directly makes it quite clear I think.

To Ken, I think investing in just a couple of Cooke MiniS4s is a bit silly. The 'Cooke Look' is a very difficult one to match with still lenses, and is distinctly different from the cool, punchiness of Zeiss glass.

You might want to consider instead, something like the Angenieux DP 30-80mm or 16-42mm, they both give you a very useful range (much more useful than you'll get from a couple of primes), they're just as fast aperture-wise, and they have a look and feel that's the closest thing out there to the 'Cooke Look' (in my opinion).

For a first investment in cinema glass. I feel like one of those Angie DPs would be a better fit for you.
 
From a business point of view.. I think you are nuts.

Cine lenses shine with equal diameter consistent collimation etc for fast lens swaps and simple FF setup for your A/C - this can be a huge boon on a professional set.

To own half a set seems completely pointless.

On set lens changes will still be a mess and the 'look' wont be there for all shots.

--

Of course if you have some form of personal project, well it is art.. do what you want.
 
Mitch thanks for that video. Great to see the color on the vectorscope.

Ken, what about the Cooke 18-100 T3? I've seen some great images from them, and you can get one for around $10k. If you don't mind dealing with the size and weight, it's a nice lens.
 
Mitch,
That was very interesting. :thumbsup: Thank you!
I wish I could learn more about other lenes brands, but I understand your feelings of fairness to all the manufacturers. Your post indicated that analyses of other lens brands had been shot, but then edited out. Any chance of posting videos, not as "which brand is better", but just as individual videos showing "Here's a examination of the Zeiss Compact Prime Look" or "Check out the new Schneider Xenon Look"?
 
Full disclosure, I own multiple sets of Cooke Mini-S4's and am absolutely a satisfied customer of ZGC and Cooke.

I also apologize for the long response in advance.


The decision to purchase cinema lenses, Cooke included, should be one that is taken with great consideration. I must first say it is common to have gear lust and want to use top-of-the-line cinema lenses. It should be reminded to all that cinema lenses are indeed made for what they named after, "Cinema".

A production which is operated in a more traditional cinema structure is the production that benefits from cinema lenses. Cinema lenses don't just offer superb optics, but they typically offer other attributes which are not seen on the screen, but are benefits felt on set, allowing the film and the crew to operate faster, more efficiently and with less errors.

Please see this article I wrote for more info on cinema lenses and why they are for cinema: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?273326-Article-Why-We-Need-Cinema-Lenses

Why did I buy my first set? I was a new cameraman in Hollywood and I wanted to invest in something that would hold value. Additionally, at the time, I was being hired on lower budget productions and we only had money for good quality manual focus photography lenses like Zeiss ZF/ZE lenses. I wanted to own a set of cinema lenses, so I could also give myself the benefits and opportunity to use these lenses when I otherwise could not. I'd rather take the $200/day budget for lenses and give production my Cooke Mini's at discount than to have the money go to someone else but still struggle with the small issues of using manual photography glass.

However, the ability to grant myself discounted personal use was not enough to justify the purchase. I needed to make side-money with rentals.

The question then became... who are my clients and what can they afford? This is the most important thing to consider. Even if I had $500,000 for lenses (which I don't) I wouldn't have run out and purchased a full set of Master Primes. At that time, my clients could barely afford the cheapest cinema lenses, no less lenses that cost $1,200/day or more.

The key to buying anything in this industry is to fill a need. If your clients can only afford XYZ, you should buy XYZ. I have grown over the years and am now working in the realm where Mini-S4's are now the cheaper of our lens options, which is still nice as I can now get more focal lengths on. Instead of fighting production for a basic six set, I can use the lower rental price of Mini's to drive production to renting a set of nine and still come in underbudget from where 6- S4's would cost.

I can say you arguably have great taste liking Cooke lenses, but if your clients won't pay for anything over CP.2's, either be prepared to compromise on your pricing every time and elongate your return on investment, or go with CP.2's.

Going back to your idea, I think buying just two lenses is not a great move. Only having two focal lengths will eliminate almost all additional revenue you might find from the rental market.

From an artistic point of view, people who use cinema lenses do so for many reasons; one of them being for the very strict tolerances for color matching, matching contrast, sharpness and other attributes. It seems counter intuitive for you to introduce a completely different lens type to the mix. When trying to match lenses, you can get closer with some makes and models, but I can tell you vintage Zeiss lenses are probably as opposite as you can get.

I won't tell you that using multiple lens types for a set isn't possible, because big cinematographers routinely use Angie zooms with Cooke or Zeiss and get away with it just splendidly. But it's not ideal and you need to pick very carefully.

And also remember that vintage and modern are two different things even if from the same company. A Zeiss Master Prime looks MUCH different than a Zeiss Standard Speed, just as a Cooke 18-100, 20-100, 20-60, etc zooms are much different in character from Cooke S4, MINI or 5/i... same with vintage Angie zooms vs modern optimo zooms. So while the Cooke Mini's can be used with S4's and 5/i's, they won't match the 18-100 T/3 Cooke zoom.

(btw, the 18-100 T/3 Cooke zoom is my favorite vintage cinema zoom ever made... it's a beauty!)


My last point is one many people don't realize. As you climb the ladder of cinema lenses you'll notice the improvements are smaller. So the jump from CP.2 to Ultra Prime will be far greater in noticeable quality than Ultra Prime to Master Prime. But the price won't be smaller jump. As you climb the ladder, you'll be paying larger amounts of money for smaller amounts of improvement. Something to think about.


I love the MiniS4's.
- They have one of the largest advertised image circles of a non-Full Frame lens set
- They currently have nine focal lengths (soon to be ten) so it's great for choices
- They are of wonderful quality, matching S4's and with virtually no sacrifices
- They are the only lenses that currently offer swap in- swap out uncoated front and/or rear elements for sale
- They cost less than half the price to buy new, and rent for half (of S4's)... making it appealing to a very large segment of the industry.
- They are smaller than S4's, and marginally lighter in weight.
- They have i/technology, which is a bonus. Great for when your AC forgets the distance we were on a reverse and you can look up the focal length and focus distance in meta data... even the iris data too.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Ryan, that was a great post. And thanks to everyone else, too. I really appreciate your taking the time to share valuable wisdom gained from years of experience.

So yes, I have scrapped the 2-Cooke idea. (Gotta keep that mischievous gear-lust under control!) And since I usually shoot as a one-man-band, some of the advantages of cinema lenses would seldom apply to me. For now I'm still using my collection of Nikkor lenses that I got long ago, when I was a Navy photographer stationed overseas. Will I someday get a 5-lens set of Cookes? Who knows?:)
 
Ken Hull said:
Mitch,
That was very interesting. :thumbsup: Thank you!
I wish I could learn more about other lenes brands, but I understand your feelings of fairness to all the manufacturers. Your post indicated that analyses of other lens brands had been shot, but then edited out. Any chance of posting videos, not as "which brand is better", but just as individual videos showing "Here's a examination of the Zeiss Compact Prime Look" or "Check out the new Schneider Xenon Look"?
Click to expand...
Sorry, not my job anymore. I no longer work at AbelCine. I'm the Director of Communications at Convergent Design.
 
combatentropy said:
I have watched Shane Hurlbut's oohing and awing over the Cookes --- I just watched it again --- and I don't see it.
Click to expand...

Ditto!

I can never understand Shane's comparison tests where it often appears that he can't match the settings between brands of gear. In this case the exposure for the Cooke lenses appears to be about 1/2 stop darker than the Leica lenses, with better color correction than the Leica lenses ( the Leica tests have an ugly yellow cast to them ), the Cooke lenses have octagonal bokeh compared to the nice round shapes from the Leica lenses, and it's obvious that the leica lenses have more contrast than the Cooke lenses which works against them with the lighting that Shane is using here. ( i.e. the lighting looks like it was set-up for the Cooke lenses )

UPDATE

I was judging things from the images on Shane's blog, and now after having watched the actual video it appears that the Leica lenses are less contrasty than the Cooke lenses, which is what I would expect given how Leica lenses perform in the still photography world. I don't know why the images from Shane's blog seem to be the opposite of what is happening in the actual video footage, but I still think the color correction was poorly done with the Leica shots.
 
Last edited:
The least expensive and one of the most satisfying ways to own the Cooke look is to buy a 20-100. For about $5K you can get a clean copy. They are a lot sharper than people think and their coating technology does make a huge difference for skin tones. It's like having a very natural organic beauty filter. Somehow seems to erase a few wrinkles while remaining sharp at the same time. I have also found it a great compliment to rentals and I think that it was wiser to invest in decent support equipment around it, than a bunch of new lenses as well. Honestly, my feeling is that you will cover a large range of your needs with this single lens. If you want to continue on further at least you will have a little more experience and the basis to do it with something you can cut with. If it was good enough for Kubrick and 2001, it's good enough for you.
 
Last edited:
TheDingo said:
Ditto!

I can never understand Shane's comparison tests where it often appears that he can't match the settings between brands of gear. In this case the exposure for the Cooke lenses appears to be about 1/2 stop darker than the Leica lenses, with better color correction than the Leica lenses ( the Leica tests have an ugly yellow cast to them ), the Cooke lenses have octagonal bokeh compared to the nice round shapes from the Leica lenses, and it's obvious that the leica lenses have more contrast than the Cooke lenses which works against them with the lighting that Shane is using here. ( i.e. the lighting looks like it was set-up for the Cooke lenses )

UPDATE

I was judging things from the images on Shane's blog, and now after having watched the actual video it appears that the Leica lenses are less contrasty than the Cooke lenses, which is what I would expect given how Leica lenses perform in the still photography world. I don't know why the images from Shane's blog seem to be the opposite of what is happening in the actual video footage, but I still think the color correction was poorly done with the Leica shots.
Click to expand...

FWIW, Both Cookes and Leica's are similar in the fact they are lower contrast lenses in comparison to something like Ultra Primes. From tests of my own and from what I have seen from other people's tests, the MiniS4's actually are just the tiniest, smallest bit less contrasty than S4's, and Leica's seem to be less contrasty than S4's too. Remember, we are talking about really small observations here.

Both Cooke and Leicas have been described as "smooth" for this reason. They are plenty sharp, but sharpness can be skewed by the contrast. Higher contrast can give the illusion of being sharper. Both Leica and Cooke are sharp but smooth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top