Red or 2nd Hand Cooke Zoom?

Homersapien

Homersapien

Well-known member
I was just wondering, given the deadline to reserve a zoom lense is fast approaching, which most people prefer between the Red zoom or Cooke 20:100mm T3.1 Zoom. Both have their own benefits, the Red zoom would obviously be brand new whereas this particular Cooke lense is quite old. Also given that it is 2nd hand it would be important to establish that the lense is in good working order (especially since this particular lense cannot be refurb'd). However there are a few of these lenses knocking about for cheaper than the Red Zoom and have the added benefit of being available at the time of release of the camera. Or do people think having a range of good Nikon's would be a better bet?

Does anybody know of which films have primarily used the Cooke 20:100mm T3.1 Zoom? I believe the original Starwars movies might have done so as well as the 70's Superman. Also what things should one look out for when purchasing a second hand lense such as this?

I realise alot of stuff has been written about lenses, I just want specific opinions on this lense compared to the Red Zoom.
 
Personally I'm looking for a second hand Cooke Zoom. I've actually been offered a Mk1 25-250 for around £2.5k which I'm considering. I would have reserved a Red Zoom, but as it's not available at the same time as the camera I'm gonna have to go for something second-hand and I'd much prefer a Cooke anyway! It's just finding a good one for a decent price. Half the problem is that used Cooke's are in short supply due to the fact that you can have the elements re-used when buying a new one, saving a fair whack in the process.
 
Value-added specs like a lightweight key from a compact zoom lens and wider properties will give you the proper reason for a better suitable performance. Considering the RED care with its own accessories offer.

Until the RED lenses supply, a set of 35mm still photography high quality glass will be my affordable option instead of any second-hand gear, even if for motion picture use.
 
I've heard people mention getting used lenses like the cooke, and while I can find used still lenses with no problem, are there special retailers that sell these higher grade lenses like the cooke? I'm not fluent on where to get pro gear.

thanks for your help.
 
the cooke 20-100 was used for many years ( still in use today ) back in late 70's- 80's .. at some point it became 18-100 ... i believe there are different versions of them ( mark I , mark II ??) ... figure most films made in 80's used it ...

i went with RED because i figure it is going to be smaller .. probably 1/2 weight and 40% shorter ... i find the 18-100, 17-102, 20-100, 25-250 zooms just too large to handle by oneself ... but if you have a AC and not on the fast-move and/or size doesn't matter then those lens work out good ..

another lens to take a look at is the 20-60mm cooke zoom ..
 
The Cooke 18:100mm replaced the 20:100mm in 1988, the thing about the Cooke 20:100mm T3.1 Zoom that makes it a bit cheaper is that the elements cannot be reused because the housing is sealed. The 18:100mm therefore has a higher value... the problem is finding a Cooke 20:100mm T3.1 Zoom that is good quality. That's why I'm asking if anyone here knows what to look for when buying a 2nd hand cine lense since, and I don't mind being blatently honest, I don't have the knowledge or experience when it comes to cine zoom lenses. Any tips from some pro's would be massively welcome!
 
I'm with donatello on the size issue. The Red looks faster, too. As for the primes vs zoom, I imagine alot has to do with your flow. I think I'd go with the primes until the zoom comes out, then sell what you don't need.

I'm new to thinking about glass, though.
 
How about we wait until there are actual products to compare as well? With some field reports? Of course, you can always reserve one and get your money back at any point before your unit ships.
 
By reading this thread, I gathered that some of the RED ONE buyers are not from the film background, e.g. those who have never heard of the Cooke lenses for cinematography and those who complain that traditional cine lenses are too bulky and too heavy. I cannot help but wonder if we actually know what we are getting into by purchasing/using the RED camera.

Yes, RED camera with a Super 35 sized chip and delivering 4K image at this price is a huge bargain (compared to what a Phantom HD or 65 costs). But it is not an advanced ENG camera. In my opinion, it is not for electronic news gathering, it's not for reality shows and it's probably not even for slow paced (in terms of shooting style) documentaries, like interviews, either.

The super high resolution and 35mm film look are all good but there are certain limitations in data recording, post workflow and on set operation that make it more suited for traditional 35mm film work, namely feature films, prime time TV drama series and TV commercials. In a word, it is for so called "high end" content creation.

We might want to ask ourselves if we know what this camera can or cannot do for us before we commit to it. A lot of us are thinking, once we get ahold of a RED ONE camera and stick a bunch of Nikon lenses on it we are ready for business to make big screen movies. But filmmaking in any serious form is not a one man's land. We need collaboration and team work, hence need to follow certain industry protocol.

If you hire a professional AC, chances are he'll laugh at your home made cookie (still camera lenses) and complain about not having proper focus pulling gear (literally or not) just like they did when I bought one of the first F900 that Sony shipped in year 2000 and started making imovies a Nikon ENG video lens. It take time for people to leave their comfort zone and accept something new.

On the other hand, if you know what your getting into and how this camera should be used, you'll probably have a full camera crew and not complain about the Cooke 20-100mm being bulky and heavy. For me, even the bigger and heavier Angenuiex 17-102mm T2.9 is still acceptable (given its gorgeous French optics) when I need the 35mm DOF. I only wish I could afford them. If I want handiness and mobility, I'll use the Sony Z1 HDV or Panasonic's HVX-200 DVCPRO HD. Of course, if RED can make their lens the same quality as the Cooke and Angeniuex but a lot lighter and smaller, that'd be a happy news for everybody involved.
 
Last edited:
HKSC said:
By reading this thread, I gathered that some of the RED ONE buyers are not from the film background, e.g. those who have never heard of the Cooke lenses for cinematography and those who complain that traditional cine lenses are too bulky and too heavy.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry my fellow. But even if I appreciated your post in general despite a different opinion, that last one it isn't true as many others. Exactly, I'm coming from the film side, I wouldn't like to repeat all the hassles which bother me ad nauseam. Which brought me here to this HD side.

For run and gun work, handheld use, the lightweight form counts. And for the language and budget of your/our work too!

That's why some of us we are fighting for an ENG or EFP-style instead of the traditional cine-style factor. Factor -- this word means a lot. Form Factor isn't a vain concept. Nor it means the same thing in all the different levels of moviemaking, I'd even add, filmmaking.

Even 'cause the majority of the RED supporters aren't coming from the film side but from the Guerilla border, that's true. Part of the success of the RED project is coming from and will be there.

And there will be a lot of filmmakers crossing the border. Since the Dogma95 movement.
 
Poi Boy said:
Quite frankly, I expect the red zoom to be better than the old cine zooms.
Aloha
-A
Click to expand...

I doubt that!

Jim has already said the Red Lenses will be about 90% of the quality of Cookes/Angenieux's/Zeiss'. At about 1/4 of the price that's remarkable of course, but even an "old" cine lens if it's been properly looked after will be of higher quality - Cooke have been knocking out amazing quality lenses for decades, I don't know why you'd think older equates to significantly inferior quality.

As for size and weight, I suspect the Red Zoom will be smaller and lighter than, say, a Cooke 18-100mm - but then it's a shorter range! Good quality lenses will always be heavy anyway, so for people expecting the Red Zoom to be significantly lighter than comparable 35mm zoom lenses, I think you'll be disappointed. Have you seen that 300mm Red lens btw? It hardly looks lightweight to me! More like big, chunky, solid, well-built - the way lenses should be.

As for ENG use, the camera is a lot lighter than ENG cameras, so the overall package should be fairly comparable in weight.
 
Hi Stephen
I think Jim is purposely being conservative with his statements. Glass designed today has a very, very, very, good chance of being better than 30 year old cine zooms.
Aloha
-A
 
I certainly believe that the Red Zoom could be of a higher quality than the Cooke 20:100mm, afterall this particular lense was developed in 1971, when Jim says he believes his lense will be 90% of the quality I expect he means the most current versions. There were significant alterations made to the 18:100mm that made the lense better and were done so according to the requests of DP's in the late 80's when the new zoom was made.

Weight is not a problem as far as I am concerned, but I do accept that a compact zoom will allow for greater run and gun performance. Although I happily admit to being a novice I am under no illusions as to what the Red Camera is or the type of quality accessories that one should be using with it. That said the creator of this camera has specifically made it to accept nikon glass and for many good reasons; mainly affordability for the indie user. To say that people using nikon glass on a camera that has been made to be modular and accept such glass is a negative thing is simply absurd.

Personally I prefer the idea of picking up either a cheap 2nd hand zoom or the Red Zoom, but I'll certainly be testing out Nikons to see the quality, and if they can be used in certain instances then I wouldn't be ashamed to take them along with me, if people laugh at me then I will film them laughing and play it back to them until they stop laughing!
 
Homersapien said:
Personally I prefer the idea of picking up either a cheap 2nd hand zoom or the Red Zoom, but I'll certainly be testing out Nikons to see the quality, and if they can be used in certain instances then I wouldn't be ashamed to take them along with me, if people laugh at me then I will film them laughing and play it back to them until they stop laughing!
Click to expand...

Anyone laughing at me can get off my set!

Seriously, though, I am going to have a lot of people wanting to be my best friend when I get this camera and unfortunately, most of them won't have much money (being poor indie filmmakers living in South Australia). For them I will have The Nikon Solution camera package. If they want to laugh at it then they can go to the local rental house and grab a kit of Cooke S4 primes for $1200AU a day.
 
Poi Boy said:
Hi Stephen
I think Jim is purposely being conservative with his statements. Glass designed today has a very, very, very, good chance of being better than 30 year old cine zooms.
Click to expand...

Y'know, when I read HKSC's post about people not from a film background not really understanding what they're getting into I decided not to pass comment. But then I read statements like this and can't help but think s/he has a point!

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.

Jim has said the Red Zoom will be 90% of the quality you'd get from Cooke etc. (which at quarter of the price is incredible). In fact if it was available at the same time as the camera I'd be buying one. 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).

As for weight Emanuel, 7lbs is about what I'd expect from a lens this size.
 
Stephen W said:
Y'know, when I read HKSC's post about people not from a film background not really understanding what they're getting into I decided not to pass comment. But then I read statements like this and can't help but think s/he has a point!

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.

Jim has said the Red Zoom will be 90% of the quality you'd get from Cooke etc. (which at quarter of the price is incredible). In fact if it was available at the same time as the camera I'd be buying one. 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).

As for weight Emanuel, 7lbs is about what I'd expect from a lens this size.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid what Poi Boy wished to say isn't far away what you said. The 90% is just a number and it's not relevant IF achieved, comparing to the standards. Even if with a new product the goal must always be improve them. As far as it gets. But 7lbs. or LESS being possible vs. 10/11lbs. this will/would make all the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top