Jump to content


Photo

Cooke 25-250mm T4.0?


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Adam Nikolaidis

Adam Nikolaidis

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 17 February 2005 - 04:41 PM

Somebody tried to sell me a Cooke 25-250mm T4.0 as an mkII. When I pointed out that the mkII, to my knowledge, was only manufactured in a T3.9, he seemed to get a little snippy. He said the T4 was newer, as it had a square "module" in front. That evidence seems like a bunch of hot air. I can't really find any info on the Cooke 25-250mm T4, does anybody know much about it?

Anybody know the difference between the T4 model and the T3.9 model? Is the T4 really newer than the T3.9? Is there a difference in sharpness?

Thanks,
Adam
  • 0


Support Cinematography.com and buy gear using our Amazon links!
PANASONIC LUMIX GH5 Body 4K Mirrorless Camera, 20.3 Megapixels, Dual I.S. 2.0, 4K 422 10-bit, Full Size HDMI Out, 3 Inch Touch LCD, DC-GH5KBODY (USA Black)

#2 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 18 February 2005 - 04:04 PM

[quote name='Adam Nikolaidis' date='Feb 17 2005, 10:41 PM']
Somebody tried to sell me a Cooke 25-250mm T4.0 as an mkII.

Anybody know the difference between the T4 model and the T3.9 model? Is the T4 really newer than the T3.9? Is there a difference in sharpness?

Thanks,
Adam


The Mk I is T4, MkII T3.9 ,Mk III T3.7. and the Super Cine Varitol F2.8
I have used the Mk II T3.9 and was slightly disappointed with sharpness at the wide end. Its not as good as my personal 20-100 T3.1 from the late 1970's.

Stephen Williams DoP
Zurich

www.stephenw.com
  • 0

#3 Adam Nikolaidis

Adam Nikolaidis

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 18 February 2005 - 09:34 PM

Ok, that makes sense. I thought it was probably an mkI, but I wasn't sure. The labeling was a big hint too, as it was labeled as a Rank lens, wheras the only mkII I had seen was specifically labeled Cooke. Cooke split off from Rank, I believe, so my intuition told me a Rank would be an older lens.

I'm surprised that you didn't like the mkII sharpness, though. Unfortunately I haven't seen anything (that I'm aware of) shot with this lens, and I live in the middle of nowhere, so I haven't really been able to evaluate it (hence, I've been relying mainly on opinion, which is not my favorite thing to do...). In your opinion, how would you say it stacks up against, say, an Angenieux 25-250 3.7 HP?

Thanks,
Adam
  • 0

#4 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 19 February 2005 - 11:52 AM

In your opinion, how would you say it stacks up against, say, an Angenieux 25-250 3.7 HP?

Thanks,
Adam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



The Argenieux 25-250 3.7 HP is a good lens, I think better then the Cooke MkII I used. I've heard good reports of the Cooke MK III that is still in production, but there is not one to rent locally!
The latest Optimo 24-290 T2.8 is fantastic!

Stephen Williams DoP
Zurich Switzerland

www.stephenw.com
  • 0



Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Technodolly

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Quantum Music Works

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Quantum Music Works

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

The Slider

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS