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

#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


Cinelicious

K5600 Lighting

Lemo Connectors

The Slider

NIBL

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Zylight

Abel Cine

Robert Starling

System Associates

Pro 8mm

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

CineTape

Zylight

CineTape

Abel Cine

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

Paralinx LLC

Cinelicious

NIBL

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

K5600 Lighting

The Slider

Pro 8mm

Rig Wheels Passport

Lemo Connectors

Glidecam

System Associates

Robert Starling

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies