Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

4.5/5.5" Cooke Anastigmat vs 2.8/135 Elmarit-R
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 5:23 pm    Post subject: 4.5/5.5" Cooke Anastigmat vs 2.8/135 Elmarit-R Reply with quote
Last week, there was a sunny day for a change, with some mist, though, and I had an opportunity to shoot a short series of photos with both the 2.8/135 Elmarit-R (2nd version, the better one) and the 4.5/5.5" Cooke Anastigmat, not a serious test as there is no doubt about the ultimate technical superiority of the Elmarit. It was very late afternoon, the Sun was rather low already, and I didn't take very many photos, there was no reason for that, and I didn't bother to do any detailed comparison, just prepared a page with the few shots and a lot more words, food for thought, even serious thought, concerning the lenses we use and the expectations we have concerning them. Originally, I started a comparison page but ended up writing a thinly disguised philosophical statement. However, many people might find the photos a little bit surprising, given the starting point.

Without further ado, have a go at http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/cooke_elmarit.html

Veijo


PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You know something? Iěm not surprised. Since your first Cooke photos I understood the potential of that lens.
I agree with all your reflections, I may add another bit: in a test I made yesterday, my 1963 Helios-40 proved to be better than the Contax Planar 1.4/85 with regards to C.A.
I see the same result repeated with the Cooke triplet vs. the Elmarit.
Is it there something in the making of new lenses that makes the C.A. more likely to appear (and consequently made necessary the development of the APO technology)?
Apparently the C.A. problem was already brilliantly resolved many years ago.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, there is, Orio. I have read about it, but it just eludes me now. I'll try to find it again. I guess, it had to do with the extreme correction of other faults...


PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Without further ado, have a go at http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/cooke_elmarit.html


Doesn't really matter about the comparison - the Cooke stands on its own nearly a century later. The lack of contrast is only obvious when you see the results side-by-side like that, but until then I'd only seen the Cooke results on their own and was taken by how well it performed, all things considered.

I am especially impressed by the architectural shots.

Makes me want to go and find some old piece of glass and give it a go, now. Smile


PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Farside wrote:
Doesn't really matter about the comparison


No, it doesn't, and yet it does.

Quote:
the Cooke stands on its own nearly a century later. The lack of contrast is only obvious when you see the results side-by-side like that, but until then I'd only seen the Cooke results on their own and was taken by how well it performed, all things considered.


For me, the comparison gave a measure of the difference in contrast, which can be corrected to a degree. Now I can prepare a "normalizing" profile for the Cooke, to be used on those occasions when I want to have a more modern look, quickly. For other people, with an open mind, the comparison shows that ignoring the differences in attenuation and contrast, there is pretty little, even surprisingly little difference between the lenses, and occasionally the Cooke may even produce better overall results, better or more pleasing.

Veijo


PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
vilva wrote:
the comparison shows that ignoring the differences in attenuation and contrast, there is pretty little, even surprisingly little difference between the lenses, and occasionally the Cooke may even produce better overall results, better or more pleasing.


I'm curious to know how the Cooke was regarded in its day - was it just another lens from a small maker or was it sought-after, the same as Leica glass nowadays. Be interesting to find one or two of its contemporaries and do a comparison.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Farside wrote:

I'm curious to know how the Cooke was regarded in its day


Well, I'll let Veijo have the last word on this, but as far as I know, the Cooke Triplet can be considered a true milestone of fundamental importance in the history of photographic lenses.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1