C mount Cooke lenses

[Adriano Cimino]

Hello everyone.

I own three Cooke Kinetal C mount. Finding it difficult to complete the set for their rarity, I am wandering how do the Kinetal's image "cut" with other models' one of the same Taylor-Hobson firm: Ivotal, Telekinic, Serital, and so on. Could anybody explain the evolution of Cooke lenses, if and how their resulting image could be compared side by side (take by take) with each other?

 Thanks for your answers.

[Simon Wyss]

It was the line of professional lenses for 16-mm. film cameras, ARRI mount and others. None of them has less than five elements, the wide angles have nine.

There are the 9 mm, 12.5 mm, 17.5 mm, 25 mm, 37.5 mm, 50 mm, 75 mm, 100 mm, 150 mm, and a Varokinetal 9 to 50 mm. They appeared in 1959 and 1960.

The Ivotal 50-1.4 is a special lens, it is a four-glass design. The Ivotal 25-1.4 is an Opic type, six elements. Kinic are cheaper lenses, Petzval design. Serital are enhanced triplets, four-glass dialytes of good illumination evenness through an additional rear element. The 47 mm for Bell & Howell Eyemo corresponds with that, actually a copy of the 1924 Perlynx by Hermagis.

Good intercut you have among all the anastigmats which are the 19th century triplet. The Opic types go well with the many other six-glass Double-Gauss systems from the ancient symmetric Zeiss Planar to the Leitz Summar (and the much younger Summicron), to the various Xenon or Baltar. Other similar constructions are the Angénieux S 41, Kern Switar f/1.4 and 1.5, Quinon by Steinheil, Heligon of Rodenstock (mostly ARRI bayonet), Berthiot Cinor 25-1.4 (also RX), Astro-Gauss Tachar f/2.

Kinic give a swirly bokeh.

[Adriano Cimino]

Thanks so much. There's a lot to be known for a conscious choice. However simply, maybe simplistically posed: would there be a remarkable difference, a rough gap in image quality between a Kinetal and an Ivotal ? "Quality" also in a broad meaning: sharpness of the figure; depth of field; contrast; the warm color shift that's typical of the professional Cooke series...

[Simon Wyss]

ECCE HOMO

No warm colour shift, that’s publicity talk. Depth of field is particular to a single design. Contrast depends on blooming and cleanliness. Sharpness of a figure is the focusing you do with the aid of microprisms, a split-image device, a superposition rangefinder, a ground glass surface or via comparison of an air view to a hair cross or similar.

Now I have the entire forum against me. Apodictic someone needs to be in order to sweep away the mental fuzz wavering around today. Non solo in Italia.

Tripod, serviced camera, black-and-white print stock, that’s how you should start. Observe light and shadows on the various things.

[Adriano Cimino]

To be "apodictc" in this issue one has to know the optical science behind the visible outcome. I confess I mostly ignore it, that's why I am asking here. I perceive the typical "Cooke look" * in sunset-like, vivid colors, well rounded contours frequently coming out from Kinetals or Panchros.

My (empirical, experiential) question is if other, non professional Cooke series - Ivotal 25 and 50 in particular - do give a similar look, in order to integrate the set I have with more accessible lenses covering the missing focal lenghts, or I better wait for some lucky appearance of C mount Kinetals in the market.

* (I borrow the marketing expression as a joke: we're talking about lenses quite older than ourselves).

 

[Simon Wyss]

1 hour ago, Adriano Cimino said:

My ( . . . ) question is if other, non professional Cooke series - Ivotal 25 and 50 in particular - do give a similar look, in order to integrate the set I have with more accessible lenses covering the missing focal lenghts, or I better wait for some lucky appearance of C mount Kinetals in the market.

Since you persist: no.

Since you didn’t respect what I wrote about the one-inch and the two-inch Ivotal I can’t participate in this discussion any longer.

[Adriano Cimino]

Admitting my ignorance on Optics does not imply I intended missing you any respect, at all. Contrariwise I'm glad you shared some of your knowledge, and I thank you again for your answers.