which lens is better?

[Dave Plake]

Assuming the lenses are in the same condition... which lens is better?

 

The Cooke 25-250mm MKII T3.9 or.....

The Angenieux 25-250 T3.7 HP

[GWilliamPatrickB]

Assuming the lenses are in the same condition... which lens is better?

 

The Cooke 25-250mm MKII T3.9 or.....

The Angenieux 25-250 T3.7 HP

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is often too personal a question to ask in a forum. I will, with my own personal bias, try to be a little less bias than I am about these two pieces of glass. The Ang. is a little softer by reputation in the long end and will have a tendancy to ramp the stop. The Cooke is by rep. a little softer in the short end but closer to the MK III performance except for the dust sealing upgrades, stop and larger front element. The Ang. is now 3 generations out of mfg. The Cooke is one gen. out from current mfg. The Ang. is reputed to be "cooler" the Cooke "warmer" almost as good a fit with the S4 primes as the MK III. Hope my bias didnt show up too much. Also, the Cooke went out of popularity as much for its weight as the "look" when the HR Ang. came out, it was much lighter. Now, with the new Optimo the weight disparity seems to be a little more even and some are coming back to the Cooke. But, the new Optimo is a sharp lens with filters that try to match the warmth of the Cooke primes when it is used with them. These are not all the differences but it covers , I hope the major ones.

 

GWPB

.

[Charles Pickel]

Optically, they are pretty close in performance. My experience was that the HP was especially good at the long end. Mechanically, they are very different animals and this is a big difference. While more compact, the HP is mechanically less robust than the Cooke. The sections comprising its housing can become loose and rattly with even modest use. It is also a transitional design - not a true internal focus unit. Its front may not rotate, but it does track in and out. Its focus movement is very susceptible to entry of dust and mechanical wear. Angenieux corrected this in the HR.

 

The Mk-II Cooke is a true "fixed volume" internal focus design, but it has one unique quirk. Its zoom group tracks in a spiral cam, and therefore rotates during zooming. Some units have a noticable rotary tracking error as a result. This is very hard to correct, but usually minor in nature. Personally, knowing how sharp and robust these lenses were in rental service, I think they are the best value in a used 35mm 10-1 bar none. It is also far less bulky than the original Mk-I Cine Varotal 10-1.

Charles www.seriousgear.com

 

Assuming the lenses are in the same condition... which lens is better?

 

The Cooke 25-250mm MKII T3.9 or.....

The Angenieux 25-250 T3.7 HP

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[GWilliamPatrickB]

Optically, they are pretty close in performance. My experience was that the HP was especially good at the long end. Mechanically, they are very different animals and this is a big difference. While more compact, the HP is mechanically less robust than the Cooke. The sections comprising its housing can become loose and rattly with even modest use. It is also a transitional design - not a true internal focus unit. Its front may not rotate, but it does track in and out. Its focus movement is very susceptible to entry of dust and mechanical wear. Angenieux corrected this in the HR.

 

The Mk-II Cooke is a true "fixed volume" internal focus design, but it has one unique quirk. Its zoom group tracks in a spiral cam, and therefore rotates during zooming. Some units have a noticable rotary tracking error as a result. This is very hard to correct, but usually minor in nature. Personally, knowing how sharp and robust these lenses were in rental service, I think they are the best value in a used 35mm 10-1 bar none. It is also far less bulky than the original Mk-I Cine Varotal 10-1.

Charles www.seriousgear.com

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whoops, quite right I had the "soft" reputation statement reversed.

 

GWPB

[Dave Plake]

Thanks guys for the info. It helped a lot!

Cheers