Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,691   Posts: 1,548,920   Online: 796
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1
    jimgalli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tonopah Nevada
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,402
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    155

    How About A 14" Cooke Portrait Lens for Under $100 bucks?


    We might pull it off with a few caveat's you'll have to live with. Just a couple of little tiny items.


    Like, it doesn't say Cooke on it any place. But I have other Xerox lenses that do have the Cooke name on them, so we know Cooke was under contract to build Xerox lenses.


    Also note it has no flange or threads for one. The enterprising person will figure out some way to mount this beast. Maybe you could drill the clunky aperture rotation device and use it as the flange, turning the whole lens assembly to close the aperture.


    It's definitely an f5.6 triplet and as such should produce some very very fine portraits on 8X10 or smaller.

    $85 plus $12 for a flat rate medium box in USA.

    Small print: Whether or not this is actually made by cooke is of course 60% conjecture and 40% edumacated guess.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep..to gain that which he cannot lose. Jim Elliot, 1949

    http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com

  2. #2
    analoguey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    680
    Images
    2
    Xerox... Lens?! Wow.
    And made in England?

    Sent from Tap-a-talk

  3. #3
    Dr Croubie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    rAdelaide
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,293
    Images
    2
    Who needs a mounting flange? Use one of these

    I'd love the lens, but that's gonna be huge to post overseas (I'm getting a 600mm apo-tessar from the EU to here currently, blew my shipping budget on that one or I might be tempted by this)
    An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.

  4. #4
    gorbas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm Pan
    Posts
    324
    Jim, I think you are right! It can be easily Cooke made lens. I have 2 lenses salvaged from photocopiers, one is marked as Taylor, Taylor & Hobson-Xerox and other as Rank industries-Xerox, both f4.5/8 1/4" or 210mm. Not bad lenses at all!
    Back in the day, TTH was owned by Rank Industries.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/2698328...57625599299969
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/2698328...57625599299969
    Last edited by gorbas; 02-04-2014 at 12:39 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Clarification

  5. #5
    jimgalli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tonopah Nevada
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,402
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by gorbas View Post
    Actually, I have 2 lenses salvaged from photocopiers, one is marked as Taylor, Taylor & Hobson-Xerox and other as Rank industries-Xerox, both f4.5/8 1/4" or 210mm. Not bad lenses at all!
    Back in the day, TTH was owned by Rank Industries.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/2698328...57625599299969
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/2698328...57625599299969
    thanks for posting those Gorbas. BTW the 96mm Kodak printing Ektar is an emitter. I wonder if the 87 and 100 have the same radioactive glass in them.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep..to gain that which he cannot lose. Jim Elliot, 1949

    http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    27
    Will this work on a Crown?

  7. #7
    jimgalli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tonopah Nevada
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,402
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    155
    No. Your bellows wouldn't go far enough for this to focus, plus it's just too big for the poor little Crown. Have a sale pending on this.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep..to gain that which he cannot lose. Jim Elliot, 1949

    http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    27
    OK, thanks.

  9. #9
    gorbas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm Pan
    Posts
    324
    Thank you Jim for the info! So far I have 4 Kodak printing Ektars. I just looked at them on light table, still waiting to add Geiger counter to my tool box. I'm afraid that you are right! 127mm is very amber in colour, 146mm and 87mm are less, 100mm is clear. They must be desperate to put those radioactive element in optical glass. What happened with poor workers who made them with all glass dust and particles in the air during manufacturing?

  10. #10
    jimgalli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tonopah Nevada
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,402
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by gorbas View Post
    Thank you Jim for the info! So far I have 4 Kodak printing Ektars. I just looked at them on light table, still waiting to add Geiger counter to my tool box. I'm afraid that you are right! 127mm is very amber in colour, 146mm and 87mm are less, 100mm is clear. They must be desperate to put those radioactive element in optical glass. What happened with poor workers who made them with all glass dust and particles in the air during manufacturing?
    Yes, the plant workers may have been at risk, but the end users like us, unless we sleep with them under the pillow, I think they're a manageable risk. I just noted there were more of them made at Kodak than most other mfr.s Pentax had a few also. We had a 152mm Pro Raptar (70mm film lens) sitting around here for years that no one ever paid any mind to, and when we shipped it to re-app the other day, they shipped it back to us.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep..to gain that which he cannot lose. Jim Elliot, 1949

    http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin