I love the term older lenses, on previous poster even used a comparison of the Cooke S4 to the Summilux. The S4 is from the late 90's and it probably one of the most highly regarded series of cine lenses in existence. Many of those modern designs are from the late 1800 the double gauss design (Planar, etc...) for example. The biggest impact on the lenses look came from multicoating and computer precision lens assembly. The Cooke S4 and the Cooke look in general is often refered to as being more organic than say the Zeiss Master Primes. Talking to lens technicians they will tell you that the Cookes looks an feels more handcrafted (like many british things) higher tolerances etc... whereas the Zeiss is über-precise every part fits within a nano meter and can be switched between lenses not so with the Cooke. More precision also means more sharpness and also often more contrast, not necessarily always a good thing especially for a romance, for a sci-fi flick the look of the Zeiss is probably a better choice. The same logic can be applied to old vs new lenses the older lenses are usually less precisely assembled or are slightly misaligned (the old vs new lenses is not a new phenomena, aplanat vs anastigmat in the late 1800), they are great for certain types of photography and not really suitable for other types where precision is needed. Neither is better or flatter or more 3D especially with older lenses you have a huge sample to sample variety Summar X doesn't give you the same look as Summar Y or Z. Let new lenses age and the will get character simple because the will fall out of alignment etc...
