Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Optimo 16-42mm and 30-80mm vs Fujinon 19-90mm Cabrio?

Hey thanks gang, really appreciate the feedback.

I'm going to put the Angenieux, Cabrio and Canon on some test charts on monday. Trying to find an Alura to add to the mix.....

Let you know my thoughts later.

Jamie
 
One more quick question. Anyone know if the Angenieux 1.4 or 2x extenders work on the DP series (16-42 or 30-80) as they have that longer flange?

Jamie
 
They do not work with extenders but there is a (front) wide angle attachment that works with the 16-42.

Jamie Hamill said:
One more quick question. Anyone know if the Angenieux 1.4 or 2x extenders work on the DP series (16-42 or 30-80) as they have that longer flange?

Jamie
Click to expand...
 
We were making this same comparison between the 2 Optimo DPs and the Cabrio. Both have their pros and cons, but we went with the 16-42 and 30-80 Optimos. The 16-42 is our "go out and shoot landscapes" lens and the 30-80 is our event lens. The 19-90 would be very convenient for events, but I just couldn't get over the whole Fujinon ENG bias, and the Optimos put out a beautiful image. Ultimately it came down to looking at all the films that have been shot on the Optimos.
 
The beauty, finesse and character of the Angies is legendary for a reason. In a typical narrative project the occasional lens changes are no big deal, and the pair can work very well together when doing two camera coverage - something that I, and many of the people I work with, are doing more and more. Sometimes lighting for two angles is just too great of a compromise - stipulated - but a lot of the time the lighting plan accommodates the two angles you want just fine. Hard to resist the opportunity to save time, avoid continuity issues and give the editor a lot more options.

On a recent low budget feature I shot, the acting and directing were inconsistent. By having that second angle, even if the editor only used it sparingly, we were able to avoid cutting to reverses from takes that had a different energy/feel. I've also caught some terrific reaction shots that even good actors might struggle to repeat after a re-light delay. Moreover, when the talent nails a scene its great to be able to say cut, knowing you have coverage, and move on to the next setup rather than killing momentum with "safety takes" and perhaps losing a key 20 minutes you'd kill for at golden hour. Just sayin'

Cheers - #19
 
2-3 cameras can be a real time saver and editing problem solver but it always has a tradeoff in lighting and blocking IMHO. It's one of the things that really shows up when you compare the look of television to feature films.
 
David Kudell said:
The 19-90 would be very convenient for events, but I just couldn't get over the whole Fujinon ENG bias, and the Optimos put out a beautiful image. Ultimately it came down to looking at all the films that have been shot on the Optimos.
Click to expand...

I love Angies.... BUT.... I have no real proof of this, but the writing is sort of on the wall... When Panavisions contract with Leica ran out, ( Made the optics for the primos) suddenly Leica released the Summilux C's. That same year, Fujinon suddenly released a full range of mature (if not some of the best optics ever made period) Zooms. Panavision had a 19-90 T2.9 Zoom. Just saying.....
 
Panavision's contract was with ELCAN, which was Leica's Canadian optics division and was sold to Raytheon many years ago so there has not been an agreement between Leica and Panavision for many years, maybe even a decade. As for Fujinon I'm pretty sure Pany designed thier lenses in house and they have never produced anything as svelte as the Cabrio. That's all Japan right there.
 
So much more material to fiddle through. It's a boon with it's price. We spend so much time in Post as it is. Are there any editors out there doing this for narrative feature work on RU that can comment?

Blair, do you have any work you can share with us?

Blair S. Paulsen said:
The beauty, finesse and character of the Angies is legendary for a reason. In a typical narrative project the occasional lens changes are no big deal, and the pair can work very well together when doing two camera coverage - something that I, and many of the people I work with, are doing more and more. Sometimes lighting for two angles is just too great of a compromise - stipulated - but a lot of the time the lighting plan accommodates the two angles you want just fine. Hard to resist the opportunity to save time, avoid continuity issues and give the editor a lot more options.

On a recent low budget feature I shot, the acting and directing were inconsistent. By having that second angle, even if the editor only used it sparingly, we were able to avoid cutting to reverses from takes that had a different energy/feel. I've also caught some terrific reaction shots that even good actors might struggle to repeat after a re-light delay. Moreover, when the talent nails a scene its great to be able to say cut, knowing you have coverage, and move on to the next setup rather than killing momentum with "safety takes" and perhaps losing a key 20 minutes you'd kill for at golden hour. Just sayin'

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...
 
Features being more artistic and well put together because on a single camera while television you have multiple cameras for fast post production times?

Evin Grant said:
2-3 cameras can be a real time saver and editing problem solver but it always has a tradeoff in lighting and blocking IMHO. It's one of the things that really shows up when you compare the look of television to feature films.
Click to expand...
 
What do you mean, who's working for whom now? Primos = Lecia's German manufacturing plant?

Best optics ever made period? Which lenses are your referring to?


Timur Civan said:
I love Angies.... BUT.... I have no real proof of this, but the writing is sort of on the wall... When Panavisions contract with Leica ran out, ( Made the optics for the primos) suddenly Leica released the Summilux C's. That same year, Fujinon suddenly released a full range of mature (if not some of the best optics ever made period) Zooms. Panavision had a 19-90 T2.9 Zoom. Just saying.....
Click to expand...
 
Has anyone encountered the new Zeiss Compact Zooms yet?

They definitely fall within the same basic price/spec level as the Angie-combo/Cabrio (and given that my primes set is CP.2s there's a certain logic to sticking with the Zeiss look - though it would be nice to have the option of both the Angie creaminess and the Zeiss punchiness for different projects). Being able to cover Dragon @ 6K and even a Vistavision format if someone comes out with one - certainly adds to the appeal.
 
Evin Grant said:
2-3 cameras can be a real time saver and editing problem solver but it always has a tradeoff in lighting and blocking IMHO. It's one of the things that really shows up when you compare the look of television to feature films.
Click to expand...

True. But lots of movies are shot multi-cam now, esp talent heavy, ensemble ones. Jon Favreau shot all his Iron Man movies very multicam, Ridley Scott is very multicam, many comedies are multi-cam.

That said, to nail a "look"...yes single coverage helps you milk every frame, for sure. Tarantino only shoots single cam, and it shows. He's painting with the camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top