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 :)

I'm selling my Angenieux 25-250mm T3.9

Stephen Williams said:
Hi,

I got one in PL for $300 from Digital Domain, I did the world a favour & destroyed it.

Stephen
Click to expand...
Hi Stephen,

i would rather recommend burning money - that makes more sense.
Pillefilm in Germany is selling the 25-250T3.7 meanwhile for 7500,- euro.

Regarding the quality of the Angenieux 25-250T3.9, we are very pleased by our old cookes and angenieux.
I think i will soon post some combination shots with Cookes S4/3 and Angenieux 25-250.

The Images are very nice, but it need lots of light.
 
A pretty popular and iconic film using the old 25-250 btw, was Kubricks Barry Lyndon, for those who understand french there is more to read at the website the shot is linking to:
plyndo11.jpg


From the American CInematographer, an Interview with the DoP John Alcott who started using the Angenieux zooms for Kubrick before Barry Lyndon on Clockwork Orange:

QUESTION: What about the use of the zoom lens in this film?
ALCOTT: Oh, yes - we used it a great deal. The Angenieux 10-to-1 zoom was used on the Arriflex 35BL, in conjunction with Ed DiGiulio's Cinema Products "Joy Stick" zoom control, which is an excellent one. It starts and stops without a sudden jar, which is very important, and you can manipulate it so slowly that it almost feels like nothing is happening. This is very difficult to do with some of the motorized zoom controls. I find that this one really works.
ALCOTT: We used it in certain sequences, but not too many. We had one very long tracking shot in the battle sequence, with the cameras on an 800-foot track. There were three cameras on the track, moving with the troops. We used an Elemack dolly, with bogie wheels, on ordinary metal platforms, and a five-foot and sometimes six-foot wheel span, because we found that this worked quite well in trying to get rid of the vibrations when working on the end of the zoom. It seemed to take the vibration out better than going directly onto the Elemack.
QUESTION: Do I understand that you were racked out to the end of the zoom on that tracking shot?
ALCOTT: Yes, virtually all closeups made from the track during that battle sequence were on the 250mm end of the zoom.
QUESTION: That really is living dangerously.
ALCOTT: I made a test beforehand with the camera traveling on an ordinary track and one with this base, and the difference was quite amazing. That's what got us round to building these platforms and using the Elemack with the bogie wheels on the four corners. They are really quite handy for doing all kinds of shots.


And attached are some older quick available light tests of the 25x10T3.9. The resolution is pretty good, i see it blending well with our zeiss and cooke primes.

Its pretty heavy however, and you will *need* a support system (we use chrosziel for our 3).
 
laguun said:
Hi Stephen,

i would rather recommend burning money - that makes more sense.
Pillefilm in Germany is selling the 25-250T3.7 meanwhile for 7500,- euro.

QUOTE]

Hi,

IMHO the original 25-250 is a pice of shit, by destroying my lens to use as a prop I was doing the world a favour. I amsure Pillefilm is selling a later lens.

Stephen

Edit The early lens is not heavy, I am sure you are talking about a later lens. The current 12 Optimo is one of the sharpest lenses around.
Click to expand...
 
you love each other, humm?.. :)
 
Stephen Williams said:
Hi,

IMHO the original 25-250 is a pice of shit, by destroying my lens to use as a prop I was doing the world a favour.
Click to expand...
Stephen,

maybe you could watch your language a slight little bit more, four letter words are not to professional. It might furthermore even be considered as not to polite towards seller(threadstarter), buyer(those who PMed) and owners and users to badmouth about their products.

Regarding the 25-250T3.9 lens, you have stated your opinion, and made perfectly clear that DoPs/directors as John Alcott/Stanley Kubrick probably were less demanding than you are - or many of our customers and DoPs here, who shoot stunning images with it.


Stephen Williams said:
I amsure Pillefilm is selling a later lens.
Edit The early lens is not heavy, I am sure you are talking about a later lens. The current 12 Optimo is one of the sharpest lenses around.
Click to expand...
The 80ties F3.2/T3.9 25x10 is ~10 pounds. Then Angenieux enhanced the coating, bringing it to F3.2/T3.7 25x10 and later on F3.2/T3.5 25x10. That coating variant lens was sold until 2007 and the 25x10 series was for almost three decades -the- working horse zoom of the cinema industry. Its successor, the Angenieux F2.5/T2.8 24x12 increased the price from ~30K€ to ~55K€ and increased the sharpness, weight while reducing the breathing.

The 25x10 lens series doesnt ramp, resolves a good ~3K, covers the full sensor and has an excellent worldwide service by angenieux and is mechanically one of the most relaible and robust of my two dozen lenses.

The 4K to 2K downscaled images (reduser always scales down to 1K) give a good idea what the lens delivers very wide and very long.
wide
3raj-6-jpg.html

http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/3raj-6-jpg.html
long
3raj-7-jpg.html

http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/3raj-7-jpg.html
 
chuck colburn said:
A year ago you could have got one (not in PL) for $500.00
Click to expand...

I didnt sell for 3.500€ offered in may and probably wouldnt even sell for 5 grands. But with some luck one still can find a few T3.9s for ~1000-2000.
 
laguun said:
Stephen,


The 25x10 lens series doesnt ramp, resolves a good ~3K, covers the full sensor and has an excellent worldwide service by angenieux and is mechanically one of the most relaible and robust of my two dozen lenses.
]
Click to expand...

Hi Jan,

Sorry but were talking about a totally different lens, the early one Ramps more that 1/2 stop, Portholes, Breathes terribly, distortes, flares , chromatic aberations, you name it, it's a valuable feature of this lens. Wide open I would be very suprised if it's resoloution could ever be described as good, stopped down to 5.6 or 8 it is acceptably sharp and usable. I never stop down that far so I don't have a use for such a lens which is why it turned into a prop.

Could you post a photo of your lens?

Bear in mind Stanley did not take any lens but always would test 10 from a manufacture, pick the best one and then spend time & money having it optomised.

Stephen
 
Hi Jan,

I am talking about this style of 25-250. If somebody is offering you 3500 euro I would advise you to sell.
Mine even came with a x1.4 & two x2.0

Stephen
 
This lens is exactly the one that Kubrick used for Barry Lyndon.

No matter how much money you spend or how many units you test from the manufacturer, you still can't transform a bad lens into a good one.

The shots from Barry Lyndon are beautiful, so I guess Kubrick chose a different path: instead of destroying it, he made the world a favor by using it.

There are favors, and then there are favors.
 
Medavoym said:
No matter how much money you spend or how many units you test from the manufacturer, you still can't transform a bad lens into a good one.
.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Thats exactly what you can do, by changing elements & tinkering, it's just how many hours of labour do you want to pay for, 10, 100, 200. or more?

Modern lenses leave the factory today with far better quality control than they did approximately 50 years ago when that lens was made, however with tuning can be improved.

Stephen
 
Stephen Williams said:
Ramps more that 1/2 stop, Portholes, Breathes terribly, distortes, flares , chromatic aberations, you name it... Wide open I would be very suprised if it's resoloution could ever be described as good
Click to expand...

So you think by checking 10 different lenses and putting in hours of labour you can really change all of the above on a particular lens model?!
 
Medavoy said:
So you think by checking 10 different lenses and putting in hours of labour you can really change all of the above on a particular lens model?!
Click to expand...

Hi,

What you can get is the best possible lens available at that time, that's all. Kubrick did not use that lens regularly as the years went by, unlike his Cooke 20-100 that got used on his last film Eyes wide Shut.

Stephen
 
I see your point Stephen. And I do agree with some of your observations.

However, I must point that by constantly saying that you did the world a favor by destroying this lens (it was the tenth time I read the story on Reduser.net) is a bit of a stretch, considering that someone is trying to sell it in this very thread.

Especially when this particular lens was used successfully on a multitude of other feature films beside Barry Lyndon, and results showing it in combination with RED are more than acceptable.

I think you - as other people, too - started with a misconception... that the older lenses will show their shortcomings even more on RED. I think you were proved wrong - old Cookes and old Angenieux on RED have a wonderful quality about them and are perfectly usable.

I would go as far as to say that the old Angenieux 25-250 is far more useful on RED than on 35mm. Somehow the camera smoothes out the differences.

Do you agree?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top