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 :)

Comments on the Angenieux Rouge (30-80) anyone??

Lenny Manfred

Lenny Manfred

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
Messages
825
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Los Angeles
I would like to know if anyone has had the chance for an in depth look at the soon to be delivered Angenieux Rouge. I am not far from the front of the waiting list, and I am starting to make my other purchases on the assumption that this lens will be part of my package. Other than the issue of not being able to put it on a proper film camera, what else can you tell me about it?
 
i guess not.
 
They're hard to get in hand, even for brief evaluation.
 
matthew, what's up, we are in october.
 
I've played with the Angenieux Rouge 30-80.
I'm not really prepared to make a huge review like Evin Grant does.
But I can tell you that this lens is a truly professional piece of equipment.
The quality is on par with the other Optimo line of lenses.
Very solid build and feel (same as the other optimos).
If you have any specific questions, please just ask.
 
AngusChandler said:
Is 30-80 a really desirable range for many?

I'm not sure I would find that too useful.
Click to expand...

not by itself, no, but in combination with a wide lens, absolutely. i have the Century 17-35 (and to my surprise, i really like this lens) the 30-80, like it's more expensive brother (26-76) is a hand held/steadicam lens. for my kind of shoots, where the camera does not live on a dolly (my shoots are a lot more tripod/hand held type) it makes it much easier to move the camera from place to place, vs. a big heavy 18-100 or the likes of it. plus, except for wide shots, i find myself a lot of times right in that range, somewhere between medium wide and medium telephoto. and because of it being so light, if i need to get a little closer, i just pick up the camera and tripod and just walk it in.

Matt: would you say the T 2.8 is accurate? do you see it ramp at the long end? how is the breathing?
 
lennywood said:
Matt: would you say the T 2.8 is accurate? do you see it ramp at the long end? how is the breathing?
Click to expand...

I didnt have a chance to T-Stop the lens. But with such a small range, I highly doubt there is any ramping at all. Definitely nothing that I could see by eye.

As for the breathing... This lens has a whopping 0.1% breathing rate.
As I said.. truly professional optics.

Hit me with more questions. C'mon.
 
as soon as you are able to T-stop test it, i would love to hear what you have to say. i have heard before that ange. likes to stretch their T-stops a bit, that the 15-40 and 28-76 are actually more like true 2.8s.

also, is it sweet looking on the long end? the bokeh??

do they offer something to match the look to the ultra primes or the cooke s4s like their more expensive brothers?

anything else about it you want to volunteer?
 
I would find it very hard to believe that Angenieux would stretch details such as that in todays community driven industry.
If Angenieux faked a spec, the moment someone tested it, they would be outed.
I think it's pretty silly to assume that a highly esteemed company such as Angenieux would do anything to risk their reputation.
In the past, many companies fudged their T-stop readings or were just ill-equipped to determine an accurate measurement.

As for the "bokeh" I don't test lenses on a camera...
I send light through the other end of the lens. :wink:
For what it's worth, the iris assembly is the same as the 28-76mm.
I can give you details on technical quality and such.
Sorry if I disappointed anyone.
 
did not mean to be "silly", but in today's market there is plenty of "fudging" going on. didn't i just read somewhere on REDUSER that the 18 on the RED lens is not as wide as the 18 on the old Cooke?... when i look at my average mileage (gas consumption) on the computer of my "new german car" it's always about 1 to 2 miles per gallon more than when i do the math at the pump... my penis is 7 inches... you get the point, people always "round up" to the number that benefits them the most, and since our highly esteemed Angenieux had been rumored to "fudge" before, I did not think it was such a silly question to ask, silly me.
 
Numbers such as gas milage are so variable (wind speed, elevation, cargo load, blah blah blah...) with the factors that an auto company can throw out at people. Something like a T-stop reading doesn't lie. It's plain, simple, and straight forward. I never really heard the rumor about the RED lens being "off" can you please link to that thread? Im quite curious.
 
hahah. That's quite a comprehensive review.
I can't even begin to find the time to write something like that.
Although, I posses the capacity to compare all types of lenses.
I've seen more lenses in my young age than most DP's will their entire life. Some day I'll find the time to really give a truly professional review of lenses.
Unfortunately, I would only want to review lenses like that in professional, compete, and accurate manner. Until I have the time to do that, I'll stick to answering specific questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top