Size of optimo 12:1 due to lens breathing?

[Andrae Palmer]

Is the design of the Optimo 24-290mm so large due to minimizing lens breathing? I read somewhere that large lens elements help to prevent lens breathing. I'm interested in the Angenieux line and would like to know as much as possible.

 

[David Rasberry]

The size is mostly determined by max aperture at the longest focal length for a defined image circle. T2.4 is very fast for a 290mm lens. I'm sure other things impact size too.

 

[David (dudi) Namir]

The size is mostly determined by max aperture at the longest focal length for a defined image circle. T2.4 is very fast for a 290mm lens. I'm sure other things impact size too.

T2.8

 

[David Rasberry]

T2.8

Thanks for the correction, still fast for a 290mm lens:smile:

 

[Andrae Palmer]

Ok what about the weight? Why is a 25-250mm T3.9 (original) around 5 pounds and the 24-290 T2.8 is almost 25 pounds?

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

optimo performance

optimo performance

Word of warning: If you see both lenses projected you will never want to use the old 10:1 again. It's that bad compared to the 12:1
I suggest don't even try.

 

[Peter Strietmann]

10x to 12x comparison

10x to 12x comparison

This is a comparison. Although as of late I'm a bit reluctant to post comparisons for fear of death threats. Anyway it is a test I did where I just tried to eliminate as many variables as possible. Both images are shot at f4, 10', 250mm. Please take with a grain of salt. The image on the left is the 12x.

Best, Peter.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I agree with Jacek, the old 10:1 isn't even close to the same league as the newer 12X. The large size is due to several factors. One being the T-stop of 2.8 on that massive cannon. Which at T2.8 the actual aperture is probably a good bit larger than F2.8 because there's no way they're getting 100% light transmission through that beast.. Th larger elements also gain more light-gathering ability. Also the floating elements and breathing compensation. Larger elements don't really minimize breathing, it's what the lenses do with their elements. I'm not a lens tech, nor am I familiar with the internals of the Optimo 12X, so I can't really explain all that's in there.

Good comparison, Peter. I understand your fear of posting comparisons...

 

[Stephen Williams]

The Optimo is very sharp wide open, the same can not be said of the old 25 - 250 which breathes & flares rather easily.

 

[Andrae Palmer]

Word of warning: If you see both lenses projected you will never want to use the old 10:1 again. It's that bad compared to the 12:1
I suggest don't even try.

Yeah the old 10:1 (T3.9) is pretty bad on far focal lengths. I just like its organic look. Would love to get a HP or HR. The old T3.9 was the first lens I tested the RED with last year... fell in love with it. I like pretty much any lens from Angenieux. Slowly will work my way up to acquiring a modern one. I'll have to read up on what the focal lengths and aperture have to do with size... still can't comprehend it.

 

[Greg M]

The 24-290 is like having an entire set of primes in one lens. It is as close as you can get to shooting with primes in a zoom (except that its T2.8 vs faster primes). We have shot entire spots w/ only the 12:1. It matches very well with our Ultra Primes too. Love this lens!

 

[Andrae Palmer]

The 24-290 is like having an entire set of primes in one lens. It is as close as you can get to shooting with primes in a zoom (except that its T2.8 vs faster primes). We have shot entire spots w/ only the 12:1. It matches very well with our Ultra Primes too. Love this lens!

Me too... I can only drool at it from a far or rent it.