Angenieux 35-140mm f3.5--A Good Lens?

[Andrew Walker]

I understand the whole thing to help out a fellow filmmaker but this should be posted over DVXuser, not REDuser.

 

[Shane Kelly]

Andrew,
he is talking about using it on the red.
In answer to the original question, the red is faster than a hvx/adapter but you should forget the old angenieux and get a nikon mount for your camera and use the nikons that you have already. They'll probably look great.
Shane.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Well.... Thank you for your attempt to help. I don't appreciate useless sarcasm when I ask a concerned question. Would someone who can act professional as well as be experienced as a professional please help me?

I have been on this site as a member for 2 years and would appreciate some respect despite my smaller budget.

Mitch's sarcasm is not aimed at you, it's aimed at the lens. You can infer from his post that he doesn't think much of it -- which is informational, after all...

If you asked about the old 16mm Angenieux 12-120mm, you'd get a similar remark from me probably -- I shot many student movies on that lens.

(oh, I see that Mitch responded already... I must have skipped page 2)

 

[chuck colburn]

Mitch's sarcasm is not aimed at you, it's aimed at the lens. You can infer from his post that he doesn't think much of it -- which is informational, after all...

If you asked about the old 16mm Angenieux 12-120mm, you'd get a similar remark from me probably -- I shot many student movies on that lens.

(oh, I see that Mitch responded already... I must have skipped page 2)

David,
I would prefer to shoot a good 12-120mm zoom in 16mm then to shoot anything in 35mm on a 35-140mm Angenieux.

 

[Andrew Walker]

Andrew,
he is talking about using it on the red.
In answer to the original question, the red is faster than a hvx/adapter but you should forget the old angenieux and get a nikon mount for your camera and use the nikons that you have already. They'll probably look great.
Shane.

Well my bad I guess. Didn't seem very clear in the first question.

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

actually i used a couple of 16mm format 12-120mm zooms that you cited, probably '60s version, and they make among the richest and most beautiful footage i have ever seen. i doubt i would get similar results with a coke bottle. coke is shit for kids. try at least a bottle of wine, it's in a different class.

 

[Rolf Kestermann]

I know I am responding to an ancient thread, but I see a couple of these lenses on the market currently and want to give some advice to future buyers. First, all the opinions on this thread, starting with Mitch Gross, are completely out of line and are formed by people that have no access to them and/or never used them. I own two of them and they were (until now) the best kept secret of hand held zooms for the Epic. They cover FF 5K, they are actually T 4 through most of the range, and they are optically superior to all other first generation Angenieuxs . On top they match the Super speeds in Color and mechanically (once restored) are a true beauty to operate. At 60mm they have no distortion, and their CA in the blue/Yellow range only appears after 120mm. I have inter cut this lens with Wide Optimos and it is indistinguishable. The only caveat to my experience is its minimal focus of 6 feet. I have been waiting for a modern version, and it seems Sony with the new 28-135 T4 may be the ticket, just don't know how to get it onto the Epic yet.

 

[Rolf Kestermann]

One more quick comment, like explained in the Visual Products add, there are two versions of this lens, they were used for stills as well, the movie version uses a regular spring mounted helical carriage,
while the still version uses ball bearings, which makes a smooth zoom impossible. I am not completely clear on the exterior distinction, but the ones I own all look like classic Angenieux Movie zooms with
indentations on the focus and zoom barrel (not smooth). I used the lens last month on Mabelline and previously on Herbal Essence, Macys and other Commercials. I am sure that Mitch scared everybody off
for the last 6 Years, because it looks puny, but it is a great performing lens.

 

[bob dodd]

hard to find info on this old zoom

hard to find info on this old zoom

I found an article from Angenieux. And that lens dates to 1968. But so far the inter webs haven't provided much guidance.

 

[Rolf Kestermann]

It has been already 4 Years since my last recommendation, but I now own 2 of them, restored at Duclos. Historically they were the second iteration of Angenieux's first motion picture zoom lens, the first being designed for the 16mm Bell and Howell EYMO. In spite of the fact being the first 35mm Zoom of all times, it is still today one of the best ever made in a forgotten range. I vaguely remember the disparaging comments in the beginning of this thread of people who obviously never used or tested it, but just today I matched it against a 50mm Superspeed at f8 with no problem at all. Of all the lenses I ever came across, this is by far the
best performing, most useful and under valuated lens of all times. Yes, it looks puny, but it is optically superior to the 25-250 T3.9 and T3.7 follow ups. I have been hoping for a modern, slightly brighter alternative, like a 25-150 or 28-140 T4 by any manufacturer, but it seems everybody makes the same copy of an 18-80 ad absurd-um. My set up used to be a Red One and an Epic, but I changed the Red One with a Mini Ursa because it is sharper for zooms and also can go to 60 fps. This lens, until there is a modern alternative, is still the best light weight portrait lens.
It has negligible distortions within its range, compared to anything else out there and the only chromatic aberrations to deal with are a Blue/Yellow shift from 120 to 140mm, which can be corrected in Resolve with a splitter-combiner node.

 

[Ilya O.]

Bob, Rolf, all these pro-Angenieux posts are nicely done. Thanks for recovering this nice zoom!

They said put a green bottle instead ahahaha

By the way some say that LOMO Foton zoom 37-140mm f3.5 was calculated in USSR after this Angenieux zoom. Documetary filmmakers took Angie sample to Moscow in the early 1960-s and said hey, designers, make one like this for us!

 

[Florian Berutti]

Hello Ilya,
I was wondering... (if the foton is a copy of the angie)... does it mean that it could be possible to replace in the FOTON A, the 37-140 zoom lens by the angie 35-140 and keep the anamorphic front?
i know it sounds stupid but i'm looking for the sharpest option.
Florian

 

[Ilya O.]

Hi Florian
Well, the difficulty lies in mechanical area. Other than that, Angie should work, as well as any other lens which does not experience hard vignetting.

As for the sharpest lens, both could be the winner, it is just the matter of which one is in better optical shape. It could be easily that Foton has the advantage being made after and for that reason more advanced.

I'd find the NIKFI tests for both a bit later and share here.

 

[Florian Berutti]

Hello Ilya,
thanks for the answer...
maybe i just should continue on looking for a sharp FOTON.
I have one and i used to work with one of a friend...and both are quiet soft.
And with the front A it's really really soft even at T8....so i was wondering changing with the angie...
if i had the money i could directly buy the new cooke 35-140 Anamorphic who looks like a very good copy of the LOMO FOTON A ;-)