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 :)

Angenieux 45-120...

Jeff Kilgroe

Jeff Kilgroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
17,055
Reaction score
42
Points
48
Location
Colorado
I haven't been keeping up with the Angie shipping schedule -- too much pain and suffering waiting for the lenses I have on order. Anyway, is the 45-120 shipping yet? And if so, has anyone got their hands on that bad boy? I wanna know! :)
 
Whats the diff between their "Digital" and "Film" series? Would be interested in the 16-42 but it doesn't have the EF mount or tele extender option like the 15-40 does.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #5
To add to what Norm said, the rear element on the DP lenses sits very close to the OLPF/sensor block on the digital cameras. This improves some aspects of the image, especially so for digital imagers. However, it leaves no clearance for a mechanical shutter system. So it does not work on film camera, or even digital systems that have a mechanical or mirror shutter. This is why there is no EOS mount, and why teleconverters are not compatible -- there is just no room for those to exist between the rear of the lens and the sensor within the camera.

FWIW, the two Optimo DP lenses - 16-42 and 30-80 - combined with the Duclos modded 11-16 Tokina is like the trifecta of perfect zooms for these cameras. If you have the budget and are satisfying a broader customer base with rentals, the the film-oriented zooms like the 15-40 can be a better purchase.

I'm anxious to see the 45-120, which looked amazing last year at NAB. It is designed to be used with film or digital cameras. There have been rumors of a DP series version of a bigger zoom like that, which would be most welcome. I've had a 16-42 and 30-80 on order for some time now, but I'm very tempted to cancel the 30-80 and replace it with the 45-120. Sad thing is, I used to own both the DP zooms and then sold them because I didn't feel I could justify keeping them at the time. Couldn't rent them out, etc.. Now they're all the rage and I no longer do rentals, nor need to mess with that, but have been sitting on a wait-list for nearly a year. :-(
 
Is there a problem with ray angle to the Epic sensor with either series of Angie lenses? Seems if one is designed for film then there might be a compromise with how the light strikes the sensor.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
To add to what Norm said, the rear element on the DP lenses sits very close to the OLPF/sensor block on the digital cameras. This improves some aspects of the image, especially so for digital imagers. However, it leaves no clearance for a mechanical shutter system. So it does not work on film camera, or even digital systems that have a mechanical or mirror shutter. This is why there is no EOS mount, and why teleconverters are not compatible -- there is just no room for those to exist between the rear of the lens and the sensor within the camera.

FWIW, the two Optimo DP lenses - 16-42 and 30-80 - combined with the Duclos modded 11-16 Tokina is like the trifecta of perfect zooms for these cameras. If you have the budget and are satisfying a broader customer base with rentals, the the film-oriented zooms like the 15-40 can be a better purchase.

I'm anxious to see the 45-120, which looked amazing last year at NAB. It is designed to be used with film or digital cameras. There have been rumors of a DP series version of a bigger zoom like that, which would be most welcome. I've had a 16-42 and 30-80 on order for some time now, but I'm very tempted to cancel the 30-80 and replace it with the 45-120. Sad thing is, I used to own both the DP zooms and then sold them because I didn't feel I could justify keeping them at the time. Couldn't rent them out, etc.. Now they're all the rage and I no longer do rentals, nor need to mess with that, but have been sitting on a wait-list for nearly a year. :-(
Click to expand...



I don't see dropping a 30-80 or 28-76 for a 45-120 a good idea just so you have the range from 15-40 and 45-120 because I find the 28-76 or 30-80 such a great handheld range. 15-40 is often too wide for a lot of it and 45-120 is sometimes too long...but 30-80 is perfect :)

Norm
 
I have the two DP zooms and they are phenomonal. The 45-120 was dool inducing and I doubt there is much difference between the film and DP versions but theoretically the DP versions should have slightly better corner performance and field illumination because of the more telecentric design. In actual use I think it's not an issue, getbwhichever version best suits your business model.
 
Fair amount of talent per square inch on this thread. I'm humbled and appreciate the input

The EF adapter, Wide Angle and Tele options are, on paper, the real enticing draw to the 15-40. That's if it all works with the MX sensor without weird results.
 
If you're considering this for an Epic why would you use EF? As mounts go it's not even close to PL for rigidity, Red has done an amazing job of stabilizing it but no matter how you cut it it's a still camera mount designed for lightweight lenses/bodies. I also think you'll be disappointed putting a teleconverter on a wide zoom, in general teleconverters work best with fast aperture long primes, the Optimos are certainly sharp enough to be useable with them but the stop and resolution loss (1 or 2 T stops) are usually enough to justify a dedicated longer lens.
 
Evin Grant said:
If you're considering this for an Epic why would you use EF?
Click to expand...

Cause I got's a half dozen L primes and another half dozen other EF lenses to go with. Switching the lens board is not so easy since RED has doesn't make Canon flavor RED Focus thingy to do backfocus adj
 
Angie, I still love you...

Angie, I still love you...

On the subject of the DP series Angies I firmly believe that the better tele centricity made possible by the longer throat improves field illumination linearity on single plane sensors. Obviously you are giving up potential rental days to folks using cameras with spinning mirrors (most film cameras) but at this point in the evolution of the industry is that really a significant issue?

I ran into Evin while he was drooling over that 45-120 Optimo (still can't get that stain out ;-) and remarked that if it were a DP series lens for $25K instead of a regular Optimo at roughly double that I'd order one immediately.

While we are on the subject, I would really love to see Angenieux put out a DP version of their 17-80 that Jim Mathers loves so much. The 16-42 & 30-80 DPs rock, but their focal length ranges are a bit too small to live on one zoom all day, and you kind of need them both so even though they are "only" $20K by the time you buy 2 you've spent $40K and still are likely to have to do several lens changes, at which point why not primes?

The current 17-80 is exceptionally fast at T2.2, weighs 11 lbs (5kg) and costs over $50K USD. If they could do a DP version with a similar range, T2.6 or faster, perhaps closer to 7 lbs to make it more hand held friendly and sell it for under $25K I don't think I'd be the only one ready to buy one.

RED has changed the game in a wide variety of ways, not least of which is that other manufacturers are getting into the larger sensor space at various price points. This is expanding demand levels for PL glass across a wider market segment which alters fundamental assumptions about production and pricing strategy for companies like Angie, Cooke, Leica and to a leaser degree Zeiss.

RED saw this coming and while the original 18-50 zoom was below expectations in mechanics, it had decent optics and sold for around $6K. The RPPs were the next logical step and IMHO are the best bang for the buck in cine optics, period.

The newer RPZs:
18-85 - physical size and weight make it unpopular for hand held, mechanics are decent but not Angie level butter, 10K price is in owner/op territory but still way more than stills zooms which while unfair, is the comparison many are making at the lower end
17-50 - small and light so its a great stealth/hand held lens, popular "kit" lens for owner/ops, wish it were faster but for $6K its hard to beat
50-150 - kind of the same target usage as the 45-120 this thread is about for a lot less money, haven't seen many around and they are no longer on the RED store site...

What's next? Traditional PL lenses that require outboard FIZ (manual or motorized) at a wider variety of price points to address the new market realities? Selling a small number of expensive cine lenses to rental houses is not a dead business model, but will the traditional cine lens manufacturers simply ignore the legions of owner/ops out there?

Can RED and others make electronic lenses that have strong enough and smooth enough motors to "reasonably" emulate purpose built FIZ options like Preston/Bartech/C-motion? The appeal of a lens that has all the motors "under the hood" and controlled from the camera via side handle/RedMote/touchscreen is significant. The 8:1 zoom lens projected to be on the "fixed" Scarlet, and later abandoned seemed likely to be a good indicator of the potential - I guess the jury is still out...

FWIW I think an electronic "kit" lens that offers built in focus and zoom control, has a decent range (18-144 perhaps), is light enough for hand held (under 8 lbs) and sells for under $10K would be a big winner for RED, or anyone else who can manage it. Yes, I know that Epic and Scarlet are not ENG cameras and there are plenty of options from Panny and others for one piece camcorders that include servo zooms. That said, the ability to switch from an electronic zoom to other lensing adds a lot of flexibility - cine style today, run 'n' gun tomorrow, same body/brain.

Sorry about the long post.

Cheers - #19
 
I think there are some basic issues with your assumptions here Blair, first there will never be an 18-anything longer than 50 T2.8 zoom that weighs less than 10lbs. Optically it's just not in the cards and having either a variable aperture or a fixed T4 seems to be a real demand killer in premium optics. Secondly the reason that the 16-42/30-80/45-120 range is ideal is it can offer the flexibility of zooms with the size/portability and quality of primes. Personally all I want is a 70-200 T3 (I'm talking to you Matt D.) to go with the DP zooms an I'll be done. Pretty much all the shows I work on these days have the cameras either dedicated to the 24-290 Optimos or 11:1 Primo zooms in studio mode on a dolly or the short zooms for handheld/steadicam/jib/everything else. Although primes often get used on the big moveis there are distinct advantage to short, prime quality zooms that allow for fast reframing and minimal lens changes.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #14
@Norm,

Good point in regards to sacrificing the 30-80. I guess I'm just getting ahead of myself in a way because I'm lusting over that 45-120. And could probably get it sooner -- I know a couple people who should be early in the queue and are unsure if they still want/need/can afford the lens. I would have to make such a sacrifice to get it. Being more practical about it, I would be much better served to keep treading water until my 16-42 and 30-80 zooms deliver and following Evin to pick up that 70-200 Nikon conversion when Matt has them ready to go.

I've kept passing on buying the 17-50 RPZ, even though it's a great lens for the price, because I've had the 16-42 on order... If I would've known it would take this long.... grr....
 
I just finished 3 weeks in Tanzania, mostly wildlife. I left the PL mount 150-600 home because it's so heavy, and anything over 400 hard to keep steady enough from a Land Rover. Went with a Sigma 120-300, after some good tests. I have to say it was really helpful to have the electronic focus confirm. When you are trying to follow action, and sfuff is happening very quickly, that little focus box was great to have so you can keep track of movement and framing and not have to use as much concentration on focus.

Only problems were when things got too close and had to fumble for a lens change. Missed lots of good moments. I've decided to have a Scarlet on hand with a wide lens for fast changes. For that I was using a 24-105 Canon, not the best optic but a good range. The 45 - 120 would be perfect, but I'm really wondering if I'm hooked on electronic lens control. For my purposes, seeing aperture and focal distance, as well as focus confirm, in the EVF, is incredible. The 80-200 Nikon or 70-200 Canon are not wide enough for this purpose. Any ideas?
 
James Brundige said:
The 80-200 Nikon or 70-200 Canon are not wide enough for this purpose. Any ideas?
Click to expand...

Well, if your field is Africa or places where there is plenty of light, if you already took the leap to sigma alledged crappy lenses, you might consider sigma 50-500 ! Not a fast lens for sure, but build and finish, opticai quality are much better than, say, my nikon 80-400, and the range is unique...
 
Let's start with decent lube, and go from there

Let's start with decent lube, and go from there

I don't dispute Evin's assertion that physics may stand in the way of the workhorse zoom lens I desire. That said, when I look at the price/weight/performance equation of good stills glass and proper cine glass I have to wonder if there isn't room for a "crossover" lens. It won't be an Optimo, it might have some aperture ramping and other issues, I get that. My point is that my theoretical motion "kit" lens would avoid some of the key problems one finds when using a lens purpose built for stills use (like telescoping barrels, etc) but stopping well short of the precision/mechanics (and price) of a true cine lens.

If you live/work in LA or some other production center then renting PL glass is simple enough, but not everyone has that at hand. Buying PL cine lenses is a very expensive proposition for a lot of owner/ops, even the aggressively priced RED lens offerings are too steep for many. Stills glass is a great workaround, but still a workaround. As Evin's latest SALT revealed, some stills lenses (assuming you get a good one) can hold their own optically with cine lenses but fall short mechanically, have limited adjustability as they age, often have far less robust materials, etc. So what's the answer?

AFAIK the RED 17-50 is the only "budget" cine PL zoom lens on the market that lends itself to hand held shooting. The RED 18-85 is more expensive and much larger/heavier but it could be argued it deserves consideration. Anyone care to nominate any other cine zooms in the under $10K category with decent build quality, range and performance? Even if you could convince me that some stills primes are worthy options for motion work, every stills zoom I have tried has been lacking in key areas.

It wouldn't surprise me to see RED make an electronic zoom with decent motors in the housing, decent optics and light enough for hand held. If they could get the sales numbers past a certain point and can leverage what they have learned on the lens side the last 4 years they might be able to hit a owner/op friendly price point. If you are an owner/op and you get offered a higher end gig you can always rent first rate cine glass. However, since one of the big attractions of owning your own camera is the chance to shoot with it even where there isn't a client with a decent budget, I truly believe there is a decent sized market for an "everyday" zoom lens that is at least a reasonable performer for motion work.

Cheers - #19
 
I understand your frustration Blair, really the Red 17-50 is the only lens that falls into the crossover catagory you're interested in.
I think you hit on the reason already, volume. The zoom market is straifying into the very low end (stills glass) and the very high end (Optimos, Zeiss LWZ, new Canons and Fujinons). The only place there seems to be some value options in real cine lenses are the newest prime sets (RPPs, Panchros, Compact primes). The zooms are either too complex to hand build in smaller quantities or they need to be sold by the 100,000 to DSLR shooters too. There may be some other options though, bare with me here but I have seen a few PL mounted 50-300mm f4.5 ED Nikkor zooms out there with real gears etc. You can easily put a Nikon to Canon mount on that, have it Cine modded and have a pretty good long zoom that has real marks and works (albeit backwards) with standard cine AKS. There may also be some Cnon FD or Contax zoom options too, I'll look into it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top