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 at Cinegear

T

Tim Duran

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
320
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Good news on the Angenieux front: the new 45-120 will hopefully be released in a HD version by this September at Cinegear East. No, I didn't ask about cost.

Bad news from Angenieux. As some of you my recall, Duclos has "recalled" their 11-16 due to a minor flange sizing error when mounted to an Epic. As Matt implied, this was something Duclose may have designed incorrectly and therefore are filing down the flange at no cost to the lens owner. Some Angenieux 30-80 have the same problem on the Epic as well. But Angenieux's position is that they built their flange to Epic's exact specs, but Red then changed them without telling Angenieux. Bottom line, get Red to pay for the adjustment.

Now, is that a class act by Duclos or not?
 
When I spoke to JeanMarc yesterday he said that it will be corrected by Angenieux thru their dealers such as Duclos, Abel, etc.
 
Jacek, I was told something similar, but in the context that the dealers could do it, but at your expense.
 
Tim Duran said:
Good news on the Angenieux front: the new 45-120 will hopefully be released in a HD version by this September at Cinegear East. No, I didn't ask about cost.
Click to expand...

Do you mean a DP version or a traditional (corrected for a 2/3inch 3chip prism) system Hd lens?

Thank you
 
Tim Duran said:
... As some of you my recall, Duclos has "recalled" their 11-16 due to a minor flange sizing error when mounted to an Epic. As Matt implied, this was something Duclose may have designed incorrectly and therefore are filing down the flange at no cost to the lens owner.

Now, is that a class act by Duclos or not?
Click to expand...

We have got our Duclos 11-16 shipped out to us during the Epic American tour and sadly had not yet had the opportunity to use int, but look forward in using it in the 16th Chapel next week, however I was not aware of this issue, let's hope our unit does not have this issue or we'll have to send it back from Italy... :(
 
Michael, it's what Angenieux refers to as their HD (formerly Rouge) line, not 2/3. This is the lens following their 16-42, 30-80 lenses. Now you can add the 45-120.
 
I believe you mean "Digital Production" or "DP line"? I've never heard of the HD line. I've also heard that they dropped the "rouge" branding. I hope they do come out with the optimo digital production version of the 45-150 first. That would be great news. They only mention the film version in their freshly minted 2011-2012 catalog. Anyone else hear anything about this?
 
Tim Duran said:
But Angenieux's position is that they built their flange to Epic's exact specs, but Red then changed them without telling Angenieux. Bottom line, get Red to pay for the adjustment.
Click to expand...

Really? tisk tisk Angenieux. Welcome to the doghouse.

Good on Duclos...
 
Bob, your right. I meant DP, not HD.
 
Tim Duran said:
But Angenieux's position is that they built their flange to Epic's exact specs, but Red then changed them without telling Angenieux. Bottom line, get Red to pay for the adjustment.
Click to expand...

Am I missing something here, maybe due to being a newbie when it comes to cine glass? We're talking PL mount, right? Which is an Arri spec, not an EPIC spec, or an Angenieux spec, or any other spec, I thought? So what's the issue... shouldn't any PL mount lens mount on any PL mount camera, modulo oddities like mirror clearance etc? The physical mount dimensions & tolerances should be absolutely standard...

At REDucation I mounted a 30 year old Cooke on an EPIC without the slightest difficulty.

Mike
 
Mike, good point. I'm not an engineer, but here is what I understand the situation. I portion of the standard PL mount needs to be filed down to allow the mount to fit into the recess in the Epic and then be locked down as normal. I have no idea of who's design "fault" this is, but there is a definate issue. I took my 11-16 to Duclos myself. I just waited the 10 minutes mol for Matt to file down whatever he filed down. (AS I recall, Duclos' notice was to the effect that if you were going to use the 11-16 in an Epic, there MAY be a problem; that Duclos would fix it at no cost. Angenieux, too, is not saying that there is an issue on all 30-80's, just some and only when using it with the Epic.

NOTE: I'm only assuming that Matt was filing down the mount. I wasn't close enough to see exactly what he was doing. But he certainly was filing, using an air gun and taking a lot of care to return the lens to me in pristine condition.
 
Ahhh, if only everyone could be like Duclos .... :) Hopefully Angie adjusts in the future since it seems Epic's specs are pretty much locked down and MANY of us are going to be getting these lenses once our Epics arrive -- I for one would love to have the 16-42 + 45-130 DP combo when it's ready.
 
Duclos fixed my 11-16mm lens at NAB11 for no additional cost. They had emailed all customers notifying them of the issue a couple weeks prior.

Great service for sure!

Have yet to actually try the lens on an Epic, but hopefully soon.... (waiting quietly)

Alex
 
Tim Duran said:
Mike, good point. I'm not an engineer, but here is what I understand the situation. I portion of the standard PL mount needs to be filed down to allow the mount to fit into the recess in the Epic and then be locked down as normal. I have no idea of who's design "fault" this is, but there is a definate issue. I
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty simple. If the Duclos - or Angie or any other lens - mounts just fine on any other PL-mount camera without a problem, especially a camera with an Arri badge on it, it's an EPIC problem. If those same lenses have issues on multiple different cameras, it's a lens problem.

If the problem is totally random across cameras & lenses, it's a spec problem - tolerances not specified tight enough in the PL mount spec, so when you have a mount that's at the limit of tolerance in one direction, and lens at the limit of tolerance in the opposite direction, it won't mount properly; that's a spec problem since everything is within specs and it still doesn't work...

This isn't rocket science folks. It's precision engineering, but very simple precision engineering.

Mike
 
Mike 'Fireman' Ross said:
Am I missing something here, maybe due to being a newbie when it comes to cine glass? We're talking PL mount, right? Which is an Arri spec, not an EPIC spec, or an Angenieux spec, or any other spec, I thought? So what's the issue... shouldn't any PL mount lens mount on any PL mount camera, modulo oddities like mirror clearance etc? The physical mount dimensions & tolerances should be absolutely standard...

At REDucation I mounted a 30 year old Cooke on an EPIC without the slightest difficulty.

Mike
Click to expand...
Actually the ARRI PL mount drawing I have provides for mirror clearance as well. I don't think anybody bothered to ask- that's all.....
I can't speak for Duclos or Angie but I'm pretty sure that these are completely separate, unrelated issues for each.....

And it has been confirmed here that Angie takes care of the mod so please don't spread misinformation (about Angenieux blaming RED) - it has sure ticked off Jarred-the last thing we need is Red and Angie getting into it....
 
OptiTek said:
Actually the ARRI PL mount drawing I have provides for mirror clearance as well. I don't think anybody bothered to ask- that's all.....
I can't speak for Duclos or Angie but I'm pretty sure that these are completely separate, unrelated issues for each.....
And it has been confirmed here that Angie takes care of the mod so please don't spread misinformation- the last thing we need is Red and Angie getting into it....
Click to expand...

Jacek, I'm sorry but I'm not clear what part of my post could be considered 'misinformation'? The bit about mirror clearance? If I'm wrong I apologise most profoundly, but I was under the impression that some zooms deliberately omitted the mirror clearance; they were designed exclusively for use with PL mount *digital* cameras? That's what I was thinking when I mentioned it.

Mike
 
No Mike- it wasn't you, fixed now, see above....
 
Mike 'Fireman' Ross said:
I think it's pretty simple. If the Duclos - or Angie or any other lens - mounts just fine on any other PL-mount camera without a problem, especially a camera with an Arri badge on it, it's an EPIC problem. If those same lenses have issues on multiple different cameras, it's a lens problem.

If the problem is totally random across cameras & lenses, it's a spec problem - tolerances not specified tight enough in the PL mount spec, so when you have a mount that's at the limit of tolerance in one direction, and lens at the limit of tolerance in the opposite direction, it won't mount properly; that's a spec problem since everything is within specs and it still doesn't work...

This isn't rocket science folks. It's precision engineering, but very simple precision engineering.

Mike
Click to expand...

Yes, exactually right. The PL mount itself does not interfer with any cine camera mirror shutter. The beveled cone sometimes found behind the PL mount had a spec. to clear these rotating shutters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top