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 EZ lenses

Aaron Lochert said:
I recall seeing a video with Randy Wedick from Band Pro at NAB 2018 saying that the rear optical block is made at the same time FOR the lens it goes mounts to. Makes sense that they wouldn't offer it as an accessory. That said, I don't see why they couldn't offer a service where you mail your lens back and they make the FF block for you.
Click to expand...

Because that is much more expensive proposition - not just that it would cost more for the customer and manufacturer but that it would require setting up a whole new process for handling that exchange.
 
I think the reality is that you want to buy the EZ zooms with their rear optical blocks, as the ability to swap is one of its main calling cards. YMMV, but around here having an EZ zoom (or set) with the swappable block(s) in a decent case is the expectation for renters (or secondary buyers if you ever decide to sell).

Cheers - #19
 
I'm not sure if this is already mentioned here. But I am suspecting that this lens is not a real T2 lens.

I tested a demo unit of the 30-90 T2 here in Beijing at a rental house. One thing I found really strange is that, when I opened the f-stop from t/2.8 to t/2, the size of the iris doesn't seem to open by one stop.
In theory, the diameter of the iris should increase by roughly 1.4x for every f/stop opened (resulting in a 2x increase in the total AREA of the iris opening). This is certainly not the case with the 30-90 I tested. The iris only opens slightly when I go from t2.8 to t2.

The image certainly didn't get brighter by one stop. It only seemed to gain 1/3 stop at most. I double checked that with false color and a grey card with a RED camera. I compared the gain in brightness from t2.8 to t2 vs opening the shutter angle by one full stop. The later was much brighter.

I raised the question to the manager at the rental house. He played with the lens for a while, and he came back with the same conclusion too, leaving both of us scratching our heads.

That makes me think perhaps the EZ lenses are more like T/2.6 in reality, and perhaps t/2 is only a marketing hype?

Does anyone share similar observation with this lens? I hope it is only a problem with this particular sample.

Jack
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
I think the reality is that you want to buy the EZ zooms with their rear optical blocks, as the ability to swap is one of its main calling cards. YMMV, but around here having an EZ zoom (or set) with the swappable block(s) in a decent case is the expectation for renters (or secondary buyers if you ever decide to sell).

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

Bandpro confirmed with me today:

"In terms of the FF rear element, as one of the three companies that has developed the EZ Type lens series, we were hoping that this option of purchasing the FF element after initial purchase would be doable. However, this actually isn’t possible. Due to the fact that both rear elements (S35 and FF) are built and optically paired with the lens. Each element actually comes serialized with the specific lens. So to answer your question unfortunately no, there is no option of purchasing the FF element after you purchase. It’s something you’ll need to know before you purchase. But once you have the FF element, you have it, and you’re future proofed."
 
... and the Blair's have it ;-)

Not surprised that Angie optimizes each rendition to maximize performance. While I am not an optical engineer, I know enough to know that even tiny variances in a relay optic can have significant impact due to their position in the optical chain.

Cheers - #19
 
I've been messing around with the 30-90 a little. This was shot pointing out my (dirty) window. Weapon Helium at 8KFF with the lens at 90mm. Does this much distortion look normal at that focal length? Obviously those
vertical lines are straight..
 

Attachments

  • A001_C001_051481.0000000.jpg
    A001_C001_051481.0000000.jpg
    37 KB · Views: 0
Can anyone who have access to a 30-90 either confirm or disprove my observation? Does it behave like a real T2 lens to you?




Jack Lam said:
I'm not sure if this is already mentioned here. But I am suspecting that this lens is not a real T2 lens.

I tested a demo unit of the 30-90 T2 here in Beijing at a rental house. One thing I found really strange is that, when I opened the f-stop from t/2.8 to t/2, the size of the iris doesn't seem to open by one stop.
In theory, the diameter of the iris should increase by roughly 1.4x for every f/stop opened (resulting in a 2x increase in the total AREA of the iris opening). This is certainly not the case with the 30-90 I tested. The iris only opens slightly when I go from t2.8 to t2.

The image certainly didn't get brighter by one stop. It only seemed to gain 1/3 stop at most. I double checked that with false color and a grey card with a RED camera. I compared the gain in brightness from t2.8 to t2 vs opening the shutter angle by one full stop. The later was much brighter.

I raised the question to the manager at the rental house. He played with the lens for a while, and he came back with the same conclusion too, leaving both of us scratching our heads.

That makes me think perhaps the EZ lenses are more like T/2.6 in reality, and perhaps t/2 is only a marketing hype?

Does anyone share similar observation with this lens? I hope it is only a problem with this particular sample.

Jack
Click to expand...
 
Jack Lam said:
Can anyone who have access to a 30-90 either confirm or disprove my observation? Does it behave like a real T2 lens to you?
Click to expand...

Jack, you may be onto something. The enclosed composite three images were shot through an EZ-1.
 

Attachments

  • EZ-1 Open Ap small.jpg
    EZ-1 Open Ap small.jpg
    53.3 KB · Views: 0
That's a surprise. I thought it was a problem with my particular sample.
Didn't expect such low-level problem from a company as reputable as Angeniuex.
 
i just picked up last week my ez2 with ff and s35. i have had the ez1 s35 for about a year now and like it very much, but i'm thinking that i would be better served with a set of primes, maybe faster than 2.0. plus i don't know that i need 15mm wide. for the same money i could own the sigma 18-35 and 50/85. smaller and lighter lenses. and this is for an Alexa Mini, so small and light would be a plus. not sure what to do.
 
Owen Crowley said:
Jack, you may be onto something. The enclosed composite three images were shot through an EZ-1.
Click to expand...

Hi Owen. I don't have the lens with me to test this, but could you compare the brightness of this lens at T2 vs a prime lens at T2? Any industry work-horse prime lens like the Master Prime or Ultra Prime would be great.

For those who have access to the 15-40, could you also help test this too?
I only tested the lens on a RED Weapon. Perhaps it would be prudential to perform the same test on an Alexa.

If the EZ lenses are proven to be much darker than other lenses at T2, and if such problem is found in all samples, Angenieux is essentially committing a fraud. I'm surprised this is not causing an outrage already.
 
Jack Lam said:
Hi Owen. I don't have the lens with me to test this, but could you compare the brightness of this lens at T2 vs a prime lens at T2? Any industry work-horse prime lens like the Master Prime or Ultra Prime would be great.
Click to expand...

I don't have one handy, but investigating this is on my to-do list. I'll report back here. For me it's not a super big deal, but speed was a factor in selecting this lens.
 
When I was comparing zoom lenses last fall I noticed that the focal lengths and the T-stops where different between lenses, even if they where set to the same value.
I always thought that the point with T-stops and focal lengths was to give a precise measurement for more control when trying to achieve a consistent image. Apparently I was wrong...

Examples:
A Canon 15.5-47 mm T2.8 lets more light through at T2.8 than a Zeiss LWZ.2 15.5-45 mm T2.6 does at T2.6.
At 15.5 mm the Canon has a wider FOV than the Zeiss LWZ.2, but set to 45 mm the Canon has a more narrow FOV than the Zeiss.
(Although this seems to be in favour of the Canon lens, the Zeiss lens produces a much less distorted and more appealing image, IMO.)

At 21 mm T2.9 a Zeiss LWZ.3 21-100 T2.9-T3.9 lets more light through than a Zeiss LWZ.2 15.5-45 T2.6 does at T2.6.

So which of the lenses above are correctly marked? I don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top