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 :)

Zeiss vs Angenieux

Louis Maddalena

Louis Maddalena

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,914
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New Jersey
Hey guys,

I'm looking at two lenses but not really sure which one is better in terms of IQ. I also do try to get some of my investment back by renting out lenses so I'm also looking for rentablity as well.

The decision is between the Angeniuex 16-42 T2.8:
http://www.ducloslenses.com/collections/angenieux/products/angenieux1642

And the Zeiss LWZ2 15.5-45 T2.6:
http://www.ducloslenses.com/collections/zeiss/products/lwz-2

On paper, the Zeiss is a clear winner, its slightly wider, slightly longer, and slightly faster. It also has interchangeable lens mounts which adds a lot of options for future use . I'll be getting the PL mount ,but it might be nice to know I can throw it on something that comes in an EF mount in the future.

But in terms of IQ, does anybody have any hands on experience with these two lenses and have a preference?
 
They are both fine lenses. For my money the Angenieux has a nicer look to it but you need to work out what other lenses you will need it to match or what other lenses will match it. So work out will you buy the rest other Angeniuex range of zoom lenses or do you want other primes and zooms to complement this lens.

Id say its more about the look you want which may influence the lens choice rather than just the focal length. Also one look many not be suited for all of your work or you clients work.
 
Louis Maddalena said:
Hey guys,

I'm looking at two lenses but not really sure which one is better in terms of IQ. I also do try to get some of my investment back by renting out lenses so I'm also looking for rentablity as well.
Click to expand...

You should be looking at Fujinon 19-90mm Cabrio / T2.9 if you want rentability.
 
Chad Lancaster said:
angenieux won't work on the magic mount
Click to expand...


Thats definitely another check in the Zeiss column.

If I buy the Angenieux I do not think I would buy the rest of their zooms. I do however, plan on picking up a set of ultra primes down the line, which is why I'm leaning towards the Zeiss. IT just seems there is very material out there shot on the Zeiss so I don't really know much about its performance.
 
If the 16-42mm is anywhere near the 15-40mm for performance it's unbelievable and with a great look. Wide open performance is fantastic and the look is not harsh at all.

A Panavision rep recently said the one piece of gear he'd buy now to rent (as a private owner, expecting to turn a profit on it alone) would be a short Angenieux zoom.
 
Last edited:
There are a few more things to consider with the Anx. so for one and top of my list buying (3d)....you can EASILY align the zoom on each lens so you can zoom through the lens and have the lens stay cenetered and therefore both lenses match (or as close as possible)....this can be done with all lenses, but its EASY with the ANGX. This also a plus in 2d.
 
The French typically surrender at the first sign of conflict...... but we own both of those and the Optimo just looks better in any side by side.
 
Aaron McLane said:
The French typically surrender at the first sign of conflict...... but we own both of those and the Optimo just looks better in any side by side.
Click to expand...

hahaha that was hilarious. I'd vote out of those two to go with the Optimo. I'm not going to lie but those Canon cine zooms are pretty bad ass though. The Cabrio is a definite yes, but it's also much higher in price. If you're going to spend that much, a Cabrio is a no brainer. Nothing will beat it image wise.
 
Ooh Angie

Ooh Angie

Mark is absolutely correct that the Fujinon Cabrio 19-90 will rent the best, it's also $40K...

The 16-42 and 30-80 Angie short zooms are phenomenal. They present a level of "dimensionality" most lenses cannot. They handle light sources directly into the lens gracefully. Mechanics, build quality, adjustability, etc are all state of the art - these are essentially regular Optimo's for half price - all in a compact light weight form factor ideal for hand held work.

What's not to love? The zoom ratios are limited so more lens changes required than the Cabrio and other 18-85ish zooms. Servo zoom grip still not shipping after being teased by Thales Angénieux at NAB 2012. Not compatible with some multi-mount solutions. To cover 16-80 range you need 2 zooms which gets you into the $40K range of the Cabrio.

When I have shot with the DP zooms on multi-cam shows where other lenses were used the Angies always make the prettiest images of all - that's not just my opinion, but that of 95% of the people I have ever reviewed multi-cam clips with. The flare handling is so good it seems like witchcraft. Focus falloff from sharps to soft looks so natural to the eye, IMO, not to be underestimated in determining why human beings find the rendition of the little Angies so engaging.

I was duly impressed with the compact Canon zooms and have nothing negative to report, they're legitimate cinema tools in my book. That said, they are not the Angies.

The only lens in this range that might be superior is the 18-85 Fuji T2.0 at $75K. If you can afford it, the performance is insane.

Cheers - #19
 
The Fujinon Cabrios are great lenses and probably the easiest zooms to rent out at the moment. Nice and compact, come with control grips, have a nice look. I kinda wish I had them in my arsenal.

The Angenieux dp zooms are my favorites when it comes to their overall performance and the "look". The 16-42 and 30-80 DP are the two lenses I use most. I suppose this is why I have not purchased the motion mount. I really want to, but it's incompatible with my two most used lenses. Ah.... That's really the only bad thing about them. The images they produce have that same smooth look that their more expensive Angie counterpart lenses produce. The big trade-off for the cost savings of the DP zooms is a bit smaller size and cheaper price in exchange for a smaller aperture and those protruding rear elements that make them incompatible with most mirror shutter or film cameras -- or the Motion Mount inserted in front of the sensor. :(

Zeiss zooms... They're nice. Very clean and clinical images with very little character. Look is not quite Master Prime clean, but perhaps a bit more so than the Ultras with a little less contrast and sharpness. All things considered, I would take the Fujinon or Angenieux zooms any day over the Zeiss.

The Cooke CXX 15-40 is also another interesting choice. It's somewhat of a refreshed older design at this point, but a nice lens nonetheless. I would take it over the Zeiss LWZ/CZ, but it has more of a specific "look" than the Angenieux.

I still really like my Angie DP's... Wish they could be used with the Motion Mount.... grrr....
 
Hm...

Had a nice chat with Angie at IBC.
Not abot the DPs, but their newer lenses.

They seem more than eager to make things work.
I wonder if there is something in that design which could be re-designable and replaceable...

I have no reason to believe so, but it is a thought...

G
 
Thanks everybody for all the input. I decided to go with the Angie.
 
Louis Maddalena said:
Thanks everybody for all the input. I decided to go with the Angie.
Click to expand...

You will not be disappointed, I really wanted the motion mount but in the end my Optimos are worth the trade off. They are the most cinematic lenses available in that price point period.
 
Thanks I'm looking forward to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top