Robert Glenn Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 noticed that a guy's selling an angenieux 11.5-138mm lens on ebay. Has anybody ever used one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Hughes Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 I've heard of the 12-120 and the 10-150, but not the one you refer to. 12-120 was a standard zoom in the 60's, considered nowadays to be too soft for serious work Some have been rebuilt as 15-150's to accomodate Super 16. I have a 10-150 for my CP-16R which is sharper than the 12-120, but prone to flare and vignetting in some zoom/iris combinations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Marks Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 From what I've heard, the 11.5-138mm is light years ahead of the older 12-120's and 10-150's, and priced accordingly. I think this was the lens used to shoot the series "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Laurent Andrieux Posted January 20, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted January 20, 2006 I've used it many times on TV series. It covers Super 16, and has a wide focal range, but I think it "breathes" a lot (I'm talking of focus breathing). Also, the short focal lengths are not very accurate. I think it's OK for TV but I woudn't use it for blowing to 35 mm, my self. The 8-64 Canon or the zeiss 11/110 for instance, look better to me. There are many other ones. Here's a ink to Panavision France, it's in french but any one can read this. The price for rental gives you an idea of their value. http://www.panavision.fr/index.php?page=sh...hpshop&Itemid=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 A little off topic here: the 12-120 isn't soft unless you are shooting it at a wide-open f-stop, especially at the telephoto end. I'd say shooting at 2.8 or 4.0 is just fine if you are worried about the sharpness of this lens. I'm shooting tests for my next short with the 12-120 and an Auricon, and the frames are SHARP. I shot the tests primarily at an f/4 - 5.6 and the images are just gorgeous. I was actually surprised how crisp a frame grab looks when the lens is set mid- to wide-angle. I certainly don't have the sharpest vision out there, but I cannot easily tell the difference between the Angenieux set at 12 and a similar Cannon 10mm wide angle prime I have in terms of sharpness. I'm not saying the 11.5-138 isn't better, just that 12-120 is a respectable piece of glass. Regards. Karl Borowski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Glenn Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 (edited) I've used it many times on TV series. It covers Super 16, and has a wide focal range, but I think it "breathes" a lot (I'm talking of focus breathing). Also, the short focal lengths are not very accurate. I think it's OK for TV but I woudn't use it for blowing to 35 mm, my self. The 8-64 Canon or the zeiss 11/110 for instance, look better to me. There are many other ones. Here's a ink to Panavision France, it's in french but any one can read this. The price for rental gives you an idea of their value. http://www.panavision.fr/index.php?page=sh...hpshop&Itemid=1 hmm I've heard it's the sharpest lens available for super16. Never heard about breathing/accuracy problems before however. Seems to be a good 95% type of lens. Dealer Price is about 10,000 dollars! http://www.cinematechnic.com/products/Ange..._115-138HR.html http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...item=7582676993 <--link to lens Edited January 20, 2006 by RobertNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now