Whether or not to use Angenieux zoom for S-16mm

[James Wilkins]

Hello:

 

As I prepare for a black-and-white super 16mm shoot long in the making and short in the budget, I'd appreciate any guidance on lens concerns.

 

I will be using an Aaton LTR with free access to an Angenieux 9.5-57 (f.1.6) zoom lens. I realize that when working for blow-up, primes provide more light and more reliable focus than zooms. I also realize that this Angenieux does not provide much coverage of the S-16mm frame. However, the project incorporates only close-ups with crushed backgrounds, meaning I'll be working only on the telephoto end (57mm) in a controlled interior with Kodak Double-X 200 speed and 1500-2000 watts of lighting available. It SEEMS that vignetting is eliminated at this millimeter but I don't know how f-stop affects this. I will be developing a test in the coming weeks, but are there any serious problems I might run into? Has anyone used this lens under similar conditions?

 

It'd be great to save a month's worth of rental fees.

 

Thanks again for the help.

[Freya Black]

Vingetting in S16 when working with 16mm lenses, tends to happen at focal lengths wider than 25mm so my guess is you will have no problems at all.

 

Sounds like a strange project that you have no wide shots at all however! Intresting!

 

love

 

Freya

[James Wilkins]

Freya:

 

Thanks for the affirmative response. I hope that's the case. I can actually see the vignetting in the viewfinder at all focal lengths but it's way outside of the frame line approaching 57mm. I just don't know whether to trust my eye.

 

And yes, it is a strange project that uses the restrictions of close-up to create a sense of much larger space.

 

- james

[Freya Black]

Freya:

 

Thanks for the affirmative response. I hope that's the case. I can actually see the vignetting in the viewfinder at all focal lengths but it's way outside of the frame line approaching 57mm. I just don't know whether to trust my eye.

 

And yes, it is a strange project that uses the restrictions of close-up to create a sense of much larger space.

 

- james

 

Thats what I've been told time and time again, however, the fact you can see vignetting sems a little disturbing!

 

It could be that the LTR viewfinder shows you more than is recorded on the film so that you can see where the boom mic is for example and other such stuff. I've never been anywhere near such a fancy camera so I have no idea! ;)

 

Is it outside the frameline at about 25mm too?

 

If you have access to the camera and the lens you could easily shoot a tiny test of course! You could easily check for vignetting by just looking at the raw negative of your test with a loupe or something?? Then you would know just how wide you can go.

 

Are you worried you may be shooting wide open too? 7222 is kinda fast for B&W, so it sems like you should be able to get a reasonable stop?

 

The restrictions of close up to create the sense of a large space! :) That sounds facinating! I hope it works out well!

 

love

 

Freya

[James Wilkins]

The viewfinder does show much more than super16mm frame line, but vignetting is definitely inside frame line at 25mm. At such a wide millimeter, I'd hardly call it vignetting...it's like looking through a tube. But again, seems to clear at longer focal lengths.

 

I plan on shooting a test. In the meantime, I just attempted a low-budget physical test described elsewhere online. I placed a piece of thick translucent scotch tape flush against the gate (where the film touches) and focused the lens on a bright subject. This essentially creates a mini-back-projection that apparently gives a more accurate idea of what is being printed on the film than what the viewfinder can provide. It's quite small though.

 

Part of my worry is that I'd like to shoot wide open to achieve a nice blurred depth-of-field. I do know that imperfections on any lens seems to arise at widest f-stops. I once had a regular 16mm Frezzolini with Agenieux lens that got noticeably blurry around the edges when wide open at wide focal length. Something particular to that lens and part of the reason I hope to talk to someone with experience using this one.

 

Thanks again.

[Oliver Christoph Kochs]

Wouldn't recommend a Angie when you want to shoot wide open. The 9.5-57 may be the best of all, but i stongly recommend primes. Maybe photo primes like the older Nikon or Canon FD lenses do the job for you and there is no vignetting. I also think they will not breathe more than your Angie when you rack focus. These older photo lenses do a great job on film cameras especially in a low budget S16 project.

Good luck.

Oliver

[Freya Black]

I plan on shooting a test. In the meantime, I just attempted a low-budget physical test described elsewhere online. I placed a piece of thick translucent scotch tape flush against the gate (where the film touches) and focused the lens on a bright subject. This essentially creates a mini-back-projection that apparently gives a more accurate idea of what is being printed on the film than what the viewfinder can provide. It's quite small though.

 

Good idea! You can also do the opposite. Get a piece of 16mm film and put it in the gate, and place a bright light behined the gate and use the angie to focus the light onto a small screen. You might be able to mess with that process to get a larger image of what vignetting there is on the screen

 

love

 

Freya

[James Wilkins]

Thanks for the tips.

[JB_Letchinger]

Thanks for the tips.

 

57mm doesn't really qualify for 'telephoto" status, James. Your going to want something longer! That lens was designed for hand held news and doc photography -- back in the 70s sometime, I bet. it was the 9.5 end that got used the most...

 

Get yourself something designed for super 16 and cut your worries down to the uncontrollables that will occur anyway!

(trust the viewfinder - btw)

there is a Zeiss 11-110 Original S16 that will give you great sharpness and shouldn't break the bank ---

 

enjoy the ride.

 

JB

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Thanks for the affirmative response. I hope that's the case. I can actually see the vignetting in the viewfinder at all focal lengths but it's way outside of the frame line approaching 57mm. I just don't know whether to trust my eye.

 

You should be referring to trusting your ground glass markings, rather than your eye.

 

& 25mm is hardly "such a wide millimeter" in 16mm or S16. Even in 35mm 1.85 it's more "on the wide side". Heck, a 50mm on a 35mm still camera gives you a wider view, an 85mm on a still camera is about the same view as a 25mm on 16.

 

If you frame for 2.35/1, you'd be able to get away with with a shorter focal length on the Angie.

[John Brawley]

Hello:

 

As I prepare for a black-and-white super 16mm shoot long in the making and short in the budget, I'd appreciate any guidance on lens concerns.

 

I will be using an Aaton LTR with free access to an Angenieux 9.5-57 (f.1.6) zoom lens.

 

 

I always think the lens is the most critical part of the equation. The angenieux was designed for std 16 so you're really going to struggle to get the lens to perform in Super 16, even at longer focal Lengths. It's pretty easy to get a Nikon mount for an LTR, giving you access to a wider ranger of more modern and cheaper glass. There are downsides there as well. The lens focuses the other way and will have a very short amount of *throw* making in shot focus pulling hard to do accurately.

 

Maybe what you could do is bite the bullet and test the Ang against a more modern Super 16 lens and see how it stacks up. It's worth the money to find out.

 

jb

[Saul Rodgar]

The quality of older Zeiss, Cooke and Angenieux lenses are individual lens case by case, often depending how old they are. Newer lenses tend to be better / more up to modern standards, of course. There is no way to just say an Ang lens won't do for this or that or viceversa.

 

Ultimately, it depends what you are going for. If an older, softer (zoom) lens possesses the quality you are looking for, then go for it. A test is definitely in order here.