Angenieux 12-120mm pricing

[Phil Rhodes]

So I have to ask, what is the fundamental difference between this $300 12-120mm f/2.2 lens and this $1500 12-120mm f/2.2 lens?

 

Just condition?

 

I wonder how well one of them would sit on an Ursa Mini in crop mode.

 

P

[Jay Young]

Stupidity is the main difference. Sellers on Ebay trying to capitalize on a fancy name so they artificially drive up prices. Have a look at Russian gear lately? Those guys are ridiculous.

 

Looks to be the same lens to me. And, as an owner of this lens, it has interesting characteristics, with a tenancy to spider fungus between the two front elements, or so I have found in my experience. It doesn't seem to effect the image all that much.

 

Furthermore, it is a front focus lens so you'll need an appropriate matte box. Some day I would love to have mine rehoused and properly cleaned, but that's more money than the lens is worth...

[Brian Drysdale]

The cheaper one seems to have the higher serial number, so may have a different coating. I don't know the changes over the lens' production run, since I changed to Zeiss zooms.

[Phil Rhodes]

I can't find the zeiss option for sale; I have no idea what they go for.

 

Or if they'd cover 2/3" video.

 

P

[Brian Drysdale]

Some examples:

 

http://www.ebay.com/bhp/zeiss-10-100

 

Like the 12-120, they cover 16mm.

[Phil Rhodes]

Some of the Zeiss seem to have some sort of modification to 12-120. I'm not sure if it's a simple bolt-on or if it's still available as either a part or a service.

 

My understanding is that all forms of 16 are larger than 2/3" video, so - hmm. I wonder how the Ursa Mini's crop mode compares.

 

P

[Brian Drysdale]

You can buy Super 16 modified 10-100 lenses, but I don't think the converters are now available, since the Super 16 market has collapsed. However, you could check here: http://www.abakus-scientific.com/Format_Converters.htm

[Satsuki Murashige]

So I have to ask, what is the fundamental difference between this $300 12-120mm f/2.2 lens and this $1500 12-120mm f/2.2 lens?

 

Just condition?

 

According to the listing, the cheaper one has fungus. It also has an Arri Bayonet mount which should be easier to adapt to PL than the c-mount on the other lens. But fungus in a lens is always a deal breaker.

[Heikki Repo]

You don't want that more expensive Angenieux unless you are going to use it with a reflex Bolex. That lens is -- at least according to the seller -- RX, so it is designed to be used with a Bolex that has a prism in front of the film.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Heikki Repo

[Satsuki Murashige]

Some of the Zeiss seem to have some sort of modification to 12-120. I'm not sure if it's a simple bolt-on or if it's still available as either a part or a service.

 

My understanding is that all forms of 16 are larger than 2/3" video, so - hmm. I wonder how the Ursa Mini's crop mode compares.

 

P

The Zeiss 12-120 is a Super16 conversion of the 10-100 T2, which was a good lens though it had an extreme amount of focus breathing and 5' close focus. It should all be one piece. It won't work on 2/3" because it was not designed with the prism block in mind. But it should have a larger image circle than the Angenieux 12-120 which is a regular 16mm lens. No idea if it actually will cover the Ursa Mini crop mode.

[Tyler Purcell]

The Zeiss 10-110 is generally converted with a 1.2x rear element made by a few vendors the most common is optex. This allows the lens to cover super 16 frame without loosing anything. The net result is a 12-120 f2.4. It's a very pretty lens, one of my favorites.

[Dom Jaeger]

Phil, I wouldn't touch either of those Angenieux listings - one is expensive and fungus ridden, the other is ridiculously expensive. The ridiculous one is from a seller who I know buys things on eBay and then tries to resell them the next week for 5 times what he paid. He also sells adapters that don't work. Avoid!

 

A better indication of value can usually be had by checking the sold listings for the same lens:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=angenieux%2012-120&LH_PrefLoc=2&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc&_trksid=p2045573.m1684

which shows a market value of about 100 to 150 pounds when they go to auction.

[Shawn Sagady]

There are two conversions of the Ziess 10-100, the Optex kit which is no longer produced but some shops still have stock, these convert to 12-120 2.4 as mentioned before. Then there are some much rarer 11-110 (2.3?) that were actually upgraded by techs at the Ziess factory, and that was an incredibly expensive upgrade compared to the optex one. The optex upgrade typically comes with a PL conversion as well. These are typically about 2k to get done in the U.S. and include recolomiation of the lens and new focus/iris/zoom marks so that its accurate again.

 

The cheap version is to use a 1.4x telephoto adapter and do the math in your head. I have an Olympus 1.4x MFT teleconverter which I use between my PL->MFT adapter and my BMPCC. About $400 to convert that way until I have the spare cash for a proper optex conversion.

[Phil Rhodes]

Five foot close focus is a bit of an issue.

 

Someone really needs to make a more modern version of this - and the world needs to realise that not everything has to be on a super-35 sensor.

[Satsuki Murashige]

Five foot close focus is a bit of an issue.

 

Someone really needs to make a more modern version of this - and the world needs to realise that not everything has to be on a super-35 sensor.

There was a macro function on the lens, but it only worked on the wide end of the lens if I recall correctly. The competing Canon S16* wide zooms 8-64 and later 7-63 focused down to around 2' and were much more useful for location shooting if you were on a single lens. I believe the Zeiss 10-100 T2 was often paired with a set of 16mm Super Speeds, so for close focus you could just switch to a prime lens.

 

*Actually, I'm not sure if the 8-64 covered S16 since I've only used it on regular 16mm, the newer 7-63 should though.

[Phil Rhodes]

The problem then is that a (say) 64mm lens really isn't long enough for running around documentary-style.

 

I'm not sure what the difference is between the Zeiss and Angenieux in this regard.

[Satsuki Murashige]

I've found that on a 16mm sized-sensor, 64mm is plenty long! Same field of view as 130mm in 35mm.

 

Canon later made a 11.5-138mm and a 10.5-168mm, but they are rather difficult to shoot doc-style handheld on the long end. The 168mm is like trying to handhold a 300mm+ on 35mm!

[Phil Rhodes]

Handheld is one thing, not stopping to change lenses is quite another. I'm used to a 6.4-128mm video lens.

[Satsuki Murashige]

I'm not sure what the difference is between the Zeiss and Angenieux in this regard.

You mean how easy they are to shoot with for doc work? I think the Angenieux is lighter. The front rotates and telescopes, the Zeiss just telescopes if I remember correctly. The Zeiss is sharper and more contrasty.

 

Angenieux also made a fast close-focusing 9.5-57, a 10-150, and a 15-150. All were better than the more common 12-120.

[Satsuki Murashige]

Handheld is one thing, not stopping to change lenses is quite another. I'm used to a 6.4-128mm video lens.

I see. I'm not sure there is anything in the 16mm zoom world with that kind of range, especially with a built-in doubler like most broadcast lenses have. Isn't there a B4 adapter for the Ursa Mini that has correcting optics built-in? That might be your best option if you absolutely need that kind of focal range.

[Satsuki Murashige]

You could possibly try one of the longer zooms with an Aspheron wide angle adapter for your extremely wide shots. It probably would not be sharp and distortion-free by modern standards though.

[Phil Rhodes]

The B4 adaptors, even the really nice ones Sony do for FZ mounts like the F5/55, are slow, heavy, bulky and fuzzy, and cost more than the most expensive Angenieux 10x12 zoom ever sold. And then you need a really pretty decent B4 lens, which is also expensive, for your slow, heavy, bulky, soft, expensive outfit.

 

In all seriousness, it's a fine solution if you already own a B4 lens. If you don't, it's a questionable approach.

 

This really is an annoying problem.

[Phil Rhodes]

... Hmmm, 10-150. I burn. I pine.

[Satsuki Murashige]

Just remembered Canon also made a 6.6-66mm near the end, never used it but it was supposed to be the bees knees. Probably still expensive and hard to find. That's the best you'll find in the S16 zoom world I think.

[Satsuki Murashige]

The 10-150 had coverage issues with Super16, so if you're thinking in that direction, I'd check that out. Really nice range though.