Angenieux 12-120mm pricing

[Guest Glenn Brady]

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!

 

 

 

An article about Calkövsky, "Laid off from job, mechanic turns to eBay," appeared in the North Bay Business Journal in July 2009. "Owner Rudi Calkovsky is, after all, a new expert in the field," the article reads, "and a leading supplier of Bolex cameras and Kern Paillard and Cooke lenses . . ." It's hilarious.

Edited July 4, 2016 by Glenn Brady

[Shawn Sagady]

I've also noticed the Angie lenses have a lot of "character" in the form of chromatic aberration on outer edges of the frame (less intense when zoomed in) but there still. The Ziess, even with a 1.4x adapter is still super sharp and crisp. And it does have a macro option but only usable with the lens at its widest zoom, and the zoom becomes your macro focus, so doesn't really solve the issues of close focus until you are inches away, but its a beautiful feature non the less.

 

Also correct on the Ziess telecopes but does not rotate so you can clip a matte box to it if you want to avoid rails etc. There is also a really nice hydraulic zoom dampener to let you get smoother zooms with it.

[Phil Rhodes]

I don't really think I can cope with a five-foot MOD.

 

The 15-150 seems to have a better reputation, but this Calkovsky guy seems to have decided they're worth £1500, and I've no idea what the MOD is.

 

And of course, I've no idea what the actual active sensor size is on modern cameras using this type of lens. And they'd probably be impossible to mount on the much-more-common EF Ursas (though they seem to exist in C mount, which can apparently be adapted to EF)

 

P

[Phil Rhodes]

I had the opportunity to look at some of the HD remasters of Next Generation recently, and I was struck by how - er - to be nice, how quickly-shot it looked. Modern TV series achieve far more. I don't remember it looking that basic, and I'm not just talking about production design - there are conversations where the overs really don't match, where horribly wide lenses are used far too close to the subject, and other problems that the rose-tinted spectacles of time have erased from my childhood memories of it. I knew at the time it looked soft, and that there were very, very strange motion problems because I was watching a PAL standards-converted 3:2 pulldown NTSC, but I don't remember it looking that rough.

 

As to the writing, it was extremely uneven. Even as a kid, I found it hard to marry the deadly-serious approach of Stewart as Picard with the latest ridiculous-looking bumpy forehead of the week in a spandex outfit. It was always better when it pandered less to the space opera audience. I liked Firefly for its avoidance of aliens. They aren't required. You can do without. I'm waiting for a sci-fi TV series much more in the Aliens universe. Less chest bursters, more identifiable blue-collar characters.

 

As to Trek, the shark was jumped more than once.

 

[Dom Jaeger]

I don't really think I can cope with a five-foot MOD.

 

The 15-150 seems to have a better reputation, but this Calkovsky guy seems to have decided they're worth £1500, and I've no idea what the MOD is.

 

And of course, I've no idea what the actual active sensor size is on modern cameras using this type of lens. And they'd probably be impossible to mount on the much-more-common EF Ursas (though they seem to exist in C mount, which can apparently be adapted to EF)

 

P

 

 

The 15-150 has a minimum of about 5 feet too, from memory.

 

You need to keep an eye out for auctions and avoid the inflated buy-it-now listings. Sometimes it's just a matter of waiting a while til one shows up.

 

Why can't you find out the active sensor size of modern cameras, aren't the specs available? I just did a 5 minute google search and some BM forum users mentioned that the Ursa Mini in 2K mode should be able to use S16 lenses. There was mention of a horizontal dimension of 11.26mm, which would need an image circle of about 13mm to cover a 16:9 frame. That's under Super 16, only slightly larger than standard 16, so if those numbers are right, some of those older 16mm zooms might even cover the 2K crop through most if not all of their range.

[Satsuki Murashige]

 

Lol, ok. :) Some things really should stay buried in the sands of time forever...

[Don Norberto]

Hi, just read the post and I'm not sure if your talking about Angenieux and bmpcc here...so, if my opinion is not helpful, just skip it.

 

I'm coming from 16 and 35 film in the 70s and 80s and I've tested hindreds of lenses to achieve my taste in digital cinema. I also knoe Cal personally btw. He's a good guy. To make it short: I decided that the Angenieux Zoom 10x12 is MY choice to shoot with when I go with the pocket. It is perfect with that cam. When I shoot Red and Arri, or even the Ursa 4k its useless. I've uploaded some tests to vimeo,mfeel free to leave your comments, feedback apreciated. And as always: It is a matter of taste. It's just my experiance when it comes to Angi and bmpcc compared to any other lense, including the Sigmas, Canons,mZeiss and whatsoever. I'm talking about Zoom only. Cheers

https://vimeo.com/162997042

[Phil Rhodes]

Interesting to see, thanks. What makes it useless on the Ursa 4K? Naturally it won't cover the full sensor, but are there game-ending coverage issues in crop mode too, or is it an aesthetic consideration that makes you dislike it?

 

P

[Don Norberto]

ahh, yes your right, forgot to say it's aesteticwise when trying to achieve the socalled filmic look. With the 4k it's hard when shooting vintages almost too hard and the raw footage shot with modern glass will give you (me) a bigger chance in post. With the pocket (in my trsts only with the pocket) it's so very easy and beautiful using some of the old cine c mounts. Just try and compare. It's just amazing how big this difference is. Btw I am talking about big screen. I'm not expert for online video and all these theoretical and practical compression issues etc. Maybe no prob for web didtribution. cheers

[Peter Welander]

It seems that the ubiquitous Angenieux 12-120 has some variants. I've ended up with three and I'm curious what their chronological dates are, and which version might be considered the most desirable.

 

Two appear to be the same version. They are characterized as 1:2.2 and have dual aperture scales on opposite sides of the ring. The F scale has white characters and begins at 2.2. The T scale has red characters and starts at 2.5. (At least I assume those are the relevant scales, they aren't marked.)

 

The third is marked 1:2-2.2 and has a single T aperture scale (so marked) beginning at 2.1. This one looks newest, but it could simply be worn less. I'll probably do some shooting tests, but getting enough footage under various conditions to tell anything will be a challenge.

 

I remember seeing a discussion of this venerable optic on some forum, but now I can't find it.

 

Who knows, perhaps one of these was used to film Star Trek TNG... Except wasn't it shot with Panavision cameras?

 

Thanks.

[Don Norberto]

Hi,

I'm looking forward to your tests. Would it be possible for you to post a pic of the second variation of the lense (1:2). I have three different 10x12B but this one I don't know. Even with my lenses, that only differ in the mount, and therefore in the adapters (Arriflex, Cameflec and c mount adapted to mft in my case) the quality of footage is different. These are vintage glasses we're talking about and each of them has it's own character. Thank you, cheers

 

BTW We had a cinema look test some weeks ago and Angenieux in Paris had sent us some feedback on our test clips shown in a cinema in an 2.3:1 aspect ratio. They were totally surprised and excited about the results produced by their oldschool glasses (their words). The didn't expect the look to be so beautiful and gave congrats. That meant a lot to me and my team who aleays aimes for a nice cinematic look with an organic 70s feel, without trying hard in faking it in post.

[Mark Dunn]

 

Who knows, perhaps one of these was used to film Star Trek TNG... Except wasn't it shot with Panavision cameras?

 

Thanks.

And in 35. The 12-120 is for 16mm.

[Don Norberto]

it's also ok on S16 somehow...I've used them for 16 film 35 years ago and now with bmpcc :-)

[Peter Welander]

And in 35. The 12-120 is for 16mm.

 

Normally you're correct, but on the Enterprise, there are spacial anomalies caused by the warp field that cause light rays to bend differently. Panavision cameras are particularly susceptible to these effects which allow the 12-120 to cover a conventional 35 mm frame.

[Dom Jaeger]

It seems that the ubiquitous Angenieux 12-120 has some variants. I've ended up with three and I'm curious what their chronological dates are, and which version might be considered the most desirable.

 

Two appear to be the same version. They are characterized as 1:2.2 and have dual aperture scales on opposite sides of the ring. The F scale has white characters and begins at 2.2. The T scale has red characters and starts at 2.5. (At least I assume those are the relevant scales, they aren't marked.)

 

The third is marked 1:2-2.2 and has a single T aperture scale (so marked) beginning at 2.1. This one looks newest, but it could simply be worn less. I'll probably do some shooting tests, but getting enough footage under various conditions to tell anything will be a challenge.

 

I remember seeing a discussion of this venerable optic on some forum, but now I can't find it.

 

Who knows, perhaps one of these was used to film Star Trek TNG... Except wasn't it shot with Panavision cameras?

 

Thanks.

The serial numbers will give you a sense of chronology, I believe they go from something like 10xxxxx from the early 60s to 14xxxxx in the 80s.

 

There were versions with reflex "dogleg" viewfinders, Bolex Rx compensation, auto iris attachments, Arri 16BL blimps, zoom winders, and every mount under the sun.

 

The f/2-2.2 version was the last, I think, with HEC (High Efficiency Coating) that gave it better contrast and light transmission. They're the ones to get, but there's little indication on the lens itself, except for serial numbers in the 14xxxxx range and the faster aperture (and more colours reflected from the front element). Many sellers don't know the difference, I saw one go for $50 recently.

[Peter Welander]

Yes, I think you have it. The 1:2.2 has an 11xxxxx serial number, and the 1:2-2.2 is 14xxxxx. I hadn't noticed a difference in the coating immediately, but upon closer examination, on the older one I see the normal violet and tan reflections. On the newer one I can also see the bright green that I associate with multi-coatings from that era.

 

Both lenses are Arri bayonet, by the way. Externally there are hardly any other differences. I'll see about trying to figure out how to get some directly comparable pictures. Maybe on a M4/3 camera...

 

Generally Zeiss zooms seem to be held in higher regard. Is the 10-100 2.8 considered a better performer overall? Particularly in the T* version?

[Phil Rhodes]

My interest is in how they'd fare on something like an Ursa Mini in crop mode.

[Jay Young]

I have the Angenieux 10-150mm, and the Russian 16OPF 12-120mm zooms.

 

In truth my Russian lens is in far better condition than the French, but both show about equal amounts of vignetting in the middle of the zoom range; viz. from about 30mm through 70mm on close focus only.

Focused to infinity, it coveres a micro 4/3's sensor of my Blackmagic Pocket camera excellently.

 

The image circle may not be large enough for the URSA.

[Dom Jaeger]

There's surprisingly little online about using standard 16mm zooms with the Ursa Mini in crop mode, but from what I can gather, the 2K 16:9 window is 11.26 x 6.34mm, which needs an image circle of about 12.9mm diameter.

 

Since standard 16 needs an image circle diameter of about 12.8mm, I imagine most 16mm zooms and lenses should work just fine for 2K. I haven't measured the exact image circle range of a 12-120, but might do so next time I have a spare moment at work.

[Don Norberto]

They do work with the Alexa. But as I've mentioned a while ago, to me, it looks most organic with the bmpcc, surprisingly. We've also tested them on Red. Forgot the model but it worked. It just looked crappy.