mark leuchter Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 This is a Canon 12-120 zoom. I don't know a thing about it. Is it a quality lens on par with the more well known Canons (i.e., the 8-64 or 7-63)? I imagine that it doesn't cover S-16, would I be right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Marks Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 This is an older generation lens designed for standard 16mm. It was often seen on CP16R cameras, and was also offered in Arri and Eclair mounts. It incorporates a special "fluorite" lens element, which I gather is some kind of low-dispersion glass, and also offered a macro focussing feature - a first for this kind of lens and a real advantage over the Angenieux 12-120 with which it was usually compared. It accepts common 72mm filters and lens accessories (or Series 9 filters via an adapter). There has been some previous discussion of this lens and its ability to cover Super-16 at certain focal lengths - you might want to do a search of this forum. I wouldn't mind having one of these for my ACL - it's supposed to be a very good lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 I have one of these for my CP-16 R/A. I compared it to the Angeniuex 12-120 that came with the camera, and the difference was very significant. It took me about 2 seconds to decide to sell the Angeniuex! This lens looks just OK wide open, but looks much better when stopped down a bit (no surprise there). Good lens, but not as sharp (or as fast!) as my Cinema Products UltraPrimes, nor my Optar Illumina prime (again, no surprise there). I've never shot with the 8-64, so I can't compare, but from what I've heard, that's a much superior piece of glass. I pretty much only use this lens if I need the longer focal lengths, or if I'm shooting "run & gun" type stuff, which is seldom. I have no idea if it covers S16. It's definitely much better looking than the Canon 12.5-75 on my Canon Scoopic M. Sharper, better contrast. MP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob spence Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 Hi I have the same lens. I had it converted to S16 and PL mount by les bosher...and it's still 12-120mm! Visually it looks quite sharp and I have just tested it on film ( actually along with my canon 8-64 ) when I get the results this week I'll let you know how it compares. I hoping and expecting the 8-64 will be much better considering the vast price difference, but it will be interesting. It's definately a much better lens than the angenieux though and I'm surprised you don't see more of them around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob spence Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 Hi there, Saw my camera and lens tests this morning. Aaton ltr 54 and acl...both rock steady gates...absolutely nothing between the two. Mk1 superspeeds nice and sharp. Canon8-64...sharp and very useful range for s16...very, very nice. Canon flourite 12-120 ...I was shocked at how good a picture you can get from a $300 zoom. Not as sharp as the 8-64 ( obviosly ) but if I hadn't viewed them together I probably wouldn't have noticed. Remember the 8-64 is 40 times more expensive. The moral to me is buy your acl, and your Canon 12-120 and you have no technical excuse not to make a movie...get your script...get your actors...and just do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jeremy edge Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 Hi there,Saw my camera and lens tests this morning. Aaton ltr 54 and acl...both rock steady gates...absolutely nothing between the two. Mk1 superspeeds nice and sharp. Canon8-64...sharp and very useful range for s16...very, very nice. Canon flourite 12-120 ...I was shocked at how good a picture you can get from a $300 zoom. Not as sharp as the 8-64 ( obviosly ) but if I hadn't viewed them together I probably wouldn't have noticed. Remember the 8-64 is 40 times more expensive. The moral to me is buy your acl, and your Canon 12-120 and you have no technical excuse not to make a movie...get your script...get your actors...and just do it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Rob, are you digitizing some of your footage? If so, could you post a frame grab comparison with one frame from the 8-64 and one from the 12-120? I would appreciate it alot. I got the word out and Im trying to find one of these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob spence Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 jeremy No as this was a test I'm not digitising anything. If you like I'll post you some frames so you can put them under a glass. Post your address as a personal email if you want to go down this route. Cheers Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 Well, now I feel even better about having gotten mine for $167.00 I haven't used it much, because I keep hearing how it's not a very good lens, but now this makes me think I'll be using it much more! No way can I afford the 8-64, so I'd love to see the comparisons as well! MP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorge Alberto de León Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I own a Canon 12.5-75mm fluorite zoom lens.Excellent sharpness and color,also astounding follow focus with macro-zoom combination.Jorge Alberto de Leon.DP-Argentina 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