Dan Laporte

Hi Dan,

 

Hard question to answer because both lenses are older types that 1) may have had a rougher 'personal' history and 2) were made over a long period of time with improving visual qualities. This latter point is particularly true of the 12-120, which was produced from the mid 50's to the mid 80's (!). A late 12-120/2.2 (look for serials beg. with 13xxxxx or better 14xxxxx) can be quite a decent lens to shoot with, and if it's a 12-120/2-2.2 version, it's even better.

As for the 15-300 model, it is quite rare indeed. It does cover the S-16 frame, but of course is doesn't go as wide as the 12-120. Also, I don't believe it's a 35mm. lens, but rather one that was designed for the 1-inch pick up tubes of 70's video cameras (thus the S-16 coverage). As the 12-120 (type 10 x 12) had a 20x version (12-240), so did the 15-150, and that is your 20x15 lens. I'm not sure picture quality was that great to begin with, since those early video cameras were quite dismal in resolution. Also, Angénieux went for the wow effect of a 20x. lens, which was an engineering feat at the time. So range probably comes at the expense of some quality, in that case -- not to mention, of course, the slowish aperture.

Personally, I'd lean towards the 12-120, if it's a late s/n, especially if weight/bulk is an issue.

But again, these are general considerations. The most important factors would be the actual age of the lens and how it has been treated, serviced, etc. since leaving the assembly line.

Cheers,

B.

Thanks B.,

I appreciate the time you took to write your response. If you're up for it, here's a similar question for you. What are your thoughts on the 25-250mm vs the 12-120mm with regards to image quality (assuming similar ages and condition of the lenses) - keeping in mind that I'll be covering the wider shots with yet another angie - the 17.5-70mm, so I'll basically just be using it for shots between 70-100mm.

Best,

Dan

Hi All,

I have a lens question that I'm hoping someone can answer. I have the opportunity to shoot with an angenieux 12-120mm zoom (which vignettes at around 25mm, but appears to cover from 25-120mm reasonably well) and an older angenieux f 3.2 15-300mm lens. Considering that most of the scenes I want to shoot will be between 30mm & 100mm, I'm wondering which is the better lens to go with. I'm leaning towards the 15-300mm, because it was made for 35mm cameras, but I don't know much about this lens so I'm a bit wary. I can't seem to find much info on it online.

Does anyone out there have experience with this lens? If so, what would you recommend? Any general thoughts or opinions on this lens are also welcome, as I might have the opportunity to buy it after the shoot.

Your input is appreciated.

Dan

The 25 - 250 is basically a scaled up 12 - 120, or vice versa. They were made in the same era, just for 35, rather than 16. If you can find a decent 25 - 250 that the early Red adopters haven't yet snapped up, you're in luck. You'll need other lenses for the wide end, and definitely put that third hole farther forward on the CIFIX. The 25 - 250 is way heavier than anything the NPR was originally designed for.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Thanks J.S.,

Any thoughts on what would be a good price for one of these angie's in near mint condition (or as close as you can get with a 20-30yr lens). Also, would you recommend a support bar for it. I think it weighs in at about 5lbs and comes with a pl mount.

Dan

Thanks for the input everyone! It's hugely appreciated. I'll check with the local film board where I rent some of my equipment and see if there are other tripods that compatible. It probably is the 3/8-16, it just looks deceptively large to me.

Apropos of nothing... When the Super 16 conversion was done, it was modified to a fixed pl mount, but the lens is less than stellar (it's the angenieux 12-120mm.. doesn't cover super 16 at the wide end and has some nicks in the lens). I'm thinkning on getting two new lenses, one of the 17.5-70mm angie's that are floating around out there, and maybe this one off ebay. I've heard consistently good things about the 17.5-70mm lens, but was wondering what you guys thought of the older 25-250mm angenieux lenses? I think these two angie's had been manufactured around the same time, so I'm hoping they'd produce a simialr look if I wanted to use them on the same shoot.

Has anyone on the board used these older angie's. If so, what do you think?

Best,

Dan

Hi Dan, Never heard of anything other than either 1/4 32 or 3/8 16. Sometimes there are two thread sizes on the motor adaptor base. Another possibility would be to change the tripod male threaded unit completely to a 3/8 16 threads per inch one.

Thanks for getting back to me Bernie. Your name had actually come up a number of times while I was researching NPRs prior to buying mine. Given your familiarity with Eclairs, maybe a better question for you would be what is typically found on the bottom of the Beala motors and is there an adapter or something I can use to mount this to a run-of-the-mill tripod?

Your help and advice is appreciated.

Hi All,

Just bought a Eclair NPR converted to Super16 in beautiful condition. Haven't worked with film since dropping out of film school many years ago, so I'm pretty excited to get started again. I have a quick question though about mounting my camera to a tripod. There is what appears to be a hole in the base of the motor to mount the Eclair to a tripod, but it's considerably larger than the screws on the tripod mount I have. Is there an adapter or something that I can use to mount an older film camera to modern tripod? I'm sure there's an easy fix, I just haven't found anything online that I can use. I've seen adapters for 3/8" to 1/4" screws, but mine looks wider than just 1/4".

Any help is appreciated.

Best,

Dan Laporte