Jump to content


Photo

Angenieux 12-240mm converted for 35mm use


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Medavoy

Mike Medavoy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 March 2007 - 05:33 PM

Hello!

Did anyone have experience with an Angenieux 24-480mm lens for 35mm format converted from the Angenieux 12-240mm for 16mm format?

Does it hold up for the rigours of 35mm shooting?

Thanks!

Mike
  • 0

#2 Nick Mulder

Nick Mulder
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Other
  • Auckland, New Zealand

Posted 26 March 2007 - 05:44 PM

What exactly are the "rigours of 35mm shooting" compared to 16mm ?

I don't have any experience with the lens itself but would be concerned that if it was developed for 16mm why would the makers spend the extra dollars allowing it to have the coverage of a full 35mm frame (super or otherwise) - unless it was made a dual format lens and just the mounting is modified ???

Anyhoo's if a lens can look good on 16mm then its only going to have better definition in a larger neg provided the coverage is adequate (no vignetting or softening around the corners) ...


My 'Am I smoking crack?' sensor is on about %5 here - so I'm getting prepared to be told otherwise ;)
  • 0

#3 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 26 March 2007 - 06:08 PM

What exactly are the "rigours of 35mm shooting" compared to 16mm ?

I don't have any experience with the lens itself but would be concerned that if it was developed for 16mm why would the makers spend the extra dollars allowing it to have the coverage of a full 35mm frame (super or otherwise) - unless it was made a dual format lens and just the mounting is modified ???

Anyhoo's if a lens can look good on 16mm then its only going to have better definition in a larger neg provided the coverage is adequate (no vignetting or softening around the corners) ...
My 'Am I smoking crack?' sensor is on about %5 here - so I'm getting prepared to be told otherwise ;)


Kubrick had one modifed and used it on "Barry Lyndon". It had basically a x 2 range extender fitted on the rear of the zoom lens and so became a T9.
  • 0

#4 Mike Medavoy

Mike Medavoy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 March 2007 - 07:58 PM

Oh so this was the 20x zoom on Barry Lyndon? Didn't know it was the Angenieux 12-240mm modified.

Anyone else beside Kubrick :-) used this lens? Impressions? Optical quality when used for 35mm?

How does it compare to the Angenieux 25-250mm genuine 35mm format lens? This one is pretty bad when is below T5.6 or so I would say. Sharpness etc.

Thanks.
  • 0

#5 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 27 March 2007 - 12:33 PM

Oh so this was the 20x zoom on Barry Lyndon? Didn't know it was the Angenieux 12-240mm modified.

Anyone else beside Kubrick :-) used this lens? Impressions? Optical quality when used for 35mm?


Cinema Products sold them as stock items.
  • 0

#6 Mike Medavoy

Mike Medavoy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 March 2007 - 06:18 PM

So when converted they produce good results in 35mm format, that seems to be the conclusion?
  • 0

#7 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 10 April 2007 - 03:52 PM

Sounds like it to me Mike. Come on, they can't answer *everything* for you ;-) From what they're saying it sounds as if it'll be pretty sharp, but don't expect the same performance you'd get with a native 35mm zoom. It's probably comparable to a tube or a T-mount or C-mount adapter. There's measurable loss but probably it's only noticeable when you're wide open (so don't shoot it wide open, stop down two from the maximum aperture, and meter at two stops less than (18? I never work with Ts) Remember though, that any time you slap a fillter in front of the lens, shoot the T-stop at any position other than two stops less than wide-open, or use diffusion, you're compromising quality to achieve a certain look. Remember that it's not the lens that makes the mood, it's the lighting. Fire off 100 feet though and make sure that YOU think the results are acceptable, and remember to calculate the exposure drop when you're shooting. You'd be surprised how easy taht sort of thing can be to forget if you're not careful. Same thing with switching from one stock to another with the same basic lighing and camera setup. You can burn a lot of money in film and people's time before you realize "Hehe, we just underexposed all of that film three stops!"

Regards,

~Karl Borowski
  • 0


Wooden Camera

Glidecam

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Technodolly

CineTape

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Opal

CineLab

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam