Jump to content


Photo

As a rule of thumb, Kinoptik or Angenieux?


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Nick Norton

Nick Norton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 248 posts
  • Student
  • Chicago

Posted 17 August 2008 - 10:46 AM

Looking at wide angle lenses, and was curious what company typically made "better" lenses.


I was specifically looking at a:
Kinoptik 5.7mm f1.8 cameflex mount lens VS.
Angenieux 5.9mm f1.8 cameflex mount lens

The only real difference i see is the Kinoptik being able to accept 2x2 filters, but what i am really concerned with is image quality. Is there a general rule when it comes to the quality of lens manufacturers? Is this even possible?

And i hate to admit it, but how the hell do you pronounce Angenieux? :blink:


-nicholas
  • 0

#2 David Auner aac

David Auner aac
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 August 2008 - 10:53 AM

The only real difference i see is the Kinoptik being able to accept 2x2 filters, but what i am really concerned with is image quality. Is there a general rule when it comes to the quality of lens manufacturers? Is this even possible?

And i hate to admit it, but how the hell do you pronounce Angenieux? :blink:


The Kinoptik will cover S16, the Angie won't. Well as for pronunciation, I can't really tell you how. My skills in phonetic script are way too crude. Try uh-shen-iyew...

Cheers, Dave
  • 0

#3 Tom Hepburn

Tom Hepburn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 341 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago-land

Posted 17 August 2008 - 11:38 AM

Being a Yankee form the Midwest, I go with:

awn -gen - eew

Tom
  • 0

#4 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 17 August 2008 - 12:12 PM

Being a Yankee form the Midwest, I go with:

awn -gen - eew

Tom



I go with Angie-knew. But awn-gen-eew is good too. One can call it Angie, too. :P

Dave is right about the Kinoptik. That said I love Angie zooms myself. I have 7 at last count, and my fave is the one Nick's camera came with, the 10-150mm T2.2, though it doesn't cover S16 in its entire range.

In my experience most if not all of the footage shot with clean, scuff and fungus free Kinoptik and Angenieux lenses will cut very well if you mix and match, though.

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 17 August 2008 - 12:15 PM.

  • 0

#5 David Auner aac

David Auner aac
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 August 2008 - 12:47 PM

Dave is right about the Kinoptik. That said I love Angie zooms myself. I have 7 at last count, and my fave is the one Nick's camera came with, the 10-150mm T2.2, though it doesn't cover S16 in its entire range.


Hi Saul,

out of curiosity. Do you have 9.5-95/2.2 as well? I have recently tested one on my Bolex Rex-5 and was truly shocked at how badly it actually performed...

Cheers, Dave

Edited by David Auner, 17 August 2008 - 12:47 PM.

  • 0

#6 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 17 August 2008 - 04:44 PM

Looking at wide angle lenses, and was curious what company typically made "better" lenses.


I was specifically looking at a:
Kinoptik 5.7mm f1.8 cameflex mount lens VS.
Angenieux 5.9mm f1.8 cameflex mount lens

The only real difference i see is the Kinoptik being able to accept 2x2 filters, but what i am really concerned with is image quality. Is there a general rule when it comes to the quality of lens manufacturers? Is this even possible?

And i hate to admit it, but how the hell do you pronounce Angenieux? :blink:


-nicholas


"aah je new" as in a young leading lady
  • 0

#7 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 17 August 2008 - 05:11 PM

Hi Saul,

out of curiosity. Do you have 9.5-95/2.2 as well? I have recently tested one on my Bolex Rex-5 and was truly shocked at how badly it actually performed...

Cheers, Dave


Dave:

No, I don't have that lens. I always managed to avoid it, intuitively, since I really didn't know much about it. But I later heard people disliked them -nothing specific really- and I was glad I avoided it. What did you dislike about it?

S
  • 0

#8 Nick Norton

Nick Norton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 248 posts
  • Student
  • Chicago

Posted 17 August 2008 - 06:55 PM

So does anyone have any knowledge concerning my main question which was if there was a general consensus of lens manufacturers being good/bad/better/worse? Especially between Kinoptik and Angenieux?



-nicholas
  • 0

#9 Justin Lovell

Justin Lovell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 262 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Toronto

Posted 17 August 2008 - 08:30 PM

(-)Kinoptik can be hard to see through when stopped down (closing the iris down).
(+)Angenieux does not get as dark when stopped down.
--referring to through the viewfinder- not on the film.

(-)Kinoptik is heavier and a larger lens- if that matters.

(+)Angenieux is usable as a super 16 lens. Contrary to what everyone says. It will vignette at certain F-stops. If you are printing to 35mm this can be an issue. If you are doing a transfer to digital, you can crop in slightly and eliminate the vignette.

(+)Also if you get a C-mount lens, it can be 'unthreaded' slightly from the camera body to allow you to focus the lens into macro.
I do this with my ang 5.9 (cmount) but cannot do this with my kinoptik 5.7 (camflex/eclair mount).

Footage shot with the bolex and a c-mount ang. 5.9 - showing full frame:

http://framediscreet...are-bboyin.html
http://framediscreet...super-16mm.html

More stuff interspersed thoughout the blog site as well..

I've not had a chance to do a side by side comparison, though one thing that is very crucial is that you have the lens colliminated to your camera, as it is a fixed focus lens. My Kinoptik was waaay off and had to get it properly setup for my eclair. Jean-Louis helped me out with getting the ang. setup properly for my super 16 bolex.

hope that helps!
  • 0

#10 David Auner aac

David Auner aac
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 18 August 2008 - 01:52 AM

No, I don't have that lens. I always managed to avoid it, intuitively, since I really didn't know much about it. But I later heard people disliked them -nothing specific really- and I was glad I avoided it. What did you dislike about it?


Well, it featured various kinds of distortion at different focal lengths and the lack of corner sharpness was obvious even when stopped down. Will post a couple of stills when I get around to it.

Cheers, Dave
  • 0


Opal

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

CineLab

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

CineLab

The Slider

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Visual Products

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS