Jump to content


Photo

Old School Angenieux 25-250


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Joe Taylor

Joe Taylor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 January 2009 - 11:20 AM

I have an opportunity to buy an older Angenieux 25-250 (10 x 25 T2.) This is not the Angenieux 25-250 HR but a much smaller and older unit. Everything about the lens is tip-top with pristine glass.

Can anybody tell me anything about this lens or how it would behave on a RED ONE?
  • 0

#2 Charlie Peich

Charlie Peich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Chicago

Posted 14 January 2009 - 12:04 PM

I have an opportunity to buy an older Angenieux 25-250 (10 x 25 T2.) This is not the Angenieux 25-250 HR but a much smaller and older unit.

Joe,

The older/smaller 25-250 was a f/3.2 T3.9, not T2.
  • 0

#3 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 14 January 2009 - 12:10 PM

Joe,

The older/smaller 25-250 was a f/3.2 T3.9, not T2.


Hi.

I would run away and let the lens RIP, unless you want to work around T8. It should be very very cheap.

Stephen
  • 0

#4 Joe Taylor

Joe Taylor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 January 2009 - 10:13 PM

It is indeed 3.9. T2 is the model number, as in "Type 2."

And the lens is cheap, as in free. It is a gift.
  • 0

#5 Saul Rodgar

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

Posted 15 January 2009 - 03:31 AM

I know someone who has one of those. Not the sharpest or best Angie glass there is. But for RED, it could look really nice, you never know. And for free . . .
  • 0

#6 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 January 2009 - 04:34 PM

Well, being free you might as well take it and see how it does. You might find it nice as a special effect lens or something. They are terribly soft for general use, though.
  • 0

#7 andres victorero

andres victorero
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Spain

Posted 26 January 2009 - 05:10 AM

I think that is a good lens for "antique look" maybe you don´t need any diffuser filter ;)
Is the lens of some ext shots of Barry Lyndon
  • 0

#8 Boris Belay

Boris Belay
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 210 posts
  • Other
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 23 February 2009 - 07:13 PM

I think that is a good lens for "antique look" maybe you don´t need any diffuser filter ;)
Is the lens of some ext shots of Barry Lyndon

IS the lens for many, many films made throughout the 70's ! Come on, guys, this is a classic lens -- definitely not as sharp as something made recently and costing many, many thousand $, but I don't think that was the question, was it ?

A better approach, in my opinion, is how old is the lens (but for that, you have to have done a bit of research in these old and dusty door-stoppers they called Professional Motion Cinematography Equipment back in the last glacial age of cinema, you know, 30 years ago). Since that lens was such a classic, it was made over a couple of decades, and Angénieux glass and mechanics did improve over the period, so a later one is probably better. Here is a rough idea of dates by serial # that I've come up with so far : serials in the 120's go back to the very early 70's, the 130's are mid-70's, and 140's are late 70's or early 80's. This applies to all Angenieux lenses, no matter the type, format, etc.

So if it's in good shape and within the later range of these serials, it's probably decent and worth the price (!), and if you're after a film-look on your HD set-up, you'll probably be happy that this lens does not resolve as well as Angé's new HD lenses. Give it try, and if you're not happy with it, send me a personal message and I'll get it off of your hands !

Enjoy your shoots and stay away from the scarecrows ;-)
  • 1

#9 Michael Panfeld

Michael Panfeld
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts
  • Producer

Posted 24 February 2009 - 06:12 PM

Someone did a test on the RED and posted over at reduser. It looked very very good. Nice creamy organic look. Its the second one on this page: http://www.bealecorner.org/red/

Oh and thanks for the info on the serial numbers.
  • 0

#10 Michael Panfeld

Michael Panfeld
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts
  • Producer

Posted 25 February 2009 - 03:32 PM

I've got a question: If you had to choose between an old school Angie 25-250 (say with a serial # in the 120s) and an old school Cooke 25-250 (T4.0, i.e., the MkI edition), which I believe would put these lenses at a similar vintage, which one would you prefer? This would be for use on a Red or similar camera.

And thanks, yes I know that newer versions are much sharper, keep dust out better, yadda yadda.

Thanks in advance.
  • 0

#11 rob spence

rob spence
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 409 posts
  • Other
  • Beaconsfield

Posted 05 March 2009 - 08:04 AM

I've seen the mk2 cooke zoom 25-250 on a red and it looked fantastic...much nicer image than the red zoom ...which looks too 'electronic' to me
  • 0


Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Technodolly

Glidecam

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Opal

Glidecam

Technodolly

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Willys Widgets