Jump to content


Photo

ANGENIEUX 9.5-57MM ZOOM LENS F1.6


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Wiki Park

Wiki Park
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Student

Posted 19 June 2011 - 07:51 PM

I found this listing on Ebay

http://cgi.ebay.com/...3#ht_500wt_1156

I currently have a Ziess 10-100 T3 T* coated lens I use on my Arri SR-1. How does this Angenieux lens compare to the ziess? It is faster so would it be wrong to assume that the Ang would perform better? Any comparative input on the two would be much appreciated.
  • 0

#2 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 20 June 2011 - 01:55 AM

I used that zoom lens for documentary film about 20 years ago it was good for low light handheld work .
  • 0

#3 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5069 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 20 June 2011 - 02:34 AM

The zoom operates in the opposite direction to the Zeiss T3, which can be a bit confusing when switching lenses.
  • 0

#4 Wiki Park

Wiki Park
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Student

Posted 20 June 2011 - 07:38 AM

What about the image quality of the two?
  • 0

#5 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5069 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 21 June 2011 - 02:27 AM

What about the image quality of the two?


I haven't used this particular Angenieux, but any I've used and seen of this period tend to have less contrast than the Zeiss.
  • 0

#6 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1594 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 21 June 2011 - 02:43 AM

What about the image quality of the two?


On a projection collimator they are pretty similar - quite sharp but a bit hazy wide open, some drop off at the edges. Better contrast with the Zeiss. Apart from its speed, the advantage to the Angenieux is that it barely breathes (as opposed to the Zeiss which breathes a lot), and is about half the weight. It also has a minimum focus of 2 feet.

The 9.5-57 is f1.6 (T1.8) at the wide end but slows through the range to f2.2 at 57mm.

It's worth remembering that with older lenses the image quality is also dependent on the state they're in. With zooms in particular there are more things to go wrong. Those Zeiss zooms are pretty robust and seem to weather the years fairly well, but the Angenieux is a bit more delicate.
  • 0

#7 Tom McDonald

Tom McDonald

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Other
  • Tennessee

Posted 26 June 2011 - 11:45 AM

I used this lens in film school. It is great in cramped quarters being so wide that no other lens we had could compete with it.

The key to sharpness in 16mm shooting where this lens is used is:

1- In Film: Measure the focus distance from the camera film plane (marked on the side of the camera) to the actor's eyes. Set the distance by looking at the lens distance scale NOT through the camera focus system. Since the scale varies in how much turn is like 1' you have to study it carefully to hit the right position for the focus distance that you measured.

Use a cloth measuring tape if you can since it seems safer to the actor. Put some gaffer tape on the metal end to soften it. Don't put the end near their eyes instead move it out to the side of their head or in a place maybe just in front of their shoulder in line with the eyes. You can move fast now and then but accelerating and decelerating your body a lot scares some people though I love to jaunt around the set this way but it attracts too much attention.

If you have a 2nd assistant camera person to help you then have them hold the measuring tape "end" at the camera and you go out into the picture field area by the actor and pull the tape to read the distance at the most important place to be in focus which is usually the actor's eyes. Optionally you can invest in a laser distance finder but it may not be as accurate as a measuring tape and it will scare the hell out of the actor as you reflect it off their body near their eyes! Do you really think there is a totally safe laser - should they sell them - yes - but I still would not point it near someones eye. Old ways sometimes are optimized over the various parameters of the motion picture set like quality, actor acceptance, quiet-&-efficient on the set, etc.

In film, if you use the camera viewing system to set the focus you will never know if it is right since the viewing system maybe not be set correctly especially with rental and school cameras. That is if your eye sees it in focus on the ground glass it may not be focused at the film plane inside the camera. The two distances are different and they have to be carefully set by the camera tech before it leaves the rental house. This is one of the reasons camera people like to own their own camera.

I did this above process on a student advertisement project. When we projected it in a movie theater probably 18' tall I had the sharpest negative by far of 30 projects projected in 16mm film. The rest of the school was being "cool" and "stud-ly" focusing by eye and compared to mine they were all "typical soft 16mm". You will be shocked at the resolution of 16mm film if the film projector the and lab transfer to release print are done correctly. The moral of the story is that correctly focused film of all formats is stunningly sharp and looks cooler than video's mechanical look.

The full chain of creation must be maintained: LIGHTING (more light more lines of sharpness) - FOCUS (by measured distance and barrel set) - DEVELOPMENT (correctly) - TRANSFER (from camera negative to release print by contact printing, this is the normal way and we always specified wet transfer that tends to cover scratches) - Projection (must be focused at the beginning of the projection session exactly and the projector's light bulb must be turned up to correct brightness to give full foot candles on the screen to get the full resolution on the film). Yes you count on other people all along the chain. If you drink coffee your eyes will focus differently and maybe not as well when you don't or if you drink a glass of wine before watching then your eye focuses different also - study these to remember how you see under each influence.

Video is not better since the video file formats used in theater only have 1/4 to 1/3 the resolution of film. Film project with good lenses, not the junk no name lenses used by some theaters, hands down beats video. This is not to mention loss of color range and fidelity of video... oops they call it digital now... guess I forgot.


2- Use the cinematography manual to find the depth of field for the distance you are shooting at. Notice the point of best focus, behind that point, and in front of that point distances and use these to creatively effect the use of focus.

There were set pictures and in every one I was pictured looking down at the lens barrel, into the cinematographers manual, or pulling measuring tape. It worked I was king for a day during the projection session - the best 1st assistant cameraman ever... ra ra...

As you can tell I love the lens.

Edited by Tom McDonald, 26 June 2011 - 11:47 AM.

  • 0

#8 Bert Smith

Bert Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Director

Posted 19 February 2012 - 06:44 AM

One incredibly important bit of info left out of the last post, and one you should all consider, is that focusing by tape measure is indeed the preferred method....IF your lenses are properly collimated. You can almost be assured that any used older camera system/lens you will buy will not recently have been serviced to allow for focusing by tape. And if you try, your chances of getting a sharp image will have the same Las Vegas odds that you'd have trusting the viewfinder.

Neither eye (viewfinder) or tape-measure focus are to be trusted without having your camera serviced first, and then running tests.

Not a single camera system we've ever owned had been anywhere near "production ready" when we bought them, and most probably neither will yours. Every one of them needed adjustment to the lens, the mount, and then the viewfinder system to assure that we could trust the footage counter on the lens, and the image in the viewfinder. In 16mm, it only takes variances of fractions of a millimeter to turn what might have been a brilliantly sharp image, into a nice soft student-grade bit of footage.

Test test test. Then test some more.

The simplest and most telling test, is to buy/download some large/small focus stars. Then shoot a test at various distances. Lock down the camera, and then then focus the image. While shooting, defocus slowly towards infinity, then go back past your original focus point towards close-focus, then slowly end back at your original point which you assumed to be correct focus. Evaluate the test. Pretty simple.

If you dont run tests prior to production, you will have no one to blame but yourself if there are focus/exposure problems in your footage.
  • 0

#9 Jean-Louis Seguin

Jean-Louis Seguin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts
  • Other
  • Montreal, Canada

Posted 19 February 2012 - 09:12 AM

I definitely second what Bert just said.

Jean-Louis
  • 0


Ritter Battery

CineLab

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

CineLab

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

CineTape

Glidecam

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC