I wonder how well one of them would sit on an Ursa Mini in crop mode.
Jump to content
Angenieux 12-120mm pricing
33 replies to this topic
Posted 03 July 2016 - 06:38 AM
Stupidity is the main difference. Sellers on Ebay trying to capitalize on a fancy name so they artificially drive up prices. Have a look at Russian gear lately? Those guys are ridiculous.
Looks to be the same lens to me. And, as an owner of this lens, it has interesting characteristics, with a tenancy to spider fungus between the two front elements, or so I have found in my experience. It doesn't seem to effect the image all that much.
Furthermore, it is a front focus lens so you'll need an appropriate matte box. Some day I would love to have mine rehoused and properly cleaned, but that's more money than the lens is worth...
Posted 03 July 2016 - 06:46 AM
The cheaper one seems to have the higher serial number, so may have a different coating. I don't know the changes over the lens' production run, since I changed to Zeiss zooms.
Posted 03 July 2016 - 08:56 AM
I can't find the zeiss option for sale; I have no idea what they go for.
Or if they'd cover 2/3" video.
Posted 03 July 2016 - 10:44 AM
Some of the Zeiss seem to have some sort of modification to 12-120. I'm not sure if it's a simple bolt-on or if it's still available as either a part or a service.
My understanding is that all forms of 16 are larger than 2/3" video, so - hmm. I wonder how the Ursa Mini's crop mode compares.
Posted 03 July 2016 - 01:31 PM
According to the listing, the cheaper one has fungus. It also has an Arri Bayonet mount which should be easier to adapt to PL than the c-mount on the other lens. But fungus in a lens is always a deal breaker.
Posted 03 July 2016 - 01:36 PM
You don't want that more expensive Angenieux unless you are going to use it with a reflex Bolex. That lens is -- at least according to the seller -- RX, so it is designed to be used with a Bolex that has a prism in front of the film.
Edited by Heikki Repo, 03 July 2016 - 01:39 PM.
Posted 03 July 2016 - 01:38 PM
The Zeiss 12-120 is a Super16 conversion of the 10-100 T2, which was a good lens though it had an extreme amount of focus breathing and 5' close focus. It should all be one piece. It won't work on 2/3" because it was not designed with the prism block in mind. But it should have a larger image circle than the Angenieux 12-120 which is a regular 16mm lens. No idea if it actually will cover the Ursa Mini crop mode.
Posted 03 July 2016 - 01:39 PM
The Zeiss 10-110 is generally converted with a 1.2x rear element made by a few vendors the most common is optex. This allows the lens to cover super 16 frame without loosing anything. The net result is a 12-120 f2.4. It's a very pretty lens, one of my favorites.
Posted 03 July 2016 - 07:57 PM
Phil, I wouldn't touch either of those Angenieux listings - one is expensive and fungus ridden, the other is ridiculously expensive. The ridiculous one is from a seller who I know buys things on eBay and then tries to resell them the next week for 5 times what he paid. He also sells adapters that don't work. Avoid!
A better indication of value can usually be had by checking the sold listings for the same lens:
which shows a market value of about 100 to 150 pounds when they go to auction.
Posted 03 July 2016 - 09:32 PM
There are two conversions of the Ziess 10-100, the Optex kit which is no longer produced but some shops still have stock, these convert to 12-120 2.4 as mentioned before. Then there are some much rarer 11-110 (2.3?) that were actually upgraded by techs at the Ziess factory, and that was an incredibly expensive upgrade compared to the optex one. The optex upgrade typically comes with a PL conversion as well. These are typically about 2k to get done in the U.S. and include recolomiation of the lens and new focus/iris/zoom marks so that its accurate again.
The cheap version is to use a 1.4x telephoto adapter and do the math in your head. I have an Olympus 1.4x MFT teleconverter which I use between my PL->MFT adapter and my BMPCC. About $400 to convert that way until I have the spare cash for a proper optex conversion.
Posted 04 July 2016 - 03:54 AM
Five foot close focus is a bit of an issue.
Someone really needs to make a more modern version of this - and the world needs to realise that not everything has to be on a super-35 sensor.
Posted 04 July 2016 - 04:45 AM
There was a macro function on the lens, but it only worked on the wide end of the lens if I recall correctly. The competing Canon S16* wide zooms 8-64 and later 7-63 focused down to around 2' and were much more useful for location shooting if you were on a single lens. I believe the Zeiss 10-100 T2 was often paired with a set of 16mm Super Speeds, so for close focus you could just switch to a prime lens.
*Actually, I'm not sure if the 8-64 covered S16 since I've only used it on regular 16mm, the newer 7-63 should though.
Posted 04 July 2016 - 04:56 AM
The problem then is that a (say) 64mm lens really isn't long enough for running around documentary-style.
I'm not sure what the difference is between the Zeiss and Angenieux in this regard.
Posted 04 July 2016 - 05:23 AM
I've found that on a 16mm sized-sensor, 64mm is plenty long! Same field of view as 130mm in 35mm.
Canon later made a 11.5-138mm and a 10.5-168mm, but they are rather difficult to shoot doc-style handheld on the long end. The 168mm is like trying to handhold a 300mm+ on 35mm!
Posted 04 July 2016 - 05:26 AM
Handheld is one thing, not stopping to change lenses is quite another. I'm used to a 6.4-128mm video lens.
Posted 04 July 2016 - 05:29 AM
You mean how easy they are to shoot with for doc work? I think the Angenieux is lighter. The front rotates and telescopes, the Zeiss just telescopes if I remember correctly. The Zeiss is sharper and more contrasty.
Angenieux also made a fast close-focusing 9.5-57, a 10-150, and a 15-150. All were better than the more common 12-120.
Posted 04 July 2016 - 05:33 AM
I see. I'm not sure there is anything in the 16mm zoom world with that kind of range, especially with a built-in doubler like most broadcast lenses have. Isn't there a B4 adapter for the Ursa Mini that has correcting optics built-in? That might be your best option if you absolutely need that kind of focal range.