Jump to content


Photo

Older Zoom Lenses with Full S16 Coverage


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Jason Banker

Jason Banker
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 08 August 2005 - 01:38 PM

Hi,

I have noticed that there are 3 Angenieux lenses that are listed as having full S16 coverage. They are priced alot cheaper than those made for S16. Here is link to the resource:

http://www.cinematec...r_super-16.html

My question would be even though they don't have the multicoating and other features of modern lenses what is the real world impact on the picture quality?
How much of a image loss is there, maybe in a percentage value?

Would you work with one of these lenses if it was all you could afford for a zoom?

Also if you had to choose one of these lenses which one would you pick?

Angenieux 11-66mm T2.6
Angenieux 15-150mm T 2.8
Angenieux 16-44mm T 1.3
  • 0

#2 Steven Budden

Steven Budden
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts
  • Other
  • San Francisco

Posted 09 August 2005 - 11:31 AM

Did you look at the 16mm Camera Book? I think it gives the pros and cons of most of those lenses. Anyway, the Angenieux are generally regarded as softer than their counterparts. Which may be alright but perhaps not if you're blowing up to 35mm.

What kind of camera?

Steven
  • 0

#3 rob spence

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

Posted 09 August 2005 - 04:48 PM

Don't forget the Angenieux 25-250mm, 35mm zoom that covers super 16.
  • 0

#4 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 10 August 2005 - 02:40 AM

Don't forget the Angenieux 25-250mm, 35mm zoom that covers super 16.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



HI,

IMHO the old 25-250 is a piece of poop! I took a working one to pieces yesterday as I need some glass for a prop! Its would have fetched $200 on e-bay on a good day. Don't waste film shooting S16 with one!

Stephen
  • 0

#5 rob spence

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

Posted 10 August 2005 - 09:28 AM

Hi Stephen,
When was the angenieux last used in anger in movies ?

As it is a 35mm lens is the centre section not sharp enough for super 16 use. Thanks.
  • 0

#6 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 10 August 2005 - 03:38 PM

Hi Stephen,
When was the angenieux last used in anger in movies ?

As it is a 35mm lens is the centre section not sharp enough for super 16 use. Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Hi,

I am talking about the 1960's one, often sold on Ebay for 200 -400 USD. If you stop the lens down to 5.6 -8 it is quite sharp but very bad chromatic abberations (spelling!). Color fringing and all those sort of things. Until Cooke came out with the 20-100 zoom in 1971, zoom lenses had a bad name. If you shoot Super 16 for blow up to 35mm the lenses have to resolve at least twice as much as a lens for 35mm. That is the reason that HD zooms and Digi- Primes are so expensive.

The lasest 25-250 from Angeniux is very very good!

Stephen
  • 0

#7 Jason Banker

Jason Banker
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 10 August 2005 - 04:46 PM

Basically my situation is that I broke the bank to get into the Super 16 arena and then realized that the lenses cost as much as the camera.

So I bought a 9.5mm and a 16mm optar illumina primes for about $1,500 so I can at least get an image on the film but won't be able to go the other $5000 for a good zoom. I would like to do some beauty work with facial closeups for at least some of my shots so getting a zoom is somewhat important.

At first I am only going to focus on DV or HD quality transfers of the s16 footage for my personal projects. Will any of the cheaper lenses be of use for that purpose? If so which one is my best bet?

Steven my camera is a Aaton LTR 54 with a PL mount.

Edited by Jason B, 10 August 2005 - 04:49 PM.

  • 0

#8 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 10 August 2005 - 04:59 PM

Basically my situation is that I broke the bank to get into the Super 16 arena and then realized that the lenses cost as much as the camera.

So I bought a 9.5mm and a 16mm optar illumina primes for about $1,500 so I can at least get an image on the film but won't be able to go the other $5000 for a good zoom. I would like to do some beauty work with facial closeups for at least some of my shots so getting a zoom is somewhat important.

At first I am only going to focus on DV or HD quality transfers of the s16 footage for my personal projects. Will any of the cheaper lenses be of use for that purpose? If so which one is my best bet?

Steven my camera is a Aaton LTR 54 with a PL mount.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Hi,

The lenses are the most important part of the equation IMHO. I would rent a longer prime lens for face close ups for now. I assume your personal projects are for your show-reel? Wait until you can afford a really good lens, you won't regret it. The 2 cheap zooms I bought were a waste of money, shipping and customs charges doubled the cost!

Stephen
  • 0


Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Opal

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

CineTape