Angenieux 25-250 T3.9 ?

[Massimiliano Mauceri]

Anyone knows this lens?
Angenieux 25-250 T3.9

Anyone has worked with this lens+redone?

Thank you very much

[Harry Clark]

Sure.
Cut my teeth with that lens. Was a standard issue for many many years. There were a couple of versions. I bet it was produced from the 1970's all the way up to the late 1980's.
If it's in good shape it can look quite nice. LOTS of breathing though, and slow, with a far minimum focus.
Ironically we are using one today, and older vintage from the 1970's, with a stocking and Classic Soft, to recreate a 1950's TV show look. We looked for an older lens but couldn't find one in time for the job. Even with the stocking and filter it's still a bit "modern" for that era.
But whatever resolution deficiencies it has might serve the look quite nicely depending on what you are doing. Certainly it's kind to actors' faces.
Cheers,
Harry

[Massimiliano Mauceri]

Thank you very much Harry!

So, you think is good to shot a feature film? all film with this lens + redone.
This lens is for free for me....you think I have to find absoluty a better lens?

[Harry Clark]

Well... many many films have been made with this lens. But...
I would shoot a test.
When you say "feature" I assume that you hope it will end up on a big screen.
You should try to see your test this way (also testing a more modern zoom to see the difference) and judge for yourself.
On the small screen (where I mostly live and work) I would not hesitate to use it.
But keep in mind that it's pretty slow at T.4, and the close focus is far away, and the breathing is pretty bad. If you can live with these limitations and you like the look, why not?
Cheers,
Harry

[Massimiliano Mauceri]

Ok I understood, thanks Harry!!

[Peter Strietmann]

I have one of these and love it. Not the sharpest lens in the world but has a style unto it's own. One thing worth mentioning is the focus is external so the whole front of the lens moves in and out when racking focus. I built a tube out of lexan that the front can go in and out of without leaking light into the matte box. It is a kind of leading lady lens with it's inherent softness. You may want to shoot for 5.6 or a 5.6, 8 split.

I'm attaching a lens test I did which compares my 12x optimo with 10x angenieux you are interested in. They were both shot at T4, 250mm. The 12x is the one on the left.

Best, Peter

[John Fairstein]

See http://www.thinktankservices.biz/InSight/Claudia_MarketSquare/index.html for an example shot with this lens.

[Massimiliano Mauceri]

I'm attaching a lens test I did which compares my 12x optimo with 10x angenieux you are interested in. They were both shot at T4, 250mm. The 12x is the one on the left.

Best, Peter

Oh my god... :(
is it so terrible??

[Stephen Williams]

Oh my god... :(
is it so terrible??

Yes, I took one to pieces and used it for a prop. Stopped down to F8 it's better. Remember the Optimo is a very good & expensive lens.

[Harry Clark]

Well, yes.
Remember that 35 years (or more) passed between development of those lenses, and Angeniuex went through two newer series (HP and HR) on their way to making the Optimo. And there are good examples and bad example of this lens. In 30 or 35 years, one lens may have worked every day of its life and never had an overhaul and may be so out of adjustment and worn out that it will never again look OK. Another lens, one serial number away, let's say, was purchased by a would be indie film guy and spent most of it's life packed away in a storage room somewhere. While it won't look like an Optimo, it may be perfectly acceptable, and will probably look as good as this lens can look.
Again, do a test. The extreme magnification you see in Peter's frame grab is not what you'd see in HD or SD, even on a large TV. And it's hard to get an idea of what digital projection or a filmout would look like without, well, actually seeing it.
And if you can get ths lens for free vs. $65,000 for an Optimo, well, then...
Do a test.
Cheers,
Harry

[Peter Strietmann]

Harry has made some very good points here. My test is extreme in all senses. I should have stated that it is an extreme magnification of the lens chart as can be seen by the small size of the slider bar on the screen grab.

The 10x angenieus lens looks beautiful to me but I have had considerable work done to it. I believe mine was built in the mid 60s. If I were you, and the lens checks out OK, I'd use it.

Here are a couple of examples of mine...

Except for the initial macro shot all other shots in this were with the 10x.
http://web.me.com/plaidass1/Site/6os_-_7os.html

This was entirely shot with the 10x, I also shot it with my 12x optimo but did not like the 12x results. http://web.me.com/plaidass1/Site/1950.html

One thing to keep in mind is that in 4k the imagery looks quite a bit better.

[Shawn Nelson]

Ignore the fudged opening shot, this is a short film I did using this lens

http://www.brainspasm.com/red/Ossian/Ossian_by_ShawnNelson.mov

[Massimiliano Mauceri]

Thank you to all for replyes!

So, I think to understand that if I have this lens for free, it's right to use it for my feature film, right?

[Peter Strietmann]

Absolutely.

[Matthew Duclos]

Talk about a workhorse lens. Use it!

[Massimiliano Mauceri]

Talk about a workhorse lens. Use it!

:) Thank you, I am very happy of your suggest

[Massimiliano Mauceri]

Another question: better Angienieux 25.250 or a Zeiss Set Super Speed (16mm,36mm,50mm,80mm,100mm) ?

I have possibility to choice one of those.

[Matthew Duclos]

Another question: better Angienieux 25.250 or a Zeiss Set Super Speed (16mm,36mm,50mm,80mm,100mm) ?

I have possibility to choice one of those.

Depends on your needs.
If you're doing hand-held work, the super speeds are perfect. If you want an all in one tele zoom, the Angenieux is your best bet.
Also, speed is a huge factor here as well. The super speeds are T1.3 and the Angenieux is T3.9.
Really depends on what you need.

[Michael Panfeld]

Ignore the fudged opening shot, this is a short film I did using this lens

http://www.brainspasm.com/red/Ossian/Ossian_by_ShawnNelson.mov

Shawn 1) I liked the overall shot, but 2) that Angie looked great. There's another thread in which someone posted a test with this zoom and it looked remarkable on a RED.

Old glass (well-maintained) combined with the RED is a great tool to have in your arsenal.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

such a gross lens

[Shawn Nelson]

such a gross lens

no, not really, it has a great look for the right project

[Peter Strietmann]

such a gross lens

In what sense is it gross?

[Thor Wixom]

I shot all of this footage on the Angie 25-250 HR.

www.utvl.net/aprilia.html

Wait for it to load.

-Thor

[Guidofilippi]

In what sense is it gross?

Mot in Mitch´s sense for sure...
I would personally try to avoid buying one of those old Angénieux... rather stretch a little bit your funds and go for a Cooke Varotal 25-250 for example; they are offered quite often, not really expensive, and are better lenses for sure.
Guido