Angenieux 20-120mm T2.9

[PaulClements]

Has anyone any experience or know of anything shot with the Angenieux 20-120mm T2.9? It's a relatively cheap cine lense by all accounts and I'd be very interested in seeing even some stills if anyone knows.

Does anyone know of a good site that does cine lense comparisons?

[Stephen Williams]

Has anyone any experience or know of anything shot with the Angenieux 20-120mm T2.9? It's a relatively cheap cine lense by all accounts and I'd be very interested in seeing even some stills if anyone knows.

Does anyone know of a good site that does cine lense comparisons?

Hi,

Its a 1960's lens, OK at the time but nothing compared with a Cooke 20-100.
I have one I bought on Ebay from Aardman Animations.

As lenses vary, you actually need to test the lens that you intend to use. This is very true of pre 1980 lenses.

Stephen

[PaulClements]

Thanks for that Stephen, the picture that accompanied the lense certainly doesn't look like it's from the 60's, I'm guessing they're either mistaken or are pulling a fast one:

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/17514/1170357101.jpg

[chuck colburn]

Thanks for that Stephen, the picture that accompanied the lense certainly doesn't look like it's from the 60's, I'm guessing they're either mistaken or are pulling a fast one:

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/17514/1170357101.jpg

Hi Paul,

I thought they came out in the mid seventies, but I could be wrong. Stephen is very knowledgable on this subject. I worked on quite a few of them and they could be a very good lens. If the one in the photo is the actual lens it sure is a clean one. I don't know if they cover super 35 or not as there was no S-35 back then. lol

Chuck

[PaulClements]

Hi Chuck,

Is the lens in the picture actually the correct one then? And I agree it is a very clean one, perhaps they've taken a stock photograph and used that but if memory serves me correct they had different lenses for sale and the images had the same lighting and background although the lenses appeared older and more used. Perhaps whoever owned this one simply didn't like it and never used it! :)

Paul

[chuck colburn]

Hi Chuck,

Is the lens in the picture actually the correct one then? And I agree it is a very clean one, perhaps they've taken a stock photograph and used that but if memory serves me correct they had different lenses for sale and the images had the same lighting and background although the lenses appeared older and more used. Perhaps whoever owned this one simply didn't like it and never used it! :)

Paul

Hi Paul,

Well it sure looks like every 6x20 I had in hand. Yeah that photo looks like a professional product shot to me. Nice lighting, mayby the owner does product shooting as a regular gig... As always "Buyer Beware" If you can get the lens for testing and have access to a shop with a collimator and a thru the lens projector and a decent optical tech, then you can get answers to some important questions. Such as; does it hold focus down the range, does it track straight and does it cover the intended format of choice.

Chuck

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

I could be wrong with date, as it's before my time as a shooter. The Cooke 20-100 is from 1971. I am guessing it was released in the 1960's, sure it was produced for many years.

I don't think this is the lens for a 4k camera (IMHO)

Stephen

[PaulClements]

Hi Stephen,

The first Cooke 20-100 was indeed made in 1971, but like with all lenses they have slight refinements over time albeit fairly cosmetic, and since the 18-200 wasn't introduced until 1987 I would imagine they continued manufacturing the 20-100 into the 80's.

Out of interest why would you say this is not a lens for a 4k camera though? Whilst it is 35mm and not s35 would it not be better than a decent nikon? The only problem I can foresee is that you would be losing some of the space on the sensor and therefore a smaller resolution for the final image, but the benefits of using cine glass over still must still be acceptable no?

Paul

[Stephen Williams]

Hi Stephen,

The first Cooke 20-100 was indeed made in 1971, but like with all lenses they have slight refinements over time albeit fairly cosmetic, and since the 18-200 wasn't introduced until 1987 I would imagine they continued manufacturing the 20-100 into the 80's.

Out of interest why would you say this is not a lens for a 4k camera though? Whilst it is 35mm and not s35 would it not be better than a decent nikon? The only problem I can foresee is that you would be losing some of the space on the sensor and therefore a smaller resolution for the final image, but the benefits of using cine glass over still must still be acceptable no?

Paul

Hi,

The Cooke 20-100 AFAIK remained optically & mechanically the same for many years until the 18-100 was introduced. Optically the 20-100 is still very acceptable today. I am fairly sure they will produce good results with a Red, however until I get a camera in my hand I can't be sure.

When you look through an old Arg 25-250 or 20-120 (Ebay prices $250-750) you will see distortion, color fringing, breathing. If you were to work at T8 it might just be OK. Don't hold your breath for high quality pictures, you will be dissapointed (IMHO)

Stephen

[chuck colburn]

Hi,

The Cooke 20-100 AFAIK remained optically & mechanically the same for many years until the 18-100 was introduced. Optically the 20-100 is still very acceptable today. I am fairly sure they will produce good results with a Red, however until I get a camera in my hand I can't be sure.

When you look through an old Arg 25-250 or 20-120 (Ebay prices $250-750) you will see distortion, color fringing, breathing. If you were to work at T8 it might just be OK. Don't hold your breath for high quality pictures, you will be dissapointed (IMHO)

Stephen

Hi Stephen.

My Angenieux zoom can beat up your Cooke zoom! (except for that one of yours with the funny focal length and apreture markings). I agree with you about the 10x25. But I must say I have seen very nice 6x20's. If one were to have a chance to look at a sample on the Red camera I think it might be worth the effort. You never know, you might just stumble into one of the good ones.

Yours,
Chuck Colburn

[Stephen Williams]

Hi Stephen.

My Angenieux zoom can beat up your Cooke zoom! (except for that one of yours with the funny focal length and apreture markings). I agree with you about the 10x25. But I must say I have seen very nice 6x20's. If one were to have a chance to look at a sample on the Red camera I think it might be worth the effort. You never know, you might just stumble into one of the good ones.

Yours,
Chuck Colburn

Hi Chuck,

I understand that 1 company used to optomise Angenieux zooms, charged by the hour...........

I shall keep that 20-60 Cooke then!

Stephen

[PaulClements]

I'd agree, Cooke would always be my choice. All the research points that way. But seeing a lense such as the one i pointed out in the condition it was at a vastly lower price than a slightly worn looking Cooke lense made me wonder.

Thanks for the info Stephen & Chuck

[chuck colburn]

Hi Chuck,

I understand that 1 company used to optomise Angenieux zooms, charged by the hour...........

I shall keep that 20-60 Cooke then!

Stephen

Yeah and damn they were good at it...........
As for the 3to1, I think you should keep it!

Chuck

[AIO Films]

Has anyone any experience or know of anything shot with the Angenieux 20-120mm T2.9? It's a relatively cheap cine lense by all accounts and I'd be very interested in seeing even some stills if anyone knows.

Does anyone know of a good site that does cine lense comparisons?

I shot several movies with this lens in early 1980s. I didn't have a comparable Cooke lens to compare at that time. The prime set that was available to me was the first generation Zeiss Super Speeds T1.4 lenses characterized by the 3-blade iris, very distinct in the bokeh of light bulbs. The Angenieux zoom did a decent job in comparison, not great but very usable in terms of resolution and contrast.

Before this lens came out, only early version of Angenieux 25-250mm T3.9 zoom (pretty inferior, optically) was available for the film industry I was workng in. The new zoom was a major advancement as it was a stop faster and (significant) 5mm wider, not to mention it focuses a lot closer.

This 20-120mm was later replaced by the current model, the more popular 17-102mm T2.9. Initially, it looked like the new lens was just adding a wide angle conversion lens to the front element of the 20-120mm because the zoom power and the maximum aperture were almost exactly the same. It felt much bulkier and heavier, though.

Surprisingly, it turned out the new lens was optically much better product, together with the precious 3mm wider angle of view and being a current model, it became much more "recognized" by the industry.

To make a long story short, the 20-120mm is a decent lens, good enough to make decent films and would give good representation of your cinematography skills. I am actually pleasently surprised to find its relatively low used price in the market. If you can't afford a RED Zoom or can't wait that long for it, find a good used Angenieux, you can't go wrong, especially if you like the creamy look of the French optics like the 5.3-61mm HD zoom I am currently using.

For the price of a good new still camera zoom, you get a 6:1 quite usable cine style T2.9 lens, what else do you expect?

[Emanuel A.]

Here is more info related:

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/index.php?showtopic=17651&st=45

EDIT -- Link now fixed.

[Ken Corben]

I got burned with my 12-12o ANG - it gave me a 1970's look on everything I shot with it which was not the desired effect. Buyer beware!

[chuck colburn]

A completly different lens intended for a different format.

[chuck colburn]

I shot several movies with this lens in early 1980s. I didn't have a comparable Cooke lens to compare at that time. The prime set that was available to me was the first generation Zeiss Super Speeds T1.4 lenses characterized by the 3-blade iris, very distinct in the bokeh of light bulbs. The Angenieux zoom did a decent job in comparison, not great but very usable in terms of resolution and contrast.

Before this lens came out, only early version of Angenieux 25-250mm T3.9 zoom (pretty inferior, optically) was available for the film industry I was workng in. The new zoom was a major advancement as it was a stop faster and (significant) 5mm wider, not to mention it focuses a lot closer.

This 20-120mm was later replaced by the current model, the more popular 17-102mm T2.9. Initially, it looked like the new lens was just adding a wide angle conversion lens to the front element of the 20-120mm because the zoom power and the maximum aperture were almost exactly the same. It felt much bulkier and heavier, though.

Surprisingly, it turned out the new lens was optically much better product, together with the precious 3mm wider angle of view and being a current model, it became much more "recognized" by the industry.

To make a long story short, the 20-120mm is a decent lens, good enough to make decent films and would give good representation of your cinematography skills. I am actually pleasently surprised to find its relatively low used price in the market. If you can't afford a RED Zoom or can't wait that long for it, find a good used Angenieux, you can't go wrong, especially if you like the creamy look of the French optics like the 5.3-61mm HD zoom I am currently using.

For the price of a good new still camera zoom, you get a 6:1 quite usable cine style T2.9 lens, what else do you expect?

Hello AIO,

Saw this lens on Ebay and wondered about it. I know Angenieux use to modify some of their lenses for different uses and think perhaps this is a 6x20 adapted for some other use. Mayby for video cameras with a optical group between the lens and the imaging tubes/chips, I don't know.
Anyhow it does not have a mount on it and if it were to be useable for full or S35 format it could be a real buy as any compenet optical tech could fit it up with a PL mount So if anyone, (Stephen?) is fimiliar with this lens perhaps they could chime in.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200082562430&ssPageName=MERC_VI_RSCC_Pr4_PcY_BID_Stores_IT&refitem=200082562481&itemcount=4&refwidgetloc=active_view_item&usedrule1=StoreCatToStoreCat&refwidgettype=cross_promot_widget

Chuck

[Andrae Palmer]

Beautiful Angeneiux 20-120mm T2.9 HD footage shot in Afghanistan on RED One camera:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRo3u0snnAw

Having just purchased this lens. I am interested in knowing the first release date of these lenses along with any of its history. What is the breathing and ramping like?

[David Rasberry]

The clip looked very good. No doubt newer lenses are sharper and have much better color contrast, but these old Angies were the top line premium lenses of their day and are certainly capable of producing beautiful imagery if they are well maintained and in good condition. They will get you 80% of the quality for 5-10% of the price of newer lenses, a decent bargain in my opinion. Whether a new top of the line set of still zooms would be a better choice really depends on shooting style and intended use, but the cine lenses are better by far than most cheap still lenses. A UV filter and circular polarizer along with a proper lens shade or matte box helps with contrast and flare issues.

[Andrae Palmer]

The clip looked very good. No doubt newer lenses are sharper and have much better color contrast, but these old Angies were the top line premium lenses of their day and are certainly capable of producing beautiful imagery if they are well maintained and in good condition. They will get you 80% of the quality for 5-10% of the price of newer lenses, a decent bargain in my opinion. Whether a new top of the line set of still zooms would be a better choice really depends on shooting style and intended use, but the cine lenses are better by far than most cheap still lenses. A UV filter and circular polarizer along with a proper lens shade or matte box helps with contrast and flare issues.

I agree. If one likes the Angenieux look and is financially challenged... these older lenses are a very good solution. I loved the look of the Old Style 25-250 Angenieux... the lens has all kinds of problems but the look is Epic... very organic. I heard the 20-120 is so much better (sharper, one stop brighter) than the original 25-250 T3.9. I can't wait to test it out.

Too bad that not much information is available online for these older lenses. Would be great to have a cine lens database.... heck even a book or online interview with the makers (if they are still around).

[Johnny St.Ours]

I have both the 25-250 3.9 and the 20-120 2.9
The 25-250 I affectionately call "the Flashback Lens" and use it as such, or when I mount my camera to the front grill of my truck, unmanned. Focus and CA are pretty damn tricky on this ol' girl.

I love the 20-120. Think it's beautiful. I use it all the time.

According to my limited knowledge of the serial numbers, my 25-250 was made in '67, and the 2.9 from '74.

[Andrae Palmer]

According to my limited knowledge of the serial numbers, my 25-250 was made in '67, and the 2.9 from '74.

How were you able to find out the year based off the serials? I would be interested when mine arrives to know what exact year it was manufactured. Every then and now people ask for info on these affordable beauties... seems like many people would like to know more. If anyone can link to some online resources or recommend a book it would be much appreciated.

[Johnny St.Ours]

how else... I googled it.

[Andrae Palmer]

how else... I googled it.

I've googled, searched through amazon, vimeo, youtube and can't find much info on these lenses. Seems like REDuser and cinematographer.com has the most info. Would be great to google the serial of mine and find the year... do you still have the site?

[Johnny St.Ours]

http://forum.mflenses.com/angenieux-lenses-by-serial-number-t10297.html

I went by the first numbers in the chain- could be wrong!

[Andrae Palmer]

http://forum.mflenses.com/angenieux-lenses-by-serial-number-t10297.html

I went by the first numbers in the chain- could be wrong!

Thank a lot for the link... great info.

[Johnny St.Ours]

What I'd like to know is, will the 20-120 with it's 130mm front element, work with the MB20 II at 25mm?
(It is 130mm, isn't it? I don't have a metric ruler on hand here)

[Andrae Palmer]

Just checked the serial number on our lens that arrived today. It's 146XXXX... is it really possible that this lens was manufactured circa 1981 - 1982? It's in great shape... sure looks like it could have been manufactured in the 80s.

[Larry McKee]

Johnny, it is 125mm. Thanks for the link. I've been wondering when my baby was made. 1975. Andrae, you are going to love that lens. I've had two other RED owners ask to buy mine. The picture is just so dang pretty.

[Andrae Palmer]

Johnny, it is 125mm. Thanks for the link. I've been wondering when my baby was made. 1975. Andrae, you are going to love that lens. I've had two other RED owners ask to buy mine. The picture is just so dang pretty.

Can't wait to put these on the RED and go shooting.

Does anyone know the year these lens ceased production?

[Johnny St.Ours]

Johnny, it is 125mm. Thanks for the link. I've been wondering when my baby was made. 1975. Andrae, you are going to love that lens. I've had two other RED owners ask to buy mine. The picture is just so dang pretty.

Thanks, yeah, a couple hours after I posted I realized that my leatherman's got a metric ruler on it- wear the thing everyday. Reckon it comes in extra handy if I know what powers it doth possess

[Tim Bird]

Thanks for that Stephen, the picture that accompanied the lense certainly doesn't look like it's from the 60's, I'm guessing they're either mistaken or are pulling a fast one:

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/17514/1170357101.jpg

This looks a lot like my Ang. 12-120 that I've used with an old CP-16 camera. I hadn't thought about it, but I suppose with the right mount I could use my Ang. 12-120 with a Scarlet 2/3" brain. A 2/3" imager is similar in area to 16mm. Any thoughts or advice about that idea?

Thanks,
Tim

[Andrae Palmer]

Angenieux 20-120mm T2.9 Stills:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2516/4058580633_f5821f82fe.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2516/4058580633_f5821f82fe_b.jpg)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2675/4058365139_d70059b353.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2675/4058365139_d70059b353_b.jpg)

Bokeh:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2558/4065421109_985f68c344.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2558/4065421109_985f68c344_b.jpg)

4K JPEG: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2558/4065421109_a40c7c2210_o.jpg
4K Tiff (48MB): http://facetmedia.com/RED-footage/angenieux/hibiscus-raw.tiff

Sharpness:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2552/4065144966_3a228883f7.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2552/4065144966_3a228883f7_b.jpg)

4K JPEG: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2552/4065144966_33ea864797_o.jpg
4K Tiff (50.3MB): http://www.facetmedia.com/RED-footage/angenieux/shauna-ecu.tiff


All Angenieux 20-120mm T2.9 4k Tiffs: http://facetmedia.com/RED-footage/angenieux/