Opinions: Angie 20-120 2.9 or Red 17-50 2.9 ??

[abreu-canedo]

Hello all,

I was looking for a zoom to use on low budget projects, around US$4,000.

I was was curious to get some opinions on either the Red 17-50 as or the Anngenieux 20-120

i know the Angie has more reach, but is also from the 70's so I hear it is softer and lower contrast. The red may be more modern, so more contrast and sharper, but less reach.

how are the mechanics on the Red? Will the vintage was of the Angie be too limiting or can I mitigate it with polarizers and a mattebox?

I won't be able to test them, but is not a super critical purchase...so I'd be comfortable purchasing without testing. But certainly would like to get some feedback, user experience, etc.

Any my feedback is much appreciated !
-Thanks in advance!

 

[keithlango]

Having owned and shot both at one time or another, your assessment of their optical characteristics is pretty much on the mark. With the Angies a lot of it comes down to the copy you have- some are better than others with the variations due mostly to how they've been treated over their long lives. It's a pleasant look, but it's definitely a "look" when compared to more modern lenses. The Red will be more sanitized in the look department. Plusses and minuses, really. Comes down to what you like and want to do.

Throw a matte box on the Angie and you can keep the image from glaring out for the most part.

Mechanics on the 17-50 are solid. The Angies the same (assuming you get a copy that's been kept up to snuff).

The one thing I didn't see you mention is their relative size and weight. The Angie is a huge lens. 11" long and very heavy- 10 lbs. I suppose if you needed or really wanted to you *could* go handheld with the Angie, but I know I never did. It was always on sticks. The Red is significantly smaller. About 6 " long and just a smidge over 3 lbs. Handheld was just fine.

Ultimately I liked the look of my Angie better ('cuz I dig vintage look in lenses), but I used my Red 17-50 more because it was more versatile.

Hope that helps.

 

[abreu-canedo]

Having owned and shot both at one time or another, your assessment of their optical characteristics is pretty much on the mark. With the Angies a lot of it comes down to the copy you have- some are better than others with the variations due mostly to how they've been treated over their long lives. It's a pleasant look, but it's definitely a "look" when compared to more modern lenses. The Red will be more sanitized in the look department. Plusses and minuses, really. Comes down to what you like and want to do.

Throw a matte box on the Angie and you can keep the image from glaring out for the most part.

Mechanics on the 17-50 are solid. The Angies the same (assuming you get a copy that's been kept up to snuff).

The one thing I didn't see you mention is their relative size and weight. The Angie is a huge lens. 11" long and very heavy- 10 lbs. I suppose if you needed or really wanted to you *could* go handheld with the Angie, but I know I never did. It was always on sticks. The Red is significantly smaller. About 6 " long and just a smidge over 3 lbs. Handheld was just fine.

Ultimately I liked the look of my Angie better ('cuz I dig vintage look in lenses), but I used my Red 17-50 more because it was more versatile.

Hope that helps.

Hi Keith,

yes, super helpful! Weight was definitely a consideration, but at these bargain prices beggars can't be choosy.

I too love the vintage look, but I wonder if I can make the more sterile modern lenses have a bit more character with filtration. A little digital diffusion, a little pro mist, etc...

In any case, thanks again for your valuable feedback!