F3: What is your opinion of the Angie 25-250mm T3.2 or T3.5?

Duke M.

Duke M.

Veteran
I'm looking for the right PL Zoom.

My Cooke zoom had that interesting combination of being soft and sharp at the same time and had great mechanics. It may be perfect for the F55, but ultimately I found it a little too soft for the F3. I could work with the weight and size for what I do.

The Red 18-50 is okay but its a little shorter range and wider than I'd prefer.
Right now I most often find myself using my nikon 28-70. If it were a tad wider and a tad longer I'd almost never change the lens.

That leaves me wondering about the Angie 25-250mm. I understand there are three versions before they went to the optimo. I'm most interested in the T3.2 or T3.5 which are both listed as F2.8. Yes I know it's 10-11 lbs and needs support.

Any opinions as to the image quality or mechanics? How does it compare to the Cooke?
 
Duke M. said:
I'm looking for the right PL Zoom.

My Cooke zoom had that interesting combination of being soft and sharp at the same time and had great mechanics. It may be perfect for the F55, but ultimately I found it a little too soft for the F3. I could work with the weight and size for what I do.
The Red 18-50 is okay but its a little shorter range and wider than I'd prefer.
Right now I most often find myself using my nikon 28-70. If it were a tad wider and a tad longer I'd almost never change the lens.
That leaves me wondering about the Angie 25-250mm. I understand there are three versions before they went to the optimo. I'm most interested in the T3.2 or T3.5 which are both listed as F2.8. Yes I know it's 10-11 lbs and needs support.
Any opinions as to the image quality or mechanics? How does it compare to the Cooke?
Click to expand...

When I used to shoot 35 film more than in recent years my local camera rental house had both the Cooke and the Angenieux zooms available each in a couple of their variations. If I wanted the long throw I'd pick the Angenieux and had little occasion to regret that choice. Angenieux make fine lenses sitting somewhere between the "softer" look of the Cookes and the almost technical chillier look of Zeiss. Mechanically I've never heard anything said against them. They're sharp and I found them to handle flare pretty well. In fact I think if you can find a good used specimen you'd be happy with either the 3.2 or the 3.5.........heavy though, as you say........But if you do find one I'd try it out first or get an optical house to check it before cash goes across the table. These lenses are getting older, some coming out of rental, and I'm sure that anything you'll find may need tweaking to bring back to top form.
 
I'm unclear as to whether you're talking about the old coke bottles, the HP, or the HR.

Can you post a picture?

All of the "coke bottles" I've seen are 3.7, as are the HPs I've seen. The HRs I've seen are touted at 3.5. My experience with the oldest ones has not been good, unless you have the luxury of shooting past a 4/5.6 split AND less then 100 or 150mm. Only then satisfactory, and just barely. I just did a 4 camera shoot and had to put one on one of the cameras. Not particularly happy with how that camera's images turned out.

HPs are noticeably better but still soft on the long end wide open. On a budget, I think one could make do with one.

HRs I have no experience with.
 
Nate Weaver said:
I'm unclear as to whether you're talking about the old coke bottles, the HP, or the HR.

Can you post a picture?

All of the "coke bottles" I've seen are 3.7, as are the HPs I've seen. The HRs I've seen are touted at 3.5. My experience with the oldest ones has not been good, unless you have the luxury of shooting past a 4/5.6 split AND less then 100 or 150mm. Only then satisfactory, and just barely. I just did a 4 camera shoot and had to put one on one of the cameras. Not particularly happy with how that camera's images turned out.

HPs are noticeably better but still soft on the long end wide open. On a budget, I think one could make do with one.

HRs I have no experience with.
Click to expand...

The HR's are the ones that are marked as T3.2 and T3.5. They are supposed to be the best version though it seems they mostly go for $10k to $27k. Any other suggestions?
 
I'd imagine an HR for $10K is probably a great lens. If it's an increment better than the HP, then the quality and the price makes sense. But I've never seen one for $10k.

For what I usually see them for, around $25K, anybody would be MUCH better off with an Alura. At $25K they don't sell too fast either. Hmm, wonder why :-)
 
Nate Weaver said:
I'd imagine an HR for $10K is probably a great lens. If it's an increment better than the HP, then the quality and the price makes sense. But I've never seen one for $10k.

For what I usually see them for, around $25K, anybody would be MUCH better off with an Alura. At $25K they don't sell too fast either. Hmm, wonder why :-)
Click to expand...

When I first started this I saw this one that ended up for $9,900.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Angenieux-H...89552555?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item4ac863a1ab
 
Duke M. said:
When I first started this I saw this one that ended up for $9,900.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Angenieux-H...89552555?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item4ac863a1ab
Click to expand...

Yow. Haven't seen one going for that low. It went for that low because the seller had zero feedback and used a stock photo. Maybe it was legit, but I've been following the classifieds on Reduser since 2008, haven't seen one go for that low.

DavidAC said:
It's a bit pricier than what you seem to be going for, as well as a bit tighter, but I was just wondering if anyone here at any experience with the new Canon CN-E 30-105mm T2.8 (http://www.abelcine.com/store/Canon-CN-E-30-105mm-T2.8-Cinema-Zoom )? Very light, at least...
Click to expand...

I had one for two weeks. It's a great lens. Modern in every sense of the word, sharp as a tack.
 
Nate Weaver said:
Yow. Haven't seen one going for that low. It went for that low because the seller had zero feedback and used a stock photo. Maybe it was legit, but I've been following the classifieds on Reduser since 2008, haven't seen one go for that low.



I had one for two weeks. It's a great lens. Modern in every sense of the word, sharp as a tack.
Click to expand...

Just saw that zero feedback. Might be a scam.

The canon looks sweet, but its a whole other price range.

I decided to keep the Zeiss set 1, which came back from Duclos and is great. I must say though that Set 2, which has one Helios and one Mir copy have indistinguishable images from the true zeiss. Probably from the Zeiss techs using Zeiss machines and spec in captured Zeiss factories. Most are Carl Zeiss Jena.

I'm going to sell Set two and the Red Zoom. I'll keep the longer (80, 120, 180) Zeiss multi-coated to compliment the 5 zeiss in set 1. That gives me an 8 Zeiss prime set with the slowest being F2.8. The 80mm sort of overlaps with the 85mm, but the 80mm is marked for 3' while the 85mm is marked for 5.5'. Yet the 85mm is F2 while the 80mm is F2.8. They have different uses.

Until I find something better, I'll use the zooms I have, which are already geared and do double duty on my Nikon DSLR:
Tokina 11-16
Nikon 17-35
Nikon 28-70
Nikon 80-200
Nikon 70-300 VR.
 
reading Nate's responses I checked with the guy who ran that rental house where I used to hire the Angenieux's........They were HR's, not HP's.
 
Hey Duke, what I have seen going for much cheaper these days is the Ang 17-102.

I've used one of those, and it was pretty good. For last 4 years or so the going price was $17Kish, but all the older lenses values are suffering under the onslaught of new zooms that can be had for $20 to $26K.

I know of one right now for $12K, and could maybe be $10K with patience. My memory of using it was it was big, but slightly lighter than most lenses of that size. But it was 2009, was a while ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top