Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

difference between angenieux 17-68, 17.5-70, and 12-120?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • difference between angenieux 17-68, 17.5-70, and 12-120?

    I was wondering about tje major differences between these lenses. Specifically:

    17-68
    17.5-70
    12-120

    I know they will all vignetteunder a certain focal length and that the 17.5-70 is considered the cream of the crop (the footage looks amazing).

    But in terms of sharpness and image quality (keeping in mind that they all have that "soft" quality to them) whats the difference? I have an opportunity to get the 17-68 or 12-120 for roughly the same price, and I'm not sure how to decide or if i should save up for that coveted 17.5-70.

  • #2
    12-120 is the softest one, only the latest versions should be fine. Vignettes more than other and it is big and heavy.
    17-68 also had different versions, silver vignettes a bit on wide end in some cases. Black does not vignette, but has slightly shaded corners. Optically they are almost identically, perfect retro bokeh. They are the smallest zoom lenses on s16.
    17.5-70 is the same as 17-68 but bigger, just a bit different optical design. A little bit sharper and brighter than 17-68 in my opinion.

    Here are comparison of both 17-68 and 17.5-70
    https://vimeo.com/98240630

    Comment


    • #3
      I was searching around for some info about the Angenieux 17.5-70 few years ago, and found out that the 17.5-70 is far superior to the 17-68, the 17.5-70 has much improved optical and inner mechanical design.

      Comment


      • #4
        Also, the 17.5-70 is a S16 lens, does not vignette are all, even on the larger sensor on the Micro a Studio camera.
        This lens is also available in PL mount, I have one, works a treat!
        DS

        Comment


        • #5
          17-68 = covers 16mm film format.
          17.5-70 = updated to cover Super16mm film format.

          Much like the Zeiss 10-100 is for 16mm and the 11-110 is for Super16mm.
          Adam Roberts
          www.adamroberts.net

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Adam Roberts View Post
            17-68 = covers 16mm film format.
            17.5-70 = updated to cover Super16mm film format.

            Much like the Zeiss 10-100 is for 16mm and the 11-110 is for Super16mm.
            Not the exactly comparison : ) Because Zeiss 10-100 vignettes, but 17-68 does not.
            But I agree about image, the 17-68 has far more retro image look than 17.5-70, but still nice.

            Comment


            • #7
              I picked up an Angenieux 9.5-57mm and love it. I'm not sure how it stacks up to the others but the entire focal range is usable with minor vignetting on the extreme wide end (Basically none if you crop 2:39 and zoom in a few % in post). Not sure how it stacks up against the others but I considered them as well. I decided I wanted more range on the wide end than not. Another plus is the minimum focus distance on this lens is 0.6 meters...Unless I'm mistaken, the others have a minimum focus of almost double that or more.

              Comment


              • #8
                You could use an original 0.7x attachment : ) So a 17.5-70 becomes a 12.5-50 with very tiny almost none vignette on wide end And the close focus becomes exactly to 0.6m too : )
                On black 17-68 this adapter also does not vignette hardly, if the lens is aligned well to sensor.
                Last edited by Truemotion; 05-06-2016, 11:22 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Truemotion View Post
                  Not the exactly comparison : ) Because Zeiss 10-100 vignettes, but 17-68 does not.
                  But I agree about image, the 17-68 has far more retro image look than 17.5-70, but still nice.
                  The 17-68 does vignette slightly on Super16mm at 17mm. That is why Angenieux developed the 17.5-70.

                  Here is a test of the 17-68 on the BMPCC.
                  Adam Roberts
                  www.adamroberts.net

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Right, it has a lightly shaded vignette in low light, that is still better than hard round vignette like on zeiss 10-100 or angie 12-120. The sharpness on 10-100 2.8 version should be near the 17-68, the zeiss 10-100 1.8 should be sharper like angie 17,5-70. There are two different types of vignetting, some lenses just cuts out corners to pitch black, some just adds light shade, but picture is still there.

                    Angenieux 17,5-70 is also in fact a 16mm lens, it is just more professional builded optically than consumer version 17-68, and in that case 17,5-70 looks more usable also in s16 of course, but I still have some lightly shading at corners in some very rare cases. I like them both a lot, but for work of course I would use 17,5-70 instead of 17-68 (more for daily pocket hidden use or special retro effects). Also the 17-68 in some cases does not looks like it is has even slightly shade vignette, you can see the difference on the Gan Eden's video that I posted above. This is not the best test at many cases, you can see that 17-68 is still usable too on sunny day it covers s16 without noticeable shading in corners, but the sharpness is lower at corners. In past I also thought that 17,5-70 is a s16 version of 17-68, but no, the better explanation is that 17,5-70 is a prosumer 16mm lens, 17-68 is consumer 16mm lens. For both you can say that they "cover" s16. 17-68 just has some lack of sharpness fully open and noticeable degradation in light transition around the center because of tiny rear lens element.

                    I have got for last years many old Angenieux lenses, from those topic lenses I have both black and silver versions of 17-68 and the 17,5-70 also.
                    The best lens from all of those is of course 17,5-70. Perfect lens with cinematic charisma for a compact camera like BMPCC or BMMCC. I have not seen better in that small form factor, this lens is replacing many primes for me now. Even with its huge focus breathing. For some rare special effects I like a lot silver 17-68 (this one has some real black tiny vignetting at 17mm), It swirls the bokeh with closed aperture like a grinder and adds light effects because it is silver also inside.

                    17,5-70 has three versions, the first from 50's-60's was silver and with unusual mount, second 60's-70's (glossy black) has a a bit different (hard noticeable) form of front moving focus part that looks like on silver 17-68, and last 70's-80's (matted black) is visually the same as black 17-68 except protruding rear part. I don't know the difference between them because I have only the latest made one, it is even marked as Made in U.S.A.

                    Because of popularity of those lenses nowadays there is a lot of fraud people who are trying to sell them at bigger prices. Like calkovsky on ebay, who is trying to buy all of them and resell at $1000-$3000 price points.

                    I want to make a clarification for new users at prices. Angenieux 17-68 (both silver and black) cost from $200 to $350 depends on condition and luck. Angenieux 17,5-70 cost $500-$700, in special cases like cp-16 mount instead of PL or c mount it should have a price at $400-$500 (because cp-16 adapter cost $350, or you need to change mount professionaly). Hard used are worth nothing in my opinion. Ebay is full sometimes with hard used ones and $1000 price tags.
                    The Angenieux 15-150 2.8 lens is bad in my opinion, it is too soft, has bad bokeh(17-68 has nicer), doesn't worth more than $500 on market IMHO. The 15-150 1.9 version is very good but too big as for me and it is rare to find. But cost should be near $1000 maybe a bit more.

                    Hope this information will help some people in further deciding to buy or not to buy.
                    Last edited by Truemotion; 05-07-2016, 04:36 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Whitehouse Audio Visual lists the Angie 17.5-70mm lens (late model) as a Super16 lens:
                      "Custom PL mounted Angenieux 17.5-70mm lens covers super 16mm throughout the zoom range. Front and rear caps, Series 7 filter adapter, and zoom stick are included with this super 16 lens for your PL mount camera.."
                      They list a new old stock lens with PL mount for $1499. USD.

                      I have this lens and even on a Micro Studio 4K camera, and I have not seen any noticeable vignetting. Will do a grey card test to test this on both Micro cameras.
                      DS

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Because they cover. But it doesn't change the fact that this lens in my opinion was made as 16mm. Those guys here are listening 5.9mm with cut out front barrel also as super16
                        http://dev.visualproducts.com/lenses...-super-16.html

                        The truly s16 angenieux lenses covers a bit more than 15mm in dia to make the resolution degradation at corners less. And they are all big zooms. I made that conclusion because I have an Angenieux 15-90mm which was made for 1" vidicon tube, same coverage as s16. And this lens covers somewhere near 17-19mm in dia at wide end. The entry level s16 illumina primes has an 15mm image circle. I have not made any chart testes, but I feel that 17,5-70 has an image circle of 13-14mm. So it is ~1-2mm less than a true s16 prime lens. But as stated many times this is a great lens anyway, the best and smallest retro-zoom.
                        Last edited by Truemotion; 05-08-2016, 01:25 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          12-120 will vignette significantly on the slightly larger than super 16 BMPCC sensor. It fully covers my D16 at 1080p from 16mm on and fully covers the 2k DCI S16 mode from about 25mm on. The vignette is very slight in the corners for 2k 16:9, even less for 2k DCI 2048x1080, and disappears for 2k scope format. The corners are still a bit soft. The HEC version 12-120 T2.1 version I have is very sharp, much more so than a 17-68 and on par with the 17.5-70 since it has the same S-16 glass and optical coatings. But those are very rare and hard to find. I got mine by accident.
                          The reputation for softness comes from a lot of old news camera lenses that have led hard lives. From f/4 to f/8 they can be very sharp if clean and collimated, better than 200lpmm resolution at center. They do get significantly softer wide open.
                          The 15-150 T2.1 HEC or f2.8 earlier versions will fully cover S16 and the BMPCC sized sensors.

                          Recent images from my 12-120 at 2k using wavelet transform processing in Raw Therapee, some with a +1 diopter close up lens.





                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Anybody ever compared these to the silver 20-80mm f2.5? I own only that one (and like it a lot). It's black inside, BTW.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              is there any way to purchase the 17,5 - 70 at an affordable, reasonable price?
                              i fell in love with the angenieux look when i checked philip bloom's bmpcc footage.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X