G
Guest
Does anyone have experience with any of these brands? Are they worth while to get?
CI Photocommunity
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
G
Guest
>Hi!
I tried the Angenieux 2,3/180 on a Nikon at the end of the eighties. At tha= t time I used Nikon eqipment. Was a strange feeling because the focusing ri= ng turned in the "wrong" (regarded from Nikon lenses) direction, but the le= ns was very, very good. I don't know if the lens was manufactured for the C= /Y-mount, but if it would shure be an item to hunt for. By the way: As far = as I am informed, Leica sued Angenieux not to offer the lens in Leica R-mou= nt because of patent reasons. The lenses were sold "under the table", thoug= h.
I tried the Angenieux 2,3/180 on a Nikon at the end of the eighties. At tha= t time I used Nikon eqipment. Was a strange feeling because the focusing ri= ng turned in the "wrong" (regarded from Nikon lenses) direction, but the le= ns was very, very good. I don't know if the lens was manufactured for the C= /Y-mount, but if it would shure be an item to hunt for. By the way: As far = as I am informed, Leica sued Angenieux not to offer the lens in Leica R-mou= nt because of patent reasons. The lenses were sold "under the table", thoug= h.
G
Guest
I use a Schneider PC Super-Angulon 2,8/28 along with my Contaxes. It's optical quality is flawless and equal to my other Zeiss lenses. It is worth every cent, especially since, at least in Germany, it is less expensive than the Zeiss PC 35. As it offers the 28mm wider angle, it really fills a gap in the Zeiss lens range. The Schneider lens also offers an interchangeable mount, so it can be adapted to nearly all brands, except Leica. (BTW, for a few dollars/euros more it is sold with the Leica R-bayonet under the Leica label as PC Super-Angulon-R 2,8/28).
Compared to the Canon TSE 3,5/24 which I also own, it is far superior, especially in sharpness and distortion. But to be fair, the Canon's considerably wider angle offers a valuable compensation for that, and hence it is a unique optical system.
Compared to the Canon TSE 3,5/24 which I also own, it is far superior, especially in sharpness and distortion. But to be fair, the Canon's considerably wider angle offers a valuable compensation for that, and hence it is a unique optical system.
G
Guest
I don't know if this is relevant, but the only Shneider lens I do own is a Cinelux AV-MC 90/3.5 lens projector lens. I bought it years ago at a bankruptcy sale, and have used it on Kodak Carousel ever since. It is a spectacular improvement over the standard-issue Kodak Ektagraphic lens provided with the projector. The original lens is 102/2.8, bt on the screen, the Schneider lens was (and still is..) much brighter, despite being a F/3.5, and noticeably sharper. Built quality is also years away (metal for Schneider, plastic for Kodak). In the end, I think it really did justice to my Contax lenses.
G
Guest
Erratum: the lense is really a 90/2.5 !
C
cyberstudio
I once had a few Angenieux lenses. I compared them, not so scientifically, with Japanese lenses, and here are what I found:
1, the Angenieux 180/2.3 APO was less sharp than my Tamron 180/2.5 SP LD, so I sold the Angenieux at a very high price and kept the much cheaper Tamron to this day.
2, the Angenieux 28-70/2.6 AF compares very well to a Pentax FA* 28-70/2.8. No performance difference that I can detect, but from what I have heard the lens was not made in France but by Tokina in Japan.
3, my Angenieux 35-70/2.5-3.3 was compared against a Sigma 15-30/3.5-4.5 and a Nikkor 24-85 AF-S G side by side on a digital body, the Nikon D1x. The Sigma and Nikkor were equal in performance but superior to the Angenieux.
4, the Angenieux 70-210/3.5 seemed the sharpest of the 4 Angenieux lenses I have owned. This is the one I would highly recommended.
Your mileage might vary. Like I said my tests were not always scientific enough.
1, the Angenieux 180/2.3 APO was less sharp than my Tamron 180/2.5 SP LD, so I sold the Angenieux at a very high price and kept the much cheaper Tamron to this day.
2, the Angenieux 28-70/2.6 AF compares very well to a Pentax FA* 28-70/2.8. No performance difference that I can detect, but from what I have heard the lens was not made in France but by Tokina in Japan.
3, my Angenieux 35-70/2.5-3.3 was compared against a Sigma 15-30/3.5-4.5 and a Nikkor 24-85 AF-S G side by side on a digital body, the Nikon D1x. The Sigma and Nikkor were equal in performance but superior to the Angenieux.
4, the Angenieux 70-210/3.5 seemed the sharpest of the 4 Angenieux lenses I have owned. This is the one I would highly recommended.
Your mileage might vary. Like I said my tests were not always scientific enough.
H
herbi
>I happen to have also several Angenieux lenses – I compared them to Leic a glass and I found that they are generally very fine pieces of optical mas tership, too.
1. In my experience the 3,5/70-210 is the absolute highflyer! I have one fo r Contax MF and one for Leica… They show a superb fine detail resolution and the pictures have a delicate “touchâ€! Though this has not the high contrast of the Leica 4/80-200 I even prefer the work with the Angenieux. T he perfect combination to work with is for me the Contax 167MT – I never have experienced a faster focussing and safer shooting than with this combi nation! 2. The Angenieux 2,8/200 is very similar to the Sonnar 2,8/180 and close to the Leica APO 3,4/180. In the center it is slightly sharper than the Leica – but the Leica APOs field shows an absolutely even resolution to the co rner – therefore I prefer it! 3. I was close to buy a 2,6/28-70, but then I found pictures made with this on a private Web-Page, which did not convince me…
1. In my experience the 3,5/70-210 is the absolute highflyer! I have one fo r Contax MF and one for Leica… They show a superb fine detail resolution and the pictures have a delicate “touchâ€! Though this has not the high contrast of the Leica 4/80-200 I even prefer the work with the Angenieux. T he perfect combination to work with is for me the Contax 167MT – I never have experienced a faster focussing and safer shooting than with this combi nation! 2. The Angenieux 2,8/200 is very similar to the Sonnar 2,8/180 and close to the Leica APO 3,4/180. In the center it is slightly sharper than the Leica – but the Leica APOs field shows an absolutely even resolution to the co rner – therefore I prefer it! 3. I was close to buy a 2,6/28-70, but then I found pictures made with this on a private Web-Page, which did not convince me…
J
jeremy
I have a few questions about the Schneider PC Super Angulon f/2.8 28mm lens for the previous participants in this thread and anyone else who has the lens. As you know, it's a very expensive letter so I wonder:
Does it entirely integrate with the RX light meter?
What do you like best about the lens?
What do you like least about the lens?
Before you bought the lens, did you think about getting a large format camera with more tilt/shift flexibility?
Any other issues that argue for or against the lens?
Thanks in advance for any comments.
Does it entirely integrate with the RX light meter?
What do you like best about the lens?
What do you like least about the lens?
Before you bought the lens, did you think about getting a large format camera with more tilt/shift flexibility?
Any other issues that argue for or against the lens?
Thanks in advance for any comments.
Hi Jeremy,
I'll try to answer some of your questions.
1. metering with RX is no special problem, but there are some special issues to consider. First, you have to stop down the lens manually and meter before shifting. With the RX (and also with the other bodies) metering becomes inaccurate with smaller apertures than 5.6, especially in low light conditions. As you have to stop down the lens at least to f8 if you want to make full use of it's shifting capacity, I mostly use a handheld light meter (Gossen).
2. The Schneider PC lens is the only one on the market with a 28mm focal length that can easily be used with the Contax bodies. The CZ 35mm shift lens has too narrow a field of view for what I want it to do. Compared to the Canon 24mm shift-lens, the Schneider is excellent. However, these are extreme optics, so don't be surprised to find more distortion and less sharpness than with a non-shift 28mm FFL. You should better compare it to a 15mm or 16mm super-wide-angle lens, as it is actually such a lens, concieved for a wider image circle. This is why a 35mm shift-lens will give you a much better optical performance - but at the price of angle of view, so it all depends on your needs.
3. As you can see, you will always have to compromise in one point or another: size, cost, ease of use, performance, field of view. As far as I am concerned, I never considered a large format camera - where I take my photographs, I usually can not lug around two boxes of gear.
Finally, I found the PC Angulon's performance fully sufficient for my needs (book size reproductions). I never felt the need to upgrade, and the pictures stood well against those made with Zeiss glass. If you don't use the shift option, the Super Angulon is on a par with the best Zeiss wide angles (you can download MTF-charts at ).
Hope that helps,
Marc
I'll try to answer some of your questions.
1. metering with RX is no special problem, but there are some special issues to consider. First, you have to stop down the lens manually and meter before shifting. With the RX (and also with the other bodies) metering becomes inaccurate with smaller apertures than 5.6, especially in low light conditions. As you have to stop down the lens at least to f8 if you want to make full use of it's shifting capacity, I mostly use a handheld light meter (Gossen).
2. The Schneider PC lens is the only one on the market with a 28mm focal length that can easily be used with the Contax bodies. The CZ 35mm shift lens has too narrow a field of view for what I want it to do. Compared to the Canon 24mm shift-lens, the Schneider is excellent. However, these are extreme optics, so don't be surprised to find more distortion and less sharpness than with a non-shift 28mm FFL. You should better compare it to a 15mm or 16mm super-wide-angle lens, as it is actually such a lens, concieved for a wider image circle. This is why a 35mm shift-lens will give you a much better optical performance - but at the price of angle of view, so it all depends on your needs.
3. As you can see, you will always have to compromise in one point or another: size, cost, ease of use, performance, field of view. As far as I am concerned, I never considered a large format camera - where I take my photographs, I usually can not lug around two boxes of gear.
Finally, I found the PC Angulon's performance fully sufficient for my needs (book size reproductions). I never felt the need to upgrade, and the pictures stood well against those made with Zeiss glass. If you don't use the shift option, the Super Angulon is on a par with the best Zeiss wide angles (you can download MTF-charts at ).
Hope that helps,
Marc
europanorama
Well-Known Member
Compared to the Canon 24mm shift-lens, the Schneider is excellent. >However, these are extreme optics, so don't be surprised to find more >distortion and less sharpness than with a non-shift 28mm FFL.
J
jeremy
Marc and Michael--thanks for the answers; very helpful.
I happen to have a Contax #1 lens shade. Do you know whether one can use a conventional filter along with the Contax 67mm-86mm step up adapter ring and #1 lens shade without vignetting?
I happen to have a Contax #1 lens shade. Do you know whether one can use a conventional filter along with the Contax 67mm-86mm step up adapter ring and #1 lens shade without vignetting?
J
jeremy
By conventional filter, I meant a 67mm filter with standard threads.
Jeremy,
the PC Super-Angulon 2,8/28 has indeed a 67mm filter thread, but it is not very easy to use. First, using 67 mm filters would always result in some vignetting.
The thread is in fact exclusively designed to take Schneiders own filter holder and lens hood. However, you can use a step-up ring in combination with a larger filter. Personally, I use a B+W 82 mm slimline polarizer together with a B+W step-up ring. Vignetting only occurs when shifting the lens more than ca. 6mm. If you want to avoid vignetting at all (including shift), then you would have to go with the Schneider setup.
You should equally be beware of the fact that the gap between the filter thread and the lens barrel, which is embraced by the filter thread, is very small. I tried several step-up adapters (hama etc.) which would not fit, being too large. I was told then by Schneider Kreuznach that only the B+W (a company they own) step-up ring would fit. As they said, this would also apply to filters in general.
I never tried Contax filters or hoods on the lens, as I my preferred filter brand has always been B+W.
So it looks as if it boils down to only two options:
1. the original Schneider setup (which also uses B+W filter glass) with no vignetting at all(as they claim)
2. A setup of a large slimline filter with a B+W step-up ring, causing some vignetting in extreme shift positions.
Nonetheless, there is a third option (although it may sound a little dubious): Apart from the polarizer, I use P-series Cokin filter glasses and just hold them in front of the lens. As long as you shoot from a tripod, there's no problem with doing so. And you don't have to carry around the bulky filter-holders together with the various threads. Not only do you save space, you also save time for screwing/unscrewing, changing adaptors, glasses etc.
This is what worked out best for me, maybe others have more experiences with other filter brands.
Hope this helps,
Marc
the PC Super-Angulon 2,8/28 has indeed a 67mm filter thread, but it is not very easy to use. First, using 67 mm filters would always result in some vignetting.
The thread is in fact exclusively designed to take Schneiders own filter holder and lens hood. However, you can use a step-up ring in combination with a larger filter. Personally, I use a B+W 82 mm slimline polarizer together with a B+W step-up ring. Vignetting only occurs when shifting the lens more than ca. 6mm. If you want to avoid vignetting at all (including shift), then you would have to go with the Schneider setup.
You should equally be beware of the fact that the gap between the filter thread and the lens barrel, which is embraced by the filter thread, is very small. I tried several step-up adapters (hama etc.) which would not fit, being too large. I was told then by Schneider Kreuznach that only the B+W (a company they own) step-up ring would fit. As they said, this would also apply to filters in general.
I never tried Contax filters or hoods on the lens, as I my preferred filter brand has always been B+W.
So it looks as if it boils down to only two options:
1. the original Schneider setup (which also uses B+W filter glass) with no vignetting at all(as they claim)
2. A setup of a large slimline filter with a B+W step-up ring, causing some vignetting in extreme shift positions.
Nonetheless, there is a third option (although it may sound a little dubious): Apart from the polarizer, I use P-series Cokin filter glasses and just hold them in front of the lens. As long as you shoot from a tripod, there's no problem with doing so. And you don't have to carry around the bulky filter-holders together with the various threads. Not only do you save space, you also save time for screwing/unscrewing, changing adaptors, glasses etc.
This is what worked out best for me, maybe others have more experiences with other filter brands.
Hope this helps,
Marc
J
jeremy
Thanks for another detailed answer, Marc. What I'm trying to do is to avoid adding yet another size to the existing filter sets for my RX--55mm, 67mm, 82mm. I also have a Cokin P holder and noticed that Cokin recently came out with a wide angle holder, which has only one filter slot.
That said, your comments about the unique character of the threads and my plan to use existing filter sizes lead me to think it might be worthwhile to ask one of the machining houses to make a custom filter holder, if that can be done for less than an arm and a leg. In the long run, this would be less cumbersome and might even be cheaper.
Thanks again. Jeremy
That said, your comments about the unique character of the threads and my plan to use existing filter sizes lead me to think it might be worthwhile to ask one of the machining houses to make a custom filter holder, if that can be done for less than an arm and a leg. In the long run, this would be less cumbersome and might even be cheaper.
Thanks again. Jeremy
J
jeremy
Marc, I don't read German; can you tell me what it's called on Foto Huppert's website so I can run a search?
Jeremy, you first have to enter their shop (button "zum Shop"). On the following site you'll see five blue, quadratical buttons. You have to push the left one ("digitale und analoge Fototechnik"). Then you can see the link "Schneider Kreuznach" in a list entitled "Foto-Technik-Analog". Open it, the first item you will see on top of the offerings is the filter holder/lens hood unit.
If you should want to contact them, I am sure that there will be somebody who speaks English.
Have fun, Marc
If you should want to contact them, I am sure that there will be somebody who speaks English.
Have fun, Marc
J
jeremy
Thanks, Mark. Foto Huppert indeed provided a quick, helpful response.