CI Photocommunity

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Angineux 70210 How good

P

paulss

I am considering trading my 180 elmarit 2.8 in for an 80-200 Vario Elmar 4.0 to cut some 300 gm. of weight from my bag. Another lens that shows up in that range is the Angineux 70-210 f3.5. I can't seem to find any good reviews of just how good the Angineux is in comparison to the 180 or the 80-200. Its about half the price- but is there a big trade off in quality of the optics or construction? Thanks
 
My understanding is that these lenses are made in Japan and may not have the same high image contrast of the Leitz lens. Having used Nikon and Olympus for many years and recently started using R series, I can vouch for this.

Probably worth shooting a test role before you buy. The 3.4 Apo 180mm is slightly lighter and has a better image quality I understand.

Hope it helps
 

tigerish

Well-Known Member
Chris, the Leitz zooms were made in Japan. ( Minolta and later Sigma) The Angenieux lenses (there's also a short zoom with a Leica fitting as well as an APO DEM 180/2.3 and a DEM 200/2.8) were made in France.

I've got the 70-210/3.5 and the 180/2.3. If you can find the latter, I think it's one of the best lenses I've used.

The 70/210/3.5 is also an excellent lens, and I found it better than the Leitz equivalents.

I think if Paul went for this lens, he wouldn't be disappointed.

Regards
 

sungnee

Member
I think Angenieux invented the zoom lens, originally for movies.

They were (I shoukd have said "he was" since Angenieux is the name of the person) also the first one to use electronic beams to coat their lenses (56 layers, if my memory is correct).
 

tigerish

Well-Known Member
p.s. Paradoxically, I think the 'best' Leica mount zoom I have is a Sigma APO 50-200/3.5-4.5. I did a series of tests a few years ago and found the lens had warm colour saturation that appeals to me. Good though the Angenieux 70-210/3.5 is, in comparison the colours are a little 'cool'.

I was told that Leitz took legal action to prevent Sigma from using the mount. This may not be true, but if it is there is a nice symmetry about the fact that Leitz later turned to Sigma to make their own zooms.

I should also mention that I use a little Tamron 70-210/4-5.6 with a Leica Adaptall mount for travelling sometimes. I know purists won't like this, but it's a very handy light lens and the results are not at all bad.

I think I've mentioned both these points here before, so for those who've already seen them I aplologise for the repetition.

Regards
 

colin

Well-Known Member
First..The Angenieux lenses are simply great in my opinion. The came with a lifetime warranty including re-incarnations! (seriously) The French must know something the rest of us don't
Second...I believe it was Voiglander who invented the zoom(though it was varifocal in reality)
Colin
 
H

hektor

Pierre Angénieux invented the retro-focus lens.

The first variable focal length lens was the Voigtländer Zoomar.
 
D

dominique

Hello,

The 80-200 Vario Elmar f/4 as is presently available from Leica, has been designed by Leica in Germany, and is being manufactured by Kiocera, in Japan. This lens is very good, mechanically and optically speaking, and to me is the best vario lens available on the market in this range presently. The only better lens I know is the Vario Elmarit 70-180 from Leica too, that is twice as luminous, but nearly three times more expensive and also bigger and heavy. To me both lenses are equal in quality at f 5.6, but the vario-elmar is already very good at f 4, even if the vario-elmarit has the lead.
Also the vario-elmar has very low tendency to flare, is really very sharp, especially around focal 100 - 180, also in the near range, where it goes closer than the apo-telyt and the vario-elmarit, and has very low distortion. Handling of the vario-elmar is easy, with its two rings, one for distance setting, one for focal setting. The Vario-Elmar (as the vario-elmarit) keeps the distance setting unchanged, when you change the focal, and that is very good, as you can set the distance at a higher focal (let say 200) and then shoot at the needed focal (let say 100) and be sure of where you set the distance exactly. I compared the 80-200 vario-elmar with the summilux 80 and the Apo-telyt 180. The vario-elmar beats the apo-telyt in the short distance, where it is sharper, and gets also a lot closer (1.1 meter instead of 2.5 meter - the apo-telyt has been corrected for infinity where it is better than the vario-elmar, but its closest focusing distance is less good - the new Apo-elmarit has corrected this problem to 1.5 m, but even here the vario-elmar has the lead).

Typically I use that lens at 5.6 or between 4 and 5.6 at the highest speed I can, stopping down further is not necessary, but for the dept of field. Best focal length 100-180. A joy to use.

I still use the apo-telyt at infinity where it really shines, even at the widest aperture, but this lens is not as flexible as the vario-elmar, as it is less good at the closest distance and of course , it is not a vario-lens.

I have not yet been able to decide which one is the best, between the 80 summilux and the 80-200 vario-elmar. To me there are different lenses, not competing together. I keep the summilux 80 because it is so luminous (1.4) and handy; also the summilux does not distord at all.

On my M6, I also use the 90mm AA, which is now also available for the R. This lens is an exception and it is better than anything else Leica has built up to now. It is a strong performer, and gives outstanding pictures particularly wide open. Colour wise the vario-elmar and the summicron 90 AA are close, but the rendition of very fine details is better with the 90 AA, which is also more luminous. The summicron gives finer pictures at f4, but both lenses give clean pictures (pure colors, no flare, very sharp details, high contrast, but these are different lenses to be used in different situations - I am using the 90 AA wide open with low sensitivity films, and the vario -elmar at f 5.6 with high speed films - so the results are different, but in both cases outstanding ).

I checked a few times the latest Angenieux zooms, which I find very sharp too, but their technology is dating already, and to me the vario-elmar is better. Mechanically, the Angenieux are made is a sort of plastic with glass fiber, which is not ageing as nicely as the Leica lenses do; the finition of the vario-elmar is superb, as for all Leica lenses.

I advise you to have a go with the vario-elmar 80-200, you will not be disappointed.
 

tigerish

Well-Known Member
'I checked a few times the latest Angenieux zooms, which I find very sharp too, but their technology is dating already, and to me the
vario-elmar is better.'

Interesting post, thank you.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here?

What 'latest Angenieux zooms' are made in a Leica mount? I thought they went out of production about 20 years ago?

I thought that Paul was referring to the Angenieux 70-210/3.5 which dates back to the 1980s, and was certainly superior to the Minolta made Vario-Elmar-R 70-210/4 of the day.

I can't compare these old lenses with what's made today, (because I don't have any current Leitz lenses) except to say that in the 1980s Angenieux had a fine reputation, and although their technology may be dating this doesn't imho affect the performance of the lenses.

Regards
 
D

dominique

Hello,

I remember of a 35-70 f2.8, a 70-210 and there was also a APO 180 2.8. All of them were available in several mounts, including Nikon, Canon and Leica. They were in plastic plus glass fiber finish and sold in nice red boxes, like jewels, which they were. Today Leica zooms are more contrasty (generation of 1990...), but of course we have now better glass and technology.

Best regards.
 
I have found this a most informative discussion. I mentioned in my first discussion comment that I am very new to Leica and have very much enjoyed learning about these lenses.

Thanks to all that have contributed so far.

Regards

Chris
 

tigerish

Well-Known Member
'but of course we have now better glass and technology.'

There is also the question of price, and the original point was whether the discount on the Angenieux 70-210 was justified having regard to relative quality.

I paid over $US 1,000 for mine in 1989; I saw a couple advertised on the internet for a few hundred each yesterday.

Provided condition's OK, there is no way that a comparable new lens today could be bought for such a paltry sum.

Even allowing for the 'outdated technology' the discount relative to the difference in quality makes these lenses a snap.

We're seeing something similar in Asahi Optical Co's Super-Takumar and SMC-Takumar M42 lenses. A SMC-Tak 50/1.4 can be found in really good condition on ebay for under $US 50. This was one of the best standard lenses made by anyone anywhere.

I think lenses like these, as well as the Angenieux glass from the 1980s which has been mentioned here, are wonderful collecting opportunities as well as providing great photographic results.

Would welcome other comments; I hope the originator of this interesting thread feels that he's getting good value?

Regards
 

lct

Well-Known Member
Angénieux still exists as
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
a specialist
in high technologic optics applied to broadcast & film industries.
As far as i know they still provide maintenance and repair of the old Angénieux lenses.
Best,

63306.jpg
 
D

dominique

Hello,

To me a Angenieux Zoom is still worth buying, and was better than the Leica Zooms of that time, for sure. Also, the 35-70 Angénieux is more luminous and is cheaper second-hand than the 35-70 F4 vario Elmar from Leica, and should be very good too. Only draw back: R8 electronic contacts, that are available on excellent Vario-Elmar, which is also one of the cheapest lenses from Leica...

Best regards.
 

lct

Well-Known Member
Hi Dominique,
As you said the modern Leica zooms are more contrasty than the old Angénieux ones obviously.
Best,

63309.jpg
 
P

paulss

Thank all of you for your thoughtful input. Not having either lens nearby for in hand comparison makes everything a little more difficult.
I did talk to a dealer I have used in the past who had both [both just sold]. He said that optically they are fairly close with a slight edge to Leica and would give the nod to Leica for mechanical construction quality.

There have been too many camera scams on E bay to even consider looking there. The upshot is that I just ordered the Leica 80-200 ROM, used, said to be a '10' from another dealer. Now I have to wait anxiously for delivery.

Thanks again.

Paul
 

tigerish

Well-Known Member
Paul, good luck with your choice. I'm sure you'll be very happy with the 80-200.

I tend to agree about ebay. (which is where I saw the lenses I mentioned before. I found another web site which gave a 1998 value of $US 3,000 for the Angenieux 70-210, which is a bit different to the current bids. Did your dealer mention what price he sold his for?)

I like watching what goes on there, but am far too cautious too buy anything!

Kind regards, and perhaps you might consider letting us know hoow you get on with the new lens?
 
P

paulss

Francis:
the Angineux 70-210 was listed at $600 U.S. and most likely sold at that price. I paid $1000 for the Leica 80-200. It wouldn't surprise me if used prices soften as digital camera quality goes up and prices go down.

I have used the dealer ads in Shutterbug as my guide for the most part. There are a number of reputable dealers there who will still be around next month and will stand behind their wares.

ebay? A friend who is somewhat of a camera collector has done well on ebay; been burned with goods not as advertized and has been outright scammed. Mostly for smaller items. The digital forums are full of scam reports. Much more of a crapshoot than I want, specially for a high ticket item.

the lens should be here early next week. Not that I'm excited or anything.
 
H

hektor

Dear Paul,

To date I have been fortunate on eBay and bought some rare and expensive items, however before the close of the auction I write to the seller and reach agreement that payment will be made when the equipment is with Leica Camera AG at Solms. Both parties are thereby protected and if payment is not received Leica will return the equipment to the seller. The added benefit is that the equipment is also checked by experts and serviced if necessary.

If the seller is not prepared to enter into such agreement I do not bid.

Best wishes.

Justin
 
Top