Angenieux or Minolta G for 28~70mm 2.8

I would be glad if someone to advice me on this two lens. I have a

deal on a very mint Angenieux 28-70 2.6 AF for Minolta. I have heard

many good things of Angenieux, but this company has gone. Should I go

for the Angenieux or get a Minolta "G" 28-70 F2.8. How does both lens

compare? Thanks in advance.

 

Michael

The Angenieux lens is legendary. Tokina copied it - you might find the Tokina copy for around $300 or less 2nd hand. What price could you get on the Angenieux? My advice would be different at $1000 than at $300.

The Angenieux 28-70 2.6 AF for Minolta was asking for USD$600. How the price by the way?

 

Michael

That's probably a very fair price for the Angenieux lens in truly near mint shape from a dealer. OTOH, the Tokina copy, which is really just as good, could be gotten for under $400 from a dealer, or under $300 on ebay.

 

Angenieux, BTW, is not your ordinary 3rd party lens vendor, like Cosina, Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina. And they most certainly still exist. They are a manufacturer of ultra-high performance specialty optics, more similar in their quality AND price, to Zeiss or Schneider-Kreuzenach. Their lenses are widely used in the professional movie and broadcast industries, as well as night-vision optics for NATO, among other things. Their website, www.angenieux.com is active.

Haven't used either, but the Minolta gets a considerably better report on Photodo - 3.7 vs. 3.3 for the Angenieux and 3.1 for the Tokina.

 

Visit www.photodo.com and look in the 'products' tab.

 

Cheers,

 

Antony

The ratings at Photodo.com is base on how many people have use the lens & for sure there will be much more people using Minolta G 28-70 F2.8 than Angenieux. I think both are capable lens. Is there any one has pictures taken by Angenieux. Is it Angenieux do not manufacture lens for 35mm camera? All I have seen is for movies/motion camera only.

 

By the way last Saturday I came by a Angenieux APO 180mm F2.3 lens for Nikon manual mount. Front element with cleaning mark. Price is US$1300. I think this lens is way too expensive.

 

Michael

Photodo ratings have nothing to do with popularity, they are based upon MTF performance. Next time at least check before coming out with misinformation. Here are the details from the Photodo site:

 

Understanding the MTF graphs, numbers and grades.

 

We have been testing lenses with Hasselblads Ealing MTF equipment since 1991. All MTF reports are made with the same equipment and by the same operator (Per Nordlund at Victor Hasselblad AB).

So far we have tested lenses only at infinity.

 

We measure MTF at 10, 20 and 40 lp/mm, where 10 lp/mm (line pairs/ mm) means 10 black lines with 10 white lines in between, for each millimeter.

 

The lens with the highest MTF in our tests (so far) is the Canon EF 200/1,8L USM.

 

<the information provided by Photodo is as follows>

 

Photodo test result: 4,8

Higher is better. 4,8 is the grade on a scale going from 0 to 5. The grade is based on the average weighted MTF for the lens. No other variables, such as distortion, flare, or ghosting are taken into account. We chose 0,88 for a grade of 4,8 to make sure that we will never hit the "roof" (>5). See more at Average Weighted MTF: 0,88 below.

 

Effective focal length: 195 mm

Often the real focal length differs from the one given by the manufacturer. 195 mm is the length we measured with the Ealing.

 

Weighted MTF for 200 mm: f1,8 0,82, f2,8 0,89, f4 0,90, f8 0,87

Higher is better. MTF is measured 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 21 mm from the image center (on axis), at 10, 20 and 40 lp/mm, in two different directions (sagital and tangential). That is all together 48 measurements at each focal length and each f-stop. Rather than listing all these numbers we calculate a weighted average number for each f-stop of all lenses and each focal length of zoom lenses. The center of the image is more important than the edges, and 10 lp/mm is more important than 20 and 40.

The maximum MTF is 1,0, but due to optical imperfections and diffraction, a perfect score is impossible to reach at these line frequencies.

The MTF at large apertures (f1,0 - f2,8) is limited by optical imperfections (with major differences between lenses). At small apertures (f11 - f32+) MTF is limited by diffraction (with minor differences between lenses). For example the Canon EF 200/1,8L USM has its peak at f4.

We don't measure beyond f8 because lens performance at small apertures is limited more by diffraction than by optical quality. At very small apertures all lenses are about equally bad.

 

Average Weighted MTF: 0,88

Higher is better. When we report an average MTF number for all f-stops at one focal length we use f4 (or wide open, if f4 is not attainable) and f8. Most lenses have their highest MTF at f8. High-speed lenses almost always have a very low MTF at full aperture. That is why we decided to use f4 and f8 as standard apertures. Since MTF for f8 is slightly more important than for f4, we assign weights of 60% for f8 and 40% for f4. In the case of zoom lenses, we report the weighted average MTF at each measured focal length.

 

Weighted MTF 10 lp/mm: 0,94

Higher is better. 10 lp/mm is important for evaluating the overall contrast and resolution when making small enlargments (10 x 15 cm or 4 x 6 inches).

 

Weighted MTF 40 lp/mm: 0,71

Higher is better. 40 lp/mm is important only when you intend to make large prints of high quality. If you are going to use the lens with fine grain film, the camera on a tripod, and make big enlargements, then it is important to choose a lens with a high MTF at 40 lp/mm.

 

Max distortion: -1,1 %

Closer to zero is better. Distortion is when a straight line near the edge appears curved in the image. If the line curves out in the middle, it is due to negative (barrel) distortion of the lens

Positive or pincushion distortion is when straight lines curve inwards in the middle.

 

The graphs

The graphs show MTF in percent for the three line frequences of 10 lp/mm, 20 lp/mm and 40 lp/mm, from the center of the image (shown at left) all the way to the corner (shown at right).

The top two lines represent 10 lp/mm, the middle two lines 20 lp/mm and the bottom two lines 40 lp/mm.

The solid lines represent sagital MTF (lp/mm aligned like the spokes in a wheel). The broken lines represent tangential MTF (lp/mm arranged like the rim of a wheel, at right angles to sagital lines).

On the scale at the bottom 0 represents the center of the image (on axis), 3 represents 3 mm from the center, and 21 represents 21 mm from the center, or the very corner of a 35 mm-film image.

Separate graphs show results at f8 and full aperture. For zoom lenses, there are graphs for each measured focal length.

 

Funny, I don't see a popularity grading in there.

 

Cheers, Antony

 

 

Well...

MTF, what about MTF values?

Do they really tell you how good is a lense???

Yes and no.

They tell about resolving power, without saying anything about color rendition, linear distorsion, about bokeh (out of focus areas... are they lovely, are they bad?)about vignetting and, what is worst, about flare.

Manufacturers perfectly know, and in agreement with magazines MTF tests are brought to you in palm of the hand as the truth about the lens quality! It is a lie? again no. Is it half lie?.... not exactly. it is an useful half trouth. It is the most easily measurable and calculable lens quality factor.

From those values, the 35-70 2.8 Nikkor seems the best zoom ever, or a "very good one". In terms of practical use it is an expensive paper holder, renders houses like mooshrooms and can flare in a wide extended fog effect with a single lightbulb. The Zeiss 25mm 2.8 seems a poor lens... but when you pick it up snd soot is far the best 24mm on the market. '70 and '80 leica M lenses have a BAD MTF...

And then some very good MTF'd lense is a fantastic performer!

 

About Angenieux: 28-70 AF is a LEGEND lens, they used to work side to side with Leitz, they used the same optical glass... from the '80-'90 made by Hoya/Tokina. When Angenieux retired from 35mm slr market, sold its projects to Tokina. the 28-70 (NOT the 28-80) 2.6-2.8 is very close, also as quality. They made it a bit cheaper, more "produceable". Full metal housing and not the high-cost ultralight and bad feeling composite Angenieux used. The result is a bestseller lens. The Angenieux 70-210 is even better, but I do not know if Tokina ATXpro one is really the same. 200m 2.8 APO 180mm 2.3 APO Angenieux were made, extra expensive lenses, Leitz glasses (and project???) and then forgotten. I've the 200... very proud of it. Has some flare problem, but a very Leica smoothness, shadows are full of details, colors are Zeiss style. I prefer it to the Teletessar.

 

Finally, for the use I'd make of a 28-70 (some easy sport shot) my choice would be the Tokina. Low price, quality better than most originals, mechanical construction and sturdyness surely better than all originals. But I always use primes...

photodo is lab test results, no account for contrast, colour - photodo is best ignored apart from seeing which lenses get bum results.

 

Have you considered the KonicaMinolta 28-75/2.8 (D) aka Tamron 28-75/2.8.