Angenieux’s Updated Zooms

Angenieux usually has something fun to play with every year at NAB. Last year they had their newly announced 24-120mm Optimo lens. And this year was no exception with the unveiling of their updated Optimo zooms. Albeit slightly less than exciting, the new zooms from Angenieux feature updated (not upgraded) optics that exhibit a larger image circle than their predecessors. This is pretty cool for the 24-290mm, now the 28-340mm, that covers beyond the RED Epic sensor but even more impressive is the 17-80mm’s update that also covers the RED Epic sensor. The older 17-80mm barely covered the 35mm frame and didn’t cover Super 35mm at all. With the new updated 19.5-90mm lens, vignetting is no longer an issue on S35mm format cameras. Not exactly revolutionary these lenses. But it shows that Angenieux is paying attention to its users wants and needs. Unfortunately the prices are still about the same coming in around $70k for the big daddy 28-340mm and slightly less for the mid-range 19.5-90mm. Their speed is slightly reduced from T2.8 to T3.2 on the 28-340mm and from T2.2 to T2.6 on the 19.5-90mm. Not too bad. (thanks for the help, Ryan)

As far as I can tell, this is accomplished basically by a very low powered extender that increases the focal length and image circle, and decreases the maximum aperture. Kudos to Angenieux for rolling with the punches. RED is making it very difficult for lens manufacturers to keep up with it’s pointless sensor sizes but companies like Angenieux and Zeiss just keep pushing forward. I’ll have more updates once I get a chance to play with these bad boys a little more in person.

4 thoughts on “Angenieux’s Updated Zooms

  1. Hey Matthew, I’m a big fan of your site and expertise, but I wanted to let you know that the Angie 19.5-90 is T2.6. Not a big difference, but more light loss than reported in this article. Also, the new Angie 28-340 is a T3.2 lens, while its predecessor (24-290) was T2.8. Again not far off, but more light loss than said above.

    all the best,

    1. Nice catch, Ryan. Not sure where I got those numbers. I’ll be sure to correct that in he article. Thanks!

Leave a Reply