Overview Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF (Nikon F mount) specifically for Radozhiva, prepared Alexey Ovoshchnikov.
Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF
Hello, dear reader, wonderful site Radozhiva! I prepared a review of a very rare French lens Angenieux (version for Nikon cameras). I bought this rarity recently, but already as it should, I got acquainted with it. This is an old professional fast reportable zoom lens, the full name of Angenieux 28-70 mm f2.6.
Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF
In advertising, the manufacturer proudly stated that the lens is the fastest lens in the world in its class. Indeed, you can not argue with this, even in 2018, lenses of this type remained at the level of aperture F2.8. And the hero of the review was published in 1990.
Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF
I looked through a bit of information from the French forums, because my opinion and my experience is not enough to describe this rare lens well. Opinions are not unambiguous, but nevertheless the lens is praised for the picture and optical qualities, which is very important. The lens is compared with Nikkor AF-S 28-70 mm F2.8 and Nikkor AF 28-105 mm F 3,5-4,5. In my opinion, a comparison with the first is more correct. In my photographs, you can evaluate both resolution and color reproduction yourself.
Example on Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF
The portrait comes out just one hundred amazingly. Reporting personnel are also very encouraging. Photos from this lens often do not want to be processed at all. Everything is very balanced in the form in which the camera is fixed by default. This saves hours of your processing time. The scenery on Angenieux can be shot with great success!
Example on Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF
Example on Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF
Example on Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF
The owners also write that the lens is simply amazing on film. I do not shoot on film and I just agree with this opinion. The lens is criticized for its noisy autofocus. Yes, the lens buzzes loudly, clinks and hits the focusing limiters. Of course, the lens focuses by means of a screwdriver drive on both Nikon and Minolta / Sony cameras. This is especially noticeable in difficult shooting conditions, when focusing is not so easy the first time. They will not always be able to shoot quietly. The lens has too large MDF by modern standards and it is very inconvenient for them to shoot macro. A large portrait is also not his element. However, I really like the way the full-length portrait and group portraits turn out.
Example on Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF
Example on Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF
Prices and popularity
They are still interested in the lens, despite its age and unusualness, it is well bought and sold. You can see the prices on e-bay and draw your own conclusions. It is difficult to find out this very normal price considering the rarity factor of this model and the good quality of the optics. Personally, I bought this lens with my hands on the secondary market at a very modest price (much lower than average). I bought it in Paris and here it is rare, but still, you can find it at a normal price. However, in excellent condition, and even with a native case they want about a thousand euros for it.
Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF and Nikon ED AF-S VR-Nikkor 70-200mm 1: 2.8G Vibration Reduction SWM IF
A little about the aperture and the features of its use on modern digital cameras
By itself, the difference between f 2.6 and f 2.8 is very small and the camera will not even offer you a choice between these values. Current digital camera standards assume that f2.8 comes before f2,5 and the camera simply doesn't offer f2,6. With an Angenieux lens, you can use f 2.6 by setting the aperture in the camera to f2.8. The aperture remains fully open, and you get f2.6. After f2.6 comes f3.2, then f 3,5, and so on, just like with modern lenses.
I used this lens paired with Nikon D600 that is, we see the picture in full frame as intended by the developer and without any crop. The lens always behaves completely adequately, and there are no glitches and errors in working with the camera. Exposure metering always suits me, autofocus works well, the aperture works correctly and closes to the set value. However, I want to note that with Nikon D90 the lens was lost by the camera a couple of times in a hundred frames, and the aperture value disappeared on the monochrome display (tested on two different D90) Himself D90 I have a practical new one and have never behaved this way with any lens. Was treated by removing and reinstalling the lens. But I wouldn't buy this lens without a full frame. I am very glad that I got a version with a bayonet mount specifically for Nikon. Maybe someone has such a lens but under the Sony Minolta mount and will tell their impressions?
Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF
Specifications:
- Optical design: 13 elements in 11 groups
- Focal lengths: 28mm - 70mm at full frame and 42mm - 115mm at APS-C
- Minimum Aperture f / 22
- Maximum aperture f / 2, 6
- Number of aperture blades: 8
- Minimum focusing distance: 65 cm
- Autofocus drive: AF type lens (screwdriver drive. No motor in the lens)
- Thread Diameter: 77 mm
- Weight: 705 gram
- Internal Focus (IF)
- Started production: 1990 (discontinued)
Now consider in more detail
Constructive and ergonomic
The lens is a little less than 30 years old and therefore is very different from everything that is now sold in stores. The appearance of the lens is rather plain. The design is outdated. The lens has a metal mount. The build is good. The zoom ring rotates evenly and fairly easily. Nothing loosens from age. The lens is made of quality materials. The elastic bands are tough, but still comfortable and have not lost their appearance in so many years. The lens does not protrude when zooming, it is a professional lens with internal focusing.
Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF
Auto focus
The internal focusing method is used. You can use any color filter without any complications. The lens does not have a built-in focusing motor. There is no focus switch on the lens itself. You need to switch on the camera. Focusing is fast (everything is at a high level here), but noisy due to the screwdriver drive and when yawing in difficult conditions, the lens claps loudly when it hits the stops! For me, this criterion indicates that it is better not to drive the lens and not torment with difficult shooting conditions. Of course, this is archaism and a flaw of its time ... the focusing of the lens is accurate. I used a lens on my camera Nikon D600 and on two D90.
The focus ring is comfortable and rotates very easily, focusing by hand is quite comfortable. There are distance indications in meters and feet on the lens body. The lens does not support manual focus control when autofocus is on.
Image quality
Everything is fine here except for some nuances. Download full resolution photos and enjoy! Of course, there is significant vignetting on the open aperture, and a drop in sharpness in the corners, but it doesn’t upset me much. Corners can always be pulled up in the editor. Here I bring photos without processing. You can see how vignetting decreases with a change in focal length.
Chromatic aberrations and distortion
HA there are places that can spoil the picture, but they don’t strike the eye much. About how strong they are, judge by the photos. HA cannot edit automatically in the camera or in the editor, the lens is rare, old and there is no profile for it. Distortion is clearly visible at wide angle. You can get rid of these disadvantages using popular software.
Example on Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF
Example on Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF
Example on Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF
Example on Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF
Sharpness
Good and excellent sharpness. There are some shortcomings. Corners sag at wide angles along with vignetting. The edges sag just a little. I can assume that the sharpness numbers float depending on the focal length. The spread in sharpness is not critical but noticeable when viewed at 100% scale. When fully open, the picture is expectedly softer, corresponding optical artifacts appear in the form of soapy outlines. But this does not cause much indignation. Excellent sharpness with open or 3.5 depends on focal length and focusing distance. I want to note that with this lens the micro autofocus adjustment on my Nikon D600.
Example on Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF
Example on Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF
Back light
There is another story ... I really liked the picture in the backlight. The contrast does not fall so much that it spoils the picture. The backlit picture gets its charm. See photo 5 (carousel and horses) Now I do not have portraits shot against the sun on this lens. I will try to supplement the review with fresh photos.
Boke
Very happy and has its own character. The blur is reminiscent of the first fast AF Nikkor lenses.
Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF
Personal experience
In a short time of use, I gained a pleasant impression of this lens. I can not recommend it for purchase because of the rarity and consequently high price. However, if we consider this device inside the class of 28-70 f2,8 lenses, then we can safely declare the competitiveness of this lens even in 2018. Since you have read to the end, it means that you were not mistaken in the review and perhaps became even more interested. I hope my review has helped you improve your understanding of the fastest reportage in the world.
Originals on this link.
UPDATED
Originals at this link.
Attention!
An important point. I now have a lot of lenses and cameras, different brands and different years on hand. I would like to do some reviews and have prepared a bunch of material for this. But I don’t know, however, where to start. I propose voting in the comments. Here link to the site with a list of lenses. If you have a desire to read a review for a lens that is not on my list, write the model anyway! Suddenly he will interest me!
The review was prepared by Alexey Ovoshchnikov.
You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here.
Alexei, I’m interested in such a Sigma AF Zoom 28-70 mm f / 3.5-4.5 lens for Nikon. I use it on the crop, it feels like the quality of the pictures is like on the whale 18-55. I can not find information about the year of release, they write that this is a transitional lens. What are the pictures in full frame? It is interesting to see this lens in a review.
Hello Anton, thanks for your comment. I have this lens under Nikon and in excellent condition. Even there is a warranty card and instructions of those times. Maybe there is the year of release indicated. Review will be. I really liked the lens at full frame, but I haven’t shot something worthwhile on it. It is necessary to collect material for a review.
I'll bring my own 5 kopecks, not quite on the topic, but on the topic))) I had a tamron 28-75 (Arkady has a review), so on the crop (d3100, d200) he behaved terribly, but put on d800 - how- as if another lens was given, solid pluses. Maybe your Sigma has the same symptoms
Artem, I have not tried this lens in full frame, because I only have crop. If the opportunity presents itself, I will take pictures in full frame and add to the review.
Thanks for your review! Very, very interested in a rather rare animal - Nikon's 200/4 Macro. I always wanted to know if it was possible with such a long lens to shoot good macro and with a depth of field thicker than a razor blade.
Good afternoon, thanks for the question, yes you can shoot macro and the area of sharpness directly depends on the aperture value. Already on F4, you can fit insects or small field flowers into the sharpness zone. A review of this lens will certainly be necessary, especially since there is not enough information about it and the lens is rather unusual and relatively rare.
Thanks for the review! A couple of questions to the author:
1. Does the focus ring rotate in AF mode or is there a “tricky” mechanism?
2. I still do not understand if there are profiles for it in third-party software or is it possible to manually correct lens imperfections (distortion, vignette, HA)?
Thanks again, it was interesting to see this legend.
Hello, thanks for the question. I really did not highlight this nuance in my review. The manual focus ring rotates and must not be touched. That is, there is no advanced M / A mode. There are no focus switches on the lens. You need to switch on the camera itself. There are no profiles for it, if you need to edit it only manually.
Thank you
The first Russian-language test Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF!
Alexey and Arkady thank you!
With pleasure I thoughtfully read) thanks again!
For engineering, a separate respect!
I would venture to ask Nikon AF Nikkor 28 mm f / 1.4 D, but: D I understand that it is almost anryl.
Glass costs crazy money on eBee because of the collector's rarity and tiny circulation.
Hello, thanks for the comment! Yes, you offered to light a difficult lens. Yes, the problem is rarity and cost. In jest, I will answer you that there will be a review on the Sigma AF 14 mm f / 2.8 EX HSM (version for Nikon). Rearrange the values of aperture and focal length)))
Did he become Tokina 28-70 f / 2.8?
Yes
The author is well done, excellent review. But nikkor 24-70 for the secondary costs 700-900 ye, does it make sense to buy this miracle? I perfectly understand that the purpose of the review is to talk about this unusual lens, and not to analyze what you can buy for 1000 €.
Angenieux is bought by those who can afford to buy the new Niccor 24-70 / 2.8.
These are collectors.
For used Angenieux 28-70 / 2.6, the normal price for it is $ 1500-2000.
For mowing euros, it is almost impossible to buy.
Thanks for the review. Interested in such a lens Sigma AF Zoom 28-70 mm f / 3.5-4.5 for Nikon.
Thanks for the comment, the review will be, because the lens is interesting and you are not the first to be interested in it.
Vyacheslav, do you use Sigma AF Zoom 28-70 mm f / 3.5-4.5? If so, then on the crop? With or without a screwdriver?
The most fastest lower zoom as it was and remains Olympus c discrete 2.0. Author teach materiel!
Thanks for the comment, can I link to this lens? It is interesting to know more.
You don't have to bathe - all these Olympuses are for crop 2. That is, the lens is not of this class.
Vanya, when next time at the flea market you suddenly find 14-35 2.0, I propose to lay your soul but try, otherwise you will live in ignorance as the author of this work. To the author - have you heard about the top from olik? Throw a link or add it yourself?)
And yes, the little soul will cost money - at least 1000 euros. This is to talk about the class of technology. By the way, tear off the gadget with your hands - they usually do not stale. Good luck
I looked at the review with interest - mostly photos, tk. at one time there were less rare versions of this development, AT-X Pro 2 (28-70 / 2.6-2.8) and a simple AT-X (with an orange ring and a rotating trunk). According to the picture, HMB, they are all very close (optically simplified SV version, like the other 28-80 / 2.8 I do not mean), the difference is greater in the convenience of the construct. At the same time, in my AT-X Pro2 I had to adjust the infinity and clean / lubricate the AF drive (very simple), and AT-X had to go through almost completely (replacing the original guides of the zoom mechanism is their age-related disease in the form of backlash, distortions of the optical axes lens blocks, loss of smoothness of the zoom ring, etc.).
So, optically: incredibly plastic and, at the same time, detailed drawing is present, * fluffy * characteristic bokekha, * air * remains even on closed diaphragms. From 2.8 to about 3.2, spherical aberrations are present. For the so-called. * soft effect * at 70 / 2.8 many * pros * accept front focus (it is treated with a small micro-correction in the camera), in fact, at 70 / 2.8 the lens is quite sharp. With the correct selection of the correction for a specific camera-lens combination, it is not necessary to subsequently check the AF accuracy on the screen - I don't remember any AF errors (on pro-cameras). The * loss * of the lens mentioned here occurs on some Nikon cameras due to a weak bayonet lock and, as a result, twisting of the contacts, for example, when rotating the zoom of this rather heavy lens. Of course, sometimes the wires of the flexible loop inside break down on them, but after that, this simple crossing in the bayonet is unlikely to help))
A couple of photo examples:
http://dmitriy34.wixsite.com/photographer/pejzazh-i-dr?lightbox=dataItem-iwutk6ji2
http://dmitriy34.wixsite.com/photographer/pejzazh-i-dr?lightbox=dataItem-iwutk6ji7
http://dmitriy34.wixsite.com/photographer/pejzazh-i-dr?lightbox=dataItem-iwutk6ji5
http://dmitriy34.wixsite.com/photographer/pejzazh-i-dr?lightbox=dataItem-iwutk6ji
Thus, for those who want to try this optical design for the first time, one can start not with a collectible, but problem-free copy of the 28-70 / 2.6-2.8 AT-X Pro 2 or just AT-X.
Thanks for your comment with helpful information and great photos. Great landscapes. As for the back-front focus ... Yes, the lens has a light back-front focus, floating depending on the focal point, but when shooting in real conditions, there are few misses and focusing errors. Perhaps this is the wear of the mechanics inside. I didn’t understand anything because my hand simply doesn’t rise to pick such a rare lens. Micro focus adjustment works with this lens, but it all makes no sense if the value of the focus error is not constant at different focal lengths. With this lens without correction, the autofocus can be inaccurate only on MDF or so ... From meter to infinity, everything is cool at any focal length. At least in real shooting conditions.
The lens is very, very interesting, warm tube photos :) Thank you very much to Alexey and advice - before publishing an article to drive it into Word, he will highlight all syntax and grammar errors.
Hello, thanks for the comment. Yes, warm and tube photos from this lens. I also have this association when working with him. And as for the Word and mistakes, I did just that…. Maybe something slipped through.
I did not like how the lens behaves around the edges. But I liked the photos. Almost tube. There is not enough film for authenticity. Thanks for the review!
Alex, thanks for the review! A very rare and interesting lens, the photos are really warm and tube-like, as if on film)
Some kind of crap, not a lens ... Solid soap, no sharpness, no contrast in any picture, colors are sluggish and faded ... What's the point in such a lens ...? When there were no digital cameras and there was film, then it was a completely different matter and the film was not particularly demanding on optics and sharpness ... On a good color Fuji film, photos on any soap dish turned out to be of acceptable quality ... Now on matrices, the requirements for optics are completely different and not every old the lens is suitable in this sense ... For example, I like Jupiter 37A on a digital camera ... Based on what I notice, our Soviet lenses give better digital quality than foreign ones ... This confirms that Soviet optics was better and better quality than foreign ones in the Soviet years ... This is also confirmed by the fact that in the Soviet years foreigners were happy to buy up our cameras and lenses ... I am sure that if now our industry were to produce lenses taking into account modern requirements, they would be better than theirs in all respects ... I recently looked at the resolution of some lenses on a well-known website ... I was surprised that the vaunted (it is not clear only by whom) Zeiss lens ltinnik and, for example, nikkor 18-200, according to their tests, have almost the same resolution, and according to the test tables, the 18-200 picture is better in sharpness and clarity ... I am more and more convinced that all this talk about the quality of leis and Zeiss is nothing more than someone and once a cult (by analogy with a gnawed apple), in order to raise the price of their products and do little and receive a lot, because their quality does not differ from the quality of other manufacturers, and sometimes it is even worse, than others ... Once, yes, there were things that were prestigious to have .. Now, when no one in the world values their reputation (as in the old years, let's say, before the 80s), they only think about how to deceive people and fill their pockets, there is no point in these cults ... What was done in Japan or Germany, for example, in the year 1960, is still and still works ... And now sometimes the guarantee has not ended, but already problems and this is regardless of the brand ... Previously, the Japanese guaranteed reliable operation of the same bodies Evizor during the entire period of operation, and now the warranty is one year and on the 367th day it can also break ...
And what, Natalya, should all lenses always give a sharp, contrasting and saturated picture as one? Just like in a children's decoration? It never occurred to you that sometimes, not always of course, all this is not required, but just the opposite, the soft and calm nature of the image is required?
And do not say that, they say, from sharp to unsharp can be done in any editor, and not vice versa. Exactly so - you won't. Some of the optical effects (defects) editors are either unable to simulate or do it very roughly and therefore - fake.
Of course, not all lenses have to be razor sharp ... Portrait lenses should be soft, but not soapy ... And then soft, unsharp and soapy are three different parameters ... For example, Helios was soft ... And yes, it is not entirely correct to compare Jupiter fix and this zoom ... Well and still, regardless of all the arguments and facts, this particular lens is complete crap ... And still our Soviet lenses were of very good quality at that time ... I once had a simple mirrored Leica with a Leica lens and a mine viewfinder ... Such a small model I don't even remember, like our Zenith ... So FED-3 with Industar produced better quality photos ...
Natalya, you would have taken and photographed something for an example of what soap is. And it’s so powerful that every stern woman can take and write.
Come on sharpness is not bad for a zoom lens. In the USSR, there were no zoom lenses in the 28-70 class of 1: 2.8. 37A is a good lens, but you compare it with a fixed lens, and in this case we have a universal, fast aperture, autofocus zoom, I note that they did not live up to autofocus in the USSR. Soviet lenses were bought up because of their cheapness for foreigners; for the domestic market, the price in the region of 130 rubles for Soviet 37A for the Soviet engineer did not seem to be small. The shutter failure on the Soviet Zeniths is a classic of the genre, foreigners bought them with buckets and threw them as needed. Add here the geometric vignetting on the heliks with their nervous cup, which is not suitable for all subjects. Yes, and the Jupiter -37- you mentioned is still a dark lens to the cherished 2.8 and have not grown
Fat troll Natalia)
Did you see him? Maybe he’s even really nothing?)))
He is bearded, his name is Conchita, and a whale 18-55 dangles between his legs.
Gold words…
Why a troll ...? I just wrote how everything is now in reality, and did not embellish anything ... But those who are afraid of this truth, because the stigma is in the gun, this is how they react ...!
I must say that my opinion is close to what was expressed by Natalia. Himself on an e-bay he got Voitlander, Agf, Western Zeiss and came to the conclusion that their reputation is almost entirely due to marketing, but the Soviet one was breaking down, but the German one was breaking the same way, and the quality of those products was so-so. It was not in vain that Nikon and Canon crushed them, and it was not only a matter of prices. In my opinion, an interesting and much better quality picture is easier to get from a Chinese lens for video surveillance. All IMHO.
But is it okay that the zenith does not have more than one of its developments and all their optics are copies of Zeiss, which foreigners bought up because of the low price?
Mercy!
the lens is honestly so-so)
That's putting it mildly ... It sucks - that's it ...
In 1981, Tokina acquired the rights to manufacture it, making improved models. I have a granddaughter from Angenieux - Tokina AF 28-70 mm f / 2.8 AT-X Pro II for Pentax. Favorite lens for unhurried reporting. The quality and the picture are excellent, you cannot compare, for example, with the modern Tamron SP AF28-75mm F / 2.8 with its trunk! The design allows you to use the lens without a protective filter - zoom and focus inside the tube! Look for grandchildren from Angenieux, you won't regret it!
There are the following Tokins, which have something similar to this Angenieux in their picture, but they cost a penny.
1. Tokina AT-X AF 28-70mm 1: 2.8 - orange border near the front lens, filter diameter 72 mm, focusing is not internal. Window focusing distances. The name on the box is Tokina AT-X 270 AF.
2. Tokina AT-X PRO AF 28-70mm 1: 2.6-2.8 (1: 2.8) - marking '1: 2.8' for Japan, marking '1: 2.6-2.8' for other countries, filter diameter 77 mm, internal focusing. The hood is threaded. Without a window of focusing distances, a gold border near the front lens. The name on the box is Tokina AT-X 270 AF PRO.
3. Tokina AT-X PRO 28-70mm 1: 2.6-2.8 (1: 2.8) - marking '1: 2.8' for Japan, marking '1: 2.6-2.8' for other countries, filter diameter 77 mm. Outwardly similar to the previous version, but only near the front lens there is no inscription 'Tokina', and a bayonet type hood. Usually the version is called 'AT-X PRO II'. The name on the box is Tokina AT-X 270 AF PRO II.
4. Tokina AT-X PRO 28-80 1: 2.8 Aspherical - a window of a focus scale, a gold border near the front lens. The name on the box is Tokina AT-X 280 AF PRO. There is a subversion with a gold nameplate with the name of the lens and other enlightenment.
5. Tokina AT-X PRO SV 28-70mm 1: 2.8 (also called Tokina AT-X 287 PRO SV) - it is easy to recognize the prefix 'PRO SV'. The name on the box is Tokina AT-X 287 AF PRO SV.
Bullshit is Chinese and not a lens. What is the quality?
Many thanks to the author for the review of this rare and interesting lens.
For a long time I have been fond of him, but I was embarrassed by the price, and not a complete understanding of the features of behavior in various conditions, as well as the nature of the drawing. Thanks to your review with real footage, I got information for thought - thanks.
Absolutely Not Inserted, especially for 1000 Euros and more ...
Well, this is a rarity, not a working lens. Here the price category is inappropriate, or rather appropriate in comparison with other rarities.
What I liked: the positive of the author. The energy is such that I immediately wanted to buy a lens.
What I didn’t like: the article is chaotic, there is no structure.
<> but unfortunately we did not see portraits ((
Thanks to the author and respect for the opportunity for the first time in Russian to read a detailed review of the legendary lens.
This scheme was inherited by the Tokins 28-70 and 28-80 \ 2.8
As the owner of 28-80 \ 2.8, I can definitely say that Tokins bury the French ancestor in all respects. In the examples in this review, I see poor sharpness, dirty green color reproduction, and poor contrast. Tokina has nothing of the kind
Thank you for the review! However, examples of photographs are uninformative (there are practically no photos with a covered aperture, monotonous, often backlighting and regular dips in the shadows) and do not provide a more or less complete picture of the capabilities of the lens. And yes, for a price of 1000 cu and above what kind of competitiveness can we talk about?
Alexei, look at the price of Nikon AF Nikkor 28 mm f / 1.4 D, and then think about what money can be bought from modern photographic equipment.
Looked))). There is nothing to think about. But - to each his own. Someone "lamp" color / light / sound / others (underline the necessary), someone - an adequate price / quality ratio. IMHO.