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.
Good afternoon, thanks for your comments, corrections and criticism. The trolls also pulled up ... where without them. I just forgot to tell about the followers of this Angenieux (almost clones) from Tokina. Special thanks to Arkady for information about Tokin. Indeed, one optical design and lenses are very similar. I even wanted to buy such Tokinu for one-to-one comparison in the review! However, the common sense stopped me. Do you need it? And so there are no surprises. While preparing this material, I kept a review with Tokina in my head and there were always coincidences ... And I want to add! I don't recommend anyone chasing this Angenieux, it's just a very rare high-aperture zoom. A thousand euros is a collector's price! If you are not a collector then you do not need one. I bought it on a good occasion and after reading the information about it here! (That there is such a lens ... then they made Tokina ... Tokina is good, warm tube photos from her ... blah blah blah ... and it's all true) None of the photographers shooting here in Paris have ever heard of such a brand of photographic equipment, and that's normal. After all, it has not been sold or advertised for a hundred years. This is not a modern lens. I myself prefer to shoot a reportage on Nikkor 28-105 mm f 3,5-4,5 mm, because it has more pluses than minuses before Angenieux when it comes to work and warm tube photos are not the most important thing. Sincerely.
Again twenty-five ... If “the trolls have pulled themselves up” - this is about me, then I will disappoint you ... I call everything by its proper names ... Well, if this glass is about nothing at all, Smena 8M took pictures better, so why is it needed at all .. we can talk, if it's just metal-plastic-scrap and nothing else ... Anyway, it seems to me that the word "rarity" has gone into oblivion since the beginning of the mess in our countries in 91 ...
Natalia (?), There is too much noise from you here.
If there is no money and understanding, pass by. This lens is not for you. Everything is simple.
I generally cannot understand what kind of “gifted” person you need to be in order to compare this glass and try to figure out what you can buy for this money and compare these devices with this “Frenchman”.
For the price of this "Frenchman" you can buy on Avito 7-8 Tokin 28-70 / 2.8 or 5 28-80 / 2.8 or three Nikkors 28-70 / 2.8.
And so what? These are different things. No need to include kitchen-Soviet consciousness and try to compare. If they ask for such money for this glass and for Nikkor 28 / 1.4D $ 2000, then there are people who can buy it for themselves and put it in the collection.
With the same success, you can walk through the old Leikas and Zeiss, take their price off the ebay and compare with Sigma Art or other new glasses and ... crap them in the comments.
Your position is clear to me ... But you don't need to offend ... I have other preferences for collecting ... And to collect lenses - well, I don't know, there may be some worthwhile rarities, but not this vegetable oil garbage ... This is a lens about nothing at all ... these photos were taken with one lens, which was cut out with a file and sanded with plexiglass sandpaper by hand in the garage ... Anything you say, but the truth is it ... The glass is full of bullshit, it's not worth it to even put a collection cabinet for free ...
If we take for comparison a similar old man of about the same age, for example Nikon AF 35-70 / 2.8 (since 1987), then Angenieux is really bad.
Arkady, why don't you consider other options:
1) Unsuccessful / tortured instance.
2) Perhaps not quite successful shots and / or plot in shots.
The fact is that I was also interested in this glass and did not see any complaints about sharpness / contrast. In the end, if the glass were frankly bad, then they would not ask for such (for 28 / 1.4D they ask even more, and the glass is said to be dubious) money on it.
PS> For some reason, Tokin is praised here on this optical design. But used Tokin also has enough problems in 2018 with modern cameras.
1) Deterioration of the zoom drive mechanism
2) Fungus
3) "Dumps" and whims when working with crop cameras and sometimes with ff cameras.
4) Living motor Tokin under Canon or Pentax is several times less than under Nikon, but they cost twice as much. Motors just did not survive.
5) The most common is back / front.
The Frenchman was smashed in the comments to the smithereens, and the picture from Tokin on this design did not seem to be seen. And she is also peculiar and very similar to this Frenchman.
And finally - to buy the last nail 35-70 / 2.8D WITHOUT FUNGUS, without back / front and unshackled in 2018, it's like looking for the virginity of Alla Pugacheva.
Perhaps an unsuccessful instance. Angenieux should not be defended without clear evidence. Knowing the Tokins, which are supposedly the refinement / processing of this Angenieux, I would not be so optimistic about the optical properties of Angenieux.
Natalia:
Natalia, have you felt this Frenchman yourself? Preferably a couple of copies?
Not? Then why are you fixated on it and repeat the same thing as a mantra.
Lenses do not turn into wine with age, but rather into another substance.
Time spares no one. Neither Zeiss, nor Lake, nor Soviet lenses.
Be adequate and do not judge by one, possibly unsuccessful instance, for this glass.
I saw pictures from this lens on the film technique. There is both color and volume.
Perhaps the author was not lucky with the copy or did not fully master it.
Perhaps the author should take it to the adjustment of a good master.
Perhaps you should try it on another carcass such as D810 or D4.
And sticking labels and comparing sour with soft is easy and simple and so Soviet.
By the way, yes, it seems that none of the commentators noticed that there are no (!) Photos in the review at aperture 7.1-11 ...
Canon 1D (Kf = 1.3, 4.1MP), Nikon D1 / D1H (Kf = 1.5, 2.6MP) have an even larger pixel.
I still did not understand why the author decided to take pictures on an open aperture.
This is strange and not clear.
At aperture 8-9, everything should return to normal.
Dmitry, if you want to see the pictures, then you should not be surprised, but ask. Alexei openly writes that he wants to do reviews. Dear Alexei, please take a few shots on covered diaphragms.
Natasha, go to the kitchen, cook delicious cabbage soup ... And who gave you the camera?
That's who I would really like to talk to from all those present, so this is with a lady. Even reading is interesting). Well done crush them all!
Well, in general, that's right: for the price of salmon, you can take so much sprat! .. Someone delicious, but expensive, someone cheap, a lot and satisfying ...
If on your marvelous opus with a photo album the site closes - this will be interesting. Trolls are remembered when they usually know how to understand something in verbiage. Viva la france!
The lens, of course, is legendary, but ... very big “buts” in terms of image quality. And the color is kind of dull, and the sharpness is not particularly visible. For a collection, maybe valuable, but for shooting in our time - I would really think about such a purchase, especially considering the price.
somehow everything is sad in the photos
maybe just a little sun in Paris
QUESTION TO THE AUTHOR:
And why 90% of the pictures were taken on an open hole?
Why didn't they twist it up to 8-9 under the landscape?
The tokens on this optical design show excellent sharpness on 8-10 apertures.
Any doubts that the F8-11 will have high sharpness and contrast? There are so many good dark zooms. Who needs only closed holes - you can not look at this one. With a bright zoom, it's just interesting to see what it can do at open aperture. Great respect to the author for wasting time and money, and now you still have to listen to nonsense in the comments.
Strange review of unusual glass.
I did not see photos from a tripod in the dark. No portraits. There are no photos at all on a closed aperture.
It would be nice to see this glass in combination with Nikon type F80 and Kodak Gold film.
Related Tokins love to give out an unsaturated, slightly faded, muffled picture. They are very fond of light. In cloudy weather, in general, all colors are completely lost.
And in combination with the same cheap Kodak Gold at sunset they give a cool, warm picture, not similar to the same Sigma or Nikkora in color.
The review seems to be incomplete ... I would like to see more pictures of the environs of Paris or the roofs of Paris (as in St. Petersburg, whoever saw it will understand me ..).
This glass cannot be bad, it just requires attention, an understanding of its philosophy and a mandatory knowledge of its subtleties and features.
Who shot the old gouging Tokins will understand me.
It seems to me that the author was in a hurry or simply did not think up the frames for the review.
I do not accuse him of unprofessionalism, no. True, the lack of pictures on a closed one is strange.
Perhaps even in what we see in the photo from the part, the D600 or its preset is to blame.
There was a quick opportunity to get acquainted with the D600, D700, D750, D800, D3s.
We liked D3s out of the box in color and D750 a little less. D600 and D700 and D800 categorically did not like the BB and the contrast. Yes, you can fix everything ... but I don't want to waste time ...
You pick up any old 1DS (mk2 / mk3) or 1DH and after a series of pictures on them, you won’t even want to look at Nikon colors at all. I would advise the author not to sell this glass and to rent another FF carcass from Nikon more modern.
For me, this is not the case in the carcass, but in the fact that the author simply did not bother to make decent photos. It is a pity that according to the results of the review, the lens turned out to be discredited, although even without that it obviously does not shine.
Rodion, I noticed that your reviews also often write comments about the wrong photos. Neither your own work nor Alexey’s work should be reduced to aesthetic preferences. From the pictures you can understand how the lens actually works. The fact that the author has collected difficult situations (back-lighting, poor lighting, etc.) is rather a plus than a minus. Is the lens defective? In my opinion no; that is what is shown. Glass was good for its time; it was not for nothing that they made a degenede from it then. By today's standards, it is not bad, but again not for jeepeggers looking for ringing sharpness and rich color right out of the box. Now, when good optics are just abundant, the picture from this old man really raises questions.
Well, I also often have bullshit - I can shoot with not all lenses for a long time for various reasons. And what I can - I always try to add photos if they appear of better quality.
And to show “what is” - it is enough to photograph the brick wall of the house opposite and the test chart on the monitor.
Well, if you do this even in backlight (in clearance), then, in principle, you can’t remove anything else)) The brick wall shows the resolution of the lens well.
I’m talking about that)
People, stop resenting the quality of the photos, the sharpness and so on. This is elementary not ethical, honestly!
And further. Professionals never say "carcass" or "glass". They take their tools and their work seriously, respecting themselves and their colleagues. This is the jargon of amateurs, and instantly discourages any desire to communicate.
A collectible item, and they are no longer suitable for such with the requirements of modern photography. The shots taken by Voigtländer Zoomar 36-82 / 2.8 (production started in 1959) would hardly have surprised anyone. Which absolutely does not affect the assessment of this lens by collectors.
+100. They showed an interesting lens. We read, looked. Thank you, it was interesting) Still, not consumer goods
The shots are very similar to my Tokina AT-X AF 28-70mm 1: 2.8 for 70 oiro. In the open, probably not to distinguish. If both lenses are cleaned and re-brightened, it remains to be seen who is who. If the author took it from the junk / blacks for 100 oyro, then the purchase is worth at least like antiques, but no one ran for an ebay after such a review)))
Awful glass with all due respect to the author ...
Good evening everyone! Added photos taken just yesterday especially for this review. A lot of photos on F 6,3 F 8 F 10 ... To avoid understatement. Thanks again to Arkady for his time and efficiency! Thank you all for your comments and criticism, especially constructive ones.
for sure, the sun was not enough. last 7 photos are good
thanks for the review
a good overview of the old lens, which shows and proves that the “old” lenses are quite capable of working in digital and meeting the needs of photography in everyday life and even in professional activities. The main thing is that the arms grow from the right place.
The photo is just quiet horror. Some oblique curves. The feeling that the photographer came out and the camera took off something.
Good afternoon, where are they crooked? Do you think everything is so terrible? In my opinion, another commentator from the series ..ooo see the horizon heaps! It’s one thing if you don’t like the sharpness or contrast of the lens, but when you don’t like the way it was shot, please clarify why.
Alexei, please do not take such comments to heart. Thank you for the review, we are expecting more from you. And of course, they will be better than this first!
Open any review from Arcadia. Any. And this is a swamp. Do you notice anything? Why 2/3. Why trick. Why is this all? All is forgotten. After all, you can. Wash better in any way. I wonder why a DSLR is needed at all. And then you are surprised at a bunch of negative reviews. Arkady takes on fierce shit. Yes, so I want to run and buy. And then what? Photo from the crowd is not clear why. You are in a posh city. And such. I'm not a troll, just boiling up.
Well, my old reviews for 2009 are pretty bad, both the photo and the text. It takes a lot of experience in this matter.
Do not be offended, just shoot more, look for your taste, see more photos of famous photographers. It will either come by itself, it will never come. Set up your camera, believe even the d600 can take great pictures. Jeepeg is also customizable.
But about the lens from the review. not a masterpiece, and nothing special. 28-70 are not the most convenient focal points for the staff zoom
“Trust me, even the Nikon d5 can take great pictures.” That was sarcasm. Try to write a review yourself. I've figured out on my Tamron, which is not here, it will not be easy at all, and most likely they will also scold. The lens, as already said, is rare and expensive. The man described her as best he could, quite honestly. Personally, I have no complaints about him and I am interested in him listening to constructive criticism and making another review of what is interesting that he has. I did not read the books, but accepted the wishes and made a new review for us.
Well, I cannot remain silent: “18-55 is not the most convenient focal length for a zoom lens” This is why the 18-55 lenses can NEVER become a crop kit. * caustic sarcasm *
Where did I write about 18-55? and d5))) everything was mixed up.
constructive criticism in the choice of the plot, which is not in the review. You can’t just leave the house and rivet a photo)))
Kick-ass. They pounced. Yes, the optical lens is not very good. Yes, overpriced. But what does the author have to do with it? What is shooting outdoors? And what else to evaluate the lens? At 8-11 they are all “the same”. Yes, the site is full of such overpriced lenses, but there have never been as many rotten tomatoes.
This is an overview of the lens and the main goal it has achieved is to show what it is in use. On staged photos, you can get the best result, but is it necessary? Do you always shoot with your light and in ideal conditions? There is a result, albeit not for 1000 bucks, as expected.
Alexey, thank you for the update on the pics!
Photos on the undercover quite satisfied.
Thanks again for the review!
The bokeh on this Frenchman is completely open, IMHO is more interesting than the Tokins 28-70 / 2.8 or 28-80 / 2.8.
An interesting lens. If there were free extra money, I would have taken it myself.
I don’t do commercial photography.
Alexey, thanks. I will wait for your next reviews; You have the richest set of lenses - you have something to show to the world.
Thanks for the closed photo. After 8-9, “typical Tokin / Ezhenev software” turns into typical Tamron software, which was required to be proved)))
Alex, thank you very much, I heard about this company for a long time. It was interesting. Such a normal glass. It’s quite nice))).
The people really spat. Everyone was naturally pissed off by the price. And the price of modern (manual!) Zeiss does not bother anyone? And the famous Nikon pshik - Nikor 58 1.4 - is being sold at a normal price?
Nice photos in a light haze, perfectly conveying the atmosphere of the surrounding world. The background is simply gorgeous.
I remember in the winter of 2010 in Moscow I went to the well-known photo commission "photo workshops RSU" on Kievskaya and there was such a sample for 60000 forever wooden with a Canon mount, I even took a couple of shots on my then Canon 40D, but as a beginner then photographer, I did not get into the topic , although he worked cheerfully and looked exactly the same as in the picture from the review.
I myself was surprised to find on the e-bay site such a lens for a modern Canon mount. Indeed, there are such versions.
Autofocus Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF mount CANON EF (135.000 rubles)
photo1
Autofocus Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF mount CANON EF (135.000 rubles)
photo2
Autofocus Angenieux Zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF mount CANON EF (135.000 rubles)
photo3
It’s interesting - will someone from those who, like Radozhiva “test” lenses, understand the simple and self-evident idea that photography can be perceived in two ways: as a means of fixing reality or as art? And will the idea finally reach people that if a person is not capable of doing photography as an art in principle (the Lord did not give talent), then the meaning of the existence of all these sites is completely lost? Monstrously wretched photographs, similar to each other like two drops of water - what kind of nerd do you need to be to try to find the differences between the lenses with which these photographs were taken? And on what basis do incompetent snobs - “reviewers” reproach someone if absolutely any normal person, looking at gigabytes of photos, sees only what he sees - pictures that can (and should) have been shot exclusively on the phone?
For your reference - for "descriptive" - connoisseurs of tactile sensations from rubber rings (this especially brought about): Angenieux lenses come from the family of professional cinema lenses and are related to Kinoptik optics; to understand what it is, take an interest first in the general history of art - the French "New Wave" and so on. Check out stills from relevant films and photographs. Then think about what - or rather, WHO is needed in order to unleash the potential of such a lens.
It is not yet clear what exactly you are so indignant with. The fact that Godard was not found to reveal the potential of SUCH a lens? Mahmo te, scho mahmo
Someone will understand, someone will not understand. Someone is looking for a photo, someone is looking for photographic equipment, to each his own
And someone is a photographer.