I currently have a 28-70 Angénieux. I can confirm that Angénieux no longer have any paperwork from that time and no spare parts for this lens. I love this lens for my red epic as it is very versatile, light, and sharp above F4. It is flattering in skin. It feels like Cooks in warmth. My lens is definitely NOT par focal but it is much closer to par focal than any other stills lens I have tried. Having teared down my one a few times, it is repairable but the autoiris system is very fragile. It is great for video people who like to have manual experience. It is a lens of its time and its personality. It is definitely not the height resolution lens but that is mainly due to the coating tech of the time.
Thank you for doing this video. I'd noticed (just in watching test videos) that the Tokina does not exhibit the pincushion bokeh that the Angenieux does, and was quite confused at how everyone was saying that they were the same ... it's truly amazing how false information can become so ubiquitous!
however after all that research the lens to get was the Canon EF 28-70mm f2.8L USM...they same people reviewed it and said it was the best 50mm lens they had ever seen but it was a zoom this is from 1994 mind you but still high praise
The Tokina 28-70 is constructed in different versions over time. The very first version (with the screwmount hood, in stead of the later bajonet) is an identically licensed version of the angenieux. And it is the same optical quality. All other versions are different, and definitely not as good.
I bought the Nikon version of the Tokina lens in the 1990s and I recall reading back then that there was an Angenieux connection, as it was a factor in my purchase of that particular lens. Since it predates my internet access, the information must have come from one or more of the magazines or, perhaps, a brochure.
Sorry if this is unrelated to the actual lens in this video.. I've recently purchased the Tokina AF 20-35 f3.5-45 to fit on the Pentax K-1 II. I was pleasantly surprised at the optics on that old 90's lens.
yeah this is good starting point books.google.co.uk/books?id=nfLx2Fbm0_4C&pg=PP148&dq=practical+photographer&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiV9MrSiLyJAxXNXUEAHdKmGW4Q6AF6BAgCEAI#v=onepage&q=practical%20photographer&f=false. just search the magazines
We have both lenses, and yes they are close. Both stunning lenses and the Tokina value for money is unbeatable. But the Angi is better IMHO. Both are great tho.
Very nice video. I own 4 Tokina 28-70 2.6 and use for multicam purposes. Great lenses. Actually bought them very cheap some years back very much because of the story of angeniuex glass inside. Funny how the price increases also because there is this other version of the lens with f2.8 and not 2.6. I read that the 2.8 was not angeniuex glass anymore and this is still the thing people believe considering the used price different between them. Recently I read online, don't know if its true of course, that the lens was marketed with 2.6-2.8 for the European market and 2.8 in the Japanese market. Not a far fetched idea since the 2.8 lens is in tokinad list of legacy lenses and it is also noted that it is "also known as 2.6-2.8" so it should be the same lens in fact. The 2.8 is about a fifth of the price of a 2.6. just bought a 2.8 for abou 150dollars and will test it side by side with my other 4 2.6. Even thought there seems to be myth with the ang. glass these lenses are very good if you need compact zoom glass for 100% manual functionality.
I finally got my Tokina 28-70 2.8 and did a thorough test with my 3 other 2.6 lenses. I can say that the result is identical between these different versions. If someone is planning to buy a 2.6 lens go for the 2.8 instead (though not the one called 2.8 SV that is a lens that was released later and is in fact not as good in quality) the 2.6 lens sells for about 500dollars and the 2.8 for about 150.
Great video, I was also in the mind I had an Angenieux but to be honest I don't really care, I have 2 of these I picked up for £180 which I use on hi end interviews and my clients absolutely love the look of the lenses. Agreed below F4 they are terrible. Again thanks for digging up the tests
Nice info on older lenes👍Theres only one lens for full Frame 28 all Day and that is the Pentax DFA* 50mm 1.4, (2017 onwards) pricey but one will not be disappointed as it is stunning optically speaking. I will tell you how good the DFA* 21mm is as well, when i can afford one🤑
@@28allday Touche We will Duel at dawn rise 🙄🤔😀 just found you're channel and enjoying. I have a few old Pentax A series lenses also inc the A28mm 2.8 and they seem to be, more forgiving on the Pentax K1ii sensor, but the crop sensors like the K70 don't like them all that much. Anyway glad to still have them
if you wonder who there hardly any available on eBay.. A certain camera company here in LA bought and stockpiled them.. That's why you can't find any for a reasonable price.. The company shall remain nameless.. They rehouse them
I did also have the tokina version and allmoste bought the angenieux version last year but it was in minolta mount and that was really not a good adaptable mount so I haven’t bought that. 😢sadly… I have now the angenieux 35-70 2.5-3.3 its sharp but suffers from allot of purple fringing. So not ideal.
I don’t think they had quite worked out the coatings back then so I have few older zooms which are prone to this as well not so much of and issue on the new ones
I side with you that it is probably incorrect to say that the lens is Angenieux. There is just not enough information. Angenieux definitively did not make the glass that is for sure. The be honest, the only explanation for saying the Tokina is an Angenieux design is that when looking up lens patents, there are sometimes a couple of lens variants per design per patent. For examples, look up United States Patent 4359270, this was an unreleased Pentax zoom lens that would have had a focal length of around 35-132mm lens with two variants. Tokina might have used a slightly different design from the patent (probably the cheapest to produce). I can not confirm this as I have no idea the patent number or the inventors name.
The Tokina 28-70 is constructed in different versions over time. The very first version (with the screwmount hood, in stead of the later bajonet) is an identically licensed version of the angenieux. And it is the same optical quality. All other versions are different, and definitely not as good.
The from reading the first gen was all tokina and didn’t perform well . The gen 2 is supposed to be the one with the angeniux connection ….but all this info from blogs online nothing from any manufacturer documentation …so who knows
I've spent better part of last 5 days googling about this lens and its various designs. The gen 2 that you have (with bayonet mount) has a whole element ED element extra (17 not 16 elements) as-well as newer coatings. Even though the ED element cleaned the LoCA a bit, it reduced sharpness wide open and was added more so as a marketing ploy. Also, given that the tokina breaths more so than the angie, they are both "true" 28mm on the wide end, just at infinity tokina is a 30mm, but at working distances its 28-29mm while angie holds firm at 28ish Outside of that your video is spot on from my findings. Tokina probably reverse engineered the lens by optical element mountings they were privy while helping with AF development. The design itself and definitely the element manufacturing was all Tokina. From my understanding of vintage lens design, Tokina couldn't achieve the refraction index of angie glass as-well as the transmition values. That's why it has much worse LoCA performance, but the design must have been very very close but reverse engineered. @@28allday
it a bit of a rabbit hole googling this lens as you have found ... there are so many blogs cross referencing info which seem flawed the only solid info I have is the Angie sale brochure and review , the second gen tokina review all from practical photography...I,m still looking for the first and third gen reviews but can,t find them ....however I believe my original conclusion still stands ...there is real no connection between these two lens optically but there may be some mechanical similarities to do with AF ..but thats it ....my original issue was the inflated price on eBay due to the perceived connection which I find miss leading for people ...its a good lens ...but nothing amazing and not really worth the extra money @@eldengard23
Ye i deffo agree glass and most likely design is all Tokina. At best I think they've reverse engineered some of the decisions in making it. But value wise i disagree I have gen1 that was made for Japan market on my nikon z9. Payed 300 Euros with postage to Croatia and looking at the results I get on it, I'd buy it for 1k and still be very very happy. It both has aperature controll and image stabilisation on the z9, while having hardstop MF and zoom ring allowing for use with wireless follow focus like tilta. In my eye, the closest competitor to it is 10x the price, with simmilar focus breathing, true parifocalness instead of this chinese budget parifocalness and much better flare resistance in the Laowa Ranger or DZO Cata zooms. They're also 2x the weight and have bit more uniform sharpness, and bit better T-stop value (2.9 vs 2.8-3.1) @@28allday
@@eldengard23sounds like we went on the same journey! We ended up finding/buying a mint condition Angenieux 28-70 f2.6 in Nikon mount that we’re gonna have cine-modded through Duclos and converted to EF mount But I’m curious, how would you rate the true Angenieux 28-70 vs the Laowa Ranger and Catta Ace?
It's an urban myth. That is coming from someone who owned every single version of this lens includig the SV and the later 28-80. They are all great in their own way from video making. Some nice character but in some respects quite flwed. F2.6-2.8 is quite soft. If you consider using it from f4 you might as well the Canon FD 28-85 f4 that is cheaper and possibly better in every single way (if you can stomach plastic body)
Totally agree its sort of self defeating having a F2.8 lens that's actually only start getting good at F4 .....the lens that was very expensive at the time, but when review by the same magazine they stated at 50mm its the best 50mm they have ever tested ( these are the same tests they conducted on the original angenieux and tokina)... it was better than any 50mm prime but its zoom was the original Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8 USM L it was $2500 when it came out in 1993 but you can pick these one up today for the same prime as the EF Tokina "Angénieux" are being sold on eBay .....
@@28allday I like the softer look of the f2.6 and it's true that the lens shines around 50mm being softer up to about 35mm and again at 70mm. The positive about this Angie myth is that this lens is getting a second life 30 years after original release. While it inflates the price if you keep your cool you can still get a mint copy for cheap. Angie or not it's worth to have one in your collection :D
Год назад
"A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on." A great little quote, and perfectly enough it's (as far as research shows) falsely attributed to Mark Twain due to the internet 😂 What you're saying makes more sense than all of the forum hot air out there. I'd guess that if there is any truth in it, maybe Tokina provided the AF parts, the mechanisms for clutching, creating the relevant chassis and motors and as a trade-off got share some info or other techniques? The elements/groups thing is odd, because nearly all other sources list both lenses as 16/12 not 16/4, while you have you definitively here that their original document shows it to be 16/4. So yet more "people passing on what they've read" it seems. I guess in the ends what's important for users in that the Tokina was a cheaper thing with a similar "vibe" to it, but that's kind of ruined if lens dealers are cranking up the prices using false information.
Yes the 16/4 elements groups is direct from Angienux so its a classic internet thing .It gets put in wrong somewhere every one repeats it so it must be true ....the 16/4 line up is used in a few Angie zooms and some of there famous cinema ones the 12 to 120 mm f2.2 has it ....I doubt the two lenses are connected apart from maybe some common components ...but this would have no effect on optical performance ..the f2.6 -f2.8 is purely on the US version of the lenses as well Btw ....and last but not least my favourite internet wrong attribution ....The quote "The definition of Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results" ....is alway attributed to Albert Einstein ......its not it first appeared in Basic Text of Narcotics Anonymous....1979 ....the internet great for this kind of stuff Ha!
No one said the tokina 28-70mm f2.8 is an angenieux. However, it was designed by angenieux. For some it might be one and the same. Mercedes benz designed the smart car. Does that make the smart car a Mercedes benz?
Did you try writing tokina or angenieux if they Are the same or not? They would probably answer you, since they Are so old. Mine is minolta Mount or Sony a Mount if you like, and its pretty sharp ar 2,8. Also on my Sony a7iii with adapter.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
I currently have a 28-70 Angénieux. I can confirm that Angénieux no longer have any paperwork from that time and no spare parts for this lens. I love this lens for my red epic as it is very versatile, light, and sharp above F4. It is flattering in skin. It feels like Cooks in warmth. My lens is definitely NOT par focal but it is much closer to par focal than any other stills lens I have tried. Having teared down my one a few times, it is repairable but the autoiris system is very fragile. It is great for video people who like to have manual experience. It is a lens of its time and its personality. It is definitely not the height resolution lens but that is mainly due to the coating tech of the time.
Thank you for doing this video. I'd noticed (just in watching test videos) that the Tokina does not exhibit the pincushion bokeh that the Angenieux does, and was quite confused at how everyone was saying that they were the same ... it's truly amazing how false information can become so ubiquitous!
however after all that research the lens to get was the Canon EF 28-70mm f2.8L USM...they same people reviewed it and said it was the best 50mm lens they had ever seen but it was a zoom this is from 1994 mind you but still high praise
This Tokina 28-70 f/2.6-2.8 is from Tokina AT-X and Hoya finest optics combined, came to market in the mid-1990's. Award winnings.
The Tokina 28-70 is constructed in different versions over time. The very first version (with the screwmount hood, in stead of the later bajonet) is an identically licensed version of the angenieux. And it is the same optical quality. All other versions are different, and definitely not as good.
I bought the Nikon version of the Tokina lens in the 1990s and I recall reading back then that there was an Angenieux connection, as it was a factor in my purchase of that particular lens. Since it predates my internet access, the information must have come from one or more of the magazines or, perhaps, a brochure.
it would be great to find that and have a look ..I,m going to E:mail angenieux I just haven't got around to it yet as that would be conclusive
I remember a few ads in the early 80s magazines, Angenieux said that each surface of each element in that lens received 56 layers of AR coating.
They certainly know how to make lense
@@28allday .... and both the lenses are true zooms. aka par-focal
Sorry if this is unrelated to the actual lens in this video..
I've recently purchased the Tokina AF 20-35 f3.5-45 to fit on the Pentax K-1 II.
I was pleasantly surprised at the optics on that old 90's lens.
My favorite lense for yesteryear gear is tokina 28 2.8. it delivers absolutely pictures results on d700
Thanks for this very informative and well researched video.
Any chance you can share links to the reports, pls?
I have the scans somewhere I’ll try and dig them out and post a link ..might not be until next week thanks
@@28allday That sounds great. Btw do you remember how you came across them, you do mention Google stores these kind of things somewhere :)
yeah this is good starting point books.google.co.uk/books?id=nfLx2Fbm0_4C&pg=PP148&dq=practical+photographer&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiV9MrSiLyJAxXNXUEAHdKmGW4Q6AF6BAgCEAI#v=onepage&q=practical%20photographer&f=false. just search the magazines
We have both lenses, and yes they are close. Both stunning lenses and the Tokina value for money is unbeatable. But the Angi is better IMHO. Both are great tho.
i thought/hoped the ANGENIEUX was also available for K-mount?
I,m shoot this on a 28mm - 70 mm Tokina f2.8 K mount ...if its an angenieux or not ...well I,m not sure
I bought an Angenieux 28-70 F2.6 for 300€ cause i'm french.
Very nice video. I own 4 Tokina 28-70 2.6 and use for multicam purposes. Great lenses. Actually bought them very cheap some years back very much because of the story of angeniuex glass inside. Funny how the price increases also because there is this other version of the lens with f2.8 and not 2.6. I read that the 2.8 was not angeniuex glass anymore and this is still the thing people believe considering the used price different between them. Recently I read online, don't know if its true of course, that the lens was marketed with 2.6-2.8 for the European market and 2.8 in the Japanese market. Not a far fetched idea since the 2.8 lens is in tokinad list of legacy lenses and it is also noted that it is "also known as 2.6-2.8" so it should be the same lens in fact. The 2.8 is about a fifth of the price of a 2.6. just bought a 2.8 for abou 150dollars and will test it side by side with my other 4 2.6.
Even thought there seems to be myth with the ang. glass these lenses are very good if you need compact zoom glass for 100% manual functionality.
I finally got my Tokina 28-70 2.8 and did a thorough test with my 3 other 2.6 lenses. I can say that the result is identical between these different versions. If someone is planning to buy a 2.6 lens go for the 2.8 instead (though not the one called 2.8 SV that is a lens that was released later and is in fact not as good in quality) the 2.6 lens sells for about 500dollars and the 2.8 for about 150.
Great video, I was also in the mind I had an Angenieux but to be honest I don't really care, I have 2 of these I picked up for £180 which I use on hi end interviews and my clients absolutely love the look of the lenses. Agreed below F4 they are terrible. Again thanks for digging up the tests
Nice info on older lenes👍Theres only one lens for full Frame 28 all Day and that is the Pentax DFA* 50mm 1.4, (2017 onwards) pricey but one will not be disappointed as it is stunning optically speaking. I will tell you how good the DFA* 21mm is as well, when i can afford one🤑
If we are talking Pentax you will have to pry my 43mm Ltd from my dead hands before I give it up …it’s my favourite by far 😂😂
@@28allday Touche We will Duel at dawn rise 🙄🤔😀
just found you're channel and enjoying. I have a few old Pentax A series lenses also inc the A28mm 2.8 and they seem to be, more forgiving on the Pentax K1ii sensor, but the crop sensors like the K70 don't like them all that much.
Anyway glad to still have them
if you wonder who there hardly any available on eBay.. A certain camera company here in LA bought and stockpiled them.. That's why you can't find any for a reasonable price.. The company shall remain nameless.. They rehouse them
Thank you very much for making this video. Which other zoom lenses would you recommend for video making?
there are plenty out there but its really down to personal choice Contax made some great zooms which can be used with adaptor for video
@@28allday Thanks! The other day I found a great video in the Contax Zeiss 35-70 f3.3 and it looks great! Keep making content!
I did also have the tokina version and allmoste bought the angenieux version last year but it was in minolta mount and that was really not a good adaptable mount so I haven’t bought that. 😢sadly… I have now the angenieux 35-70 2.5-3.3 its sharp but suffers from allot of purple fringing. So not ideal.
I don’t think they had quite worked out the coatings back then so I have few older zooms which are prone to this as well not so much of and issue on the new ones
I side with you that it is probably incorrect to say that the lens is Angenieux. There is just not enough information. Angenieux definitively did not make the glass that is for sure. The be honest, the only explanation for saying the Tokina is an Angenieux design is that when looking up lens patents, there are sometimes a couple of lens variants per design per patent. For examples, look up United States Patent 4359270, this was an unreleased Pentax zoom lens that would have had a focal length of around 35-132mm lens with two variants. Tokina might have used a slightly different design from the patent (probably the cheapest to produce). I can not confirm this as I have no idea the patent number or the inventors name.
The Tokina 28-70 is constructed in different versions over time. The very first version (with the screwmount hood, in stead of the later bajonet) is an identically licensed version of the angenieux. And it is the same optical quality. All other versions are different, and definitely not as good.
It would be great to find some documentation to support this like I said in the video if someone can find it I be a believe…but I can’t
Nice detective work.
You're dead on right my man :) Speak the truth.
you have a 2nd gen lens with some tokina edits. The ones without bayonet hood mount has one more element and new coatings
The from reading the first gen was all tokina and didn’t perform well . The gen 2 is supposed to be the one with the angeniux connection ….but all this info from blogs online nothing from any manufacturer documentation …so who knows
I've spent better part of last 5 days googling about this lens and its various designs. The gen 2 that you have (with bayonet mount) has a whole element ED element extra (17 not 16 elements) as-well as newer coatings. Even though the ED element cleaned the LoCA a bit, it reduced sharpness wide open and was added more so as a marketing ploy.
Also, given that the tokina breaths more so than the angie, they are both "true" 28mm on the wide end, just at infinity tokina is a 30mm, but at working distances its 28-29mm while angie holds firm at 28ish
Outside of that your video is spot on from my findings. Tokina probably reverse engineered the lens by optical element mountings they were privy while helping with AF development. The design itself and definitely the element manufacturing was all Tokina. From my understanding of vintage lens design, Tokina couldn't achieve the refraction index of angie glass as-well as the transmition values. That's why it has much worse LoCA performance, but the design must have been very very close but reverse engineered. @@28allday
it a bit of a rabbit hole googling this lens as you have found ... there are so many blogs cross referencing info which seem flawed the only solid info I have is the Angie sale brochure and review , the second gen tokina review all from practical photography...I,m still looking for the first and third gen reviews but can,t find them ....however I believe my original conclusion still stands ...there is real no connection between these two lens optically but there may be some mechanical similarities to do with AF ..but thats it ....my original issue was the inflated price on eBay due to the perceived connection which I find miss leading for people ...its a good lens ...but nothing amazing and not really worth the extra money @@eldengard23
Ye i deffo agree glass and most likely design is all Tokina. At best I think they've reverse engineered some of the decisions in making it. But value wise i disagree
I have gen1 that was made for Japan market on my nikon z9. Payed 300 Euros with postage to Croatia and looking at the results I get on it, I'd buy it for 1k and still be very very happy.
It both has aperature controll and image stabilisation on the z9, while having hardstop MF and zoom ring allowing for use with wireless follow focus like tilta.
In my eye, the closest competitor to it is 10x the price, with simmilar focus breathing, true parifocalness instead of this chinese budget parifocalness and much better flare resistance in the Laowa Ranger or DZO Cata zooms. They're also 2x the weight and have bit more uniform sharpness, and bit better T-stop value (2.9 vs 2.8-3.1)
@@28allday
@@eldengard23sounds like we went on the same journey!
We ended up finding/buying a mint condition Angenieux 28-70 f2.6 in Nikon mount that we’re gonna have cine-modded through Duclos and converted to EF mount
But I’m curious, how would you rate the true Angenieux 28-70 vs the Laowa Ranger and Catta Ace?
What are you shooting your video on? It looks very much like actual film! Thank you for the history.
Bit of post production tweaking ha!
@@28alldayawesome.
It's an urban myth. That is coming from someone who owned every single version of this lens includig the SV and the later 28-80. They are all great in their own way from video making. Some nice character but in some respects quite flwed. F2.6-2.8 is quite soft. If you consider using it from f4 you might as well the Canon FD 28-85 f4 that is cheaper and possibly better in every single way (if you can stomach plastic body)
Totally agree its sort of self defeating having a F2.8 lens that's actually only start getting good at F4 .....the lens that was very expensive at the time, but when review by the same magazine they stated at 50mm its the best 50mm they have ever tested ( these are the same tests they conducted on the original angenieux and tokina)... it was better than any 50mm prime but its zoom was the original Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8 USM L it was $2500 when it came out in 1993 but you can pick these one up today for the same prime as the EF Tokina "Angénieux" are being sold on eBay .....
@@28allday I like the softer look of the f2.6 and it's true that the lens shines around 50mm being softer up to about 35mm and again at 70mm. The positive about this Angie myth is that this lens is getting a second life 30 years after original release. While it inflates the price if you keep your cool you can still get a mint copy for cheap. Angie or not it's worth to have one in your collection :D
"A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on." A great little quote, and perfectly enough it's (as far as research shows) falsely attributed to Mark Twain due to the internet 😂
What you're saying makes more sense than all of the forum hot air out there. I'd guess that if there is any truth in it, maybe Tokina provided the AF parts, the mechanisms for clutching, creating the relevant chassis and motors and as a trade-off got share some info or other techniques?
The elements/groups thing is odd, because nearly all other sources list both lenses as 16/12 not 16/4, while you have you definitively here that their original document shows it to be 16/4. So yet more "people passing on what they've read" it seems.
I guess in the ends what's important for users in that the Tokina was a cheaper thing with a similar "vibe" to it, but that's kind of ruined if lens dealers are cranking up the prices using false information.
Yes the 16/4 elements groups is direct from Angienux so its a classic internet thing .It gets put in wrong somewhere every one repeats it so it must be true ....the 16/4 line up is used in a few Angie zooms and some of there famous cinema ones the 12 to 120 mm f2.2 has it ....I doubt the two lenses are connected apart from maybe some common components ...but this would have no effect on optical performance ..the f2.6 -f2.8 is purely on the US version of the lenses as well Btw ....and last but not least my favourite internet wrong attribution ....The quote "The definition of Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results" ....is alway attributed to Albert Einstein ......its not it first appeared in Basic Text of Narcotics Anonymous....1979 ....the internet great for this kind of stuff Ha!
If this is true, Tokina still the best photo normal zoom for video, because the internal zoom and parafocal capabilities.
I agree it’s great for video as I have used one for years …however I do doubt it’s heritage
I got a copy of the 2.8 and it's very disappointing..i returned it
No one said the tokina 28-70mm f2.8 is an angenieux. However, it was designed by angenieux. For some it might be one and the same. Mercedes benz designed the smart car. Does that make the smart car a Mercedes benz?
Did you try writing tokina or angenieux if they Are the same or not? They would probably answer you, since they Are so old. Mine is minolta Mount or Sony a Mount if you like, and its pretty sharp ar 2,8. Also on my Sony a7iii with adapter.
Not yet and I did consider it . it’s possibly a good idea to drop angenieux a note and find the truth of the matter
@@28allday yeah it would probably clear it up. Regardless the result, it’s a damn fine lens :)