Angenieux R1 35/2.5

[Jack Conrad]

I met a gentleman in the parking lot of a local Walmart to check out an Angeniuex M42 screw mount 35/2.5 he was interested in selling.
He handed me a plastic grocery bag and this is what was in it.
I looked at and wasn't terribly impressed. It has some coating damage, not much, but it's fairly obvious, and some cleaning marks, or fine scratches. Seems nice and clear though, without fungus or haze and the aperture blades are smooth and dry.
The body is ok, nothing special and it has a ding in the filter ring
that won't allow the front cap to screw in all the way. It's got quite a lot of dust and dirt on it. I think those marks that look like finger smudges are coating damage, but the specks are just dirt.

I ckecked out the sold listing prices on eBay, but they ran from $215 all the way up to $800 within the last couple months, so that wasn't much help, but I offered him $200. He declined and made no counter offer.

I took a couple quick snapshots with it on my DSLR and it seemed to handle glare pretty well and seems sharp enough.

What would you offer in a similar scenario? 🙁

Here's the lens and the snapshots.

 

[f16sunshine]

Supposed to be the first retrofocus wide angle lens for 35mm film photography (if I remember correctly).
I have one that I never use and should sell. It's a thing for collectors mostly.
This copy does not look too far from average. Certainly not worth more than $200 but... who knows.

 

[Roger Hicks]

As Andy says, are you buying as a user or collector? As a user, I don't think I'd bother.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jack Conrad]

Thanks for the input. It compares to my own thoughts on the topic.
No, I'm not a collector, though I do keep an eye out for old Takumars and
Auto-Taks from before the Spotmatic days.

 

[jonmanjiro]

I shot a few rolls with semrich's LTM version of this lens while in Istanbul last April. It has a nice glow wide open, and is plenty sharp stopped down. Quite large for an LTM 35mm lens though. You can see the photos I took with it here.

 

[leicapixie]

FWIW i once bought a Canon with a fingerprint on front element.
That fingerprint could NOT be cleaned off.
It literally was burned into the glass.
I see no merit in such an old lens..
I use my cameras and lenses.
I may be a hoarder but am not a collector.

 

[tunalegs]

I wouldn't pay $100 for it, even just as a collectible. It's not in nice enough condition. If you want an old wide angle there are lots of lenses you can find for $200 or less, a few of which are better performers than the R1. Think about the Schneider Curtagon, Steinheil Quinaron (although these have gotten pricey lately and are hard to find in anything other than Exakta mount) the Flektogons - and if you're not bothered by the slow speed, the Primagon. Of course the Takumar 3.5/35 is as good as any of them although slightly slower. There's also the Schacht Travegon which has a unique optical formula for a retrofocus lens so far as I know, is superbly sharp -but somehow almost never found without separation or coating damage, I've had two and both suffered to some degree.

 

[Jack Conrad]

I wouldn't pay $100 for it, even just as a collectible. It's not in nice enough condition. If you want an old wide angle there are lots of lenses you can find for $200 or less, a few of which are better performers than the R1. Think about the Schneider Curtagon, Steinheil Quinaron (although these have gotten pricey lately and are hard to find in anything other than Exakta mount) the Flektogons - and if you're not bothered by the slow speed, the Primagon. Of course the Takumar 3.5/35 is as good as any of them although slightly slower. There's also the Schacht Travegon which has a unique optical formula for a retrofocus lens so far as I know, is superbly sharp -but somehow almost never found without separation or coating damage, I've had two and both suffered to some degree.

Actually, I forgot I have a Primagon. Thanks for reminding me. Haven't tried it yet since it's an Exakta mount and I don't have the adapter for it. Maybe I should get an adapter and give it a whirl.

I also had a Super Tak 35/3.5 and it was sharp and well made, but one of the most difficult to focus with on my Oly dslr, so I passed it on.

One thing I noticed about the Angenieux was that it seemed easier to focus. Probably due to the wider faster aperture.

 

[Kent]

This lens is too much hyped. You decided correctly.
200 would have been nice, perhaps 300. But 800? Never!

 

[raid]

In general, Angenieux lenses are very expensive. I have a zoom lens for Canon SLR camera, but that's it.

I could use my lens now with an M 4/3 adapter, so I am glad that I did not sell the zoom. The bokeh looks nice.
Such a lens can cost $400-$800 or so. Even today.

 

[f16sunshine]

A bit off topic.
Does anyone know who the Angenieux specialist is in the US?
I have the fantastic f3.5/70-210 two ring zoom in OM mount.
It is in need of a CLA to smooth out the focus and zoom action.
Probably one of my best lenses in terms of image quality when used on the 5Dii.

 

[raid]

A bit off topic.
Does anyone know who the Angenieux specialist is in the US?
I have the fantastic f3.5/70-210 two ring zoom in OM mount.
It is in need of a CLA to smooth out the focus and zoom action.
Probably one of my best lenses in terms of image quality when used on the 5Dii.

I have same zoom in FD mount, Andy. It is an awesome lens.
No clue who is the Angenieux specialist in the USA though.

 

[Jack Conrad]

That reminds me. After looking at the back of the lens in the slightly out of focus image I featured here, it appears that someone had opened, or attempted to open up the lens from the back. Notice the spanner slots are slightly damaged. Hmmm.
Just an observation.

 

[semrich]

As Jon said, its size is unique for a 35mm, not exactly on the petite side, but I've got some nice images with in on film and digital. I especially like the tones I get and it doesn't seem to flare, I rarely use a hood.

Here are a few examples:

Film HP5

Digital

 

[raid]

Very nicely done.

 

[CameraQuest]

Angenieux lenses tend to be expensive. The LTM 39 mounts are especially overpriced.
The classic 50's & 60's versions tend to have easily damaged lens coating.

That said, the chrome versions of the same years are arguably the most BEAUTIFUL lenses ever made for Exaktas.
Well worth looking for if you are an Exakta fan.

Stephen

 

[David Murphy]

I think it is worth about the $200 you offered because the glass condition. A lot of people who list older (sometimes desirable) cameras and lenses on Craigslist these days have almost delusional ideas as to their worth. They often search up the item's value on eBay and other sites and price them as high or higher than recent listing prices, generally ignoring the condition or whether or not those eBay items sold or not at those prices. That may have been what you were dealing with.

All said, it looks like a fine lens performance wise. You can find another one with patience I am sure.

 

[Jack Conrad]

I think it is worth about the $200 you offered because the glass condition. A lot of people who list older (sometimes desirable) cameras and lenses on Craigslist these days have almost delusional ideas as to their worth. They often search up the item's value on eBay and other sites and price them as high or higher than recent listing prices, generally ignoring the condition or whether or not those eBay items sold or not at those prices. That may have been what you were dealing with.

All said, it looks like a fine lens performance wise. You can find another one with patience I am sure.

You nailed it. The owner of the lens became somewhat defensive after I made the offer and was going on and on about how he'd checked eBay prices and how the lens was worth three or four times what I'd offered. 🙄

 

[rbelyell]

there are always subjective questions about value versus price. thats a pretty constant topic. i can only say that regardless of subjective ideas about value, i have followed pricing of this and the 28/3.5 for the last six or so months on ebay and i have never seen this lens sell for close to $200. indeed, i'm not certain ive seen it sell for less than somewhere near $400. i'm not saying its worth that or not, just my own observation.

 

[tunalegs]

there are always subjective questions about value versus price. thats a pretty constant topic. i can only say that regardless of subjective ideas about value, i have followed pricing of this and the 28/3.5 for the last six or so months on ebay and i have never seen this lens sell for close to $200. indeed, i'm not certain ive seen it sell for less than somewhere near $400. i'm not saying its worth that or not, just my own observation.

One in almost identical condition recently sold on ebay for $200. 😕 And one not much better sold for $250... given that excellent examples sell for $500 or so, I would not waste $200 on a rough one. Especially when that $200 could buy a lens that performs better than even a mint R1.