18-50mm Zoom?

[PaulClements]

Couple of things, is this instead of the 18-85mm?

Is the price on the lenses page @$5900 right or is it $6500 as the shop says lol!

[S. Um]

Yeah, what happened to the 18-85mm?

Also, there's conflicting info on the 18-50mm ship date: either Summer 07 or end of 07.

[Dominic Jones]

Well, the site's only just been updated, and they've put up a couple of fixes (technical, at least) already - so I'd probably just wait until the ripples settle and those little differences will become clear!

But yes, it does look as though the 18-50 is a replacement for the 18-85, as there's no mention of the latter anywhere....

[Ken Willinger]

And will we be able to purchase single primes or sets only? I have a res for the zoom but I could use the 85!

[Dominic Jones]

Apparently they've said sets only, but if the 18-85 has been replaced by the 18-50, it might make sense for them to offer just the 85mm prime as a stand-alone sale (if you put a bit of "pretty please"-ing into it!!).

[Gabriel Beaudry]

The price was also cut down to about half of what it was before.

[PaulClements]

That's because the lens is lol

[Eirik Tyrihjel]

I assume/hope those of us who reserved the 18-85 will get in front of the line for the 18-50 if we want to (and if indeed the 18-85 has been dropped)...

[Andrew Benz]

OT-- Paul, everytime I see your pic I just want to buy you a guinness.

The lens looks sweet, great for tight and mediums, my back says thank you...

[PaulClements]

This is one of the problems, I'd love to order the 18-50mm but I've no idea if the queue in front means I'll receive my camera in August and have to wait till January for a lens. I might go for a different option for the time being and buy the zoom later. Seems a shame they seperated the lenses and accessories and gave them seperate reservations, it looks as though the lenses might ship before many of the Red Cameras do, in which case they probably could've shipped the lenses in the same way they are planning to do the accessories.

I guess you could say I should've committed to the lens but I only wanted to spend around $5000 for the first zoom... looks like it's about the right price range for my initial needs now... d'oh!

OT - haha Andrew... I'm off the alcohol this week, I had a dodgy pint on Friday night and can still feel a bit of the hangover even now... absolutely horendous... I've never felt so bad. P.S. Whilst I know it might make me sound like a massive pisshead having a three day hangover, I promise I'm not, I like my drink as much as the next person... well perhaps not the next person in England since that would actually make me a pisshead... I'll shut up :)

[Andrew Benz]

LOL, I love the UK! By god we will get pissed one of these days... I am in the same boat with the zoom, I have one reserved, I would rather have this one...

[Joe Carney]

This is one of the problems, I'd love to order the 18-50mm but I've no idea if the queue in front means I'll receive my camera in August and have to wait till January for a lens. I might go for a different option for the time being and buy the zoom later. Seems a shame they seperated the lenses and accessories and gave them seperate reservations, it looks as though the lenses might ship before many of the Red Cameras do, in which case they probably could've shipped the lenses in the same way they are planning to do the accessories.

I guess you could say I should've committed to the lens but I only wanted to spend around $5000 for the first zoom... looks like it's about the right price range for my initial needs now... d'oh!

OT - haha Andrew... I'm off the alcohol this week, I had a dodgy pint on Friday night and can still feel a bit of the hangover even now... absolutely horendous... I've never felt so bad. P.S. Whilst I know it might make me sound like a massive pisshead having a three day hangover, I promise I'm not, I like my drink as much as the next person... well perhaps not the next person in England since that would actually make me a pisshead... I'll shut up :)

Your picture looks like you just downed a few pints of Speckled Hen, hehehe.
I know I had that same goofy smile the first time I did. hehehe

[Martin Drew]

Had a bottle of Speckled Hen with my tea last night... Very nice.

M

[PaulClements]

That picture was taken in Egypt in January, a friend and myself had just survived falling over a 100ft drop from a balcony and were killing ourselves with laughter... the ironic thing was that was the best picture of me from the entire holiday! And by the way I wasn't drunk... I'd been smoking something fruity from a Shisha (sp?)... and when i say fruity I don't mean illegal, it was fruit flavoured and horrid to boot.

[MDP16]

From what I was told at the Red Booth if you have a camera reservation don't worry about the glass. Every lens that is in production will be available to you at the time you purchase your camera and accessories.

[Andrew Benz]

That picture was taken in Egypt in January, a friend and myself had just survived falling over a 100ft drop from a balcony and were killing ourselves with laughter... the ironic thing was that was the best picture of me from the entire holiday! And by the way I wasn't drunk... I'd been smoking something fruity from a Shisha (sp?)... and when i say fruity I don't mean illegal, it was fruit flavoured and horrid to boot.

OT---LOLO, great story, ahhhh apple flavored sheesha and beer... or tea... or coffee. Hey Paul, I stayed at the Mena House when I was in Giza in '95-- Operation Bright Star --- it rocked, though we bombed :innocent: --lil' wingnut humor


Back on topic--- I am switching to the 18-50mm, it will fit my needs better--thanks for all the info guys... back to the salt mines

[Mike]

I have reserved the 18-85mm too, am wondering how many would prefer to go for 18-50 instead..

And why? Am thinking of which one to go for myself....

[Jannard]

The 18-85 is on a delay. All reservations can (if you choose) slide to the 18-50mm CF.

The real price for the 18-50mm is $6500.

Sorry for any confusion... lots to do in a short period with not many people.

Jim

[Chris Gearhart]

Thanks for the clarification, Jim. This is a huge WOW. Thanks, man.

[Andrew Benz]

The 18-85 is on a delay. All reservations can (if you choose) slide to the 18-50mm CF.

The real price for the 18-50mm is $6500.

Sorry for any confusion... lots to do in a short period with not many people.

Jim
Jim,

I want you to know that despite the confusion (bugs) on the orders, Kelly e-mailed me from her phone while in the car going to dinner after the show (since I am going on a shoot for a couple days). She gave me her # and told me to call asap and she would...

a) take care of my prime lens set order --multi charges etc.
b) take care of switching my zoom to the new zoom.

She was a delight to talk too and as personable as ever. Her follow up and making some time meant alot to me. She would have talked longer but I did not want to monopolise her time.

Thank you for everything, you have no idea what you, your team and this community have done for me. I look forward to september...

Cheers,

M. Andrew Benz

[Emanuel A.]

Yes, I second that.


The 18-85 is on a delay. All reservations can (if you choose) slide to the 18-50mm CF.

The real price for the 18-50mm is $6500.

Sorry for any confusion... lots to do in a short period with not many people.

Jim

No big deal, Jim. However, it would be very useful to know how much can be the delay on the 18-85 as well to have some enlightenment on this request:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1614

As it's possible to check there's who is requesting the same. We'd be grateful for the individual offer on the RED PRIMES as far as possible.

It seems there are others with the same concern.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=28448&postcount=14

Thanks!

[Dan Blanchett]

Even though the primes are only being offered as a set, Jim did say (when asked this morning) that he may consider selling the 85mm separately to go along with the 18-50 zoom. I think that would be a nice option for folks opting for the zoom this summer.

[Roberto B]

but the wider 15mm would be gold as well for filmmaking purposes..

[Dan Blanchett]

but the wider 15mm would be gold as well for filmmaking purposes..

I agree. But it may not happen until they sell a certain number of sets. At least, that's what I was told. We'll see...

[Don King]

I hope it will... A 15mm tool plus the 300mm would be the perfect set to add to the compact zoom.

[Rick Darge]

this was the coolest news for me today

i'm so happy

i was going to nikon all the way but now I have to reconsider

[Steve Gibby]

IMO the 18-50 close focus zoom will be the single most popular lens that RED has announced thus far. I checked it out very closely when I was shooting the pics of it for my mag article a few weeks ago. Nice materials, workmanship, small, light, and focuses as close as 8". For me, it will probably be the most often used cine lens in my kit...and a great price too ($6,500).

[Pete Wells]

From what I was told at the Red Booth if you have a camera reservation don't worry about the glass. Every lens that is in production will be available to you at the time you purchase your camera and accessories.

Just wondering if this is true - as it hasn't been answered yet, as far as I can tell?

[PaulClements]

Yeah this is something that could do with a bit of clearing up at some point Heligowasit. I wouldn't mind ordering the 18-50mm but if I have to wait a long time after my camera ships in August I'd rather find something else and maybe pick up this zoom next year. If this lens will ship in the same way that the accessories will, as some comments have eluded too then I'd probably buy it with the camera in August.

It's a catch22, because I don't want to commit to buying the lens if I cannot get it for a while, but I don't want to be even further down the line at the same time! :)

It's so hectic at the moment that I can understand things like this not being cleared up.

[Matthew Rogers]

Even though the primes are only being offered as a set, Jim did say (when asked this morning) that he may consider selling the 85mm separately to go along with the 18-50 zoom. I think that would be a nice option for folks opting for the zoom this summer.

When I was reading through the posts, I thought, "hey, maybe they could sell the 85mm to add extra punch when you need it!" As long as I could have my setup so I could change fairly easily (under 5 mins) then I would go that route (18-55 + 85 prime.)

Matthew

[Christian Berg]

Jim, can you sell the 18-50mm zoom + the prime 85mm in a package? That would be really nice. How long is it until the other zoom (18-85mm) will be ready? Would like to know so I can make up my mind... witch one...
/Christian

[Dan Blanchett]

I wouldn't mind ordering the 18-50mm but if I have to wait a long time after my camera ships in August I'd rather find something else and maybe pick up this zoom next year. If this lens will ship in the same way that the accessories will, as some comments have eluded too then I'd probably buy it with the camera in August.

While this (like everything else) is subject to change, the 18-50mm will be available this summer, as far as what's been said verbally, printed in the NAB handouts and on the RED.com site. How early or late in the summer is open to speculation, but it seems clear it should be ready for anyone getting their camera in August, if not those folks with June/July shipments. I certainly plan on getting mine in August. The fact that they have them on display in the booth is a good sign.

[Mike the beginner]

The question of waiting for the 18-85mm zoom may be answered at some point in time by red. Cast way back when the red zoom was being talked about. The talk then was of making a compact zoom first because that was most needed. There was also talk of producing a second zoom with longer range.

I honestly doubt that the red zoom we all ordered is ever going to be an 18-85mm? It just does not make sense (says me the beginner:sad: ) when we now have a cracking 18mm- 50mm with Macro facility. I do wish they had made it a 16mm-50mm though and bumped the price up to say $8,500


The likliehood (as someone suggested) is the next zoom after the 18-50 could be a 70-200 or possibly 250 , whatever. If red team are looking closely at the weight issue for specific applications then we could find the next zoom will also be close to the weight of the 18-50 i,e, 3lbs or so. What zoom specs could be made that would keep the weight at that level? Does any of this make sense.:umm:

Mike the beginner

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I do wish they had made it a 16mm-50mm though and bumped the price up to say $8,500

Perhaps... But they're hitting a real sweet spot with 18-50mm @ $6500. It's like a no-brainer purchase. I'm not even sure if I'll buy the Nikon mount now. OK, I probably will just because I already have the lenses, but really... Instead of the 18-85mm, I'd like to see something like a 70-150mm (maybe even 70-200). OTOH, if the 18-85mm is still going to happen (I think it is), I wonder what the minimum focal distance will be? Hmmm... Decisions. Good thing I still have a while to figure it all out and see all the initial reports.

[Martin Drew]

It may just be semantics but on the production buzz podcast Ted mentioned the 18-50 zoom and then corrected himself to say variable prime. Should we be thinking of this lens as a variable prime or a zoom?

M

[Steve Gibby]

It may just be semantics but on the production buzz podcast Ted mentioned the 18-50 zoom and then corrected himself to say variable prime. Should we be thinking of this lens as a variable prime or a zoom?

M

A zoom...

[steevo435]

short zooms are convenient, but not always the best choice for best look! Use primes if you are going for image quality!!

[Martin Drew]

There have been a lot of very positive general comments about the quality of images coming from the lens but has anyone (Gibby?) had the opportunity to test the 18-50 out for breathing and propensity to flare? Over on CML, Stu Maschwitz comments on the lens having a breathing problem, but he doesn't go into any details. Has anyone else noticed anything or is he being overly picky.

M

[Steve Gibby]

There have been a lot of very positive general comments about the quality of images coming from the lens but has anyone (Gibby?) had the opportunity to test the 18-50 out for breathing and propensity to flare? Over on CML, Stu Maschwitz comments on the lens having a breathing problem, but he doesn't go into any details. Has anyone else noticed anything or is he being overly picky.

M

No testing published yet. I've held the lens, inspected it, and helped attach it to "Boris" when I shot the stills of it for my Studio Daily article. It's being used in the RED NAB booth this week for demo to a monitor, and the results looked excellent. Since I have one of the first cameras shipping (#8), and I've assembled an expert team of DP's and Mike Curtis to conduct the tests, and we'll be testing a number of cine, still, and B4 lenses on #8, I'll try and arrange to test the RED 18-50 zoom on it also. I'm buying the 18-50, so the sooner I can test it out, the better. Someone claiming that the lens has a breathing problem when they haven't even tested the lens is just plain ludicrous. I saw no indication of breathing in the brief demo of the lens I saw at NAB.

[Dan Blanchett]

I played around with the focus and zoom in the booth, just looking through the viewfinder, and saw no noticeable issues. Maybe not the best testing method or environment, but it looked pretty good to me. I look forward to Gibby's more thorough tests.

[Emanuel A.]

I played around with the focus and zoom in the booth, just looking through the viewfinder, and saw no noticeable issues. Maybe not the best testing method or environment, but it looked pretty good to me.Well, regarding breathing the testing method (not the environment) is fair enough or am I wrong?

Any other NAB 18-50mm testers?

[david farland]

I guess the accusation of breathing problems on the prototype 18-50mm can be easily checked.

Significant comments like this travel like wild fire as they easily trump any amount of marketing talk (I mean this in the nicest way) and need to be shafted or confirmed as quick as possible, preferably by independants.

Hopefully people can check these out tomorrow.
Prime lens observations would be great too, if permissable.

Cheers,

[Stephen Williams]

I guess the accusation of breathing problems on the prototype 18-50mm can be easily checked.

Cheers,

Hi,

A small lightweight close focus lens is more likely to breathe than a large heavy one with a minimium focus of 24 inches. I understand it's something to do with physics.

Stephen

[Martin Drew]

To be fair to Stu I think I should repeat his CML post here:

>Hi Evin,

>The 18-50s that are at the NAB booth have quite a breathing problem
>when racking focus -- is this something that will be addressed before the
>lens is put into production? I know these are hand-built prototypes.

>-Stu

I couldn't read into that post whether he thought it was a big issue or not, he was just commenting on something he noticed. I thought it was worthwhile putting the question out there to get the answer nailed while the lens was still available for checking out at NAB. The fact that nobody else looking through the lens at NAB has commented on this and it wasn't something that Gibby had noticed is very encouraging.

M

[Mike the beginner]

Please excuse my ignorance but will the new zoom Macro facility give a 1-1 life size magnification. I require close up of insects for my project and wondered if this would be best served by a lens made for that type of work?

It would also have a bearing on whether i go for this zoom or wait!

Mike the beginner

[Stephen Williams]

Please excuse my ignorance but will the new zoom Macro facility give a 1-1 life size magnification. I require close up of insects for my project and wondered if this would be best served by a lens made for that type of work?

It would also have a bearing on whether i go for this zoom or wait!

Mike the beginner

Hi,

Most unlikely, The Minimium focus distance is 8" (from the lens or sensor?) With only a 50mm lens you would need to be about 2" from the front nodal point of the lens, where ever that may be when zoomed to 50mm!

Stephen

EDIT A prime lens back to front will be your cheapest soloution!

[Mike the beginner]

Hi,

Most unlikely, The Minimium focus distance is 8" (from the lens or sensor?) With only a 50mm lens you would need to be about 2" from the front nodal point of the lens, where ever that may be when zoomed to 50mm!

Stephen

EDIT A prime lens back to front will be your cheapest soloution!



Thank you Stephen that is most helpful


Mike the beginner

[Anders Holck]

From CML:

I wouldn't characterize it as a problem, but the lens does breathe a little bit. Personally I'm happy with it given it's price point and optical prowess. I do not have the information about weather the optics will be adressed before final production.

[Gbabymogul]

I really hope we get some sort of tests on this and info. on the lens itself (weight, dimensions) etc... I'm undecided whether to go for the Prime set or stick with the 18-50 and supplement it with a fast wide Russian Prime which will be needed for exterior night shots...

I assume the optical elements would be more suceptible to breathing in a compact zoom, but how will it compare with the Cooke or Arri versions?

Very basic it looks like :

Zoom 18-50
Pros : light weight
available shipping with camera in the Summer (?)
price is affordable
new production and elements (no useage)
great for certain kinds of productions and directors
made by a guy we trust

Negs:
range is good but lacks full range
speed is fairly slow for low light shots
zooms generally are not as a pristine image as primes
possible breathing could make this lens less than useful for specific shot choices
delivery not confirmed, so you might be better waiting
no independent testing yet (unlike David Stump test)

The couple of pros i've talked to tell me to sacrifice other budget items to get the Prime set, but I don't know, especially if the Primes won't be available until late December 2007, for example. Also, i'd really like it confirmed by the RED team if the Prime set will be available if I have the camera and would like a set - in other words there won't be a line up, or months delay in shipping. I know that's asking a lot for an order several moinths off, but the Prime set is the price of a car up here so i don't think it's an unreasonable request.

We're holding these guys to an incredibly high standard and getting revolutionary (personal film making) products for an affordable price, but some people are putting a lot of money and trust on the line - i hope we can get a better pic after NAB closes.
I love 'em for what they're doing


:-)



Just my 3 pence. :beer:

[Shawn Bannon]

is it true the 18-85 will now be an 18-100?

[Evin Grant]

No, that is rumor. The 18-85 is still 18-85.

[Matthew Verkler]

I did see the 18-50 personally at NAB. I only saw it rack focus at 50mm (on a 42 inch screen I think), but it definitely breathes noticeably at that focal length.

By the way, I just say this as a fact I personally observed. I am a RED One (508) and Red Zoom 18-85 (354) reservation holder, and DEFINITELY one of the Red faithful. I'm reserving judgement until the actual shipping units can be tested, but even if it breathes at the level I saw at NAB, it is still a DEAL at $6500, and is really compact too.

Let's see how this shakes out when the final is released and can be tested and compared. How much breathing is reasonable at this price point and size? I'm used to a lot of breathing with my Angenieux 20-120 on my Arri BL, so the workarounds are no big deal to me. And a zoom as compact as the RED 18-50 is a major plus too.

(EDIT) Let me also say that the lens was maybe 1-2 feet from the subject (going from memory here), so the breathing I saw should be much more noticeable than if the subject was further away.

[Stephen Williams]

(EDIT) Let me also say that the lens was maybe 1-2 feet from the subject (going from memory here), so the breathing I saw should be much more noticeable than if the subject was further away.

Hi,

FWIW Close focusing without breathing is very difficult to achieve on a zoom.

Stephen

[Steve Gibby]

Again, as I noted in my Post #39 of this thread, I didn't see a significant breathing problem during the brief time I observed the 18-50 in use at the RED booth. They were demo lenses, not the finalized shipping version. Me and a team of other highly experienced shooters will test my RED #8 in Los Angeles sometime soon. We'll test a broad range of cine lenses (prime and zoom), 35mm still lenses (prime and zoom), and B4 2/3" lenses. If a finalized RED 15-50mm zoom is available at that time, we'll test it out, and publish our impressions. Until then, I think brief observations on the performance of the RED 18-50 zoom, made in a busy RED booth at NAB, have very limited value.

[Matthew Verkler]

Yes, I second Gibby's remarks. I was just reporting what I saw, acknowledging that it wasn't the final shipping lens. Let's wait for the real deal to be tested properly.

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

Are the lenses marked in imperial units (feet) only, or is there a metric option.

Stephen

[Evin Grant]

Hi,

Are the lenses marked in imperial units (feet) only, or is there a metric option.

Stephen

That's a good point. I don't know if there will be a metric version or not. It would seem silly not to though seeing how much of the world works in metric.
I doubt they will put both on the lens though, too hard to read in fast moving situations.

[Shawn Bannon]

Yes, I hope they put metric data on the lenses or give this as an option.

[Michael Struthers]

I did hear that Cooke might be making these lenses for Red. Anyone care to confirm? :whistling:

I too, held the 18-50 i my hand and (much lighter than I thought) and also tried a super-quick rack focus, but the results were inconclusive.

[david farland]

Gibby, Steve, Evin and all,
thanks for all your words of experience and to all the ones who went out and tested it even more thanks.
I think the 18-50mm may be a Swiss Army knife to a lot of us and will be relied upon heavily.
I was mis-reading one of Gibby's posts in the other thread,18-50mm - Does it breath?, when I thought he said, he would test a couple of different manufacture's 18-50mm lenses. In his minds experience I assume this is what he is doing.

My heart gave a sigh of relief and the voice in my head said 'Yes', we need that comparative test.

I think it's fair to say that a few of us haven't had a lot of experience in seeing breathing problems on these types of zoom lenses.
I guess that is what this forum is about....teaching all who read it, from the voices of experience and viewing online results of practical test. This is why Evin's lens test are so applauded.

I noticed that Evin found very little breathing on the Nikon 17-35mm but I wouldn't have a clue if this is any type of comparison.

So, onto the test regime....

In my experience I found that the professional approach is without doubt the simplest approach....don't think easiest here!...it makes the most sense, doesn't cut corners or make assumptions.

The less professional approach is normally easier, has people thinking it the most practical, hoping it will work, is usually faster and cuts corners.
Often this approach is shoved through with conjecture, opinion and usually succeeds by more luck. Finally if it doesn't work, people are sadly comforted in the thought that they did their best and accept their approach or methods.

Sadly the most professional approach is simply passed over for brevity, inexperience or costs saving.
Sorry to preach but as others have said this lens will turn out to be a workhorse and needs to be professionally & throughly looked at. After all, it's that why we're here.


My suggestion here is to:
1. Use a comparative approach on the lens if possible
2. Follow Evin's great approach on testing lenses and then add whatever additional criteria is deemed required by professionals for this type of cine lens.

Last note: I do a lot of technical evaluation, tenders etc. The hardest step by far is having the right people define the evaluation criterion and to weight the score of each criteria.

End of rant!

David

[Alexander Nikishin]

is it true the 18-85 will now be an 18-100?

I've heard that there may be a 50-150 in the works. With the release of the 18-50, I don't see there being a reason to release a second zoom with basically the same focal lengths.

[Stephen Williams]

With the release of the 18-50, I don't see there being a reason to release a second zoom with basically the same focal lengths.

Hi,

Well Cooke had a 20-100 , 25-250 and then a 20-60, I have both 20-60 + 20-100.

Stephen

[PaulClements]

Admittedly I'd prefer to see something like a 50-150mm alexander. If the other lens was 18-100mm I can understand it still being made. But effectively only offering another 35mm doesn't seem a great deal of point. Perhaps another compact 50-100 and a third compact 100-200 might be good. Keep the size and weight of the lenses similar and down nearer primes than traditional long zooms.

I don't know why lens manufacturers don't seem to make zoom lens sets, perhaps Red might break this mould and give us everything from 18 upto 300 or beyond in 3 or 4 zooms.

[Stephen Williams]

Hi Paul,

In motion picture photography the reason to use a zoom is mainly to save time changing lenses. Having a set of zooms defeats that advantage.

Stephen

[Alex Boothby]

Hi Paul,

In motion picture photography the reason to use a zoom is mainly to save time changing lenses. Having a set of zooms defeats that advantage.

Stephen

How about 1/3 as many lens changes then? (25, 35, 50mm)...
There are other advantages to a zoom; more precise framing, quick pre-roll adjustments, in camera zooms, etc. Zooms are not just variable primes. Personally I'm more concerned about f-stop than breathing as Red offers ample resolution to fix this in post.


Perhaps another compact 50-100 and a third compact 100-200 might be good. Keep the size and weight of the lenses similar and down nearer primes than traditional long zooms.

I don't know why lens manufacturers don't seem to make zoom lens sets, perhaps Red might break this mould and give us everything from 18 upto 300 or beyond in 3 or 4 zooms.

I think this is a great suggestion although I think it would be acceptable to skip a little range (by standard prime lengths). Something like a 18-50mm, a 65-125mm, and a 150-250mm. Can you even make a compact zoom at the longer lengths?

[Roberto B]

I've heard that there may be a 50-150 in the works. With the release of the 18-50, I don't see there being a reason to release a second zoom with basically the same focal lengths.rusky, you're there.. same thought here..

[Roberto B]

Perhaps another compact 50-100 and a third compact 100-200 might be good. Keep the size and weight of the lenses similar and down nearer primes than traditional long zooms.still better..

[steevo435]

I don't know why lens manufacturers don't seem to make zoom lens sets, perhaps Red might break this mould and give us everything from 18 upto 300 or beyond in 3 or 4 zooms.

The reason, at least up until this point, is that it is impossible (I know that word is taboo around here!!) to make zoom lens that are anywhere nearly the quality of Prime lenses. Up until now, any DP that knows his/her way around a set will select prime lenses if quality is the main objective. Zoom lenses have lots of moving parts.
By the way, there was a set of zoom lenses introduced in the mid 1990's that shocked the world with the quality of prime lenses in a zoom...that set was called the Arri/Zeiss VP's (Variable Primes). Look them up if you like, they were short zooms because physically and optically you can only get so much from a lens with moving elements. The VP series was a 16-30, 29-60, and a 55-105 matched set...beautiful glass if you can get your hands on it. :biggrin:

[Alexander Nikishin]

Maybe Brook or Evin can answer this question.....

How many degrees were in a full pull on the 18-50?

[David Mullen ASC]

Having just finished a TV series with zoom lenses, I can tell you that a 20-100mm Cooke in 35mm can pretty much satisfy 90% of the typical set-ups for interiors. We thought about getting the 17-75mm Panavision Primo but the problem was that we were always ending up at 100mm on our coverage.

We also carried a 25-250mm Primo zoom but found that the 10:1 zooms tend to breathe when you rack focus, plus there was some barrel-distortion at the 25mm end.

We liked everything about the Cooke 20-100mm except that it was an older lens limited to T/3.1 wide-open, plus it was a little soft at that f-stop. But mechanically, in terms of being low distortion and low breathing problems, it's a great lens and I wish that Cooke would update it.

There was the Zeiss VP (Variable Prime) lenses, which were short zooms that covered a certain range, so that three lenses did almost every focal length, the idea being that you only had to carry three lenses and since they were not long in range, they could be designed to be sharper. Trouble is that when most people change a set-up, they make a big change in focal length, so you were doing lens changes almost as often as with a prime set.

[PaulClements]

We liked everything about the Cooke 20-100mm ... it's a great lens and I wish that Cooke would update it.

Is the 18-100mm not considered an update David? It's colour matched to the S4 lenses so it fits with Cookes modern lens set.

[PaulClements]

Hi Paul,

In motion picture photography the reason to use a zoom is mainly to save time changing lenses. Having a set of zooms defeats that advantage.

Stephen

I understand that Stephen, the point I guess I'm making is that Cooke, Angeniuex et al make various zooms at the same time that overlap. Such as the 20-100mm and 25-250mm. As such the lenses become larger and heavier. Making two zooms such as 20-75mm and 75-250mm would surely offer better quality optics, make them lighter and smaller and offer the same range for the owners. It would also mean people would be more likely to buy both lenses rather than one over the other. As such fewer people use the 25-250mm compared to the 20-100mm or 18-100mm.

[Stephen Williams]

I understand that Stephen, the point I guess I'm making is that Cooke, Angeniuex et al make various zooms at the same time that overlap. Such as the 20-100mm and 25-250mm. As such the lenses become larger and heavier. Making two zooms such as 20-75mm and 75-250mm would surely offer better quality optics, make them lighter and smaller and offer the same range for the owners. It would also mean people would be more likely to buy both lenses rather than one over the other. As such fewer people use the 25-250mm compared to the 20-100mm or 18-100mm.

Hi Paul,

As David points out 20-100 is a very useful range. It's not light but saves time. I would be interested in the RED 18-85, if it does not breathe, is tack sharp wide open @T2.8 and remains @T2.8 throughout its range.

As dust may be an issue I would want to keep lens changes to a minimium. My 18-200 stays on my D70 all the time.

Stephen

[David Mullen ASC]

Judging from all the different zoom ranges that Fujinon is making HD zooms in, I'd say that there is no consensus as to the ideal range -- so zoom manufacturers end up making a lot of choices for consumers.

Also depends on how often you want to swap lenses. Certainly 18-85mm is a very practical range, similar to the Panavision Primo 17-75mm but going to 85mm is even better. I'm not much of a user of the 18mm end of zooms though, but that's just personal taste.

[Mike Devlin]

We liked everything about the Cooke 20-100mm except that it was an older lens limited to T/3.1 wide-open, plus it was a little soft at that f-stop. But mechanically, in terms of being low distortion and low breathing problems, it's a great lens and I wish that Cooke would update it.


At least according to their website, the new Cooke 18-100 T3.0 is the replacement for the 20-100 (www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/secondary/s4t3zoom), but it is not much faster.

[PaulClements]

Do you think the problem with the 18-85mm is the fact that making such a long range on a compact lens has caused Red problems? Perhaps the eventual lens we'll see will be a bit longer and heavier than originally anticipated?

[David Mullen ASC]

The longer the zoom range, the harder it is to design a zoom that is fast but not too large, plus doesn't have breathing problems when rack-focused. If you want it to go to 100mm, let's say, but be T/2.1 at the fastest, it ends up being a pretty big zoom for 35mm target areas. And if you need a 10:1 ratio, it gets hard to not have breathing problems unless you are very clever in the design.

Again, most of the long Fujinon HD zooms that have designed out the breathing problems tend to have huge front elements.

I don't think the 18-100mm Cooke zooms are all that new in design - I recall adds for them back in the late 1980's.

[Stephen Williams]

I don't think the 18-100mm Cooke zooms are all that new in design - I recall adds for them back in the late 1980's.

Hi David,

Correct and it's based on the 20-100 from 1971.

Stephen

[Alexander Nikishin]

Does anyone here have experience with the Cooke 20-100 in regards to breathing?

It was used in Band of Brothers and that is without a doubt a beautifully shot film.

[Stephen Williams]

Does anyone here have experience with the Cooke 20-100 in regards to breathing?

It was used in Band of Brothers and that is without a doubt a beautifully shot film.

Hi,

Very little, less than older primes, that's one reason it was a breakthrough when introduced.

Stephen

[Alexander Nikishin]

Hi,

Very little, less than older primes, that's one reason it was a breakthrough when introduced.

Stephen

And it runs for around $7,000...hmmmm...18-50 or Cooke 20-100?

[Stephen Williams]

And it runs for around $7,000...hmmmm...18-50 or Cooke 20-100?

Hi,

On Ebay the 20-100 Cooke SELL's for $3000 and less. Sometimes there listed for way more, they dont sell.

hmmmmm makes the Cooke seem like a good deal!

Stephen

[Alexander Nikishin]

Yup, I guess one shop either has a mint one or is just over priced.

Stephen, do you still own the 20-100?

[Stephen Williams]

Yup, I guess one shop either has a mint one or is just over priced.

Stephen, do you still own the 20-100?

Hi Alexander,

Yes.

Rental houses usually ask about $5k, 6 months later they try Ebay around $2.5k and they sell.

Stephen

[M Olsen]

And it runs for around $7,000...hmmmm...18-50 or Cooke 20-100?

Just remember the 20-100 is a big heavy lens and can be awkward in a tight workspace.
Big Matt Box required also.

[Alexander Nikishin]

Just remember the 20-100 is a big heavy lens and can be awkward in a tight workspace.
Big Matt Box required also.
I've thought about the pro's and con's of both the 18-50 and 20-100....

Red 18-50:

PROS
- Lightweight / compact
- Close focus
- i technology integrated

CONS
- Limited focal range, 18-50 leaves you needing an 85 and 100mm
- A little pricey in comparison to the Cooke 20-100
- Many reports of breathing

Cooke 20-100:

PROS
- Excellent focal range covering all the necessary lengths
- Affordable at just $3,000
- Proven quality having been used on many great films
- Very little breathing

CONS
- HEAVY! 12 lbs.
- Large front diameter requiring a 6x6 matte box which ups the cost of use
- No close focus, limited to 2' 4" minimum
- Very lengthy leaving int. car shots and tight spaces impractical
- Steadicam / hand-held work will be a pain

If Red could only hurry it up with the 18-85, I'd be a happy man. :waaa:

[Stephen Williams]

CONS
- No close focus, limited to 2' 4" minimum


Hi,

It's actually very good for macro product photography / close ups. Due to the length of the lens the 2' 4" from the film plane is quite close to the front element. I don't have a lens & camera with me but I am sure it's under 1'.

Stephen

[Martin Drew]

Hi Stephen

Did you ever get to the bottom of whether the 8" min focus on the 18-50 was from the front elements of from the sensor plane?

M

[M Olsen]

I've thought about the pro's and con's of both the 18-50 and 20-100....

Red 18-50:

PROS
- Lightweight / compact
- Close focus
- i technology integrated

CONS
- Limited focal range, 18-50 leaves you needing an 85 and 100mm
- A little pricey in comparison to the Cooke 20-100
- Many reports of breathing

Cooke 20-100:

PROS
- Excellent focal range covering all the necessary lengths
- Affordable at just $3,000
- Proven quality having been used on many great films
- Very little breathing

CONS
- HEAVY! 12 lbs.
- Large front diameter requiring a 6x6 matte box which ups the cost of use
- No close focus, limited to 2' 4" minimum
- Very lengthy leaving int. car shots and tight spaces impractical
- Steadicam / hand-held work will be a pain

If Red could only hurry it up with the 18-85, I'd be a happy man. :waaa:

Hi Alexander,

Stephen is, as always spot on, the close focus is very good on the 5-1 Cooke. nearly 1:1 on a match box.
A couple of good features I have enjoyed are the internal rear gel holder and the cable release type of thing where by you press the button and the iris opens up so you can check focus etc, then it goes back to the iris setting.
No way would it go a Steadicam and H\H in very rare situations unless you are a grinder on an America's Cup yacht.
They are two separate lenses hopefully something else will come from the Red stable that runs a bit longer or complements the 18-50.

[Stephen Williams]

Hi Stephen

Did you ever get to the bottom of whether the 8" min focus on the 18-50 was from the front elements of from the sensor plane?

M

Hi Martin,

No one answered, but as the lenses are marked in F stops I will assume that the focus marks are from the front element, until told otherwise. Odd really IMHO.

Stephen

[Steve Gibby]

My impression reference the 18-50 minimum focus of 8", was that it was from the sensor focal plane. The lens is about 5" long from the flange to its barrel end, thus minimum focus is about 3" from the end of the lens. None of this is verified, except the minimum focus distance of 8", which was clearly marked on the prototype lens barrel. If RED has an 18-50 available for testing, we'll include it in our upcoming Los Angeles testing of my RED #8, thus answering some questions about the lens. As for breathing, Evin worked with the prototype 18-50 for four days and has stated that he felt the breathing on the lens was within expected parameters for a professional cine lens. In a quick observation at NAB, I saw very little breathing. Others felt they did see some. It was a prototype lens, not a delivering product, so we should reserve judgment on breathing, and the overall performance of the 18-50 until a finalized lens is professionally tested.

One other observation about the RED 18-50 that probably should have been included in your list Alexander: the 18-50 is a new lens, with new lens technology, that is being designed for use on a CMOS sensor S35mm camera, with specifications defined by the same company that is developing the camera (RED). Conversely, the Cooke 10-100, which BTW IMO is an excellent lens, is an older lens that was designed for 35mm film use. Only real world testing of a RED 18-50 and a Cooke 20-100 on a RED One camera will define how those lenses perform on a RED One.

I see the RED 18-50 and the Cooke 20-100 as very different lenses in size, optics, and utility. Ideally I'd like to own both and use them where appropriate. Due to its lightweight, small size, and close focus, I see the 18-50 being a very good choice for hand held, shoulder mount, and stabilization unit use - something the Cooke 20-100 wouldn't be my choice for. Conversely, the Cooke 20-100 is obviously a good choice for projects where it can be tripod mounted and focal lengths between 50-100mm are also needed.

I have no knowledge that they will, but if RED decides to offer an 18-50 + 85mm prime 2-lens package, for most of the work I do, that would be a better choice than the proposed RED 18-85. I originally reserved a RED 18-85, but due to the highly mobile genres of work I do, the size, weight, and close focus capabilities of the 18-50 made it a much better choice for me. If and when RED makes a longer focal length zoom, to dovetail with the 18-50, I'll take a serious look at that too.

The Cooke "i" technology incorporated in the RED 18-50, and not incorporated in the Cooke 20-100, is a big point to me. Having the metadata of the "i" technology dovetails real nice with a modern field/post workflow like that of RED One. To me, a complete camera package has a complimentary mix of optics and electronics - something using metadata-enabled lenses brings to the package.

As I said, for my RED One camera kit, I'd like to own both a RED 18-50 for more mobile work, and a Cooke 20-100 for other projects. In fact...I think I will.

Some very good input on this thread...

[Evin Grant]

I'll state it again here...
From the prototypes I played with I would be perfectly happy with the minimal amount of breathing I found in the lens at normal distances. Obviously racking focus from 2" from the front element to infinity on a zoom lens will show some breathing. Personally I'm fine with the performance even if it does not improve in the shipping units.

[david farland]

Evin,
thanks for sharing your knowledge / experience with hacks like myself.

In regards to the breathing you found on the Red 18~50mm, do you have a sense of whether it was more or less than the Nikon 17~35mm you tested?

Cheers,

[Evin Grant]

In regards to the breathing you found on the Red 18~50mm, do you have a sense of whether it was more or less than the Nikon 17~35mm you tested?


Hard to say, let me go look at the 17-35 again.......




OK I'm back.
My first impression not having the 18-50 here is that it breathes more at 50mm than the 17-35 at 35mm, but less at 18 than the 17-35 at 17mm. Zooms can be odd sometimes, the Nikkor really does breath more at 17 than 35. Huh, strange. I'd say that the 18-50 may be a touch better given the better wide performance. Honestly though, you should wait till Gibby and I have a chance to test.

[david farland]

Many thanks Evin. If I knew anything about lens techniques for holding magnification over focal length I could help you
.....but it's a little bit ' picture comes in here, the little man inside has a magnifying glass and shines it on the back of the camera!

But thanks again and thanks for all you work on this forum.

Dave,

[Dan Blanchett]

As of right now, I plan on getting the 18-50 zoom with my RED. For budget reasons, I was also thinking about getting a Nikon D40 (comes with 18-55mm zoom) to use for pre-production, slates/plates, taking quick shots on set, act as a Director's Finder, etc. It's less than $600 new with lens. Would this camera and lens cover a similar area as the RED with 18-50 zoom and provide a comparable perspective?

[Brian Kaz]

Just noticed on RED.COM that the ETA has changed on the 18-50 zoom from Summer 2007 to "End of 2007"

[Steve Gibby]

Just noticed on RED.COM that the ETA has changed on the 18-50 zoom from Summer 2007 to "End of 2007"

The wording has been that way since right after NAB. Below the picture of the lens it says "Estimated Ship Date: End of 2007", but above the picture it says: "Delivery time for the RED 18-50mm f2.8 close focus zoom lens is scheduled for Summer 2007".

Hopefully the "Summer 2007" estimate is the more accurate of the two estimates. We'll see...

Link: http://www.red.com/lenses.shtml

[tj williams]

Hi Gibby totally agree with your guestimate on the focus issue. It would be rather strange if RED marked their lens from the outer end like video lenses rather than from the film plane like Film lenses, then sold it in a PL mount!!

[jaadgy akanni]

As of right now, I plan on getting the 18-50 zoom with my RED. For budget reasons, I was also thinking about getting a Nikon D40 (comes with 18-55mm zoom) to use for pre-production, slates/plates, taking quick shots on set, act as a Director's Finder, etc. It's less than $600 new with lens. Would this camera and lens cover a similar area as the RED with 18-50 zoom and provide a comparable perspective?
I'd be much obliged if any of you could answer this question posted by Thinkbug 'cause I'm looking to buy me a camera to act among other things, as a Director's finder too. Now, Evin has been conducting his Nikon lens tests with a D2X, but I'm hoping there's a way more affordable alternative-at least something similarly spec'd in terms of the image I'd get. But as I said, something way ,way, way more affordable. What do you say Evin, instead of a D2X what can I get to test my lenses, take quick shots, use for pre-production, etc.?

Ok, I'm back from doing some investigating. Now, RED One is 12 megapixel and the D2X is 12.4, so how much difference does that .4 make as far as the image? The D40x is 10.2 megapixels, so I guess that wouldn't cut it in the lens tests. Anyone care to comment?

[Evin Grant]

The D80 is a better camera all around but the D40x is no slouch. The .4 makes little diffrence, the 10MP of the D40x/D80 should be sufficient to test your own lenses, I already own a D2x and it's specs make it ideal for testing lenses for Red.

[jaadgy akanni]

The D80 is a better camera all around but the D40x is no slouch. The .4 makes little diffrence, the 10MP of the D40x/D80 should be sufficient to test your own lenses, I already own a D2x and it's specs make it ideal for testing lenses for Red.

Evin, considering that the D2X uses a 12.4 megapixel CMOS DX sensor (which are specs almost identical to those of RED ONE) while the D40x/D80 use a 10.2 megapixel DX Format CCD image sensor, would the answer to Thinkbug's question "Would this camera cover a similar area as the RED and provide a comparable perspective?" be NO? or would the discrepancies be too many to make them good cameras "to use for pre-production, slates/plates, taking quick shots on set, act as a Director's Finder, etc?"

[Stephen Williams]

Evin, considering that the D2X uses a 12.4 megapixel CMOS DX sensor (which are specs almost identical to those of RED ONE) while the D40x/D80 use a 10.2 megapixel DX Format CCD image sensor, would the answer to Thinkbug's question "Would this camera cover a similar area as the RED and provide a comparable perspective?" be NO? or would the discrepancies be too many to make them good cameras "to use for pre-production, slates/plates, taking quick shots on set, act as a Director's Finder, etc?"

Hi,

The horizontal viewing angle from the D80 will be very close to the Red one.

Stephen

[istvanttt]

Evin, a question, do you test the RED lenses with a Nikon? Somewhere I asked if it would be possible to attack a PL lens to the Nikon, if there is an adapter around. Somebody answered me that this is not possible. As I found some older LOMO PL mount lenses in Russia I would love to play with them before my RED ONE will arrive. I own a D75s and this would be indeed exciting.
Thanks, Istvan

[Evin Grant]

The larger flange focal distance makes a PL to
Nikon mount impossible.

[istvanttt]

Yes, somebody already answered me time ago with the same words. Somehow I missunderstood your words in this thread and I thought you test the RED lenses with your NIKON, and this made me hope again:)
Thanks indeed

[Dan Blanchett]

Evin, considering that the D2X uses a 12.4 megapixel CMOS DX sensor (which are specs almost identical to those of RED ONE) while the D40x/D80 use a 10.2 megapixel DX Format CCD image sensor, would the answer to Thinkbug's question "Would this camera cover a similar area as the RED and provide a comparable perspective?" be NO? or would the discrepancies be too many to make them good cameras "to use for pre-production, slates/plates, taking quick shots on set, act as a Director's Finder, etc?"

Thanks for answering this. Almost forgot I posted the original question...