Red 18-85 vs. Cooke 18-100 with images/clips

[Matt Uhry]

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/10_1223011427.jpg

I've Just had the chance to compare the new Red 18-85 and my Cooke 18-100, the short story is Red's new lens is really good and if you are looking for something in that range you should buy it. It's, the optics are great, it's really well made and represents an incredible value.

Our test took place at VR in Santa Ana, CA Brad Hagen had 2 new 18-85's and we had a look at one of them in his conference room. Brian Ferguson from Red stopped by towards the end to say hello. MJ Kerber, my friend, colleague and kick ass DP came along to offer a second set of eyes and to help out.


http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/10_1223011483.jpg

Physical Package:

The lens is all metal, presumably aluminum alloy, it's got a nice finish on it that's matte black. The lens is fat and stubby, I did not weigh it but it's a few pounds lighter than the cooke 18-100.

Over the front element there is a mask with a rectangular cut out. The cut out may be a bit aggressive if you were to use this lens on a 4perf super 35 setup. I had no way to test this for certain, but it looks like you could remove it if you wanted to. Likewise if you mounted the lens 90deg off rotation you might experience a performance drop. No Problems here.

The front filter thread is 138mm. This is unfortunate because, cinematographers use 138mm filters, but they are drop in and NOT screw in. The retainer rings and sunshades for this system are a slightly larger diameter. It seems like an easily avoidable mistake the designers could have prevented if he/she had bothered to check what a 138mm filter actually is. You could screw in an adapter, but it could not live full time on the camera unless you got a new front cap.

The lens has slick built in .08 module gears, the front focus gear part was so fat it did not work with our chroisziel follow focus, but I think it will work for most using a studio style follow focus. When our 18-85 lens arrives we'll probably modify the support for the follow focus to make it work.

The focus ring was slightly over dampened for my taste, but it's not a problem, I wonder how it will be in cold conditions, not that I have to worry about that in Southern California.

Zoom ring and Iris felt great. Not sure how many blades there were on the iris, but it was nice and round and linear.

There is no built in provision for a support and very little real estate ( on level, non rotating parts ) to use a clamp on one. I'm sure we'll be able to get a support on there somehow, but it seems like the designer did not anticipate that anyone would want to use one. It would be great if in the future they included 2 tapped holes like the ones on the cooke so a support could be bolted on.

The rear mount area looks good, back element is adequately protected.. Mount appears to be stainless steel.

Visual Tests:

On the camera the lens FFD and focus scale were set correctly at the factory, It appeared to actually be "perfect" in total agreement with our Cooke which was recently serviced. Nice going Red ! Zoom tracking was off a little, but our camera's mount / sensor is not aligned correctly so that's to be expected.

A good way to view these comparisons is to open them in different tabs in your browser and toggle back and forth. All tests were done WFO - 2.9 on the red and 3.0 on the cooke.

Breathing: Very minimal at 18mm, increases a little at longer focal lengths. Here's a clip comparing it to the cooke 18-100 @50mm The rack is from 10ft to 4ft to Inf. and back to 10ft.


http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/red_rack50mm.mov
http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/cooke_rack50mm.mov


Center Resolution

In these cases we went for best for best focus on the putora chart, using a panasonic 17" HDSDI monitor and image magnify mode. Chart distance was 10ft.

http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/red18mm.jpg
http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/cooke18mm.jpg


http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/red32mm.jpg
http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/cooke32mm.jpg


http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/red50mm.jpg
http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/cooke50mm.jpg

http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/red85mm.jpg
http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/cooke85mm.jpg

Edge Resolution / Distortion:

We focused on the chart in the center of the wall and then moved it to the corner. Shots were at 18mm, distance 12ft. It's also a chance to see the mild barrel distortion both lenses have. The Red has a bit more resolution than the Cooke in the corner. 18mm on the Cooke is a bit wider than 18mm on the Red.


http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/red-edge.jpg
http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/cooke-edge.jpg

Field Illumination and overall Color tone:

This white projection screen lit within .02 of a stop edge to edge with a 4 bank 5600 kino. directly over the camera. The Red lens has much more even field illumination than the Cooke and a cooler rendering of color tones

http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/red-field-illum.jpg
http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/cooke-field-illum.jpg

Bokeh

Looks like the Red uses some aspherics to get the even field illumination and good edge resolution, the price is some funky donut shaped bokeh.

http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/red-bokeh.jpg
http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/cooke-bokeh.jpg


Flare:

Test of flare resistance and character using a led flashlight.

http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/red_flare.mov
http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/cooke_flare.mov

Conclusion:

Red's first pro lens effort is a great success, it's a serious lens that can compete side by side with much more expensive lenses from cooke and angenieux, but at 20% of the cost. It's shortcomings are minor, but annoying none the less, the front filter thread and the lack of preparedness for a lens support. Both are fairly easily solved by aftermarket accessories, but also could have been avoided by a few clicks of the mouse while it was being designed.

Thanks for Reading,

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[David Mutchler]

Thanks for the info. Red had some nice lens support at NAB, it would be nice if we could get those.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Great test. I'm really liking what I see of the 18-85!!! Not sure about that bokeh yet, would like to see more samples.

[Emanuel A.]

Thanks Matt indeed!

Emanuel :-)

[Michael Lindsay]

Thank you Matt

regards

Michael

[Florian Stadler]

I saw the lens yesterday in the Red store and played with it and they had a lens support on. It is similar to what Offhollywood did with Zacuto parts in that it only holds up the lens but doesn't bolt it in place (it's more of a holder than a Ring). It doesn't allow for the traditional mounting of a motor either. I don't know if this is the final design. Workable for most situations but I would hesitate to use it on a car mount, helicopter, etc.

Lens looks and feels great.

[Florian Stadler]

Matt, is it possible that you mislabled/mixed up the Cooke/Red 85mm shot? The Red seems warmer, a little muddier and a 1/3 stop slower whereas is in all the other shots it's the Cooke that exhibits those qualities.

The Red lens looks very nice. I guess the character is more Zeiss inspired, crisp, clean.

Thanks for posting Matt!

[Matt Uhry]

Matt, is it possible that you mislabled/mixed up the Cooke/Red 85mm shot? The Red seems warmer, a little muddier and a 1/3 stop slower whereas is in all the other shots it's the Cooke that exhibits those qualities.

The Red lens looks very nice. I guess the character is more Zeiss inspired, crisp, clean.

Thanks for posting Matt!

Oops - you are correct. I've fixed it.

Matt

[KETCH ROSSi]

Thanks for the test Matt,

I think that it is not easy to come to any conclusions with such so little testing, but I do love the fact that the RED team went for the much desirable Zeiss fill, as I'm for one, in favor of such image it produces been MP's my absolute favorite lenses, both in image detail, quality fill, and mechanical build.

I prefer as in Photography to add any warmth to the image as I needed but if is there from factory I fill is more challenging to color correct the images to give them that clean clinical fill.

It is a good test, even so I would have preferred to see an image in focus in the foreground with a colorful and possibly some lights in the background to be blur out of focus and better judge the Bokeh, its just not as pleasing to the eye to be looking at an image totally out of focus, not complaining about the way you decided to do your tests, not at all just giving my opinion and preference of such a particular test, as important to me as the Bokeh is, as I like to shoot wide open and as close to the subject while leaving the background as far as possible to inance the Bokeh effect, and further Isolate the subject drammatizing the character of is/her presence on screen.


Much appreciated the time put in to this test, and hope to see more, as this lens is no doubt my most and strongest contestant in my new Lenses set up, both for personal and rental use here in Vegas, were there is such an absurd need for more lenses.

ciao

[Florian Stadler]

I agree with Ketch that bokeh is more than just how a lens renders out of focus highlights. It's also how the focus falls off and how it renders shapes out of focus. That's a hallmark of Cooke lenses and I think the Red lens holds up on its own judging from what I could tell at the Red store.

I think Matt did a great and valid test addressing most of the technical aspects of the lenses. Nothing can replace using a lens in real life to be able to judge its character.

[Roberto B]

cooke
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/7831/cookebokeh800x450et8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

red
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/8049/redbokeh800x450en7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

different.. not bad though..

[Matt Uhry]

I agree with Ketch that bokeh is more than just how a lens renders out of focus highlights. It's also how the focus falls off and how it renders shapes out of focus. That's a hallmark of Cooke lenses and I think the Red lens holds up on its own judging from what I could tell at the Red store.

I think Matt did a great and valid test addressing most of the technical aspects of the lenses. Nothing can replace using a lens in real life to be able to judge its character.



I would say it's character is like that of the Zeiss Ultraprimes, neutral, sharp, even, cool toned, and maybe a bit clinical. That's just where you start - the rest of the distance is up to the DP. Obviously you can light and filter your way in many different directions.

I agree my Bokeh test is lacking... Maybe a lucky someone who's taken delivery of their lens could pick up the ball and do some urban night exteriors ? It would be much more relevant than what I've posted.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[OptiTek]

It looks like at 32mm Red lens is softer in center. Do you think it's the zoom curve(doesn't hold focus well while zooming) or just the performance @32mm ?
Jacek Zakowicz, OptiTek

[Matt Uhry]

It looks like at 32mm Red lens is softer in center. Do you think it's the zoom curve(doesn't hold focus well while zooming) or just the performance @32mm ?
Jacek Zakowicz, OptiTek

Hard to say what's going on with a camera test, it would be easy to spot using a lens projector. That's the best we could get with that particular Red lens at 32mm, it does seem a bit off to me too. There's many variables that could explain it and I'm not at all worried about it unless they all are like that !

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Just looking at this from the viewpoint of a spectator (I'm not a professional D.O.P.), I like the image of the RED lens a lot more in most shots. Exept the Lens Flare is a lot nicer in the Cooke lens.

Only my opinion though.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Exept the Lens Flare is a lot nicer in the Cooke lens.

...If you want the flare, that is. The RED lens seems to be more resistant to flaring, but this is one of those things that can be subjective. I'd like to test it myself and see how it holds up with more than just an LED flashlight -- with sunlight, etc..

Overall, I like the cooler color rendition of the RED lens better, sometimes I find my Cooke to be a bit too "yellow". Not to mention the better field illumination on the RED, it's a bit sharper / cleaner, etc.. But it's a new design, the 18-100 design is around 20 years old. I really want to get my hands on the 18-85 and give it a workout myself.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Matt, thanks for the nice lens test.

But I always compare lenses with women.

Not always the most beautiful and expensive women models are the best girls (especially in sex, for example).

I have a huge experience with that (issue) and always have got the best and most exciting results just with an ordinary women.

That is the reason I like an ordinary lenses that still lenses at value can provide in a wide range.

RED, Cooke, Angenieux, Ultra Primes, Master Primes, Panavision Primo's,...

all of them can give you a beautiful pictures but also

an ordinary Nikkor's, Leica's, Canon's, Olympus's, Sigma's,...

can give you extraordinary picture in a way that you

are enough "professional" to get it out of them

(all that tricks are at DP's/Cinematographer's hands).

Red 18-85 vs. Cooke 18-100 nice two "girls' but I get enough with my

"dirty" and ordinary still zoom lens Canon EF-S 17-85mm 1:4-5.6 IS USM

Of course you get all of them on (your) RED if you want risk a bit and have enough :) courage .

Have a look once more, nothing scientific, just an average Joe's RED user life and its dirty test:

Canon EF-S 17-85mm 1:4-5.6 IS USM real life lens test

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19543

[bradvr]

Thanks to Matt and MJ for bringing the Cooke and putting our new 18 to 85 Red lens to the test. We will be shooting with the new lens this weekend and will update this thread with the results.

The lens fits our Vocas and the Chroziel Matte box just fine and we will do vignette tests with 4x5.6 filters on Monday. The follow focus is another story through... neither the older style Chrozeil or their newer Follow Focus are compatible with the lens. We are looking at what factory mods are available and will update you when we learn more. We will also check with other models and manufactures to see what is optimal. Bummer that nothing we have in house works as is.

As Matt said, we have two of these puppies and they are available for rent with or without the RED camera. Send a private message or contact us through http://www.videoresources.com

Brad

[Roberto B]

Matt, thanks for the nice lens test.

But I always compare lenses with women.

Not always the most beautiful and expensive women models are the best girls (especially in sex, for example).

I have a huge experience with that (issue) and always have got the best and most exciting results just with an ordinary women.

That is the reason I like an ordinary lenses that still lenses at value can provide in a wide range.

RED, Cooke, Angenieux, Ultra Primes, Master Primes, Panavision Primo's,...

all of them can give you a beautiful pictures but also

an ordinary Nikkor's, Leica's, Canon's, Olympus's, Sigma's,...

can give you extraordinary picture in a way that you

are enough "professional" to get it out of them

(all that tricks are at DP's/Cinematographer's hands).

Red 18-85 vs. Cooke 18-100 nice two "girls' but I get enough with my

"dirty" and ordinary still zoom lens Canon EF-S 17-85mm 1:4-5.6 IS USM

Of course you get all of them on (your) RED if you want risk a bit and have enough :) courage .

Have a look once more, nothing scientific, just an average Joe's RED user life and its dirty test:

Canon EF-S 17-85mm 1:4-5.6 IS USM real life lens test

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19543agreed.. saving money for your filmmaking is the key.. tools are just tools.. no more than this.

[Sanjin Jukic]

agreed.. saving money for your filmmaking is the key.. tools are just tools.. no more than this.

Finally you are right man or you are one of the filmmaker's gang (mostly a straight men) :)

but also the other sort of man can be accepted without prejudices :blink:

but not more than for a filmmaking :),

also without any insults to the "other side" of men :biggrin: .

[Alexander Nikishin]

Schtoops, decisions decisions, looks like a great lens.

[Caesar]

cooke
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/7831/cookebokeh800x450et8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

red
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/8049/redbokeh800x450en7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

different.. not bad though..Same idea here.

[Darren Orange]

Can't wait to see the primes :)

Does this mean that the RED Primes could one up the ultra and master primes?

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

I like the Cooke's bokeh better.

In everything else, RED is a winner for me.

[Andrew M.]

Matt excellent test.
Thanks for taking time and preparing it.

I am very happy with the peripheral resolution and almost non existent vignetting in comparison to Master Primes.
The 32mm test, is there possibility that you misalign something there?

Lack of few holes for support is a drag, also these 138mm, drop in, screw in, mixup could be avoided.

Looks like they are taking the orders from RED literally and exactly, I see consequences of military like engineering in a few other cases on RED camera.

Better this than artistic creativity with it.

[Hans von Sonntag]

Matt,

how do you find the 3D feeling of the Red 18-85 compared to the Cooke? Personally I find the Cooke second to none in this regard.

Thanks for the test!

Hans

[bradvr]

I must say that the 3D "look" of the Cooke wins over the RED. It is subtle, but there. As Matt says, the Cooke adds some magic to the look and this includes the 3D.

[Matt Uhry]

Matt,

how do you find the 3D feeling of the Red 18-85 compared to the Cooke? Personally I find the Cooke second to none in this regard.

Thanks for the test!

Hans

Yeah, I don't know why this is and if it can be measured in any way, but I like the 3-D look the cooke can create.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Adrian T.]

Thanks for the test Matt.

I'm most concerned about the focus at 32 mm. This doesn't look right.
Can anybody else with a 18-85 mm confirm this problem or is it just a flaw with the particular lens used in the test?

[Jeff Kilgroe]

What is it you're concerned about? Is it that the chart looks a little "muddy"? IMO all the chart shots are a bit soft as far as the chart itself is concerned. There is a difference between focal lengths of the two lenses, just slightly. I'm wondering if 32mm on the RED lens is at a point where it presents the size / detail of the chart in a way that doesn't jive with the RED One sensor resolution or OLPF?

I would really love to see 4K R3D files of a slow rack zoom and rack focus for each lens.

Anyway this is a great initial test (thanks again, Matt!) and it does answer several of my questions. But I think the rest of what I want to know will have to wait until I get my hands on an 18-85 for myself.

If anyone has the lens coming and wants me to do more extensive comparisons against my Cooke 18-100, please PM me. Maybe we can make some arrangement for me to borrow / rent the lens for a few days.

[Matt Uhry]

Thanks for the test Matt.

I'm most concerned about the focus at 32 mm. This doesn't look right.
Can anybody else with a 18-85 mm confirm this problem or is it just a flaw with the particular lens used in the test?

I've uploaded a slightly better frame of the Red at 32mm. It's still a little off...

It's possible that it was not mounted quite right for that shot. I'm giving the Red's super lens the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Adrian T.]

What is it you're concerned about? Is it that the chart looks a little "muddy"? IMO all the chart shots are a bit soft as far as the chart itself is concerned.

Yeah but the RED lens is mostly in the same ballpark as the Cooke. Only at 32 mm it seems way softer.


I would really love to see 4K R3D files of a slow rack zoom and rack focus for each lens.

Seconded. That would be great to see.


I've uploaded a slightly better frame of the Red at 32mm. It's still a little off...

It's possible that it was not mounted quite right for that shot. I'm giving the Red's super lens the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Thanks Matt. Yeah let's hope it's not a design flaw.
Any other lens owners want to chime in?

[bradvr]

Since we have two of the 18-85 RED lenses we will take another run at this (the 32mm) specific test this week. Stay tuned.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Thanks for going back to look at this again. Would also love to see another couple bokeh shot with some out of focus lights -- leds, cars at night, etc.. That little doughnut-shaped highlight in the previous test has really got me wondering...

If you guys don't have time for all that, no worries...

[Adrian T.]

Since we have two of the 18-85 RED lenses we will take another run at this (the 32mm) specific test this week. Stay tuned.

Thanks a lot for your efforts.

[bradvr]

Though we didn't have a chance to do an extensive test, today we put both of our 18 to 85's to the test. One appears perfect, unfortunately it is not the one we used for last weeks test with Matt! If you set focus at 85, and pull out, lens 1 does get slightly soft around 32mm. Lens 2 works perfectly and holds focus throughout. We are benching the lens tomorrow and will likely send to Red for a look.

More details: We informally set the camera up with a chart at 10' from the focus hook. On lens 2, I was able to manually focus and hit the 10' mark every time at all of the marked focal lengths (ok, not at 18, but it was close and can be blamed on human error since everything looked damn sharp). On lens 1, the one Matt and I used last week for testing, I also hit all the marks with the exception of 32mm which came in around 12' (instead of 10') which is a likely indicator of the problem. David got similar results which lead us to believe that lens 1 has a minor defect.

Annoyance: I feel the lack of camera support threads or a mechanism for support is a problem which hopefully will be remedied in the future. Though a likely after market solution will be in the form of a bottom, passive support, this is not adequate as in many cases a proper mount should HOLD the lens in place to prevent or minimize both horizontal and vertical movement. Threads will be needed for this. Speaking of threads, the lens has 138mm filter threads on the front. These are 138mm ID and can not accommodate industry standard 138mm drop in filters. This can be remedied with a threaded adapter but will be a pain and require another accessory. And, if you are like me and are likely to keep the adapter on the lens, this will preclude the use of the provided lens cap

Bottom line: The 18 to 85 lens is a great value, makes for beautiful pictures (looks snazzy too) and compliments the Red One well.

Thanks to David Winter for the assist on todays shoot out! David also brought his Arri MB30 and FF5HD for testing. The MB20 worked fine and had zero vignetting. Though not ideal, the FF5HD worked well too with a little finesse. See Davids pictures here http://tinyurl.com/4bvl6g

*the photos below show the 18 to 85 in use. Pic 1 and 3 shows 18 to 85 with MB30 and FF5, Pic 2, shows the RED 18 to 85 on Ripley (#15) and a Cooke 18 to 100 on Connor (#16)

[Matt Uhry]

lens 1 does get slightly soft around 32mm. Lens 2 works perfectly and holds focus throughout. We are benching the lens tomorrow and will likely send to Red for a look.



Thanks for taking another look Brad, I thought I might have made some sort of a mistake during the testing...

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Brad,

Thanks for the update!

I agree that the lack of any mounting points on the lens for supports and bracketry seems like a severe limitation. The 138mm threaded front is a bit strange from a cine point of view, but filters in this size are available and considered a standard size. I would have like to see a drop-in filter tray at the rear of this lens like we see on the RED 300mm and Cooke 18-100.

Oh well, guess we can't have it all in a big lens like this for under $10K. Still looks like a good overall value.

[PaulClements]

I can't believe I only just noticed this test! Many thanks Matt and Co. - very much appreciated. I'm impressed with what I've seen so far. Slightly worried about quality control on a couple of lenses from a small batch seeming to differ but nevertheless impressed. Exactly how Red is going to be able to make these things fast enough boggles the mind!

Thanks again
Paul

[Matt Uhry]

Brad,

Thanks for the update!

I agree that the lack of any mounting points on the lens for supports and bracketry seems like a severe limitation. The 138mm threaded front is a bit strange from a cine point of view, but filters in this size are available and considered a standard size. I would have like to see a drop-in filter tray at the rear of this lens like we see on the RED 300mm and Cooke 18-100.



138mm screw in is not a standard size at all, 138mm drop in (drop in means no threads, ) is absolutely a standard cine size, different animals. 138mm drop in filter retaining rings and sunshades use a 145mm screw thread.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[stephan orlandic]

Red's first pro lens effort is a great success, it's a serious lens that can compete side by side with much more expensive lenses from cooke and angenieux, but at 20% of the cost.


Matt,
thank You very much on great effort. This was really great test.

It seems that RED 18-85 is a very good zoom lens,
but the only issue here is that it is being compared to Cooke zoom lens which was designed 20 years ago.

I think we should wait for final conclusion until we see some comparative tests with some newer zoom lenses like angenieux OPTIMO or optica elite S35 MKIII.

Thanks again on great test.

Cheers

[bradvr]

It has been confirmed that one of our lens was irregular and not performing up to par. Red verified this and is replacing tomorrow.

This is yet another example of keen customer service. I have had my Red cameras for almost 14 months and I can only say great things about their service and upgrade policies. I only wish that other vendors had the same responsiveness and customer satisfaction goals (Sony and Avid are you listening?).

[Matt Uhry]

Matt,
thank You very much on great effort. This was really great test.

It seems that RED 18-85 is a very good zoom lens,
but the only issue here is that it is being compared to Cooke zoom lens which was designed 20 years ago.

I think we should wait for final conclusion until we see some comparative tests with some newer zoom lenses like angenieux OPTIMO or optica elite S35 MKIII.

Thanks again on great test.

Cheers

Yes, I agree it would be interesting to test it side by side with an Angenieux 17-80 T2.2 , we have the Cooke 18-100 in house so it was easy to bring to the test, the Angenieux would have entailed a rental or at the least a bit of rental house begging.

By the Optica Elites do you mean the primes? I've used them and they are pretty sweet. I think any modern set of primes will look very good directly compared against any zoom at the same stop.

I'm happy to do further tests...

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[bradvr]

I think we should wait for final conclusion until we see some comparative tests with some newer zoom lenses like angenieux OPTIMO or optica elite S35 MKIII.

I think everyone will agree that the Cooke, though designed over 20 years ago, is an industry standard and desired lens so the comparison is a great and valid one. However, if anyone has any of the Optimo, Optica, or another competitive, contemporary lens and wants to arrange a shoot out, please IM or email me through our website and we will arrange it at our studio.

Thanks!

[MJ KERBER]

Another factor that made the 18-100 a good choice for an initial test is its used price point--closer to the the 18-85's price than other, more modern zooms. So, for owner/operators it might have a bit more relevancy.

-Michael Jacob Kerber
D.P. / L.A.

[pensound]

hello, I want to know about 18-85 vs 18-50.
is it incomparable ?

The lens which full length has a short seems to be good...


and, I want to this 18-85 zoom (edit)

[Adrian T.]

Thanks Brad for your reports. I'm glad to see that it was indeed a faulty lens.

But this somehow puts RED quality control in a bad light. I really hope that they learned their lesson. :wink:

[Paul Leeming]

Thanks for an awesome test!

I'm #32 in lens reservations but I haven't gotten the magic email from Red saying it's ready yet.

I'm wondering if they aren't making some small adjustments to the batch (like providing lens support screw hole for example, or modifying the front area to accept 138mm drop in filter size) before getting them out the door, which would certainly be in line with other Red improvements they've made in order to provide 100% customer satisfaction. If so, rock on Red!! :)

Cheers again,

Paul

[SandeepDey]

Thanks for the time and effort, Matt.

[Brook Willard]

Nice one, Matt... answered all of my questions.

Now who's gonna open one of these lenses up?

[Florian Stadler]

Don't understand the need for a 138mm retaining Ring. Every Industry standard Mattebox accommodates a 138mm filter in the bellows ring. Rear filter slot would be interesting but not a requirement.

Mounting points for a proper support ring is what's needed. Ideally close to the Zoom Ring to accommodate a permanently mounted Zoom motor.

[Matt Uhry]

Nice one, Matt... answered all of my questions.

Now who's gonna open one of these lenses up?

Or at least x-ray it ?

Hawk and Lomo 75mm -
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/10_1223767165.jpg

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Matt Uhry]

Hi Brad,

Any update on your replacement lens ?

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[albert rudnicki]

Or at least x-ray it ?

Hawk and Lomo 75mm -
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/10_1223767165.jpg

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

I wonder who copied who !?

[Jarred Land]

Nice one, Matt... answered all of my questions.

Now who's gonna open one of these lenses up?

( Jarred shakes his head once again )


Anyhow... Great review Matt. Lens support is coming dont worry.. I agree it would of been nice to get this out at the same time as shipping the lenses, but we got the lenses in a little earlier than we thought, so instead of just pretending we didnt have them and wait for the support, we decided to get them out to the customers who could use a 3rd party solution for now.

As for the threads, I understand the frustration.. It was either make the whole diameter of the lens larger than needed to get a "normal" thread size on there for drop-ins ( and hence not fit in most 4x5.6 Matteboxes ), or not put threads on there at all which i think would of been worse.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

( jarred shakes his head once again )
.

hahaha

[Matt Uhry]

( Jarred shakes his head once again )


Anyhow... Great review Matt. Lens support is coming dont worry.. I agree it would of been nice to get this out at the same time as shipping the lenses, but we got the lenses in a little earlier than we thought, so instead of just pretending we didnt have them and wait for the support, we decided to get them out to the customers who could use a 3rd party solution for now.

As for the threads, I understand the frustration.. It was either make the whole diameter of the lens larger than needed to get a "normal" thread size on there for drop-ins ( and hence not fit in most 4x5.6 Matteboxes ), or not put threads on there at all which i think would of been worse.

Howdy Jarred,

Glad the supports are on the way, I would be worried about using the lens in all but the tamest conditions, and even then it's questionable.

The filter - yeah, we'll just have to find or make a clamp on ring I guess.

Fantastic Job on the Optics - It's really great and you all should be proud.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[bradvr]

Hi Brad,

Any update on your replacement lens ?

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

Red verified the lens irregularity and replaced in the next day! Responsive customer service as always. Additionally, Dave Winters brought over his Arri FF5 and it worked well with the 18 to 85. I am checking on options for my Chroszeil and see if they can be modified or parts swapped so it will work better.

In addition we had both of our cameras upgraded with the new sound board, CF card reader and whatever else RED considered worthwhile doing while our cameras and accessories were in their shop. All at no charge and all with less then a two day turn around. We are testing out the new 16gb cards and audio tomorrow and will report back as soon as we can.

[Shane Smith]

Great review of the lens, you answered a lot of my questions. Still trying to make some final lens decisions, and this definitely helps.

[Mark Pedersen]

( Jarred shakes his head once again )


Anyhow... Great review Matt. Lens support is coming dont worry.. I agree it would of been nice to get this out at the same time as shipping the lenses, but we got the lenses in a little earlier than we thought, so instead of just pretending we didnt have them and wait for the support, we decided to get them out to the customers who could use a 3rd party solution for now.

As for the threads, I understand the frustration.. It was either make the whole diameter of the lens larger than needed to get a "normal" thread size on there for drop-ins ( and hence not fit in most 4x5.6 Matteboxes ), or not put threads on there at all which i think would of been worse.


Jarred,

So if Red is providing a support for the lens, when will it ship?

M

[Charles Angus]

Thanks for the test - really great to see.

Looks like a great lens.

[Kwan Khan]

great... thanks