View Full Version : Red 18-50 vs cooke lens
10-24-2008, 11:28 AM
Please i need to know about the red 18-50 lens quality comparing with cooke lens.
10-24-2008, 11:43 AM
You will have to be more specific if you want to attract some of this forums more experienced posters.
A simple search will turn up the pros and cons of the 18-50. A comparative inference can be made from that.
which cooke lens?
What quality or qualities are you asking about? Edge to edge sharpness, chromatic aberration, Bokeh, micro contrast, CF ability, breathing, flare, ergonomics, construction, cost?
10-24-2008, 02:40 PM
i am sorry to do something you do not like...
just generally the red 18-50 is good lens? enough ?
if i talk about the cooke i mean the linke below
10-25-2008, 02:46 AM
Don't worry it was not a case of like.
The Cooke red set are basically re-badged normal cooke lenses. If you compare the short cooke zoom with the small red zoom. There are significant mechanical, ergonomic, optical and price differences. However it is possible to shoot material on both fit for any cinema.
There is not the same paradigm changing possibilities with Red lenses as there has been with the Red camera.
A closer comparison lens to the red 18-50mm would be
They are both reworked stills lenses. ( the red is much cheaper)
If you tell us what your application is this would help.
10-26-2008, 09:46 PM
" A closer comparison lens to the red 18-50mm would be
and even on that comparison, the century 17-35 is a big step up, i felt. i purchased a new one just recently, a good sample apparently (there can be a little variation from what i heard) , and, even though it seemed expensive (just under $15,000), for a rehoused $1,000 canon lens, i am very happy with it. the zoom and focus track, which could not always be said about the red lens. the other red lenses are far superior to this one, from what i read, but the 18-50 leaves a lot to be desired. of course, the price is hard to beat.