I have a 4k budget, what lenses to get? [Archive]

View Full Version : I have a 4k budget, what lenses to get?

James Bender

10-27-2009, 12:34 PM

I have an investor that is investing in a Red for our company, and we have about 30k to spend. By the time I added everything up that I need, I have about 4k left to get some lenses. I know, I know it's not much of a budget for lenses; but there's nothing I can do about it. I have seen some decent lenses out there, and as of now I was looking at the kit that Redrock Micro offers with the Zeiss ZF lenses.

If you were constrained to this budget, what would you get?

albert rudnicki

10-27-2009, 01:16 PM

ZF seams like an excellent choice.
You may also consider Nikons.

Greg M

10-27-2009, 01:16 PM

I think your best, if not only bet is Nikon Primes and Nikon Red Mount.

MichaelHalsell

10-27-2009, 01:25 PM

Obviously, your production can rent higher quality glass as the need arises. That is the beauty of the RED One. But as mentioned, the Zeiss ZF/Nikon glass is a great bang for the buck.

MichaelHalsell

10-27-2009, 01:29 PM

If you choose 35mm still glass, you may want to check out a solid piece of kit from Optitek (has been RED approved).

http://www.optitek.org/nikon-prolock.php

jimhare

10-27-2009, 01:32 PM

I have to agree, the ZFs are a great option. Nikon primes are really good, but the ZFs really pop.

You may want to go to Duclos (http://web.me.com/ducloslenses/Duclos/ZeissZF.html) to buy them with the conversions.

Jeff Kilgroe

10-27-2009, 01:33 PM

Primes on a 4K budget... Hmmm... If you must. Good luck getting a well rounded set of the ZFs on that budget.

How about the Nikon 14-24mm and the 24-70mm for starters along with the Nikon mount. I would like to recommend the Optitek Pro-Lock Nikon mount, but I don't think RED has certified that one yet.

David Rasberry

10-27-2009, 01:35 PM

Jeff Kilgroe

10-27-2009, 01:44 PM

Then there we go. That's what I would recommend. Optitek mount with those two zooms to start.

jimhare

10-27-2009, 01:46 PM

The Optitek looks fantastic, but may eat too much into your budget.

I would still say go straight for the ZFs, maybe 28, 50 and 85. Maybe get a Tokina 11-16 in a Nikon mount for the wide stuff.

Remember the cropped sensor magnifies so you need to undershoot focal lengths.

I have about 12 lenses, Nikon Primes, Tokina, ZFs. About 95% of the time I reach for the ZF 28, 50 or 85. They just look better than everything else.

For everything else, just move the camera! :biggrin5:

Jeff Kilgroe

10-27-2009, 02:07 PM

Yeah, thinking about it a bit more, the two Nikon zooms I mention are going to put him right at about the $4K mark on their own. For a Nikon mount, I wouldn't go with anything other than the Optitek one. Doug Underdahl's is also nice -- same as the one from RED (which he designed), but also has iris control.

Also the two zooms I mention only get him up to 70mm. Then again, down to 14mm. I guess it depends which range of focal lengths are desired. IMO, the ZF's are nice, but on a budget of this size it doesn't make much sense to restrict oneself to a few primes. Those Nikon zooms will hold up against most any prime. Being that we're mostly a "cine" crowd around here, I find that all too often primes are overrated vs. zooms.

Another option to consider is the RED 18-50. Used ones go for under $4K a lot of times. Definitely a great lens for the budget shooter. Other glass can be rented as needed.

For primes, I actually prefer the Nikon 24mm and 85mm f1.4 lenses over the Zeiss ZF's at the same focal lengths. The Nikon 85mm f1.4 is one of my all time favorite lenses. beautiful images from that one. Unfortunately they have discontinued the 24mm f1.4 (Why Nikon? Why???). And the newer 35, 50 and 85mm f1.8 models are intended for the APS-C / DX sensors. Another WTF?

MichaelHalsell

10-27-2009, 02:12 PM

Jeff good call on the Red 18-50

Michael Hastings

10-27-2009, 02:43 PM

I think the best option is the birger canon EF mount for $1285. This mount not only lets you use the Canon EF lenses. It also makes a great dumb mount because Canon has the shortest flange focal distance (44mm) which means you can use many other manual lenses (like the Nikons) with a simple $20 adapter. You can also use Leica and others.

If you want to save some money over the ZFs you can also buy used Contax/Yashica Zeiss lenses for a half to a third of the cost of the ZFs yet most are essentially the same optically. The ZFs were based on the C/Y and the Zeiss Compact Primes were based. They are excellent lenses with very smooth mechanics and unlike the ZFs the focusing on C/Y rotates in the "correct" way for cinema lenses. Nikon and ZF lenses rotate the opposite way.

If I were doing it now I would buy the Canon 24-70 F2.8L ($1299 at b&H) - it is a phenomenal lens - significantly better than the 18-50 and covers full frame if you plan on moving to Epic. If you need wider, the Canon 17-55 EF-s 2.8 ($990) is also a great lens and also has image stabilization.

If you need some low light I would look at a used 50mm F1.4 Contax/Yashica for about $250 and an 85mm F1.4 for about $475. These are manual focus and iris, superspeed and have the same T* coating they use on the cine lenses so they get the look and microcontrast for which Zeiss cine lenses are famous. You use a $20 adapter to fit on the EF mount.

The problem with a Nikon mount is it is a longer flange focal distance 46.5mm (which is why it works on Canon but not the reverse) so you can't use any of these other lenses.

Obviously you can also use any of the other Canon and Canon compatible primes and zooms. For example the Canon version of the Sigma 18-50 lens which is essentially the same as the RED 18-50 can be purchased new for $419. Obviously it doesn't have the same mechanics but with the Impero knob and the Birger mount you can have a precision follow focus with smooth very smooth focusing, preset stops, etc.

The picture shows two of the Birger mounts and one of the C/Y adapters.

BTW the birger can also be controlled wired and wireless via your computer.

jimhare

10-27-2009, 02:47 PM

Actually, Jeff does make a good point about the Red 18-50, plus you can rent standard P/L lenses when needed without changing mounts.

You also put all the money into glass rather than 12%-25% just for the alternative mount.

I started with the 18-50 and loved it, but so much of what I do is in low light and it just wasn't fast enough.

If not for that, it's a gorgeous lens and readily available around that price.

Michael Hastings

10-27-2009, 04:34 PM

albert rudnicki

10-27-2009, 04:48 PM

FORGET WHAT I SAID AND GET THIS !!!
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36859

unless you want to handheld...go to my first post.

James Bender

10-27-2009, 05:08 PM

Why are so many pushing PL lenses when the OP was obviously OK with using still lenses and all he can get for $4K is a used rehouse PL - optically based on an inexpensive slr lens to begin with?

OP: Is your primary use for narrative/feature type material or corporate, documentary, ?

I primarily do more narrative, feature, and commercial work. Definitely more film style jobs. I have an HVX-200 for doc and corporate work that clients want standard def or tape recordings. I would obviously be good with the Zeiss ZF lenses, and depending on the project would def rent some nice PL mount lenses, but they're so impractical to buy. I'm just looking for something thats good bang for your buck that the average client is cool with that doesn't have the budget to rent lenses for each day of shooting.

FORGET WHAT I SAID AND GET THIS !!!
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36859

unless you want to handheld...go to my first post.

And that is amazing, no way it's in my budget. But hey if he'll take it I'm game!

Michael Hastings

10-27-2009, 05:14 PM

I
And that is amazing, no way it's in my budget. But hey if he'll take it I'm game!

I don't know if you noticed but his asking price was $4000 firm. Might be the ticket.

Or does your $4000 budget have to include follow focus? If so then I still think your best bet is the birger/canon/impero.

albert rudnicki

10-27-2009, 05:34 PM

Cooke 20-100 is a beauty and it loves Red.
It's fast f2.8 (for zoom), robust, and in spite of it's age, still very up to date lens.
You are also covered from wide to long.
I am using it all the time and often prefer it to Zeiss primes.
The one listed is verified by reputable lens specialist.
I am not affiliated with the seller.
Good luck

David Rasberry

10-27-2009, 05:48 PM

I'd certainly jump on that Cooke if I could. Bought a 9-50mm 16mm version in anticipation of the 2/3" Scarlet Cinema model. Worth the stretch as a single lens that can probably meet 90% of your shooting needs.

James Bender

10-27-2009, 06:17 PM

Im wondering if that lens would make handheld very difficult, or how hard it would be to balance the camera on a jib.

Matt Uhry

10-27-2009, 11:04 PM

Im wondering if that lens would make handheld very difficult, or how hard it would be to balance the camera on a jib.

The Cooke 20-100 is great, and that's a good price, but forget about hand-held. Jib ? Just depends on the jib. Won't be a problem on professional models, will be a problem on Jimmy Jib type setups.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

Steve Sherrick

10-27-2009, 11:31 PM

A cine zoom lens is something that you really need to think twice about if you need to do mobile, run and gun style filmmaking. When I got my RED I landed a beautiful Cooke Technovision 18-90 from a DP in Florida. Amazing lens. But it was a beast for some of the shooting I was doing, and I had to go towards lightweight still lenses. I do miss the quality of that Cooke though, really nice match for the RED. By the way, how's she doing Greg?

In that budget range, I would lean towards still lenses because you'll most likely need to shoot faster than a 2.8 at times. Nikon or ZF with the Optitek mount works well for indie production.

PaulClements

10-28-2009, 03:00 AM

The Cooke 20-100 is great, and that's a good price, but forget about hand-held. Jib ? Just depends on the jib. Won't be a problem on professional models, will be a problem on Jimmy Jib type setups.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com (http://www.mattuhry.com)
What about handheld on a Cooke 20-100mm with the lightest setup of epic/scarlet (The Psuedo DSLR configuration)? Asides from ergonomics it's not beyond the realms of possibilities. With a Redone I would agree... I value my spine too much :). You should try handheld with an Optimo 24-290 on a RedOne. Looks like you're about to blow a building up!

Paul

Jeff Kilgroe

10-28-2009, 08:25 AM

I have a Cooke 18-100. Wonderful lens. These zooms are big and heavy and make handheld very cumbersome at times. I've done full days with the RED and the 18-100 on my shoulder and it's definitely not something I would ever do again by choice, but at the time it's all I had for PL glass. $4000 for a 20-100 in good shape is a great price. The 18-100 is worth more -- anywhere from about $8K to upwards of $20K depending on age, condition and what's in the kit with it. Shameless plug here, but my Cooke lens is for sale, I just don't really use it anymore as I've greatly expanded my lens collection. ...Doesn't help the OP with his $4K budget though.

For those on a tight budget, I still recommend zooms over primes. They're so much more versatile.

Antoine Fabi

10-28-2009, 09:20 AM

Rob Gardner

10-28-2009, 09:33 AM

JosephArthur

10-28-2009, 09:48 AM

Lenses may eat up your budget. You could shoot with the basic lenses of that budget. but also remember that you may rent great lenses from Keslo (if your in LA) every shot with the RED in LA we ended up renting lenses for the day shoot.

A. Clint Litton

10-28-2009, 09:57 AM

If I didn't already own a 20-100, I would jump on that $4k one for sale. I nearly spent DOUBLE on a year ago...yeah, it hurts a little to think of it, but I love the look on the camera, and despite it's relative bulk (pales in comparison to the big optimo, and still smaller than the Angie 17-102), it covers a great range. Granted, not as fast as some people would prefer (not going to be your first choice for night exteriors), and not ideal for handheld on most accounts, though not impossible (as Jeff has just attested to). In fact, I recently bought an Easyrig which has now made the 20-100 very hand-holdable without killing you, but it's still a bit unwieldy, as you'll have effectively converted your camera into a cannon. All the same, if someone insists on a full day of handheld, they can either pay to rent primes ($150-750/day) or you can suggest that they rent an easyrig for you ($50-75/day).

In short, if you want to play with PL glass that is still very usable today, you will be very hard-pressed to find a better opportunity than this Cooke. There's absolutely no reason to consider the Red 18-50 unless the bulk of your work is handheld and you need to stick with PL. The Cooke is superior in every way to the Red zoom except compactness. But truthfully, if you really want to consider something that's faster and lighter, you really should go with a still lens mount, where you'll be able to bring more versatility to the table within your price range (not to mention add lenses to your line-up incrementally without breaking the bank every time). ACs may complain about short focus throws, but I've seen plenty of gorgeous footage coming from guys using still lenses, and let's face it, until an AC wants to chip in 10-20 grand of their own money to get you a prime set, they can surely learn to deal with the terrible adversities of the day.

In a perfect world, I would have originally purchased my 20-100 at this guy's asking price, and used the remaining $3500 to buy the optitek mount and some nikon primes.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I know the seller, an old friend from school, and while I haven't inspected this lens, I know that he's a straight-shooter, so you don't need to worry about it being a shady deal.

I would say that if you're not in the LA area, you should go to a nearby rental house and see a 20-100 (or 18-100) in person, to get an idea of its size. Also factor in that if this will be your primary lens, you'll need a beefier tripod head, preferably something that can handle 50lbs or more (built out camera weight with this lens + aks can be anywhere from 25-35lbs).

Just for a quick look at the look, I shot this as my first camera test with my 20-100...prior to really understanding the camera in depth, or red alert for that matter, but for a low contrast setting in late day shadows, I like it a lot...here you go:

http://vimeo.com/1967499

Hope this helps...decisions, decisions!

Cheers,
Clint

albert rudnicki

10-28-2009, 10:02 AM

Hmmm....

Jeff, Albert, what do you prefer in Cooke image over ZFs ?
I'm not speaking about zoom convenience, but just about the image itself.
Could you describe what difference you actually "see" ?

Just curious... :)

Thanks

Antoine

skin looks better to start with, it's wormer, nice contrast, i like the flairs (personal preference) being a zoom it's a real time saver.
It also has a look "out of box" it's not nececery the "old" look, just something else.
Primes usually stay in the case, unless I need the speed.
On the other hand; Prime is a prime...
check out my reel, towards the end I have stuff from trojan I shot few months back with my Cooke.
www.vimeo.com/7003311

A. Clint Litton

10-28-2009, 10:13 AM

You ought to look at the list of PL mount LOMO's that Sergey has on the forum. You could probably get five of those and stay in PL world for rentals. And they are true cine lenses. Best cine lens deal out there if you can choose good ones and he has a lot of them.

This isn't a bad idea, though mechanically these Lomos leave something to be desired. I have access to a set very similar (though still in OCT19 mount), and my biggest grievance with them is the iris ring, which on most of these lenses sits at the front of the lens. Forget using a clip-on, and if you're using a mattebox with donuts, keep an eye on the iris, or better yet, tape it down, because it's way too easy to adjust the aperture inadvertently if you're not careful.

The other potential issue could be the PL conversion...I haven't seen Sergey's work first-hand, so this is pure speculation (definitely follow up with other people who have bought from him), but I remember someone (maybe Matt Duclos or Charles Pickel) saying that oftentimes the PL conversions done in Russia and Eastern Europe still need some work after you get them, so I'd try not to max out your budget and keep something on the side until you know what the *total* cost of the lenses will be to get them set up properly. Of course, it's very possible that the conversions will be done well and they won't require any further work, so like I said, see what other buyers have found with Sergey's PL Lomos.

On the upside, I've considered those lenses myself, particularly in favor of the ability to a) not switch mounts all the time, and b) have something faster and lighter that still looks damn good on the Red. They're a little bigger than the Zeiss superspeeds (only in size, weigh about the same), but much smaller than S4s, RPPs, even UltraPrimes.

Here's a link to something a friend of mine shot using the Lomos (different mount, but the lenses themselves look very similar to the ones Sergey is selling...the whole movie was handheld, btw):

http://www.dangutt.com/nobody.htm

Again, hope this helps!

Cheers,
Clint

Blair S. Paulsen

10-28-2009, 10:24 AM

IF your reality is having some low cost lens solution as part of your regular kit and then renting when the budget allows, my advice is stay PL mount. It will allow you to quickly switch back and forth.

Both of the PL zooms suggested here, the RED 18-50 and the Cooke 20-100, are viable options. If you expect to do a fair amount of hand held and/or your tripod head is on the smaller side then the RED 18-50 would make more sense. The bigger Cooke is arguably the better of the two lenses in pure performance and offers a broader palette of creative possibilities due to the availability of focal lengths beyond 50mm.

In reality, the extra cost of the heavier duty support you would want for a bigger lens is probably a budget buster so FWIW I suggest the RED 18-50.

Cheers - #19

A. Clint Litton

10-28-2009, 10:57 AM

Some more footage shot on the Cooke:

http://www.vimeo.com/4891168

All the house interior/exterior was shot on master primes, but the white cyc studio stuff was all 20-100.

Also, Blair brings up a good point about tripod costs, though there are good deals to be found on older heads that can still handle the bigger lens, and if a production wants to rent an O'Connor 2575, they can do it. Guess it all depends on how and where you want/need to spend your money and in what order.

Rob Gardner

10-28-2009, 12:12 PM

There has been quite a bit written on the forum about LOMO's and Ekrans (the Russian speeds). Duclos says they take twice as long to service because of their mechanical design, but keep in mind that he is comparing them to Zeiss and Cooke lenses and keep in mind what those lenses cost.

The glass on the Russian lenses (if they are clean and late model) is quite good and they are genuine cine lenses. Russian PL mounts will need to be checked and perhaps shimmed, but this is not a big procedure. And if you compare all this to what you face buying any used lens (all of which need to be checked out and perhaps adjusted) and the comparative prices, there is no contest, as long as the original cost is low (as Sergey's are). I have purchased lenses from him before (both Russian lenses and other lenses) and he is a good guy, dependable, packs for shipping very well.

We use two Cooke zoom lenses in our kit, and Lomos and Ekrans (adjusted and refurbished at Duclos) for our prime lenses and they perform very well.

The lens dilemma is a big one. If you don't really need cine lenses then the choice is easy, but if you really want cine lenses and you want to stay in the PL world, the choice is pretty small in your budget range.

That's my two-cents worth...

James Bender

10-28-2009, 02:07 PM

I gotta say, I'm really impressed by you guys. I feel like on any other forum people would just bash me and say how stupid it is to have a 4k budget for lenses. Instead all I got was good information that actually helps. I think I'm going to rather enjoy being a part of the Red community.

jimhare

10-28-2009, 02:18 PM

It's a great community. Everyone is very welcoming and willing to share knowledge.

The only ones who get trashed here are those who are arrogant or publish bizarre "facts" about the camera that make no sense. :eek:

Shane Nassiri

10-28-2009, 03:11 PM

I have to echo James' sentiment. I am a future Scarlet S35 owner and been mulling over the lens dilemma much myself. With a similar lens budget as James, I am currently considering a Nikon 17-35mm and Duclos Zeiss ZF 50mm and 85mm. But I would definitely be interested in options that covered this range for similar budget that didn't involve focusing the "wrong" direction. This thread has been informative.

I do have a question, though. Why are some suggesting the Red 18mm-50mm? It's listed as $6500, $2500 more than James' budget. Used this lens in a Red rental package awhile back and liked it alot, but ruled it out as an option cause of price and speed.

Shane Nassiri

10-28-2009, 03:14 PM

Ah, nm. I missed the part where Jeff said used ones go for under $4K. Reading comprehension defeated me :) I'll have to keep an eye out :)

Also hoping to hear info about the Red FF35 Electronic Lenses on the 30th. Wondering if that might be a good option as well.

PaulClements

10-28-2009, 04:41 PM

Bob Gruen

10-28-2009, 08:48 PM

James,

You might post the grocery list of items you are planning to get with your Red One as we might be able to talk you out of a few of them and open up more cash for lenses. For example, if you are planning on getting both CF cards and a Red Drive you might consider getting the one you really need and shifting the rest of the funds to a lens solution. (In case you're not planning it I recommend the top handle extension to everyone to prevent a case failure.)

This being said I love the Birger solution. There is no way a zoom lens, even a cine zoom lens, can compete with good quality primes. You could get the mount and Impero, the 28mm 1.8, the 50mm 1.2L, and the 100mm 2.8 Macro for around $4000. Many cities have rental houses for still equipment as well. PPR in Atlanta is a great example where you drop a deposit on your CC that covers the purchase price of the lens but the actual rental fees are $20~$50 a day.

You can look at the Hobby Stop Production BLOG to see example stills from our shoot: www.rannugmedia.com.

Bob

Larry McKee

10-28-2009, 08:49 PM

James, you have gotten some really good suggestions, but I'll throw one more into the mix. I have the Optitek Nikon Pro Lock mount and highly recommend it. You can find really good, inexpensive, used Nikon AI and AIS lenses at your local camera store. No, they are not cine lenses, and yes, the focus ring turns "backwards." But they produce very pleasing images. I have yet to have a client turn up their nose that the pictures we are getting. Just the opposite, they are in love with the images the RED produces with the Nikon glass. The image looks almost 3D from the 24mm F2, and the 85mm F1.4 is pure magic. I haven't tried them, but the focus rings from Cinevate are only $32 plus a few bucks for screws.

You should be able to put together a very usable set of lenses for the budget you have.

Antoine Fabi

10-29-2009, 02:20 PM

skin looks better to start with, it's wormer, nice contrast, i like the flairs (personal preference) being a zoom it's a real time saver.
It also has a look "out of box" it's not nececery the "old" look, just something else.
Primes usually stay in the case, unless I need the speed.
On the other hand; Prime is a prime...
check out my reel, towards the end I have stuff from trojan I shot few months back with my Cooke.
www.vimeo.com/7003311

Yep, definitely different than Zeiss ZF.

Thanks Albert

Antoine

Kip Kubin

11-02-2009, 09:49 PM

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24392&highlight=kip+kubin

Not a scientific test by any means...

Link with a grab comparing Zeiss STD Speeds with Cooke Panchros

This would be the most extreme example of the "Cooke Look" more modern Cooke lenses do not shift the color as warm as panchros... but still warmer than Zeiss

Cooke is on the left - notice the warmth and how it shifts the browns, reds and yellows....

If you have a small crew or do add work/music videos a zoom is an easy way of making quick work of a shoot. With a 4k budget you can either get a zoom or pick up a few primes but a whole set of cinema primes is hard to come by for that kind of money.