Major difference between Nikon and Red Pro Prime Lenses?

[Jeremy Wiles]

Hi,

Is there really a major noticable difference between Nikon and RPP Lenses? I've got a high-speed Nikon set ($5k) and was considering the switch to RPP, but is it really worth the $15k difference? Are you really getting $15k worth of a better picture?

I'm shooting for theater so I really would like to make that decision now, while this film is still in production. Has anyone out there gone from Nikon to RPP lenses?

Thanks for the advice.

Regards,

Jeremy

[MichaelHalsell]

I recommend you rent a set of reputable PL mount glass. After which, you should have a qualified answer. Much has been discussed on forum about cine glass vs still glass.

[Steve Sherrick]

I've done some side by side comparisons, and I can tell you that there's more than just picture quality that should steer you one way or the other.

1. Mechanics. If your film is going to the big screen, you need to be absolutely certain you can manage the mechanics of focus. Cine lenses in general will be easier to pull focus on. The Nikons are not impossible, just different. ACs may not be used to pulling on them, and this could lead to mistakes. They also don't have the same detailed markings. Hopefully your Nikons have the focus gears installed on them.

2. Optics. Nikons are great glass, I own a set of primes and zooms. The RPPs are perfectly matched for the RED. The contrast is very good, they are sharp, and the have nice Bokeh. This one becomes a bit more subjective, but I will say I really like the look of the RPPs. Do some tests for sure to see which flavor you like optically.

3. Price. No comparison. RPPs or any cine glass is expensive. Nikons are an amazing deal.

4. Speed. Your still lenses will probably be faster than the RPPs in most cases. But make sure to see if your lenses are sharp wide open. For example, the 50mm 1.2 is a great lens, sharp even wide open.

5. Size and weight. Nikons let you be lightweight, RPPs will challenge you in handheld situations unless you have the proper shoulder support. The lenses are 4+ pounds.

There are many other factors, but that should get you started. If you do go with a Nikon system make sure you have something like the Optitek ProLock mount. RED's Nikon mount works just fine but the Optitek one assures the lenses don't move at all because they have a positive lock.

If it were me, and budget wasn't an issue I would go RPP. Overall a better option for shooting features.

[rod bradley]

Michael's advice is very sound. Rent and try.

A lot of whether it's worth the difference depends on how much money you have -- and what kind of shooting you're mostly doing. If you're having to do a lot of follow focus, worth it. If you're hiring professional ACs -- worth it. Nikon makes good glass, and the image quality will be good but the cinematic handling niceties will be sorely lacking. But maybe you don't need that.

And as Michael also says, much of this ground has been covered from many points of view.

[Jeremy Wiles]

Thanks for the great advice. This really helps me out alot!

I really need to get my hands on a set of RPP for a day and experience the difference.

Thanks again!

[Matthew Duclos]

Steve hit the nail on the head.
It's not just image quality.
True cine lenses are quite different from still photo lenses.

[Tim Naylor]

Different tools for different gigs. I use my Nikons for B roll and my own personal projects or if I want that look particular to Nikons. Everything else I use PL. Main reason is the mechanics. Pulling focus is much easier. Also, even though some Nikons open up to 1.4 most are not pretty at that stop. They really come to life after 2-2.8.

[Sergei Franklin]

When I use my Nikon lenses I always use my wireless focus. It makes makes the focus closer to a cine lens as you can spread out the marks on the remote.

[MichaelHalsell]

When I use my Nikon lenses I always use my wireless focus. It makes makes the focus closer to a cine lens as you can spread out the marks on the remote.

Which wireless focus unit do you use?

[Peter Sensor]

Steve is right on - Nikons are an amazing deal, but then you know that, you have a set.
A smaller step-up would be the Zeiss ZF's, considerably more focus throw.
But then there's the Stops !#$&?

[Zakaree Sandberg]

i love my zeiss ZF's... they look great and feel great. plus are super light weight.. The only reason I would switch is for the PL mount, so I can quickly go from my zf's to say an optimo...

Right now.. the only CINE lens im really looking to buy is a set of cooke panchros..
they look amazing

[Steve Sherrick]

The only reason I would switch is for the PL mount, so I can quickly go from my zf's to say an optimo...
And that's the real killer on most sets where you may need to incorporate other cine lenses, which it isn't uncommon to have a couple of zooms in addition to primes. A lens mount change is out of the question most of the time unless it could be scheduled in a way that makes sense. Even then, I think most DPs would want the freedom to change lenses on a whim, and having two mount types just becomes impractical.

But aside from that situation, if you are able to work within the limitations of the stills lenses, you can achieve great imagery and most people won't know the difference when watching your film. It will have gone through post processing, filtering, etc. by the time it reaches the screen anyway. So, optically as long as they are delivering the quality you need then you're fine.

I worked with a very cool 1st AC on a job early on with my RED who didn't make a big deal about the fact that we were using Nikons. He simply spent some time with them, got a feel for it, and proceeded to do the job without complaint. But it was a project destined for the small screen. Every AC will be different in what they expect, what they are willing to put up with, and how much risk they are willing to take because it's their butt on the line if they miss focus. I can understand their viewpoint.

[David Doko]

I'm kind of torn myself between getting a set of Zeiss ZFs with Duclos mods and a Cine lens set such as the RPPs, Compact Primes, etc.

I still AC quite a lot, so I'm fully aware of the advantages of a good set of RPPs/Compact Primes, but I have not used the ZFs with the Duclos pressed gears and mods. The way it breaks down for me:

Nikon mount Zeiss ZF advantages:
-Use of additional cheap Nikon lenses to complement the Zeiss ZF set: 105mm, 135mm, ultra-wides such as Nikon's 14-24mm etc, Tamron macros, a much more versatile mount for low cost.
-Low relative cost.
-Same glass elements as Compact primes.

Zeiss ZF disadvantages:
-Focuses the "wrong" way, needing a reversing gear which usually adds additional play in your gearing.
-Lack of both focus throw, and focus marks.
-Nikon mount is much weaker and potential for wobble. REDs new breech type and Optitek's breech type Nikon mount should help that weakness a lot.
-Long term durability not as good as Compacts.

Compact Primes disadvantages:
-Limited set of lenses. Longest is 85mm.
-Going with PL mount means much greater expense to build up your set of lenses, especially for more extreme focal lengths and macros.
-Higher cost relative to ZF still set.

My question is for those who have used Zeiss ZFs with the Duclos mods. How much hassle and time do you really lose on set having to adapt to their limitations? How bad is the situation with errors in focus pulling? On fast moving dramatic narrative shoots has it been a deal breaker?

Thanks!

[Zakaree Sandberg]

zf's have a pretty nice range of focus throw.. probably the best out of all still lenses.
as for markings go.. I taped mine.. Have more marks than are on the barrel as is.. and it works great! just takes a day to do it.. but then your set..


If im pulling my focus.. I have no problems.. I can easily switch from cine to still (direction wise)
some old school AC's might have issues.. but honestly.. the new bread of film makers learned on still lenses (through using dof adapters)

[Andrew clemson]

We have both, and both have their advantages and disadvantages.

The ZFs are cheap, fast and lightweight, and have a pretty decent range of focal lengths.
(we only have the red dumb mount so cant use my "G" iris zooms which is a pain. There is an upgraded mount from long valley, but last time I checked there was a long wait time)
They focus the "wrong way" and although I happen to like that, (I used to shoot with a Letus a lot, hence why I had the ZFs in the first place) a lot of FPs dont. The big complaint I get is about the markings on the barrel.

The RPPs are great, very sharp and also relatively cheap and fast. They focus the "right" way and the markings on the barrel are better. However, the range isnt as wide (pardon the pun) as the ZFs and we have to either rent in wider lenses or use the 18-50. They are also pretty heavy.

Think youd be best renting a set of each and seeing what you like.

[Miguel "Macgregor" De Olaso]

What nikons do you have?

[Larry McKee]

We just wrapped day 9 of a 22 day shoot. I am shooting with my Nikon primes. No, it is not a major motion picture. The budget is not in the millions. But the pictures are gorgeous. The director is ecstatic. The 1st AC is a 30 year veteran and she tells me everyday how beautiful the images are. Sure, my 1st AC buzzes a focus now and then. But not as often as you would think. These lenses are not made to last for decades in day to day production. But, I have had them for years and they are inexpensive to repair or replace. In the year and a half I have been shooting with my RED, I have only had one director ask to rent PL lenses. In that case, he wanted to shoot super speeds in 2K.

Are Nikons perfect for motion picture work? Absolutely not. But, the picture is freakin' beautiful. I have found that owning Nikons and renting something else when the project calls for it, works out very well for my clients and me.