New! 50-150mm Pic on Red store

[Evin Grant]

http://www.red.com/store/product_detail/33
Here is a grab...
http://www.reduser.net/evin/50-150.jpg

[Emanuel A.]

Beautiful. Evin, thanks.

[chuck colburn]

Very nice looking lens. So they go to all the trouble to make the focus ring turn the right way but they leave the zoom function turning backwards.
I don't get it.

[Steve Gibby]

Nice looking lens!

Looks like its going to be cooke "i" data capable, like the 18-50 is - check out the i-data electrical connection by the mount.

[jbeale]

or the "/i" logo on the lens hood :-)

[Mike Prevette]

Anyone think this is a rehoused Sigma 50-150??? From my quick look at the Sigma lens it's actually a damn fine lens.

Same number of iris blades (9 according to SeanR)
Same'ish close focus
Same focal length

_mike

[Zack Birlew]

I wonder if they'll do a 50-150 prime lense set too.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Amazing!

Flying in Amsterdam in two hours!!!!!!!!!

See you all there.

[Michael Lindsay]

Anyone think this is a rehoused Sigma 50-150??? From my quick look at the Sigma lens it's actually a damn fine lens.

Same number of iris blades (9 according to SeanR)
Same'ish close focus
Same focal length

_mike

I'd bet money that the basic optical design is Sigma for the 300mm, 18-50mm and 50-150... They all seem to match.. (First users of Red's 18-50mm have even mentioned the warm quality of the sigma 18-50mm??)

Also JJ statement that they (lenses) are specifically made for digital is true with those sigma lenses..

I'd bet a smaller amount that Cooke are involved in the rehousing...

The primes will be the last to be delivered and this also makes sense as there are no matches (for all of them) in the current sigma range. Maybe these are not sigma based?

Basically out of Sigma's designed for digital DC range Red is offering every zoom with a constant aperture.... coincidence.

I hope I don't regret saying this..

Michael

PS also to further speculate with no intention of betting..
:shifty: Sigma would have no problem with one of there lenses popping up with T stops... but if 4 T2 primes appeared with 'made in England' on them the oem partner might struggle with that...

[Mike Prevette]

The only difference I can find with the 18-15 is the number of aperture blades (the red has 9 and the sigma has 7) It could have been decided by whomever rehoused them in the UK that a custom iris was necessary. The electronically controlled one in the sigma might not have been up to the job of being manually reefed around. Im certainly not complaining 9 is two better than 7!


_mike


EDIT: I WAS PRE COFFEE WHEN I WROTE THIS the 18-50 does have 7 blades

[Kevin Halverson]

That is one pretty piece of gl'ass!

[Michael Lindsay]

The only difference I can find with the 18-15 is the number of aperture blades (the red has 9 and the sigma has 7)


_mike


18-50 has 7 blades and mild curve

50-150 has 9 blades and mild curve

300 has 9 and a mild curve

Who said it had 9? I didn't see this.

regards

Michael

[Mike Prevette]

Who said it had 9? I didn't see this.

regards

Michael


Your right, I was pre coffee this morning and got things mixed up. SORRY

[Michael Lindsay]

Mike

Don't worry I wasn't being clever ...

When did you suspect? I've got a theory that allot of people have suspected but nobody wanted to say?? true? Mainly because Sigma has a bad rep.. And a lay take on a sigma rehousing would be confused and potentially unhelpful..

I think it was a post of yours months back that made me search on the Internet..

regards

Michael

[Mike Prevette]

Micheal,

There is so much disinformation out there about optics it's hard to cut through. And so many manufacturers 'share' parts. Pieces of glass coming from different factories etc. Quality control in the element production has gotten amazingly good, as has Computer based lens design. So it's not to far fetched to think of one of these companies producing amazing optics. The real difference comes down to the housings.

Sigma has had a bad rep because they used to (and probably still do) make physically bad housings for their lenses. Things weren't put together with tight tolerances (which effects optical performance) The fell apart, etc. That doesn't mean the optics were bad, just that they weren't able to perform to their utmost potential. So rehousing them could lead to a whole new lens essentially.

In the long run I have seen more problems caused by bad housings than by bad optics. 9 times out of 10 something I see as 'bad' on screen was caused by a misaligned housing or a crappy zoom cam or helical etc. Rarely are modern optics at fault.

Cosina (which makes the Zeiss ZF and ZM lenses, as well as the Voigtlander Leica M lenses) Is a great example of a small lens manufacturer making AMAZING optics for a low price, and housing them well. Now with digital we are able to compare optics without all the variables we used to have to deal with in film. And it has made it clear that a lot of misinformation people have been regurgitating for the past 25 years is false.

/end rant
_mike

[Michael Lindsay]

Great rant!!

Michael

[chuck colburn]

we are able to compare optics without all the variables we used to have to deal with in film.

What variables have changed or in fact what are they?

[Mike Prevette]

it has been said that in the history of film that no two rolls were ever processed the same. That in addition to the down time between the tests and the dailies added some fog to the reviewers minds. It also helped hide flaws in peoples testing procedures, for example forgetting if a lens was perfectly focused ect. Those things managed to "hide" some of the finer elements of how an optic "drew". Of course the lemons and hero's separated quickly, but there was still a great gray area between them.

In the still world i shoot a lot of Leica cameras, not really for the optics as much as the build of the cameras and the range finder experience. Well when the M8 rolled out people started finding a lot of flaws in their expensive German optics. Being able to instantly review ones work makes you hypercritical of any flaws both in your own performance and your gear. Because you are reviewing it right in front of the reality it is copying. The Leica users started to spot flaws in the Leica glass, and seeing great performance in some other third party glass for half the price.

With digital I have seen it completely reverse preconceived notions about what was a great lens. Mainly because you can see results so quickly.

Flaws in optics are exaggerated in the digital world for a lot of reasons. Every one knows about film being layered and sensor not, therefor a lens needs to be perfectly corrected, or at least APO To avoid chromatic aberrations. But in addition to that the grid style of the photosites on a sensor exaggerate the roll off of focus. Film is random and covered in sensitized particles, so it fills in the blanks between the sharp part of the image and the soft part. VS digital which has some small dead space between the photosites therefore creating the illusion of a more critical focus point.

_mike

[Michael Lindsay]

To agree with what mike is saying...

A soon as I got my first DSLR I tested all my lens at all stops, all focus distances edge to edge... I never bothered with film... The lack of immediacy and doubt over film flattness, processing differences etc put me off.. Before digital my opinions were at best formed from whether I took a good pics or not... With Digital I realised some of my more esoteric glass was not the special at all.. (apart form the important way in which it helped me to good pics)

I'm very interested to get Super Speeds up on a Red as I was always convinced they were not that great... Never had the budget to conclusively test..

Where I'm hoping the Sigma lens will perform is that they are specially designed for a digital sensor that close in size to Red.. Carefully rehoused and tweaked won't hurt..


Michael

PS I hope Zeiss gets wise to this new market and brings out (not via Arri) Master Primes rehoused in much cheaper old style housing..

[PaulClements]

Anyone think this is a rehoused Sigma 50-150??? From my quick look at the Sigma lens it's actually a damn fine lens.

Same number of iris blades (9 according to SeanR)
Same'ish close focus
Same focal length

_mike

It would explain why the zoom function of the lens is backward on the 50-150mm:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/sigma50150lens-big.jpg

Also for those who haven't seen the 18-50mm the front element moves physically out from the lens when zooming just like the sigma 18-50mm does.

The rehousing job on the lenses does appear to be quite extensive however. Adding in Cooke /i alone must be quite tricky unless you can link it in to the sigma's technology it currently feeds to SLR's.

[Michael Lindsay]

Does it move out within itself??

This is not a problem for me if it is within itself.. but if it protrudes far or the whole lot moves out it could be tricky... Would it hit the first filter in a MB?

Michael (delighted there are no Rolling shutter problems) Lindsay

I have a 24 to 70 f2.8 canon that when wide the centre moves out.. actually works well with the lens hood as the same hood works well throughout the range.

[PaulClements]

Sorry, no I meant to clarify...

It moves inside of the hood at the front of the lens so it does not protrude the physical front. It probably moves about 20mm, a bit under an inch, which is again in keeping with the Sigma 18-50mm's zoom movement.

[Michael Lindsay]

Thanks for the clarification..

Michael