Ultra Prime 8R

[luxart]

Is there a Foto lense from Nikon or Canon which you can use insteed of this
brilliant Lense?

[Martin Jäger]

not with that speed as far as i know. the widest "prime"
from canon is a 14mm with f 2.8.

a very sharp "cheap" lens is the 10-22 zoom - but it's
even slower - but very sharp - it should be a L lens just
from it's quality aspect. it's for D-SLR use (croping 1.6x)
but should be working with RED...


martin

[Chris Burket]

There are other lenses that have the same focal length. Like the Nikor 8mm conversion, and the Pelang 8mm. But those are both circular fisheye's. The 8R is amazing because it has an extremely LOW ammount of distortion. So, no, I don't think you can find a lense that will give you the same image anywhere else. It's only a couple hundred/day to rent though.

[Chris Forbes]

I don't know how good this lens is but it is a Nikon 18mm 1.4

http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Nikon-Nikkor-18mm-1-4-wide-angle-lens-with-case_W0QQitemZ130158621166QQihZ003QQcategoryZ3343Q QssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[Babu Kantamneni]

It is not 1.4.
It is 1:4

[David Mullen ASC]

The photo shows the lens to have a max. aperture of f/4.0. Not sure what 1:4 refers to, not being a zoom.

[PaulClements]

The photo shows the lens to have a max. aperture of f/4.0. Not sure what 1:4 refers to, not being a zoom.

Alot of ebay lens auctions list their lenses f-stop in this fashion. It does get annoying when doing a search for just f1.4 lenses as it picks up these 1:4's. Perhaps that's half the reason though. They realise they're more likely to have people view their auction or mistakingly buy a lens thinking it's f1.4 perhaps.

Paul

[Erik Widding]

The photo shows the lens to have a max. aperture of f/4.0. Not sure what 1:4 refers to, not being a zoom.

1:4 is the ratio of aperture to focal length.

Solve for aperture, and the result is focal length over 4, or f/4.

Both are common ways for expressing aperture on lenses.

[Greg M]

not with that speed as far as i know. the widest "prime"
from canon is a 14mm with f 2.8.

a very sharp "cheap" lens is the 10-22 zoom - but it's
even slower - but very sharp - it should be a L lens just
from it's quality aspect. it's for D-SLR use (croping 1.6x)
but should be working with RED...


martin

The 10-22 is a fine lens, but hardly an L lens. First it is not a full size 35mm lens, and the other main difference is the build quality. It is a great lens for the money though.

[Raul Gonzo]

I,ve been also looking for something close to the 8r, but nothing really seems to match up. There is this thread about some company building lenses for red- they were going to make a wide 10mm, but now its 12mm :sad:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4734

[Michael Hastings]

The 10-22 is a fine lens, but hardly an L lens. First it is not a full size 35mm lens, and the other main difference is the build quality. It is a great lens for the money though.

There have been a number of articles referencing discussion with Canon engineers that stated that optically the 10-22 is essentially an L lens in that it uses the same types of glass, aspheric design, etc.

It was not given an L designation because it doesn't cover full frame (36x24) - which doesn't matter to us RED users as the imager size is virtually the same as the APS-C the 10-22 was designed for.

Build quality in terms of the case, focus ring movement, environmental sealing, etc. may not be to L standards, but again not as much of an issue since we will focus through remote drive of the focus motors via the birger mount and as far as environment - while it would be nice to have those features I suspect that RED users are going to be a little more protective of their $20000 RED in the rain than they might be for their $800 Rebel XTi, or $1200 EOS30D.

Bottom line, unless one of the rumored Russian makers comes up with a 10mm or wider, there isn't anything even close to its price/performance.

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

AquaVideo,

I see you're going with the 24-70L rather than the 17-55.. Very eenteresting meester Bond.. How does it shape up?

[Stephen Williams]

1:4 is the ratio of aperture to focal length.

Solve for aperture, and the result is focal length over 4, or f/4.

Both are common ways for expressing aperture on lenses.

Hi,

That is correct, what many people forget is that F stops are fractions, thats why as the aperture gets smaller the no gets bigger.

1/2, 1/2,8, 1/4, 1/5.6, 1/8, 1/11, 1/16 etc.

Stephen

[PaulClements]

Hi,

There is an Olympus Zuiko 7-14mm zoom. Problem is being a four-thirds lens the typical sensor size it covers is 18mm x 13.5mm. Subsequently you would have to crop the 4k images in post by 775 pixels in width.

According to my calculations images shot on Red using Four Thirds lenses would be 3321(w) x 2304(h). Of course you would then want to crop the images height to 16:9 or 2.40:1. 16:9 would result in a height of 1868 pixels and 2.40:1 would be 960 pixels. Of course the footage would be greater than 2K. But you would have to batch crop all of it in RedCine if it's even possible to do this (I believe it is, maybe Graeme can chime in).

There is another fairly decent fast Olympus Zuiko zoom lens in the 35-100mm F2. It's just such a shame about the width issue otherwise I could imagine these being quite popular.

Paul

[Michael Hastings]

AquaVideo,

I see you're going with the 24-70L rather than the 17-55.. Very eenteresting meester Bond.. How does it shape up?

I have a friend that is a pro magazine photographer. His standard travel kit is the full frame DSLR body, a 16-35 f2.8L series, 24-70 f2.8 L and 70-200 f2.8 L IS.

If I didn't need the super wide of the 10-22 for underwater I would probably use the 16-35 (and probably will get it eventually).

I think whenever possible you will want the L series (the 17-55 is a cheaper lens and also may not use the same technology as the 10-22. Since there is no other option for APS-C size sensor that is as wide as the 10, Canon knew that they needed to make it a pretty serious lens. When you get to the higher focal lengths, they knew that you could step over from EF-S lenses to regular full frame L series.

BTW Canon just updated the 16-35, and probably will update the other two as well pretty soon, as they are improving them to match their new 22MP camera. Supposedly the improvements are edge to edge sharpness and better performance wide open - good news for us. However, the older versions should be pretty darn good for us too, since we are shooting the "sweetspot" center of the lens - where most of the aberrations are on the edges outside of the RED sensor size.

[Erik Widding]

Hi,

There is an Olympus Zuiko 7-14mm zoom. Problem is being a four-thirds lens the typical sensor size it covers is 18mm x 13.5mm. Subsequently you would have to crop the 4k images in post by 775 pixels in width.

According to my calculations images shot on Red using Four Thirds lenses would be 3321(w) x 2304(h). Of course you would then want to crop the images height to 16:9 or 2.40:1. 16:9 would result in a height of 1868 pixels and 2.40:1 would be 960 pixels. Of course the footage would be greater than 2K. But you would have to batch crop all of it in RedCine if it's even possible to do this (I believe it is, maybe Graeme can chime in).

There is another fairly decent fast Olympus Zuiko zoom lens in the 35-100mm F2. It's just such a shame about the width issue otherwise I could imagine these being quite popular.

Paul

Think of the image circle (or diagonal) not width. Lenses are rotationally symmetric, so the only dimension that matters is distance from the center of the lens. FourThirds is 22.5mm diagonal, which in 16:9 format is a width of 19.6mm, or 3616 pixels.

If the lens has a petal hood, or some other feature, that is actually forcing a 4:3 aspect ratio, the last paragraph isn't quite accurate. That being said, the full 4K is only 13% over the rated image circle. It will be interesting to see just how fast the image falls off on each of these lenses.

When our FourThirds mount is ready we will take some test images with various lenses. I think the FourThirds lenses are going to be really interesting for those shooting at less than 4K, and/or cropping in post.

How about a 3K mode in camera, offering full 2K resolution post debayer, and a 45% file size advantage over 4K? (Only half kidding...)

[Michael Hastings]

Erik:

It seems that 2:1 is the new aspect ratio. Does RED get that by using more pixels on the sides or top and bottom i.e. did our image circle needed grow or shrink in the new 4K 2:1?

Also, I like your idea of 3K shooting. I think RED will eventually be able to implement some of these things, since they have seemed to open up the possibility of field reprogramming the FPGA for different "virtual" cameras. Obviously they may put some limit on the variations, but something between 2K (just barely better than standard HD) and full storage eating 4K would be useful. That might go a long way toward easing the record write speed issues on CF that we are running up against, giving us cheaper options for not quite as fast CF cards.


Think of the image circle (or diagonal) not width. Lenses are rotationally symmetric, so the only dimension that matters is distance from the center of the lens. FourThirds is 22.5mm diagonal, which in 16:9 format is a width of 19.6mm, or 3616 pixels.

If the lens has a petal hood, or some other feature, that is actually forcing a 4:3 aspect ratio, the last paragraph isn't quite accurate. That being said, the full 4K is only 13% over the rated image circle. It will be interesting to see just how fast the image falls off on each of these lenses.

When our FourThirds mount is ready we will take some test images with various lenses. I think the FourThirds lenses are going to be really interesting for those shooting at less than 4K, and/or cropping in post.

How about a 3K mode in camera, offering full 2K resolution post debayer, and a 45% file size advantage over 4K? (Only half kidding...)

[chuck colburn]

Olympus Zuiko optics have been some of the best around for a long time including their microscopic lenses. We took one of their shift lenses and rebarrled it for a 65mm camera when there was no other lens to cover the format out there. It was stunning on the big screen. Their 20mm lens for the 24x36mm format has been at the top of the heap for a long time.

[Bruce Allen]

The anamorphic option Jim mentioned recently makes it sound like they are already thinking about offering more cropped recording options. Cool!

On the other hand, just recording 4K might not be too bad - since it's wavelet compressed, surely the black areas on the sides wouldn't take up much disk space. So that would mean that the part of the image serviced by the 4/3 lens would have very, very low data compression.

In either event, the amount of flexibility Red is showing with enabling cool options in firmware is just astounding and delightful.

Hope a few enterprising lens people start following Red's lead. Heck, maybe Red will even offer an ultra-wide?

Or maybe Nikon will feel like surpassing their upcoming Nikon 14-24 2.8 (their widest rectilinear fast lens?) and beating Canon's 10-22 by a mm or two?



Also, I like your idea of 3K shooting.
Sounds like that Red Half I was begging for a year ago... (3K / 6 megapixels, 2 audio inputs, half number of video outputs & storage options, half price ;)

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[PaulClements]

Think of the image circle (or diagonal) not width. Lenses are rotationally symmetric, so the only dimension that matters is distance from the center of the lens. FourThirds is 22.5mm diagonal, which in 16:9 format is a width of 19.6mm, or 3616 pixels.

If the lens has a petal hood, or some other feature, that is actually forcing a 4:3 aspect ratio, the last paragraph isn't quite accurate. That being said, the full 4K is only 13% over the rated image circle. It will be interesting to see just how fast the image falls off on each of these lenses.

When our FourThirds mount is ready we will take some test images with various lenses. I think the FourThirds lenses are going to be really interesting for those shooting at less than 4K, and/or cropping in post.

How about a 3K mode in camera, offering full 2K resolution post debayer, and a 45% file size advantage over 4K? (Only half kidding...)
Hi Eric,

Good points, I think I understand. In order to visualize what you are saying I drew up this diagram. It shows that the actual 2.40:1 on Four Thirds lenses isn't far off of Red's 2.40:1.

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/17514/1191404585.gif

Amended Math: Red's 2.40:1 would have a diagonal of 24.05mm (Dimensions: 22.2mm(w) x 9.248mm(h)). Four Thirds 2.40:1 would have a diagonal of 22.5mm (Dimensions: 20.769mm(w) x 8.65mm(h)). Four Thirds 2.40:1 is 93.55509% of full RedOne 2.40:1. The resolution of Four Thirds 2.40:1 would therefore be 3832(w) x 1596(h)

I think my calculations are correct lol! If they are then Four Thirds lenses do infact make a fairly decent alternative in this instance. In summary to the OP the 7-14mm Olympus Zuiko with Birger Fourthirds mount could infact be a viable cheap alternative to the Ultra Prime 8R, contrary to my earlier statement, though it's only f4.

Paul

[Michael Hastings]

On the other hand, just recording 4K might not be too bad - since it's wavelet compressed, surely the black areas on the sides wouldn't take up much disk space. So that would mean that the part of the image serviced by the 4/3 lens would have very, very low data compression.

As I understand it the problem is there would still be image out there just with a greatly reduced light level and therefore unusable, so unless you could mask the chip you wouldn't get the compression benefit you describe.


Or maybe Nikon will feel like surpassing their upcoming Nikon 14-24 2.8 (their widest rectilinear fast lens?) and beating Canon's 10-22 by a mm or two?

www.boacinema.com

I'm hoping Canon comes out with an EF-S version of their 14mm prime - i.e. same optical design for smaller sensor would give about a 9.5mm prime for EF-S size.

You Nikon guys gotta give it up - Canon's gonna be the sh**. (Just kidding I don't care who I give my money to, as long as it gives us the quality we need.)

[Tom Lowe]

So, how much of the Epic X's sensor will an Ultra Prime 8R cover?

http://www.arri.de/camera/lenses/35_format_lenses/ultra_prime_8r.html

[NormLi]

I am selling this lens if anyone is interested. MINT condition. Hardly used. $18,200 USD. Retails for $31K US. Hard to find used and especially in this condition.

Thanks,

Norm

[Pawel Achtel]

So, how much of the Epic X's sensor will an Ultra Prime 8R cover?

http://www.arri.de/camera/lenses/35_format_lenses/ultra_prime_8r.html

Well, according to the specs the image circle is at least 25mm. My best guess is that you would probably start getting some vignetting above 28mm at WFO. Knowing the technical challenges, I doubt it would cover any more.

Other options are to use 14mm on a FF35mm frame sensor (when available) or use 11-16mm Duclos Tokina on R1.

But, I don't think you can really replace the 8R look on a large screen. It is a very nice lens.

[Marcos Luger]

Hi There,

two weeks ago I had the chance to direct my first music video with my recently bought RED One (#6608). For most of the video we used the 8R, plus UP 14 and 40. Coming from a video-wideangle-adapter using this lens was a blast ! Do you guys think that the Nikkor 14mm would give something similar on a Scarlet/Epic S35 ?

Enjoy the video at http://www.vimeo.com/8031467 ; password is: prisionero

Password protected 'cause the single wont be release till next year, cheers