RPZ 17-50 compared to rouge 16-42 or zeiss lwz , breathing in combo with s3d

[Sven Seynaeve]

Does anyone has had a good test between those for the use of s3d???

I must honestly admit I already almost forget about the rpz until today. I was looking at the rouges mostly, but with the pricing of the RPZ, and because it's also quiet lightweight , would be nice to have some ore info if someone used it already for a stereo setup.

would the breathing be worse or much worse then with it's counterparts??

any info appreciated.

[Sven Seynaeve]

bump???

[Dan Kanes]

I might get flamed a bit for this... But...

The 17-50's that I have tested have decent optical characteristics if you are not zooming or racking focus during a shot.

They are a great walk-about lens, or a great variable prime for the money.

If you are serious about a zoom for 2D or 3D work, and don't want to buy the optimo try to find a very good 18-85 rpz (test them and select is 9+ lbs too heavy for _your_ s3D rig and application? I don't know.

Next try the 16-42.

Focus turns easily.
Iris turns easily.
Zoom turns easily.
It's like silk. A motor system (essential for 3d)_essential_ won't bind on it or shave a gear.
Now, put it on an optical bench. Are the marks on? Chances are, they very well might be. Does it breathe? Most likely not. Does it hold focus? Yeah!

[Laco Zamba]

Is 17-50 holding focus?

[Sven Seynaeve]

we were told the 17-50 holds focus through the range, even saw a vid from it from someone on vimeo



So Dan,

you're saying actually that the 16-42 might still be the best choice out there??

[David Dennis]

Dan, not to flame, just to ask: I seem to remember there were two versions of this lens. The first one was said to be built down to a price, and the second was said to be a truly "pro" lens.

Are you referring to the old or new version?

D

[Sven Seynaeve]

the 17-50 is normally the newer rpz, the old one was a 18-50, isn't it?


but so, if you want to rack focus, it'll breath more then we want it to for cine?
from the video I saw, I couldn't see it happening good enough, and it would have been nice if someone got in detail with a comparisation between the optimo 16-42 and the 17-50, so we could see how it threats breathig and so

How does the arri lwz works with breathing compared to the other mentioned?

I really would like to see a video with each one featured, rpz 17-50,rpz 18-85, optimo 16-42 ,30-80 , arri lwz, and the allura's 14.5-45 , 18-85. would even be nicer if the 24-180 and the 75-400 could join the game??


maby someone who has acces to all these lenses?

[Dan Kanes]

The 17-50s I tried did not track straight through a zoom, and the marks were off. This was on an optical bench.

Whatever you get be sure to test it. If you are going 3D test the hell Out of both lenses.

The less dampened focus of the 16-42 is preferable to me and fiz motors.

[sander kamp]

I haven't had my 17-50 on an optical bench but focus marks seem to be accurate and it holds focus through the zoom. Optical quality is fine with low CA and sharp wide open at T2.9. It does have some noticeable distortion at 17mm. It breathes quite a lot.

Although RED says it is not a converted TAMRON 17-50, it does very much look that way, with even the ring for the lens hood and the plastic filter thread still in place which look exactly like the TAMRON.

Focus is smooth and without play. Zoom is a bit stiff and mine has started to show some play in the zoom ring. Not too bad and manageable, but a bit difficult to do a smooth zoom while shooting. Overall feel of the exterior is of quality.

I only once held a Angenieux 16-42 in my hands. Very different from the RED lens. Focus and zoom rings feel undampened in comparison but in a good way, very precise and controlled. Longer and slimmer design compared to the RED's short and wide shape.

I wouldn't know how they compare for 3D work. Best things would be to try out before you buy I think. They both have their place at their respective prices.

[Dan Kanes]

Exactly, Sander.

No knock to the rpz. Breathing during focus or zoom essentially makes a lens not 3D friendly... Although it depends on the level of 3D you are attempting.

It all depends on your role in the budgetary process:

Will you essentially "pay" for buying a less expensive lens for 3D work once you get to post?

Personal opinion: absolutely.

Can you "make" a 3D movie with two 17-50's?

Absolutely.

Oh, and I forgot to mention the bizarre oversized front "hood"that apparently serves no purpose except to make you buy a bizarre mattebox size. Would recommend immediate circumcision (except that voids your warranty)