Sigma?

[Rolland]

I have read lots of people guessing that the Red lens is simply a stock Sigma 18-50mm rehoused and I have some new information that I would like to share but i am not sure if its proper to do so here?

[Tai Wah Lim]

I have read lots of people guessing that the Red lens is simply a stock Sigma 18-50mm rehoused and I have some new information that I would like to share but i am not sure if its proper to do so here?

Rolland, why not - this is an open forum - the moderators will remove if not appropriate

[Christian Edwards]

I have read lots of people guessing that the Red lens is simply a stock Sigma 18-50mm rehoused and I have some new information that I would like to share but i am not sure if its proper to do so here?

i had mentioned the mysterium was actually a cannon sensor ....i was shut down pretty quickly .it did however spark an interesting discussion.good luck with your theory

[Mitch Gross]

Why not? And how would we know based on what you have said?

Mitch

[Rolland]

ok then,

Last week a Red camera we rented had a 18-50mm lens that dropped off a 12 foot concrete bank, needless to say it wasn't pretty. But the insurance claim afforded us an opportunity.

I took the lens to a local lens repair facility that was able to compare the internal parts to a Sigma canon mount 18-50mm they were servicing, and it does look like they share several pieces, specially the Iris blades and the front baffle. But there was a big surprise, the Red lens had 2 extra elements in it compared to the sigma.

I was also shocked to see just how complicated a lens is internally, specially the /i lens data system.

[Christian Edwards]

Ok. so where do we goto from here?

[Rolland]

I am not sure; I thought I had a smoking gun in my hands when i went in but it looks like there is alot more going on in there than I pictured in my head.

[Gabriel Beaudry]

Do you have pictures of the inside of the lens?

[Shawn Nelson]

Yes, pictures please! Detailed ones, I'd love to see this

[sparkhope]

Yes pictures please (not that i would know what i was looking at...nevertheless)

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Interesting. Seems to confirm my theory that the RED 18-50 isn't simply a re-housed Sigma, but something more. It does seem highly likely (even before the info posted here) that the RED 18-50 is using glass elements and other components from Sigma. I never bought into the "re housed" theory -- that doesn't make sense for an item that will need several thousand produced.

[jbeale]

If it has more elements, it's clearly not "just" a rehoused lens. Iris and baffles might be generic components reused in various different lenses.

[Stephen Webb]

I never bought into the "re-housed" theory either. I always thought it more likely that Red were buying elements from a third party and having them assembled to their own design.

Of course, whilst this information is certainly interesting at the end of the day it's down to the end-user to decide whether they're happy with what the lens gives or not. Precisely how, where and from what it's manufactured isn't all that important (IMVHO).

[dudeman]

How will Mr. Stephen Williams cope...

(just kidding Stephen, I was with you on this as well)

[Denis Buhot]

I am not sure; I thought I had a smoking gun in my hands when i went in but it looks like there is alot more going on in there than I pictured in my head.

where all this is heading to.. Sigma are excellent, sometimes really top lenses... Sigma has all its energy focused on optical design, and has moved to a leading position in that market these days. I myself sold a 500 mm nikon and bought a sigma 500mm instead, much to my benefit. Besides, rehousing and checking lenses after higher standards makes all the difference with a "regular" lens. And, if you found two more pieces of glass added, it seems they're not quite the same lenses at all... And considering the price, what kind of miracle can one reasonably expect in excess of what seems the very good value of red lenses, whatever they're made of ? I can't get the point.

Same with the mysterium sensor... what's the big deal here ? Technology's one thing, for sure, but I'd feel even more secure knowing that Red added value is much more than the technology in reliable components. If these can be obtained from experienced firms, at reasonable price, and if delivery is granted in the long term...all the better, and all the more reliable will the red one be. Did you really expect a firm to be set up from scratch, achieve what has been achieved already, and master optics, optronics, etc. in addition of its very specific contribution ? (Very) clever management, imagination, vision, small size, dedication, software expertise, end user friendly tech guys and innovative marketing can make something totally new out of separately bought and smartly assembled components, I guess. Something new, highly effective and affordable.

Did I miss something here ?

[Poi Boy]

no suprise here.
Aloha
-A

[M.Halsell]

A simple rehoused Sigma? I think Jim + team is better than that. Matter of fact I am sure of it. At least it helps put to rest the sizeable speculation camp.

[Adrian T.]

At last! Thanks for this valuable information. This will quiet some voices here (Stephen Williams, Sanjin et al.) who "knew" that it was a rehoused Sigma.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Guys,

there are significant differences between GLASS and SENSORS.

At first GLASS you have to produce, to coat and to T E S T properly.

Then you have to design your optical wishes and desires in a piece of

item that is called one LENS.

Also there are PHYSICAL "L E N S" limitation that you cannot "cross" without

sacrificing to get more CA, purple fringing or a different type of distortion.

About sensor is everything about mathematic and physic.

You do your sensor "FORMULA" and then you realize/make it

with your camera inner CHIP and

then make a picture with a RAW developer algorythm.

The lens designs are almost and already all DONE but sensor designs are just at the BEGINNING.

[Michael Hastings]

At last! Thanks for this valuable information. This will quiet some voices here (Stephen Williams, Sanjin et al.) who "knew" that it was a rehoused Sigma.

I still think there is truth to the sigma connection. I don't think any of us were saying it was "just" a rehoused lens - obviously more was being done. But the coincidences of EXACTLY the same close focus distances along with the focal length and f number were telling, and in some ways the coincidence of mechanical parts convinces me more.

This whole thing reminds me of the old Seinfeld show where someone "accused" him of being gay and Jerry kept repeating "I'm not gay - not that there's anything wrong with that."

I have promoted the Sigma theory but also have also always related the story of the Arri/CSC lens techs putting it on the projector and proclaiming it as optically excellent. And also pointed out that it is an excellent price for a - let's call it converted or remanufactured lens - as Century gets about $15K for their similar conversions - and they don't provide I data.

If you need PL mount and cine style manual focusing, RED lenses are the best deal around. My point has always been that many still lenses ARE on a par optically with cine lenses and for many purposes UNCONVERTED SLR lenses offer some great capability. Whether it be manual Nikons or Birger mounted Canon EF lenses - which we are counting on because the $1450 Birger plus $700 for an EF-S 10-22 is a phenomenal quality solution for our underwater work and gives us motorized focus and iris like we are used to on high end video lenses thereby eliminating costly cine motors or gears. Cine motors and gears, besides being costly and a pain in the a** to develop, also severely limit the variety of lenses you can use becuase of the need to physically align everything. Whereas by controlling internal motors we can use any lens from a 3" long prime to a 6" inch long macro or zoom (or even the 600mm if there was a purpose) - simply by changing ports. And this is just a specialized example that works even if Birger is not particularly smooth - we just need to set focus we don't really rack it around a lot.

But if Birger creates a smooth focus drive - which I fully expect given the precision of the internal lens motors on top quality canon lenses - then we have a follow focus solution that can match the precision of cine lenses and allows even more precise presets and such.

I don't think any of us really thought RED was buying 500 sigmas and dismantling them rather than just buying components from Sigma. RED is buying enough to probably allow them to even get some minor custom mods. I still suspect the primary components are Sigma and that the additional elements in the RED are not a major part of the overall optical design. I'm guessing they are essentially either flats or some minor adjustment optics to aid in this specific redesign. But I suspect if you projected a RED and the 18-50 Standard sigma they would be essentially identical. This is just MHO - my humble opinion, which very well could be wrong, but I don't think it is just a WAG (Wild ass guess). And again, as Jerry said, "not that there is anything wrong with that".

I don't want RED to confirm or deny - it doesn't matter. I just want people to objectively consider modern SLR lenses, without sneering at them as somehow optically inferior. Many people on my (the video) side of the universe hear comments that cine lenses are so much superior, but don't necessarily realize that many of the things the cine people are talking about: integral gearing, smooth and long focus throws, breathing, very fast T numbers, etc. may or may not matter to them. Most documentary, nature, travel, corporate, etc. videographers never have to worry about breathing, rarely shoot wide open, don't use focus pullers, etc. Yet some of my customers have resolution needs beyond even big budget movie producers - i.e. their producing for Jumbotron and similar huge displays, and others will switch to true 4K for large corporate events when those projectors become available. For me, when I go shoot those tiger and great white sharks - I want my footage in 4K too.

If pointing out the optical origins of the RED lenses, Panavision lenses, Bourne Ultimatum use of Nikons, etc. furthers that understanding then it is all to the good.

--------

As far as sensors, I'm skeptical that Canon would supply it to RED, and it isn't necessary - there are very good sensor manufacturers that are happy to custom design extremely high quality sensors in 1000 piece quantities or even much smaller, and if you were creating a camera there would be a lot of other advantages in terms of your other engineering development to simply creating the sensor to your own specs rather than convert somebody elses design.

-------

Gibby, there you have it - it's a new month and I think i'm in the lead for longest post of the month.

[Adrian T.]

I don't think any of us were saying it was "just" a rehoused lens

Have a look:


The 18-50 is without a doubt a Sigma.


RED 18-50mm T3 actually is

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/images/LensesImage/150_small.jpg
SIGMA 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO

I really don't care if it's a Sigma or not or if it contains Sigma parts or not. The main thing here is that it's a great lens for a good price. :shifty:

It's time now to put this whole Sigma theory at rest.

[Michael Hastings]

Have a look:





I really don't care if it's a Sigma or not or if it contains Sigma parts or not. The main thing here is that it's a great lens for a good price. :shifty:

It's time now to put this whole Sigma theory at rest.

Well I would like them to consider my main point - it would be a lot of writing gone to waste. It was an indepth discussion of the importance of still lenses and the unimportance of the origin of the RED 18-50.

[RED 648]

I have compared the 18-50 on a projector to several Cooke lenses and they compare very favorably.

As a side note the RED 18-50 is made in the UK. It also shares the same typeface on it's markings as a Cooke lens. Just a coincidence?

[Mitch Gross]

As a side note the RED 18-50 is made in the UK. It also shares the same typeface on it's markings as a Cooke lens. Just a coincidence?

No, good marketing.

[chuckt]

RED is not a manufacturing outfit.
RED simply put their logo on items manufactured by various OEMs and pack it and send to customers.

Lenses are manufactured by Cooke for RED.

Canon/Sony/Panasonic does not sell its proprietary sensors to anyone.
Mysterium is manufactured by small time outfit in small lots.

All other components are, similarly, manufactured for RED, by Chinese OEMs.

That is my speculation.

Sony Ex1 uses a Fujinon 14x Optical Zoom Lens.
If Sony use a third party lens, why can't RED use a cooke lens?
(But Sony did not get Fujinon lens with a Sony logo.)

[Tail Ends]

Who manufactures the lenses is not a big issue, but the final product and how it compares to high end film lenses is my question, and it is probably just too early to know. When the time comes, I hope someone could respond to the following question: On a range of 0 to 100, with 0 being no visibility at all and 100 absolutely 100% perfection in all areas, where does any individual Red lens fit on the scale? Many of you talk about price and being a "good deal." To serious shooters, if an Arri lens (for example only) comes in at 97 on the scale and a similar Red comes in at 92 or 93, then many of us can agree that for the price, it's a great deal. But what if the Red comes in at only 67? I can't think of any serious cinematographer who would jeopardize his results for such monetary savings, especially when all else costs the same.

I am so impressed with some of you guys and the time and thinking you spend on behalf of all us other redites, I would hope that when the time comes, some of you would actually do some serious comparisons, leaving cost out of the equation. Such tests are over my capabilities, but many of you have the skills to do this and I am sure that such results would be welcome by all of us, including the Red Team. I include the Red Team only because I have not seen a single comment from these guys that isn't aimed to make the best product available to all of us.

My thanks to all of you,

Tail Ends

[albert rudnicki]

Who cares where how who, use it and justify as a whole.
I had a good wino and I am going for two weeks to some warm place, while my dear red ships...
Cheers camrades :)

A.

[Poi Boy]

Hey Finner, still wanna bet me your Cooke ? ouch
Aloha
-A

[jbeale]

> I can't think of any serious cinematographer who would jeopardize his results for such monetary savings...

I did only a very brief test with the Red 18-50mm, but I did not see any optical problems. From others' comments, seems like most people give the lens high marks optically. The complains I've seen are about build quality, mechanical operation and "feel", focus shift while zooming, and zoom shift while focusing (AKA breathing). Many people seem to consider it not perfect, but quite acceptable and usable.

I see no reason why you could not make a visually great movie using the Red zoom as your main lens. I think the drawbacks have to do more with operating style, than anything that an audience would likely notice on the big screen. Also... didn't Jim say one of the upcoming shot-on-Red feature films used this lens as their main lens?

[Finner]

Hey Finner, still wanna bet me your Cooke ? ouch
Aloha
-A

Sure, it has the mechanics of a sigma 18-50 the lens is clearly a rehoused 18-50 sigma just like I said it was. Now if the back elements were changed for PL mount system in the rehousing process it still does not change the FACT that it is a Sigma 18-50.

So send me your lens Poi. For those that would like to buy it I will put it up on ebay soon.

[Mark Toia]

Unbelievable...:angry02:

I wouldn't care if it was a coke bottle inverted, melted, machined and polished with a snotty hanky.

BANG for buck, show me better.
Just release that bloody 50-150 RED Lens, for crying out loud! and the primes, and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the and the.......:umm:


What a waste of blog space.:ranting2:

[Omnius]

Wow

SIGMA

How cool

[Sean R.]

You guys are hilarious with all of this speculation.

All I gotta say is wait until you see the primes...
You think the lens market is turned upside down now, y'all aint seen nothin yet.

[Andrew Benz]

You guys are hilarious with all of this speculation.

All I gotta say is wait until you see the primes...
You think the lens market is turned upside down now, y'all aint seen nothin yet.

Sean, if only I had the means to get you to spill the beans on the 18-85 zoom. Will this new zoom be revealed at NAB as well?

Thanks

[Mark Toia]

You guys are hilarious with all of this speculation.

All I gotta say is wait until you see the primes...
You think the lens market is turned upside down now, y'all aint seen nothin yet.

if these primes were 1.3's not f2's....you would really impress me....

no seriously!:w00t: