Which lens would you choose?

[Jan Schuster]

Hey guys,

I'm getting my first epic setup very shortly and the biggest question for me is which zoom lens do I go with? The RPZ 18-85 or the RPZ 17-50.

I realize the 18-85 is 3x the weight and requires a rail/support system, not a big deal as I want to use either lens with a clutch shoulder rig. I just really like the advantage of being able to zoom to 85mm.

The 17-50 is great because its lightweight, also because the close focus is a few cm from the lens where the 18-85 is quite a bit farther than that.

Is there a difference in optical quality? Is it crazy to use the 18-85 on a shoulder rig? Which lens would you choose?

Thanks for the help, I've been pondering this one for a while now.

[Jason Beckwith]

I would, and in fact did, get the 17-50.

I've shot with the 18-85 on the Red One, and I consider it to be the better of two.

The size and weight is a deal breaker for me, and that's why I went with the smaller, lighter lens.

It's crazy, IMHO, to consider the 18-85 for shoulder mount work. It's just too bulky.

[Ryan De Franco]

Shoot with both. If you can rent them in your area ask the house if you can test them in one of their bays for free--most places are cool with this.

If there are none near you.... Remember you're spending thousands $$$ on a lens and camera.
Might as well fly to LA and pick up your Epic in person ask to shoot both zooms, compare the results at your hotel and pick what you like. I would never sped that much without handling the lens myself before paying....

Good luck!!

[Jan Schuster]

I would love to handle everything in person before purchasing, flying to LA is not really an option but I really like the idea of finding the lenses in town and trying them first.

I'm leaning towards the 18-85 because I think I'm ok with a little extra weight (my tripod will do more than 50% of the work) and the extra 35mm zoom is a big advantage. Also, if it is really heavy for shoulder work I can sub in Canon lenses (which I have quite a few of). That way I have the extended zoom for tripod work and options for shoulder handheld work.

I will try and use the lenses before purchase, if anyone else has input it would be appreciated.

[kevin holmgren]

Basically trying to figure out the same thing. Want the lightness of the smaller, but want the extra capabilities of the longer zoom, even though it seems to weigh a ton and need to be on rails.

Love to see more suggestions on the pros and cons of each lens.

[Roy Gregorio]

I was on the same boat for a while and decided to go with the 17-50mm, and eventually just get a separate 85mm prime. 17-50mm gives me a broad enough range without sacrificing portability. Eventually, I'll get the 85mm to complement the 17-50mm and I'll be able to take advantage of the lower F-stop. But honestly, it's becoming too close to NAB to make any purchase because Red may or may not announce a new lineup of lenses.

[Jan Schuster]

I was on the same boat for a while and decided to go with the 17-50mm, and eventually just get a separate 85mm prime. 17-50mm gives me a broad enough range without sacrificing portability. Eventually, I'll get the 85mm to complement the 17-50mm and I'll be able to take advantage of the lower F-stop.

You feel the 18-85 is too big to travel with? I think it would be better to have one lens zoom up to 85 instead of a separate 85mm prime, that way you wouldn't have to re-balance everything if you need to switch lenses. In a lot of cases you could shoot all day with the 18-85 and never switch a lens. Then when I have $4,250 for a new lens I can do the 100mm prime.

I really like the 3lb weight of the 17-50 tho...

But honestly, it's becoming too close to NAB to make any purchase because Red may or may not announce a new lineup of lenses.

I'm already waiting on the new MacPro tower, I don't think I can wait on a new lens :'(. Talk about a love hate relationship with technology

[Ryan De Franco]

Depends where you're traveling to. The ease with which that little 17-50 can fit, well padded, into a photo backpack for one man band shoots, airplane travel, backpacking etc is pretty incredible, makes up for the image issues

The 18-85 is not well suited to all of those situations because it's a traditional cinema zoom, i.e. BIG. You'll want to hang the camera literally behind your shoulder if you want ideal, hands-free balance--or use a Pro I/O module Red Brick plus additional gear for counterweight.

As for image quality, I guess this is that other definition of quality, intangible feeling... Compare a close-up of a face from an 85mm prime to that from a matching zoom at 85mm. All lenses have to compensate for aberrations while trying to deliver a pleasing image. This is much, much easier to do when you're tackling the strengths and weaknesses of a given focal length instead of trying to deliver a compromise across many.

Whereas the 17-50 keeps you light and agile, saves you $3,000 to put towards a prime for close-ups. This is if you're shooting mostly narrative, shot by shot. I think the zoom + telephoto prime idea goes out the window for doc, corporate, ENG, etc.

[Nick Morrison]

A Zoom is always a compromise, unless you are using a $50k lens. But even then, it's not the same a prime. By all reports, the RPP 18-85 IS supposed to be cinema caliber. While the 17-50 is supposed to betray some of its "still zoom" SIGMA origins.

Personally? I would skip the 17-50, because if I wanted a still origin zoom I'd go for a LEICA or ZIESS zoom. Several come to mind.

And I think RYAN is right, an 85 1.4 portrait lens is just not the same at 85 as an 85 2.8 zoom.

The CONTAX 85 1.4, for example, is OPTIMIZED for portraits. Its a little soft and less contrasty from 1.4 to 2.8 so that its pleasing to faces and skin tones. I can't imagine a zoom can be so specific at every focal length.

[Richard Gale]

By all reports, the RPP 18-85 IS supposed to be cinema caliber. While the 17-50 is supposed to betray some of its "still zoom" SIGMA origins.

Here's a report that the 17-50 RPZ is most definitely "cinema caliber:"

When asked whether the lens was cinema quality, Jim Jannard confirmed it was used by Soderbergh on Contagion.