How good are the RED lenses?

[Thomas Church]

I know we're in their forum and all, but how good are the RED lenses?

My plan, once I get Scarlet S35 is to sort of get by for a while on SLR lenses until I can afford some real cinema glass.

Are they worth it?

I would consider picking up the RED Pro 17-50 mm and perhaps later the 50-150mm?

How good is the 18-85mm zoom?

 

[Martin Weiss]

I'd suggest renting a lens for a week-end and finding out yourself.

Everyone has different perceptions.

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Aldo interested in the performance of a RED 18mm-85mm. Seems a perfect ALL-round lens.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

I have been using the RPP's since they first came out as well as the RPZ's both 18-85 and now the 17-50,
I have been a long time Lover of the Arri/Zeiss MAster Primes and really didn't like any other lens out there
the RED PRO Line of lenses both Primes and Zooms, have been the first Cine Lenses I have fallen in Love since the Master Primes
and even so some have complained about not having in off Focus Markings in comparison this issue is gone as in Collaboration with
Matt Duclos we are Mapping the RPP's with all Focus Markings and now this lenses are truly right there with Cine lenses that cost 4 to 5 times as much!!

I love their Sharpness, detail in the quality Build, performance, look, and off course Price!!

The only reason I'm getting lenses that cost 4 to 5 times more like the Leica Summilux-C is do more to factor of size and weight to be the same across the set,
as well as the speed, other wise I just simply will not spend the money for an other set of Cine lenses with the RPP's and RPZ been this good at this price range.

 

[John Caballero]

And the fallacy continues. A lens is a lens is a lens. Nothing really magical.

 

[Mark Phelan]

And the fallacy continues. A lens is a lens is a lens. Nothing really magical.

You're a funny guy!

 

[Mark Toia]

love em all.

Shot this whole TVC on one lens, A cheap as hell 18 to 50 RED ZOOM lens.
We were taking a 15 to 40 Optimo. We tested them side by side, couldn't see any visible difference other than the zoom and focus was smoother on the optimo.

We got amazing results.
Bang for buck, you cant go wrong.

http://www.zoomfilmtv.com.au/tvcs/griffith_global_a.html

 

[Ketch Rossi]

And the fallacy continues. A lens is a lens is a lens. Nothing really magical.

Hehe sorry John... you could not be more far from truth

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

And the fallacy continues. A lens is a lens is a lens. Nothing really magical.

That statement is so far from true that its absurd. Its practically a troll... but I feel compelled to reply anyway.

If you really can't see the difference between lenses, then you really need to work on your skills as a film/video maker.

If what you are saying is that "any lens is good enough" then you are really saying something far more complicated... probably including assumptions about the production.

Instead of making such an inane blanket statement, its probably better to state the assumptions and qualifications, then you'll be taken more seriously.

That said, for a huge number of clients, a 7D with some el cheapo lenses is really good. I recently shot some thing I regard as garbage with a 7D using a cheap kit zoom lens. (18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS) For that project, that lens was perfectly adequate. (I was shooting f/5.6 outdoors.)

That says a whole lot more about the project and the client than it does about me or what I see.

Change projects, and I want better lenses because cleints are more discerning and small problems add up to big ones. Think of a broadcast chain or cinema.

 

[John Caballero]

I really don't have the time and energy to discuss this as it has been discussed in dvxuser to some extent. If you believe and perceive much difference fine. As we discussed again at one point, $20,000 difference in a lens, well I don't think so.

 

[Peter Matthes]

this issue is gone as in Collaboration with
Matt Duclos we are Mapping the RPP's with all Focus Markings and now this lenses are truly right there with Cine lenses that cost 4 to 5 times as much!!

Ketch,

Are you saying that Matt Duclos will modify (add additional) focus marks for the RPPs?

If so, what does it cost per RPP?

Does it do anything to the Red warranty?

 

[Michael Olsen]

Nothing magical, for sure.

But virtually every type of lens has verifiable and empirical characteristics which make it unique. Lens testing (take a look at the SALT thread, if you wish) has shown that things like sharpness, distortion, color rendition, and a number of other measurable characteristics combine to create different visual "feels" for lenses. This extends to the mechanics and design of lenses as well.

It's nothing mystical, nothing magical.

That being said, will a shot look bad if it is shot, for instance, on a Canon 50mm @2.8 instead of a Zeiss UltraPrime 50mm @2.8? Assuming ceteris paribus, no. But the Zeiss may be easier for the crew to work with (probably cutting down production time) and would produce a different looking image.

There is a reason that seasoned DPs choose different lenses for different projects when they have the opportunity. They impart a different look, and they have different physical characteristics on set.

--

So, honestly, I second the recommendation for renting and evaluating. It's really the best way since what I (or anyone else here) thinks doesn't truly matter. It's your camera, your equipment, and your vision.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Ketch,

Are you saying that Matt Duclos will modify (add additional) focus marks for the RPPs?

If so, what does it cost per RPP?

Does it do anything to the Red warranty?

Correct Peter, we have been collaborating with several DP's and AC's informations, and Matt and I now finalizing the amount of
additional Focus Markings the RPP's should have, and working as we speak should not be far form been done, Mat already sent me the
initial schematics and I had added several more markings, al the info and updates will be posted here:

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=50235

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I really don't have the time and energy to discuss this as it has been discussed in dvxuser to some extent. If you believe and perceive much difference fine. As we discussed again at one point, $20,000 difference in a lens, well I don't think so.

You are actually not discussing the lenses objectively, but rather evaluating their value to YOU.

That's fine, but again not worth a blanket statement.

If I'm shooting a picture, like say Avatar 2, the price of a Master Prime versus a Zeiss ZF isn't relevant. What is relevant is making the picture look a particular way, and optimizing production efficiency.

So, for you and your work it doesn't matter enough to justify the expense. Fine.

Truth be told most of my work doesn't justify it either- yet. I do see the difference, and can readily make use of it on the occasions I am given the opportunity.

 

[Eric Gavlinski]

So for the S35 I could use the same lenses as Epic and Red One, with the PL mount?

 

[Ketch Rossi]

So for the S35 I could use the same lenses as Epic and Red One, with the PL mount?

Correct, on the Red ONe, Epic and Scarlett S35 you can use the RPP's and RPZ's while the cameras have the original PL Mount.

 

[George Butterfield]

And the fallacy continues. A lens is a lens is a lens. Nothing really magical.

Same as eyeballs, I guess.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

I've personally found few people (professionals) that can detect the aberrant differences in lenses in finished work. Yes, there are differences from one lens to the next when One works with it, but you must weigh the variables that you consider important. If you want rectilinear perspective, less breathing, faster, lighter weight, etc., they cost. But using master primes isn't an automatic one-way ticket to getting your ASC invite. Most people get swept up in the content- few can detect the technical subtleties, and if they are focused on that, your footage has failed anyway.

Our original Red 18-50 zoom was wrongly identified by three different DI Colorists, (all of them very experienced) as an Ultra prime. There were a few DP's that wrongly identified it as a more expensive lens as well. On all such occasions-- they were examining finished footage. I pay attention to things like this because I believe the technical should be invisible-- not perfect-- just always subordinate to the content.

Some people care deeply about the mechanical movements of the housing and the elements, but if you tend to not use very slow zooming in your shots, perhaps such characteristics are not as important to you.

I've heard people on this forum complain vehemently about less expensive zooms breathing, yet they are also very keen to use still lenses in their motion work- which always undermines their credibility with regard to the lens snobbery-- we all have opinions .

We now have a Red Pro Zoom 17-50 and it is an improvement over the 18-50-- but to what magnitude-- that's difficult to really quantify. It all depends upon what you, yourself, care about when you are working with them. The Red Pro Zooms are great lenses to have. They are well-made and produce very nice images. If you have money to burn, spend it like a madman on the most expensive set of primes you can. But no expensive lens can fix poor technique, poor lighting choices or an inexperienced crew.

If you're shooting an independent feature, choose Red. If you're shooting Angelina Jolie for Esteé Lauder, get the master primes*.

But one fact reigns supreme in my book: the audience can't tell nor do they care-- they just want to see a great movie.


*I expect at least six or eight posts telling me I don't know what I'm talking about... "Master primes for glamour! Are you nuts? I use only Cooke S4's!" (Seriously, I'll be disappointed if no one piles on to discredit my Esteé Lauder example.)

 

[Gunleik Groven]

I like the RPPs.

The 18-50s I have met have had very variating quality, from really good, to quite bad. And I am talking optically here.

I think superspeeds maybe are my personal favourites for speed/weight, but we have masters as well, and of course they shine.

I also love the clunky speed panchros.
And Zeiss standards above 32.

Really, glass is very different, and it is nice to be able to choose the right glass for different uses...

 

[Tim Morten]

Interesting range of responses: everything from "there is no difference between any lenses" to "RPP's are as good as Master Primes".

We could argue specs on paper (spoiler: six-figure lens sets win on paper), we could argue about specific lens characteristics (this bokeh is more pleasing to me, that flare is more pleasing to me), or we could argue about subjective perception of "look" - BUT THERE IS NO ONE RIGHT ANSWER.

At the end of the day, the audience isn't looking at lens specs, they are responding viscerally to your images. You have to make your own personal choice on what looks best, and about what you want to convey on-screen. Who is anyone else to say what characteristics should be the most visually appealing for you?

I have to respect that Ketch (and others) love the look of Red glass - that is genuinely meaningful, and certainly the technical quality for the price-point of Red glass is impressive. But rent some lenses and look at the images they produce - make your own determination on what "look" appeals to you. Saying there is a "best" lens choice is like saying there is a "best" way to paint a piece of art...

- Tim