Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

RPZ 17-50 or 18-85 ?

Franck De Togni

Franck De Togni

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Belgium
Hi guys,

I'm now considering to buy a red zoom with my future epic-L.
I saw the 17-50 is 6K$ and the 18-85 almost 10. But there's one battle tested as the same price than a 17-50 brand new.

I know the difference of weight could be an issue (18-85 is really heavy)
But I would like to know wich one you'd prefer and why.
That would help !:emote_hippie:
 
If you work with stedycam the 18-85 or the shoulder is too heavy, otherwise the quality is equal.
But surely someone will give you more detailed explanations ;)
The 17-50 is much better in any situation.
Good luck ;) for the purchase .
 
Franck De Togni said:
Hi guys,

I'm now considering to buy a red zoom with my future epic-L.
I saw the 17-50 is 6K$ and the 18-85 almost 10. But there's one battle tested as the same price than a 17-50 brand new.

I know the difference of weight could be an issue (18-85 is really heavy)
But I would like to know wich one you'd prefer and why.
That would help !:emote_hippie:
Click to expand...

I like the 17-50, but have not worked with the 18-85. It's pretty big, good for studio and other situations where you don't mind the weight and don't want to change lenses as often. I have primes, so when I need to go longer I just throw on a 85 or 100.
 
I've had the 18-85 for over a year and a half, and I love it.

It's a beast for sure so that makes handheld a challenge (which is why I have a Mantis), but I'm a big guy so I don't have the same issue as most -I also balance the camera well.

When possible I try to shoot mostly off sticks or my portable slider.

Haven't worked with the 17-50 but I'm sure it's much more manageable than the 85. But I can say the angle of view on the 85 is really, really wide -deceiving given how fat this lens is. I shoot a lot in 4.5K RC42 and pictures look great.
 
Have both and could not chose one or the other ;)

The 18-85 was first, and the lens is a beauty, the range is just what the Doctor ordered, yes it is a big and heavy Zoom
but I fill it is an indispensable one to have, and when in need of zooming in from a Wide Shot to Close up in a room
or in a set up out doors it gives a good reach.

The 17-50 is one of my favorites now, simply do to the size and weight, also with a 67mm Filter screwed in to the front element
can be easily used outdoors in not so god condition, off course I don't let it rain over it but I'm less worried then with
other Cine lenses because of the protective filter, wish all of them will allowed for a screw in filter, and or that they did make one to fit all lenses.

The 17-5- is very portable and can be taken with you every were, DSLR like shooting on the new Epic cameras
and for HandHeld work they are a must, do not have the reach of the 18-85, but were you loose the extra 36mm reach you gain in lightness and smaller portable size
for this I think that Both are a must in a Kit.

But if you only can have one, then your decision must be based on use, would you need more the reach of the 18-85, or you will need more the portability of the 17-50??
 
Had the 18-85 and loved it. Sold it only because it was an unknown here in Tokyo and nobody rented it.

It's a heavy lens for sure, BUT the plus side is that with the Epic being so light and small, the full rig is going to weigh a lot less than it would with a Red One.

Beautiful bokeh and action so it's definitely worth thinking about!

HTH

Paul

P.S. If you get the 18-85 make sure you get a handle and rail mount ring for it. I used the excellent OptiTek one.
 
I want to keep my Epic as light and maneuverable as possible. So, I have been considering the 17-50 RPZ and an 85mm prime. Either the RPP or the CP.2. Another possibility is the Duclos 70-200 Nikkor to compliment the 17-50.
 
I really wish Duclos would rehouse the Nikkor 24-70. But with an electronic Nikon mount, that may not be a real problem. ;-}
 
The 18-85 is optically the far superior lens. Virtually no breathing. It has a great range. 17-50 is lightweight and great for mobile work, amazing for the size/weight. Breathes quite a bit, but is sharp and well built (rehoused). I think there is some dampening in the zoom going on that I dislike for live zooms.
I own both of them and like them both.
 
Florian Stadler said:
The 18-85 is optically the far superior lens. Virtually no breathing. It has a great range. 17-50 is lightweight and great for mobile work, amazing for the size/weight. Breathes quite a bit, but is sharp and well built (rehoused). I think there is some dampening in the zoom going on that I dislike for live zooms.
I own both of them and like them both.
Click to expand...

I agreed with you but sorry to say that IMO you are terribly mistaking by
stating that the RPZ 17-50 is a rehoused lens, as it is not ;)
 
Agreed it is not a rehoused lens. I have no clue what magic sauce they have going on in there but for the price its really an amazing performer. It does breath a bit but in practice you rarely notice it unless your doing a full barrel rack. It also has nearly macro abilities... 4 inches from lens at 50mm. IMO though the flare on this lens is downright ugly... so if you wanna flare it I was steer clear... is is all of course an opinion and I recommend testing.
 
Yes of course. I think the rental house in my area only gets the 18-85...
But that's an idea, I'll ask if they have them both for a rental. After all, one day rent for a red one and RPZ's is not so expensive. And I'll just have to shoot a short at the same time... ;)
 
Mmmh I hadn't considered this...
 
I feel like I'm peeing in the punchbowl at this party but I was a little underwhelmed by the RPZ 17-50 T2.9.

The unit I used ( from London, tested @ Media in CPT ) / had a serious focus and image shift when you zoomed,it would pop back into alignment when you released rotational pressure on the zoom ring.

I found the very large 144mm front diameter to be a major pain in the ass to filter and use a matte box on ( too big for a LMB-5, had to use 6x6 which was clunky ) .

On the upside the focus mechanics were good, no observable backlash. Good resolution center to corner, good illumination, reasonable and normal barrel to pincushion distortion profile.

Breathes quite a bit for a modern cine lens. All in all worth the price, next better lens in it's category costs $21k

Rehoused ? It's not much of a challenge to figure out the pedigree of the internals, but also not really the point.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
Last edited:
Matt Uhry said:
I feel like I'm peeing in the punchbowl at this happy holiday party but I was underwhelmed by the RPZ 17-50 T2.9.

The one I used / tested had serious focus and image shift when you zoomed,it would pop back into alignment when you released rotational pressure on the zoom ring. Also I found the very large 144mm front diameter to be a major pain in the ass to filter and use a matte box on ( too big for a LMB-5) . Aside from the zoom ring related issues, the focus mechanics were good, no observable backlash. Good resolution center to corner, good illumination, reasonable and normal barrel to pincushion distortion profile. Breathes quite a bit for a modern cine lens. All in all worth the price.

Rehoused ? It's not much of a challenge to figure out where the internals came from, but also not really the point.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
Click to expand...

Could it be you used a bad sample, or a lens needing servicing? Has anyone else noticed this with their lens?
 
Matt Uhry said:
Hi Steven-Marc - the lens showed no signs of use and appeared to be new.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
Click to expand...

Matt what I think Steven, meant is a Bad sample of the lens, not as a USED one, it can happen, i have
before gone thru several of me "L" series glass before I am completely satisfied with one.

However I have been extremely happy with all my RED Glass, and all my RPP's as well as the RPZ's are
just great, so I would look in to that particular Copy of the RPZ 17-50.
 
Larry McKee said:
I want to keep my Epic as light and maneuverable as possible. So, I have been considering the 17-50 RPZ and an 85mm prime. Either the RPP or the CP.2. Another possibility is the Duclos 70-200 Nikkor to compliment the 17-50.
Click to expand...

I went this route (have all three + 11-16mm) and I'm very happy. For running 'n' gunning it's the best lens combo (minus the frequent lens changes).
Planning to add the 100mm RPP and then I will be content.... for a week or two. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top