RED lenses...devalue worse than a new car!

[Mike 'Fireman' Ross]

And frankly I think Red glass is so damn well priced the first time around (retail) that, except for that first 18-50, everything else should hold at least 80% of value if well taken care of.

I've heard about the 18-50. Is there a definitive long thread somewhere about the 'issues' with that lens? I'd like to get educated, and haven't been able to find one.

Mike

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

I've heard about the 18-50. Is there a definitive long thread somewhere about the 'issues' with that lens? I'd like to get educated, and haven't been able to find one.

Mike

Hey Mike - I am pretty sure the old threads were purged in the last update of Reduser.

That said - I can say the optics of the 18-50 were exceptional - at Reducation Dec 2009
That Zoom produced some of the sharpest images -

However it was very weak mechanically- sloppy or super stiff rings - it breathed when you racked focus or zoomed
Although some that were produced were OK mechanically - most had issues.

Mechanics aside, it creates gorgeous sharp Red One images

 

[Tony Covell]

PRICES ON USED RPP my twopenceworth.

PRICES ON USED RPP my twopenceworth.

I have been watching this discussion with interest.
Red has brought the ability to make motion picture films at every level to the World. Thats a hell of an achievment in itself. It is a camera that allows you to use other manufacturers products easily. A whole new genre of equipment has arrived on the scene that one can buy to go with RED.
Lenses were produced so that one could make images at a low entry price. No claims were ever made as to the quality compared with ANY of the known names who make Motion Picture Lenses.
Indeed, If one was to think about the price compared with those lenses surely a conclusion could be made. Also one could check out easily the number of RPP sets that pass through this Forum and also draw a conclusion.
I think that to complain that you cannot get your percieved price for a used lens after buying it, is very weird.
Go look at the used market for SLR DSLR AND Video kit. Most dealers start at 60% off list and work upwards according to how much you are spending, when they are part ex'ing a kit.
To try and blame a manufacturer is just unfair and not really very sensible.
I could draw other comparisons like Ford and Mercedes but that would be pedantic.
Be happy that RED came along and gave the world an opportunity that Other manufacturers would not have given us for years.
Do more research and enjoy the experience.
Thats my twopence worth.
Tony Covell:yesnod:

 

[Adam Eden]

Can someone please CLOSE THIS THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Really boring and pointless...

 

[Jeff Coatney]

This is the first time I've heard anyone complain that prices in this economy are too low. Thanks for tipping me off to the great deals on lenses over in Battle Tested. Priced to Move!

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

However it was very weak mechanically- sloppy or super stiff rings - it breathed when you racked focus or zoomed
Although some that were produced were OK mechanically - most had issues.

Mechanics aside, it creates gorgeous sharp Red One images

I said I wouldn't post here again ... but I wanted to mention briefly that some people have reported much improved mechanical performance on these early Red lenses by having them serviced. I'd ask Duclos or OptiTek about what that service entails and costs.

I've read that these mechanical issues are similar but worse with the "DigiOptics" lenses you can buy. (Most agree that they are the same lenses as the Red zooms, but QA seems to be lower standard.)

I've never done that myself. I have worked with the unmodified version and can confirm its poor mechanical quality out of the box. I can also confirm that the images were actually very high quality - the glass would make for a very good APS-C stills lens. It had other issues in motion aside from the mechanics- breathing and some issues holding back focus. (Though the latter might be addressable with the service I mentioned earlier.)

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Can someone please CLOSE THIS THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Really boring and pointless...

Uh ... you do realize you are not required to read every post on every thread right?

Also, its not like the Internet is going to run out of space.

For my part in making the conversation unpleasant, I apologize. That doesn't make it a bad conversation- and clearly some people are gaining from it.

I say let the thread die naturally as people lose interest. (probably soon enough!)

 

[donatello b]

IMO as with all items/products the bottom line (used price) always comes down to SUPPLY vs. DEMAND

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

Brigham, you operate in the world of technology, correct? To date, lenses have been considered somewhat immune to depreciation, unlike cameras and computers and other technology. But that's because the market for them was considered relatively small. This is changing - RED has a big hand in that change, but DSLRS, now Sony and Panasonic are producing products suited to PL mount lenses. As demand increases, most lens manufacturers have either deflated price points or else stepped up features sets in their lenses. Competition is great for the buy side, but it's not so great for the sell side. It has always been that way in the world of technology. We will be seeing more of this in the coming years, in terms of lens value. I don't think RED is going to change their ways - their commitment is the best gear at the best possible price points. But those price points are going to fluctuate as the marketplace for lenses continues to find its floor.

You should really decide how much price depreciation you can tolerate, because they're in the business of selling their new lenses. They aren't in the business of selling your used gear.

On the camera side, they have done many things to help our cameras hold their value - for that, I'm quite grateful. My second RED ONE is the only 2 year old camera that I have ever sold for a small profit...very nice. Find me another camera company who has carried their buyer's risk that way - there are none!

 

[Vance Colvig]

The monitary value of "traditional PL" will most likely tank with the likes of electronic lenses such as Nikon and Canon combined with Epic (with others to follow). Please show me a Zeiss Angenieux, Cooke or RPP that will outmatch Nikon's Nano coating AF-s lenses in a wide open contrast comparison, not to mention the electronic AF feature, lighter weight, and significantly lower cost. The times, they are a changing. Fasten your seatbelts. Of course, I could be wrong...............

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

The monitary value of "traditional PL" will most likely tank with the likes of electronic lenses such as Nikon and Canon combined with Epic (with others to follow). Please show me a Zeiss Angenieux, Cooke or RPP that will outmatch Nikon's Nano coating AF-s lenses in a wide open contrast comparison, not to mention the electronic AF feature, lighter weight, and significantly lower cost. The times, they are a changing. Fasten your seatbelts. Of course, I could be wrong...............

That is another issue - still lenses versus motion lenses.

Frankly ... still lenses have a lot of compromises suited to stills that suck in motion imaging. Like they accept way too much breathing. Also, have you seen how elements move in their designs?

These are difficult problems to solve today, and they quite frankly demand expensive glass. It doesn't have to be as expensive as we see today ... if Arri/Zeiss could justify the quantities they almost certainly could tool up and produce ten times as many lens sets, and that increase in quantity could really help them lower prices

I think a cinema grade electronic lens is coming (maybe its here and I don't know it) but their prices are most likely going to be competitive with PL lenses of similar optical quality. They'll probably have some interesting hybrid features - like electronic focus that is mechanically linked to a extrenal ring with a gear. (Have a look at the Canon 18-135 kit lens for the 7D for an example.) There are other cool things you can do with an electronic lens, such as correcting for CA and the like.

So, I agree with your basic premise that we are poised for a revolution in cinema lens technology. I just disagree with the details.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

...Please show me a Zeiss Angenieux, Cooke or RPP that will outmatch Nikon's Nano coating AF-s lenses in a wide open contrast comparison.... Of course, I could be wrong...............

It is not just a matter of contrast, but Zeiss Master Primes do not seem to have inferior contrast inferior to Nikon's Nano coated lenses and they open wider too
There are many other considerations for a cine lens that neither Nikon nor Canon glass can adequetly satisfy.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

It is not just a matter of contrast, but Zeiss Master Primes do not seem to have inferior contrast inferior to Nikon's Nano coated lenses and they open wider too
There are many other considerations for a cine lens that neither Nikon nor Canon glass can adequetly satisfy.

Speaking specifically about measured lens resolution/contrast ... I don't normally test still lenses. This is why I didn't address it earlier.

Looking at the results though, I definitely don't see an advantage in this category for any still lenses.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

RPPs and RPZs are not lenses you buy planning to re-sale. They are lenses you should keep.

That is both because and why they are priced so low. They are a gift to us, from them.

If you want to play the glass market (without suggesting that is a bad thing), you need to go look at rare glass; which tends to coincide with high prices --where there are fewer sets because less people buy them.

The other factor, of course, is that they must be particularly good glass. Aside from the first generation of Red glass, by some accounts at least, Red has produced nothing but very high IQ, albeit in a big and heavy housing. Though I think the 50, 85 and 100 primes are just fine in size and heft. The 17-50 is even better in that department.

Supply and demand is economy 101, it should always go without saying. Why buy used when I can get an entire new set for a fraction of a fraction of the average cost of cine prime sets?

Nothing wrong here, at all. It is a gift from Red. Get one, or don't. That's up to you. And if the large numbers work for them and they make some cash producing them, I don't mind that in the least bit. It always comes down to the people behind the camera, so I am safe.

I can't wait to see their next generation! Which is slated to come in the electronic and internally motorized zoom flavor, if I remember correctly. And we should also remember that Red's track record has always been on a (steep) up swing, especially when it comes to their products. What will be next?! :buys a ticket and a big gulp of cherry cool-aid:

 

[Eirik Tyrihjel]

RPPs and RPZs are not lenses you buy planning to re-sale. They are lenses you should keep.

Agree, and mine are working very well for me, even the initial 18-50 and 50-150 zooms, mine are very good, and I use them on almost all my jobs, I am happy!
The used price doesn´t concern me one bit, I will keep all my glass untill I retire (25 years from now - at least), by that time it will have made me.... (enough)

 

[Thomas Koch]

While the size and weight of the RPP's is a bit much, I love using them. In fact, the set I do have was bought new, and has saved rental cost of Ultra primes. For almost all situation where I use them, the weight isn't a problem. (dolly, tripod). The RPZ 17-50 is a great hand held lens. In June, I'll be using it on an EPIC which ROCKS!

 

[patrickortman]

The monitary value of "traditional PL" will most likely tank with the likes of electronic lenses such as Nikon and Canon combined with Epic (with others to follow).

I agree 100% with Vance, these lenses appear to be a perfect match for many types of situations. I know a whole lot of what we'll be shooting will be very well-served with electronic lenses from Nikon and Canon. Depends on what you're doing, I'm sure.

I'm looking forward to playing with a nice Canon on an Epic-X, and seeing how amazing the marriage is in person, though.

 

[roryhinds]

I thought the whole electronic lenses that RED are making are aimed for the Stills side of DMSC?

 

[Sven Seynaeve]

So far, I've only hear very good results from them.


Me myself I've always been very surprised when I saw the footage.


It's also not because once an item gets sold for a certain low price, it becomes the rule. Now and then everyone can purchase something out ther at a real bargain. but that's not the defacto standard.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I agree 100% with Vance, these lenses appear to be a perfect match for many types of situations. I know a whole lot of what we'll be shooting will be very well-served with electronic lenses from Nikon and Canon. Depends on what you're doing, I'm sure.

I'm looking forward to playing with a nice Canon on an Epic-X, and seeing how amazing the marriage is in person, though.

I deeply disagree.

Again, issues like breathing and moving lens elements. I suppose you are saying that these issues don't matter, but I think they do - and they often negatively impact even low end work.

Lenses for moving images must be judged in a moving image context ... and still lenses were designed specifically to achieve image goals for still images at a price point, and they do so by ignoring some difficult problems.

So basically, still lenses are in fact great ... so long as you aren't following or racking focus, or moving the camera. If you want the images you create to work well in motion, you need lenses designed without compromising on motion.

OK, another point ... Epic -X is a $28,000 camera body. For now I'll ignore that you still need a screen and other widgets to make it work ... I'm just going to pretend the Epic X body is as functional as the Canon 7D body.

Right now I have a 16-35 L series lens on that body ... which cost just as much as the body. I also have a 50mm prime and a 18-135 kit zoom ... over $2000 in lenses for a $1699 body. Now, if instead of a crappy old Nikkor f/2 50mm I had a modern 50mm, like say a Canon f/1.2 and maybe an 85mm prime as well ... maybe toss a 70-200 zoom on as well ... and I'll have spent many multiples of the camera's cost on glass.

This is the new economics of film gear. You are investing primarily in glass.

So, the RPP set and other glass near its price point makes a ton of sense.