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 :)

EPIC + 17-50 ?

Rick Darge

Rick Darge

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
3,775
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
I'm curious about the 17-50 and how it looks on the Epic..

Anyone have any footy?

Thoughts?

Compare it to an Angie 16-40?
 
A large percentage of my material is shot with this lens currently. Love it for the most part. Shooting by myself its sometimes ergonomically a little difficult, but I appreciate not everyone works in the cheapskate stripped down fashion that I like to ;)

I rather enjoy the slight vignette at FF in certain circumstances, but usually my basic crop at the transcoding stage eliminates it.
 
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?64387-17-50mm-V2

1318106621.jpg



Rich Schaefer said:
I really like these lenses, they are not much bigger than a wide prime! At 17mm it is nice and wide and obviously up 50mm is very useful.

I did some testing of the vignetting.

I usually shoot 5k 2.4:1 (because it goes to 120fps) and the 17-50 covers all of the 5k as long a focus is farther than 2.5 feet. Closer focus than 2.5 feet at 17mm vignettes. the 16:9 crop is good at all focus.

Here are some quick iPhone pix of one of my lenses.

photo3.jpg


photo1.jpg


photo2.jpg


Prost,
Rich
Click to expand...
 
A few stills from EPIC and the 17-50.









Clikc for full size, or look on my flickr
The Red mattebox vignettes a touch on my V1 lens at 5kFF, as you can see on the aerial of the trees. The lens itself falls off and vignettes a little too, but its all within range of a sensible crop. I tend to shoot FF and crop later unless I need the FPS.

Great lens in my opinion :)
 
Last edited:
I'd go for the Canon Mount. The 17-50 is a great lens. But... for $6,000 you can have the Canon Mount plus 24-70 or 16-35 plus 70-200 L IS II. Just saying...
 
I'll be using all of the above Claus. I may find that I'm wrong but I can't see the Canon lenses taking the required beating from FIZ motors on a steadicam or crane setup. One day all the clever Red electronics will work to negate that, but that day isn't here just yet. PL mount lenses will always rent or work on other cameras too...
 
Oh! this is a great proposal!!

I'm thinking about buying the Epic M and all the accesories, just wanted to ask you which is better, Red Pro Zoom 18-85mm or Red pro 17-50mm? I have seen pictures from the 17-50 and I love the clarity.

Still haven't got the money to buy Red Pro Primes... :((( but soon I will get it!!!

Meanwhile, which one do you think it's better to buy for renting? 18-85 or 17-50??

Furthermore, do you advise me to buy the camera this week or to wait until november 3rd? Maybe they will announce sth very interesting...about Epic X...

What do you think?

Thank you so much in advance guys!
 
17-50 is a great lens. I'm very happy with its look, crisp and clean. The breathing is not much of an issue for me.
The 18-85 is much larger and a good lens as well.. Most of my shoots are on the 17-50 as I am almost always handheld.The 17-50 is the smallest zoom with the best optics I could find for the price. I have the canon mount on order and will probably shoot mostly on that save for some specific shoots where I will switch back to PL.
 
I have both the 17-50 and the 18-85. Optically & mechanically the 18-85 if far superior: less breathing, less barrell distortion, sharper, more pleasing bokeh, but you pay for it in weight/size. The 17-50 is perfect for handheld run and gun work as it has great range for it's size/weight. I've had some internal reflection problems with extreme contrast situations with the 17-50. It is a very well rehoused still lens and mechanically very good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top