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 :)

18-50 or 18-85? What say you?

jimhare

jimhare

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
3,768
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
59
Location
Sydney Australia
The 18-85 will be out in a couple of months...

My camera arrives in a couple of months...

Naturally I have the 18-50 on order, but it is certainly tempting to upgrade to the 18-85, which appears to be superior in almost every way.

It sounds like the main (and possibly only) disadvantage is the additional weight.

I certainly need a great, all-around lens that will work in almost any situation.

What does everyone think about getting the 18-85 over the 18-50 if they can only afford a single lens?

Issues like:

* Weight
* Size
* Use with matte box/filters etc.
* Hand held issues
* Tripod/jib/dolly issues
* Balance
* What else?

Thanks!

Jim Hare
Sydney
 
looking at the weight of the RED 18-85 which is in line with the weight of Angenieux and Cookes comparable lens. The 18-50 RED is half the weight of the comparable Angenieux, Cooke and Zeiss lightweight zooms.

With the pressure put on RED to make the 18-85 awesome, I am going to bet that its so close to the quality of Cooke or Angenieux.

I honestly feel like the 18-50 was a quick decision so RED could ship out some lenses faster, so they converted a still lens. Its a good lens but not one everyone is going crazy about and lacks some features professional camera crews get upset about not having.

so 10lbs vs 2.5lbs, i'm going with the 18-85 and some primes.
 
jimhare said:
The 18-85 will be out in a couple of months...

My camera arrives in a couple of months...

Naturally I have the 18-50 on order, but it is certainly tempting to upgrade to the 18-85, which appears to be superior in almost every way.

It sounds like the main (and possibly only) disadvantage is the additional weight.

I certainly need a great, all-around lens that will work in almost any situation.

What does everyone think about getting the 18-85 over the 18-50 if they can only afford a single lens?

Issues like:

* Weight
* Size
* Use with matte box/filters etc.
* Hand held issues
* Tripod/jib/dolly issues
* Balance
* What else?

Thanks!

Jim Hare
Sydney
Click to expand...

The real answer is both. They are two different lenses. The 18-50 is only 2.5 lbs. The 18-85 is 10lbs. So handheld, the RED One and 18-85 would be a handful. The 18-85 is big in diameter requiring a large matte box (i.e MB20 big). The 18-50 will take a clip on. Run and gun has to the the smaller, lighter lens, but the 18-85 is a thing of beauty, optically and mechanically.
 
i only have the 18-50 and it fills my hand held needs but just doesn't do it for tripod/dolly ... i really like 65mm ...

really can't say today ...
at NAB we should be able to put our hands on it ...
ask again after NAB - then we'll know about size/weight/focus etc ...
 
Big Jon said:
The real answer is both. They are two different lenses. The 18-50 is only 2.5 lbs. The 18-85 is 10lbs. So handheld, the RED One and 18-85 would be a handful. The 18-85 is big in diameter requiring a large matte box (i.e MB20 big). The 18-50 will take a clip on. Run and gun has to the the smaller, lighter lens, but the 18-85 is a thing of beauty, optically and mechanically.
Click to expand...

Thanks Big Jon! I can only afford one for now so it's going to be a tough choice. I'm leaning towards the 18-85, as 95% of what I do will be on sticks and probably better to have nicest (not to mention longer) lens.

Brave or just stupid? Anyone?

Jim
 
Jim, I hear ya'. I'm in a similar quandary. I was all set to use my Nikon glass with a Birger mount, with the thought that one day I'd go back to the PL mount and have a Cooke 18-100 or similar fine lens mounted for a good percentage of my work. Now this lens has REALLY changed my thinking. Since I'm going to NAB, and my number is 2658, it's going to get interesting over the next few months with the various options that appear daily.

It does cause one to pause...
 
one lens only? 18-85. Rent the physically smaller lens when necessary.

- but does it have witness marks? and what about the barrel? Is it internal focus and zoom or is it telescopic?
 
Hey Redsky.

I'm in the same boat. I'm starting to have a pretty respectable Canon EOS set of glass, and I could just improve that collection and go with the Birger...

Or the RED 18-50, or the RED 18-85!

Decisions decisions!

Jim
 
Yes, only 1 lens... My expectation is to rent primes when on larger shoots, but have a great all-in-one for everyday stuff...

The 18-85 apparently has witness marks and is both metric/imperial, the 18-50 does not. NAB to find the rest.

I just don't know if my order can wait that long for a decision without affecting delivery... Don't even know if the 18-85 will be delivered by then anyway!

Jim
 
Hi Jim,

If you decide going the PL route get the 18-85, IMO it is a no brainer, better range, apparently better build quality, witness marks for Aperture, Zoom and Focus. Who cares about weight and size. ;-)

But..., there is the Birger mount. For 10K you get the mount, a set of zooms and fast primes. This solution is more versatile and you avoid additional rental costs. Otherwise there could be some inconvenience with focusing, this has to be tested. If you already own EF lenses go with the Birger and wait what pops up on the lens market within the next year. If you decide later to go the PL route you can sell your Canon glass and won't loose much.

decisions...
 
i am in the same boat....i saw the 18-50 and did not like the mechanics, but i dont have the money to buy a new cooke....now i am deciding between a set
of used zeiss t2.1 or to upgrade to the 18-85 mm...
 
Kaya, I wouldn't spend 1¢ until NAB and I don't care if the person that is selling you the used zeiss says "i got another buyer". You'll hate yourself! With all these new lenses floating around, you're gonna thank yourself. That is of course you're getting them at a steal which I very highly doubt.
 
you are right... i will wait for NAB...but then there is the problem when will the things be really available...

the set is priced ok....not expensive but also not really cheap

---i would prefer to go all red...but there are so many really cool 3rd party things to come...yam yam
 
Tough decision for those that have cameras ready to ship...get the 18-50 now or wait a few months (hopefully) until the 18-85 is ready. But that's a looong wait if your camera is ready NOW!
There is definitely something to be said about the weight of the 18-50...for a lot of owner/operators it will be expensive to have both no doubt.
I have a feeling the 18-85 will be the one "must own" lens. Most commercials I've worked on haven't used longer than an 85mm but of course milage may vary.
Wish the 18-85 was available now! would make for an easy decision...
 
Big Jon said:
Details at NAB!
Click to expand...

Apple!! :-)

Okay, back to the topic, it seems that, for those with the means (which exludes me at the moment), it'd be best to have both lens. Especially when the 18-85 is 400% heavier. Wow!
 
After a whole day of hard thinking, we came to the conclusion to carry on with the 18-50.

This mainly due to availability and weight, since we plan to do a lot of ActionCam and maybe underwater as well.

Also the 50-150 and 300mm will complete the 18-50 really nicely, and if someone wants better quality we should be able to get them some Master Primes soon.

Then we'll get the Red Primes, for smaller projects, and why not some day the 18-85, wich should be a great lens for the price.

Emmanuel
 
Going with Nikon glass as 'lite package' and will buy into the 18-85 as 'production package'. Heard lens has witness marks and great optics. Only 3,500 more than the 18-50. Weight? Can't have it all, I guess. But, if it provides a respectable level of quality and mechanical performance, I'm in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top