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 :)

Red Lenses made by Cooke? BS or what?

Hi Michael,

Just to clarify, they don't charge "...several thousands more...".
The Red branded S4's are the exact same price as the "regular" S4's.
I did the exercise and asked for a price list.
The only "bonus" when you get the RED set of S4's is the "free" case they come in.... (so about a 1% savings towards the regular set).
Price is just under 100 000$ for the RED set.
cheers.
 
Cooke is not making the 18-50. I know who is and so apparently does a certain Mr. Duclos. He would know better than I as lenses are what he does for a living day in and out.

Cooke is up to something new that's very exciting but it ain't the 18-50.


I prefer pie to cupcakes...
 
Mitch Gross said:
Cooke is not making the 18-50. I know who is and so apparently does a certain Mr. Duclos. He would know better than I as lenses are what he does for a living day in and out.

Cooke is up to something new that's very exciting but it ain't the 18-50.


I prefer pie to cupcakes...
Click to expand...

Ouh, Mitch you're teasing us. You are in the know...

I'm guessing I know what you're talking about.

Serve me that pie please, I've been waiting for a looooong time.

;-)
Damien
 
That would be for Cooke to say, not me.

Many companies have R&D projects that in the end never deliver a product to market. Sometimes it's because a product doesn't perform as well as expected and sometimes it's because the result would be too expensive to sell enough units to merit going forward. I know of more than one proposed lens design that in the end never came to market because they realized that they could never recover their costs without charging a fortune for the glass.
 
When I dream, I dream of optics - don't tell my wife.

When I dream, I dream of optics - don't tell my wife.

Riddle me this, lens heads. What would happen if I set out to make a lens that had the operational characteristics of a B4 mount EFP lens but projected an S35 sized image onto a single plane sensor and mounted via PL?

Yes, that's right, I want focus and iris control on the barrel and a range adjustable servo zoom on a rocker in a handgrip. I'd like the angle of view on the wide end to be at least 90 degrees with a 10 to 1 zoom ratio. I'd like the weight of the lens to stay under 10 lbs, it needs to be T2.4 or faster, internal focus and I want to fit my Arri MB20Mk2 on it.

Yes the RedOne is a Digital Cinema camera, a damn fine one, but configured correctly it can dominate other production genres as well. I know that sight focusing at 4K is no picnic but at a decent stop it can be done. The question is, could such a lens be made if there was enough of a market or will the laws of physics kill my dream - sorta like that whole flying thing I tried off the roof as a youngster...
 
Angenieux didn't make the Optimo 24-290 more than two feet long and 25+lbs just for fun.
 
Mitch Gross said:
Angenieux didn't make the Optimo 24-290 more than two feet long and 25+lbs just for fun.
Click to expand...
What about RED's own 18-85 lens, but with a Servo-Zoom rocker built in on the right side? Maybe as an optional attachment?

Granted, it's not 10x zoom, but it would be a great start, if possible.
 
You probably could have that lens, Blair. But it would have aperture ramp, it would probably porthole at the wide setting, it would certainly breathe (in order to make cine lenses NOT breathe, elements move in opposite directions on a cam system as you focus. This makes lenses bigger and heavier) And it would likely have a short service life, as most components would have to be plastic or REALLY thin aluminum to make the weight of an ENG lens. There would be slop in the servo motors (just like in my pricey HD zoom lenses) and you certainly could not have T2.4, because in order to make the widest aperture you'd need a front element the size of a salad plate, not an MB-20.
There has to be some compromise in the design of a lens, because it follows the laws of physics. Professional cine lens designers (and DPs) most often choose size and weight as the compromise because they only care about what ends up on the screen, not that your eager 25-year old 2nd AC had to hump the thing around the beach all day (he's thrilled to be there and hump it around anyway)
Cheers,
Harry
 
Michael Morlan said:
I believe that is exactly what the Wikipedia entry refers to. Perhaps it could be better written. What I love about that "Cooke Joins the Revolution" campaign is that they simply re-branded their lenses with "Red" and charged several thousand more for them.

Some revolution.

Michael
Click to expand...

Hi Michael,

That Wikipedia entry was written a very long time before the Cooke Red set was announced.

Stephen
 
BS and cooke

BS and cooke

In the latest issue of I think HDVideoPro or something there was an AD for RED versions of their lenses! Also there was an article on RED there as well.
SO I think they exist!
Stephen Williams said:
Hi Michael,

That Wikipedia entry was written a very long time before the Cooke Red set was announced.

Stephen
Click to expand...
 
celtsune said:
In the latest issue of I think HDVideoPro or something there was an AD for RED versions of their lenses! Also there was an article on RED there as well.
SO I think they exist!
Click to expand...

Hi,

Sure the Red Set from Cooke exists, but they are no different from the S4's except for Red lettering.

Stephen
 
Recipe adjustment

Recipe adjustment

OK, how about a 10-100mm T2.6 under 16lbs?

Yes, I know it will be expensive, but high end HD zooms run $30K plus as it is.

Would making it T3.5 or higher be the only way to keep the weight and size reasonable for handheld? In my experience doing doco or verité style interiors in available light can be pretty difficult north of T 2.4. Just wonderin'
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
OK, how about a 10-100mm T2.6 under 16lbs?

Yes, I know it will be expensive, but high end HD zooms run $30K plus as it is.

Would making it T3.5 or higher be the only way to keep the weight and size reasonable for handheld? In my experience doing doco or verité style interiors in available light can be pretty difficult north of T 2.4. Just wonderin'
Click to expand...

Zeiss 10-100mm T2, done.
Although, thats only a 16 format lens. sorry.
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
OK, how about a 10-100mm T2.6 under 16lbs?

Yes, I know it will be expensive, but high end HD zooms run $30K plus as it is.

Would making it T3.5 or higher be the only way to keep the weight and size reasonable for handheld? In my experience doing doco or verité style interiors in available light can be pretty difficult north of T 2.4. Just wonderin'
Click to expand...

We are using the angenieuxs 9.5-59 f1.6/t1.9 a lot, especially for doc and highspeed.

Its 16, but covers Reds 2KS16 from ~13/14mm-59.
Its ultracompact and very leightweigt, <1kg iirc.

It ramps and breathes a bit, so its nothing for snobs.

Image quality is fine.
 
an red 2K 9.5-59f1.6/t1.9 shot...

3raj-a.jpg
 
Hi,

Is that really T1.9, seems like more DOF than I would expect, but then I have never analysed 2k on a Red.

Stephen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top