RED 18-50MM F2.8 CF LENS (is this the best bang for the buck?)

[Marcel André Morin]

I've been doing research and noticing that this lense is about a third of the price of it's competitors, how is this possible?

Forgive me if this has been discussed a billion times i'm kinda new here.
Thx for your help

happy new years =)

bat_

 

[Andrae Palmer]

Alien technology.

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

It is a good lens for it's cost.
Jay

 

[Ivan G]

This is a great lens for the money. Lets face it, if RED never made this particular lens anyone in this price range would have had to purchase still lenses. Mechanically, it's not to bad and captures a very nice image. The big advantage for me is the size and weight.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Lots of people like to complain about the shortcomings of this lens. But few like to talk about all the things that are great about it. In a nutshell, here's the good and bad...

Cons: Mechanically it can be a bit "gritty" or even loose. Mechanics seem to vary from one lens to another. The breathing is quite heavy. Some minor wiggle or image shift can occur with the looser mechanics, but I haven't found this to be a problem while others have. The front element is not fixed and telescopes in/out as you zoom. But the lens has a metal hood that is always at a fixed position and makes it relatively easy to use this lens with a mattebox or clip-on filters. I have yet to see one that holds focus 100% through the entire zoom range. It comes real close, but tends to drift just enough to notice.

Pros: Close focus. Very compact for a cine lens, nice size and weight make it ideal for handheld or steadicam use. Sharp image, good contrast, very little image aberration like CA or fringing, almost none in most cases. Lens data in the form of Cooke /i interface. Great overall performance for the money.

I did not buy this lens initially with my camera. However, I picked one up used a few months ago and it was a good investment. For the money, it has been a great lens and IMO it's worth more than what RED is charging. People like to complain about the mechanics, but I've found that mine is pretty good, only slightly gritty with the zoom. And mechanically it performs as good or better than most older, well-used zooms on the rental market.

With used market price hovering around $5K, that could be a great option too. But I think now that there are lots of RED Ones out there, people are realizing that this lens really is pretty darn good. I don't see too many used 18-50's for sale these days.

It's a great lens. For me, the only caveat has been the breathing. I'd like it to hold focus a bit better, but it holds focus as good or better than most any still zoom I've worked with. Just remember, it's a $6.5K RED 18-50... It's not a $45K Cooke 15-40. And it's a great tool for a lot of jobs. The RED 18-50 also produces a sharper image with far less CA than the Cooke does too.

 

[DKI]

Love this lense. I use it on both Arri and Red. I use a lot on Arri 235 handheld with that. Best of all minimum focus.

 

[Cal Brunker]

The 18-50 is awesome. It's sharp, it covers a good range, it's light as hell, and best of all it focuses SO CLOSE it's ridiculous.

I can't see that there's a better option for weight/range/image quality short of the new Angeniux Rouge's.

You can probably pick up one used as everyone seems to be looking to something new these days.

Cal

 

[Rick Darge]

My opinion, save your money and buy a Nikon mount, a 17-35 and a full line of ZF lenses. Don't bother with the 18mm ZF. I went through three different 18-50 lenses before I gave up. All of them had problems. Going back through older footage however, optically the 18-50 holds up very well. It's more a variable prime than a true zoom and if you can get over the mechanics, it's pretty golden. I played with the Viewfactor Wireless at NAB last year. It was hooked up to an 18-50 and was pretty awesome. I couldn't feel those gritty mechanics while focusing. The VF made it bearable. I just had bad experiences with them in the beginning and decided to go Nikon which I don't regret at all. More options. Less money.

 

[Lee Saxon]

and a full line of ZF lenses

In my opinion the "Zeiss" (they're actually Cosina-made in Japan, Zeiss just licensed their brand) ZF lenses offer lower build/mechanical quality (most notably the unpleasant focus rings) and VASTLY higher prices than Nikkors.

Obviously I decided not to buy one, so I haven't evaluated optical quality. But the consensus of reviews I've seen seems to be that they are about equivalent to Nikkors.

 

[Shane Kelly]

In my opinion the "Zeiss" (they're actually Cosina-made in Japan, Zeiss just licensed their brand) ZF lenses offer lower build/mechanical quality (most notably the unpleasant focus rings) and VASTLY higher prices than Nikkors.

Obviously I decided not to buy one, so I haven't evaluated optical quality. But the consensus of reviews I've seen seems to be that they are about equivalent to Nikkors.

That's some of the weirdest comments I've read in a while. ZF's having lower build quality than nikons? Unpleasant focus rings? Don't they make Canon and Nikon lenses in Japan?
The prices are higher because they are really great lenses. The body is all metal, the focus is smooth and on some of the lenses has a rotation of about 270 degrees. The set is color matched and the 100mm has been built using master prime technology and is an awesome macro lens. I'll put the zf's up against the nikons any day. Before you ask, yes I do have nikons (the 17-35 and a 180mm) and they are great lenses but the zeiss are modern, smooth, have a large barrel rotation and do almost everything that a set of real cinema glass will do.

 

[Lee Saxon]

I hate to be disagreeable, especially being new to a forum, and I don't mean you any disrespect at all Shane, but I have a few comments.

Don't they make Canon and Nikon lenses in Japan?

The "Cosina" part was the criticism, not the "-made in Japan" part. If I thought 'made in Japan' meant poor quality I'd have to throw out half of my belongings

I just like to mention it because some people think these things are actually German-made (which, due to labor costs, would have explained their price).

built using master prime technology

The story I have heard contradicts this (which sounds like it came straight from a Zeiss rep's mouth). We all know how to the internet is, so this story could be total fiction and you could be 100% correct, but nonetheless, I will retell it. Take it with appropriate grains of salt :

These lenses were, a couple decades back, designed and built by Cosina for the Contax brand. Zeiss merely licensed their name. When Contax went out of business in 2005, Zeiss didn't want to throw away the Japanese manufacturing capacity so they stuck Nikon (and Canon, named the ZE line, which I think isn't available yet) mounts on 'em and renamed them the ZF lenses. They are in no way new designs and share no lineage with Zeiss's master primes or Zeiss's anything for that matter.

are modern

In my opinion they're pretty primitive. I realize it's not relevant if you're not using them on a Nikon/Canon SLR, but still :

They feature a lens coupling prong designed to inform the Photomic meter prism of a 1960s Nikon F (and no camera made in the last ~30 years) of the lens' aperture setting, and lack the ability to do so through electronic communication with the camera(as 35mm SLR lenses from all manufacturers have since the early '80s, lest anyone think that's an innovation of the digital era). Therefore the actual f-stop cannot be displayed on any modern SLR, just a 0, 1, 2, 3 etc.

 

[Shane Kelly]

Lee,
I'm going to agree to disagree with you here as I think we're essentially looking at two different uses for the lenses. Using the ZF's on a dslr is indeed a pain as there's no feedback on stop, etc and the lens doesn't have autofocus. However, this is what makes them great lenses for the red as they have the long focus throw and are some of the few "modern", i.e. I can buy them new, lenses that can be successfully used with a follow focus.
The 100mm is supposedly the only one based on the master primes and whether it's true or not I still really like this lens.
The zf series have many faults if you are looking at them from a stills perspective but, for the red, they're a great choice for the money.
BTW, I also don't get why they added that lens coupling prong.
Regards,
Shane.

 

[Rick Darge]

I am pretty certain that Zeiss is advertising the Masterprime technology on their website. I don't know why you would think this would be false.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

What's the 18mm FOV on a One?

What would you compliment it with for the longer end? I rarely hear anything about the 50-150mm and the only I remember hearing was that it didn't measure up to the 18-50.

Jeff, thanks for yet an other info packed, clear, easy to understand post. You make it much easier for guys like me and I am sure others too.

 

[Lee Saxon]

Shane, that's an excellent point. Especially the fact that the metal "gearing" on the focus ring meant no gluing some stupid plastic thing on to attach a follow focus, which is something I didn't even think about. I'm sold on them being great cine lenses despite being not-so-great 35mm SLR lenses.

Now the question becomes...if they get cine lenses when they try to make SLR lenses, do they get SLR lenses when they try to make cine lenses?

 

[Evin Grant]

The Zeiss ZF line uses "coating technology" developed for the master primes. But the optical designs are no different from the earlier, but quite good, Contax lenses.
I think if you're trying to put together a Nikon mount prime set the ZF's offer the most accessible option. But not any better than the equivalent AIS Nikkors, but of course you'd have to scour the earth for those used gems. I still feel the 85mm f1.4 Nikkor is the best 85mm ever IMHO.