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 :)

Why so many 18-50mm's for sale?

A

Andrew Patterson

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
162
Reaction score
0
Points
16
I've considered buying this Lens for the last month. But why does it get resold so often? At least 1-2 are sold here every week.

Simply put, are people not satisfied with this lens?

Thanks!
 
I used to own one, for the money they are amazing. The image is really sharp and I was happy. Especially for the resale value of $3500-$4500 its simply the cheapest way to get into PL glass. Now mechnically they arent totally up to par, no witness marks and so forth.

So they are good for the money, but if you have more money you can buy better. I'd say it's a safe buy if you can get one for about $4,000. You could resell it later for not too much of a loss.
 
Im at Reducation now, and have to say that we have Zeiss and Vari Zoom here and the SHARPEST lens is the RED 50-150 and 18-50. ... but as Sahwn said
the mechanics are just not great. Compared to pro glass. its obvious.

But I am amazed by how they performed optically. against glass 10 times its cost...
 
Andrew Patterson said:
I've considered buying this Lens for the last month. But why does it get resold so often? At least 1-2 are sold here every week.

Simply put, are people not satisfied with this lens?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Hi,

The lens is optically fine (Sigma), however the quality of the rehousing done in the UK is generally rather poor, some examples are worse than others.

It's got a PL mount, that's it's best feature.

Stephen
 
Well, it's a good lens, but it's not a great lens. That's pretty much the answer people will give you.

The 18-50 has a lot going for it, it's inexpensive, it handles well, and it offers a good zoom range. But technicalities start to come into play when comparing it to other PL lenses out there. Some will say the focus is too stiff, others say it's too smooth, the lens doesn't zoom as smoothly as it should, it's not sharp enough, and so on.

Like you, I wondered what the big deal was with the 18-50 getting tossed around all the time, even for as little as $3,000. Well, from what I've read over time it seems to be just a mix of bad samples or people expecting more from it. If it's all you could afford or simply where you want to start with your RED, I'd definitely get one, but if you could afford more, then the 18-85 will be a better buy just for the zoom range alone. Believe me, I've seen enough tests, comparisons, and samples to know that when it comes to lenses it's usually personal preference. I use a Nikon 50mm 1.2 and many reviews will say that it's too soft at f/1.2, but to me it looks quite sharp, so the question is what are people basing their opinions on? In the end, if it looks good to you, then it looks good, nothing more.
 
Looks like Soderbergh shot a lot of the Informer with the 18-50 and 50-150 so it can't be that bad. I know it's not quite up to par in terms of mechanics, but image quality is pretty good (though the lenses are rather slow at T3).
 
I have one (white markings) and I'm happy with it. Yes, the mechanics are a little clunky but in terms or sharpness is as good as any other lens I used.

The main advantage for me is it's compact size. For doco work (with screw on filters) or when you shoot handheld and need a zoom, this is a great choice. You can forget running around with Red 18-85 or Angi on your shoulder/under your arm.
 
Tony Lorentzen said:
Looks like Soderbergh shot a lot of the Informer with the 18-50 and 50-150 so it can't be that bad. I know it's not quite up to par in terms of mechanics, but image quality is pretty good (though the lenses are rather slow at T3).
Click to expand...

Where'd you learn that? Are there a lot of bts pics/videos showing him using those lenses?
 
I used to use the 18-50 and loved it! Only reason I moved on was because it wasn't fast enough for my needs.

I think you'll find each person has their own reason to sell it, but I would doubt it's because they don't like the results they can get.

Also, keep in mind there were thousands of these lenses produced, and Red User is where you are going to see them advertised.

My advice is if it's fast enough and your willing to embrace the mechanics, buy it. You won't be disappointed and you aren't going to touch it for the price.

I think one or two a week is a pretty low number.

Means 95% of owners are keeping it!
 
Shawn Nelson said:
Where'd you learn that? Are there a lot of bts pics/videos showing him using those lenses?
Click to expand...

Yeah. I saw a site with a bunch of photos and videos with behind the scenes stuff and noticed that they were using either the 18-50 or 50-150 in all of the shots of the camera. Just tried to find the site via Google but wasn't able to find it. I'll share it if I remember which it was.
 
It was great for the price back when RED was brand new but these days we use it only when someone wants to make sure the camera is working. For major work folks much prefer the RED Pro Primes or any of the other multitude of cinema lenses out there. If you have very limited funds and are dying for a PL mount zoom it's an option...

Noah
 
I had both the 18-50 and the 50-150mm and got rid of them both. While they offered great value for money i could only use them on small budget shoots where there was no money for alternatives. I had way too many AC's complain big time about them as they could not be collimated and were sloppy. Word got around and no-one wanted them if we hired the gear, if they had any budget at all. But in saying this when i have been operating myself without an AC they performed quite well, except wide open and then the image on the 18-50mm was bad. I went through four of them by the way.

Ultimately i think it is hit and miss with each lens as to their performance and i suspect the people getting rid of their's are ones that don't hold up well at all. There are many great ones from all reports so you may be lucky:)
 
I think this is point exactly.

If you are shooting yourself, they work great and will serve you well.

If you want something that is industry standard and above petty criticism, get something that costs 5 times as much!

If everyone insists on using Master Primes on their toilet paper commercial, more power to them! I prefer to get stuff done.

Works for Soderburgh...
 
jimhare said:
I think this is point exactly.

If you are shooting yourself, they work great and will serve you well.

If you want something that is industry standard and above petty criticism, get something that costs 5 times as much!

If everyone insists on using Master Primes on their toilet paper commercial, more power to them! I prefer to get stuff done.

Works for Soderburgh...
Click to expand...

Agreed...

I do however like my 18-85mm and it seems to be 'tolerated' happily up this way. It's just a beast of a lens:)
 
Tony Lorentzen said:
Yay - it was something I saw on the official site... d'oh! http://theinformantmovie.warnerbros.com/ <- Go to the gallery section - there are some photos of Soderbergh and the cameras.
Click to expand...

thanks! also noticed that he didnt have a conventional FF on any of those pictures, always a remote FF. I wonder if that mitigates the big complaint of the lens?
 
This is all good information -- albeit, opinions are polarized.

So, what alternative do I have for handheld work if I don't want to swap out Primes all the time?

Who else makes sub-five-pound PL zooms?

I'm not in the "Industry" -- I'm in Oklahoma. There are probably less than a dozen PL lenses in the whole state, so I don't really have the ability to "shop around" or test my options before I start blowing thousands of dollars.

Any input is always extremely appreciated!
Thanks in advance!
 
Andrew Patterson said:
This is all good information -- albeit, opinions are polarized.

So, what alternative do I have for handheld work if I don't want to swap out Primes all the time?

Who else makes sub-five-pound PL zooms?

I'm not in the "Industry" -- I'm in Oklahoma. There are probably less than a dozen PL lenses in the whole state, so I don't really have the ability to "shop around" or test my options before I start blowing thousands of dollars.

Any input is always extremely appreciated!
Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

The reason I have the 18-50 is because I wanted to stick with the PL mount for use with the serious cine glass but still have a small, light zoom for doco projects, when renting glass is not always practical.

If light zooms are all you want/need, I'd go the Nikon mount route.... read any of the Steve Gibbs' posts if you need to do some research. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top