Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

17-50 or 18-85RPP

C

chommavong somphane

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
362
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Seattle, WA
Any advice will be appreciated.
From your experience, which way to go? RPZ 17-50/2.9 +RPP 85/1.8 =10250 +tax+shipping
or RPZ 18-85/2.9 = 6000 +tax+shipping
for no budget boy.

Mostly will do the MV, BTS and Narrative.
 
As Bryant says, it's all about your shooting situation. If you need to move around a lot or keep lighter, the 17-50 is fantastic, but the 18-85 is a spectacular lens and the additional focal reach will serve you well.

So if you are in the studio, 18-85 but if your are in the field, 17-50 + RPP85 all the way.
 
I like the thinking here. The RPZ 17-50/RPP 85 combo has some significant advantages, not least of which is the ergonomics of the zoom for hand held and low profile uses - small and light. The 85mm is my favorite RPP in the set and other than its size and limited distance markings its tremendous. If you rarely expect to have to track or rack focus you might be able to save a few bucks with an 85mm stills lens like the CanonL or NikkorG but it would introduce the mount swap overhead (cost of second mount, time to change it out) and as aggressively priced as the 85 RPP is for a cine lens, not sure that's where I would look to cut a corner.

Obviously one of the attractions of a zoom is the ability to just mount it in the morning and rock on which would make the 18-85 theoretically more valuable as you could get enough "tele effect" at 85 for most narrative situations, something the 17-50 could not manage. That said, for anything run and gun-ish the 18-85 does add more size and weight than you might like.

Now, if RED wants to sell a whole bunch of lenses, an electronic zoom that is under 7 lbs and goes from 18-200mm, faster than T3, with cine level compensation for ramping, breathing, image shift, etc - fully integrated with RED's control features, available in PL and EOS mount, and if possible with no vignetting at 5K FF even fully wide - all for under $8,000...

Not sure what kind of sales numbers would be required to get a lens like that to market for anything under $10K, not to mention the QC issues/costs, but I believe there are a lot of people who would love to build up a Scarlet kit with a "kit" lens option and rent better glass when needed.

Cheers - #19
 
Yeah, and bare in mind that the picture linked above is with a RED1, which is considerably bigger than a Scarlet... Compare that 18-85 to the 5.6" LCD screen (which is also bigger than the 5" touch) as that will give you a better idea of just how big that lens actually is.

What about close focus of the 17-50 vs. 18-85?
 
Mike P. said:
Yeah, and bare in mind that the picture linked above is with a RED1, which is considerably bigger than a Scarlet... Compare that 18-85 to the 5.6" LCD screen (which is also bigger than the 5" touch) as that will give you a better idea of just how big that lens actually is.

What about close focus of the 17-50 vs. 18-85?
Click to expand...

Good observation.
Thank you for point that out.
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
I like the thinking here. The RPZ 17-50/RPP 85 combo has some significant advantages, not least of which is the ergonomics of the zoom for hand held and low profile uses - small and light. The 85mm is my favorite RPP in the set and other than its size and limited distance markings its tremendous. If you rarely expect to have to track or rack focus you might be able to save a few bucks with an 85mm stills lens like the CanonL or NikkorG but it would introduce the mount swap overhead (cost of second mount, time to change it out) and as aggressively priced as the 85 RPP is for a cine lens, not sure that's where I would look to cut a corner.

Obviously one of the attractions of a zoom is the ability to just mount it in the morning and rock on which would make the 18-85 theoretically more valuable as you could get enough "tele effect" at 85 for most narrative situations, something the 17-50 could not manage. That said, for anything run and gun-ish the 18-85 does add more size and weight than you might like.

Now, if RED wants to sell a whole bunch of lenses, an electronic zoom that is under 7 lbs and goes from 18-200mm, faster than T3, with cine level compensation for ramping, breathing, image shift, etc - fully integrated with RED's control features, available in PL and EOS mount, and if possible with no vignetting at 5K FF even fully wide - all for under $8,000...

Not sure what kind of sales numbers would be required to get a lens like that to market for anything under $10K, not to mention the QC issues/costs, but I believe there are a lot of people who would love to build up a Scarlet kit with a "kit" lens option and rent better glass when needed.

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

Very appreciated for your advice.
 
I own the 18-85 and it's a lot of lens, in both weight and handling. If you're on a tripod the whole time, you'll be fine. If you're going to need to shoulder mount, it's a lot to handle. Should be fine for shorter shots, but for all day, you'll be feeling it pretty seriously. But on the other hand, the wide zoom range and fast speed for a zoom helps you move through the day quicker and get your shots in. You'll need to consider the extra support that will be necessary, both with your tripod and 19mm rods/support.
 
One huge advantage of the 17-50 is the close focusing distance - even at full 50mm - you could almost call it a marco lens...:

IMG_3305.jpg


A001_C016_0926N7.jpg


Something the 18-85 can't do (at least not without expensive diopters)...

Here is the 18-85 on Epic vs the 17-50:

RPZ%2018-85%20on%20Epic.jpg


RPZ%2017-50%20on%20Epic.jpg


So I would also go with the 17-50 + 85 combo. You also get a fast prime for some low light shooting...

Peter
 
Peter Majtan said:
One huge advantage of the 17-50 is the close focusing distance - even at full 50mm - you could almost call it a marco lens...:

IMG_3305.jpg


A001_C016_0926N7.jpg


Something the 18-85 can't do (at least not without expensive diopters)...

Here is the 18-85 on Epic vs the 17-50:

RPZ 18-85 on Epic.jpg

mama mia !
BTW how does 509HD handle the weight of this set up Peter ?
I m looking for this head + 536 Manffrotto for my mobility set up.
RPZ 17-50 on Epic.jpg


Wow baby !
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
chommavong somphane said:
BTW how does 509HD handle the weight of this set up Peter ?
I m looking for this head + 536 Manffrotto for my mobility set up.
Click to expand...

Extremely well. I have even used it with fully kitted RED ONE (about double the weight of the above setup). Many people frown at Manfrotto, but the company has come a long way in the last few years. To get anything better then this you would need to shell out 5x the cost at least...

Peter
 
509HD

509HD

Peter Majtan said:
Extremely well. I have even used it with fully kitted RED ONE (about double the weight of the above setup). Many people frown at Manfrotto, but the company has come a long way in the last few years. To get anything better then this you would need to shell out 5x the cost at least...

Peter


I love this head from the review I read.
The price is exceptable for the job, that it can do and your input above is very much appreciated.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top