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 :)

17-50mm RED Pro Zoom...

O.K. I'm getting a little off the subject but this is why Hasselblad and other square formats are so efficient, a square fits best into a circle, or rather uses the circle most efficiently. wide rectangular aspect rations push the outer limits of the image circle. The taller the frame the narrower it needs to be in order to fit inside the circle.

O.K. now when is that lens gonna get here. I want it.
 
IAN SUN said:
2:1 and 16:9 are the same width. Assume that 2:1 just fits inside the (acceptable) image circle, then 16:9 being taller will extend outside the image circle in the corners.
Click to expand...

And to illustrate, here is a representation of an image circle, and frame ratios of 2.33:1 , 2:1 and 16:9 if you were trying to use the largest portion within the image circle.

Note : these frames size have NO relation, proportion wise, to how the Red One, or any other camera for that matter, use these frames sizes.

Cheers,
Damien
 

Attachments

  • image_circle.jpg
    image_circle.jpg
    54.3 KB · Views: 0
Ah, precisely. Thanks guys. I guess I was thinking that 2:1 didn't go all the way to the edge, of course that makes sense if there is absolutely no more rooms on the corners!

Clint
 
So does anyone have this new RED Pro 17-50mm yet? How is the focus breathing on it?
I would love to get into a nice reasonably priced wide zoom, but i can't have a lens that breathes. I have been looking into the Century 17-35mm, which seems pretty clean. But if the optics & breathing on the RED-Pro are as good, then it seems to make sense to go with the RED lens, Right?
 
The Century 17-35 is a rehoused Canon EF 17-35 F2.8 L. It actually has a fair amount of breathing. That said, breathing is an optical property that is often made to be a much bigger deal than it is.

If your budget allows, you would do well to consider the Angenieux DP 16-42. But it is about $20K.

Other than that, this new RED 17-50 looks very promising. I'm anxious to see one. RED has not started taking orders for it yet. It's one of the many new toys I hope to play with at NAB. :)
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
(snip) If your budget allows, you would do well to consider the Angenieux DP 16-42. But it is about $20K.
Other than that, this new RED 17-50 looks very promising.(snip)
Click to expand...

Hear, hear. I would be very interested in checking out the 17-50 RED Pro Zoom but are there any in the wild? The Angie Rouge DP 16-42 would be in my kit today if the cost was a bit lower. BTW - does anyone know why the $20K Rouge lenses rent for a similar day rate to the $40K regular Optimos? $200/day is a lot easier to sell to a producer than $400. I get $75/day for my RED 18-50 all the time but there are some shots for which it is not my first choice, despite its very good (and underrated) optics.

Cheers - #19
 
any update on time. Just received the funds to purchase this bad boy.
 
soon.. still doing the final tweaks.
 
amazing can't wait, does the RedRock mattebox work with this lens? How bout the unreleased clipon Red mattebox?
 
Please note that I have not yet seen this lens but I have discussed it with Jarred as many people have asked me about fitting matteboxes to it.

I confirmed with Jarred that it is a 144mm front on this lens, compared to the 114mm on the old 18-50. If you pull the bellows back on the MB20-II the rear ring is 143mm, and Jarred says that there is enough fudge factor in the sizing that they'll just squeak together. This is likely also true for the accessory 143mm back available for the MMB-1, although I will not know if that mattebox will cover the 17mm until I get one in my hands (or RED decides to send me a ray trace!).
 
That was more of a joke -- I don't expect to see a ray race anytime soon. I've never seen one from RED.
 
I know and you know, just wasn't sure the rest od REDuser would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top