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...

Russ Fill said:
Do you have to use a 67mm filter between the lens and the step up ring, or will the step up ring fit on the lens and you can just use the 77mm's on top of the step up ring. Seems like it might bind on the inside of the lens shade part?
Click to expand...

The lenses recesses a bit into the barrel at it's widest setting. A 67mm will slip right in with the moving element, a step up ring will bind up the lens. But if the step up ring is on top of the 67mm filter then you have enough room to get nearly all the way to 17mm with two filters, not quite all the way but close, like 17.5mm. Basically if you use two screw on filters then you need a 67mm and a step up ring to 77mm, then the second filter needs to be the 77. If you use two 67mm filters you may have a problem vignetting.
 
Mark Andersen said:
The lenses recesses a bit into the barrel at it's widest setting. A 67mm will slip right in with the moving element, a step up ring will bind up the lens. But if the step up ring is on top of the 67mm filter then you have enough room to get nearly all the way to 17mm with two filters, not quite all the way but close, like 17.5mm. Basically if you use two screw on filters then you need a 67mm and a step up ring to 77mm, then the second filter needs to be the 77. If you use two 67mm filters you may have a problem vignetting.
Click to expand...

Have you seen if the 17.5 with the step up ring is equal to the amount you would have to zoom in to get rid of the vignetting with 2, 67mm stacked????
I am a little scared to put any setup on my lens that may bind it or cause it to bend anything lens or filter. Not a good start to a len's life.
I know you would probably have to really crank it to do any real damage but, Im a real supporter of if it hurts when I do this don't do it then.
 
Milan Spasic said:
It wasn't really a shipping email, it was more of a "pay for the lens in full or lose the place in line" email. The shipping date still remains elusive.
Click to expand...

OK, I was totally wrong!
I've got my shipping notification yesterday. :)
(imperial)

Special thanks to Chris, the best bomb squad rep I've had so far. Emails returned in minutes!
 
Going to pull the trigger on either the DigiOptical special (18-50 & 50-150) or the Red Pro 17-50. Wanted any thoughts on value vs. quality. Also, real-world comparison would be nice...standard vs. the new pro.

Thanks.
 
The DigiOptical seems to be a Red copy or maybe some other lens company deal that some company did with the company that made original for RED, who knows. Jarred probably does. But really who cares.
You will make your own decisions what lens you end up with and that will depend on your budget and your needs for the use of the lens.

I am really impressed with my lens. Supper robust. I was a little concerned when I opened the box and saw a 67mm front element, but after using it for a couple of weeks now shooting mostly B-roll and beauty here in Nicaragua I am really happy I didn't buy something else. Just goes to show you that bigger is not always better.
It is very sharp and handles shooting highlights AKA flare, in to the sun for that sunset shot very well. I did buy a 67mm ND .3 for the front element, as I almost always use one in the matte box so that helps to just keep the lens safe and gives me a little room with the F-stop right when I set up. Usually daylight settings.
I do a lot of doco and natural history work in the jungles and just about any where else in the world that you would not to take gear. So over the next few months I will find out if this lens is as robust as it looks.
I could show you a bunch of pix's from the lens and you would say the same thing as me. Is that out of the camera what did he do to it in post what was the F stop etc etc. See if you can get your hands on one and take it for a ride. I think you will find it is a great lens for the price and that it will do most jobs you have planed for it with out any feeling of wow I wish I had xyz lens. Plus my big buying point was it needed to do 5K at its widest. Not just for RED but I have a bracket for my DSLR and Im now not buying any glass unless it can go both ways.... I mean stills and S35.
 
Last edited:
Got mine today, I'll see if I can take some footage over the weekend, but it will be on one of the cameras I got here, which are not MX'd.

As said when I first play with this little wonder, it is by all means the little brother of the 18-85, beauty inside and out, solid, well machined, and extremely well designed, while some might wish to have the front element a bit smaller, I actually like it to be bigger, as in my opinion gives the lens a better protection.

Compared to the 18-50 is an other world of design all together, and while this lens is sure to be much better in IQ then the 18-50, I never had any issues with any of the several 18-50 I shot with.

EDIT

Okay, didn't get any time to shoot yet, but I posted few pics and my first tough about this little Master Beauty.


http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=639023#post639023
 
C.H.Haskell said:
Would am MMb-1 with bellows work?
Click to expand...

We just received our 17-50 RPZ today : very nice

and our MBB-1 arrived yesterday : perfect timing.

To answer the above question : no, the MBB-1 will only work with the 143mm back which although states 143mm and the lens is supposed to be 144mm, they fit confortably.

Haven't had a chance to test them yet as our camera is being M-X as we speak. I will have another camera as of tomorrow for a shoot on thursday, so I'll get a chance to test the lens and mattebox.

Cheers,
Damien
 
C.H.Haskell said:
Would am MMb-1 with bellows work?
Click to expand...

No, there's no 143mm Arri bellows back, or at least I couldn't find one through Abel Cine.

It was a little frustrating losing that filter stage and having to use step down rings if you are mixing the RPZ and RPP's but MMB-1 is still a great little matte box. Especially now that I have an option of clamp-on or rod mount.

Also, beware that you will have to buy a new rod support for the 143mm back, the original one doesn't fit.

Good luck with the new Louie season!
 
Actually, that is incorrect. There is indeed a 143mm back for the MMB-1 and it has an extra millimeter or two of room when opened up. It will slide right onto the 17-50. The 143mm back along with top-load filters combo can be ordered as a kit. You can also see them listed in the MMB-1 configuration PDF from Arri's web site: http://archiv.arri.de/prod/cam/configuration_overview/PDF/ARRI_CONF_34_2010-08.pdf
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Actually, that is incorrect. There is indeed a 143mm back for the MMB-1 and it has an extra millimeter or two of room when opened up. It will slide right onto the 17-50. The 143mm back along with top-load filters combo can be ordered as a kit. You can also see them listed in the MMB-1 configuration PDF from Arri's web site: http://archiv.arri.de/prod/cam/configuration_overview/PDF/ARRI_CONF_34_2010-08.pdf
Click to expand...

Jeff, that is correct but Clayton was asking about the 143mm bellows back filter stage which I couldn't find in Arri's catalog even with all the help from kind folks at AbelCine. I still have the 138 - 114mm bellows that I loved using with RPP's but is now sitting in my case.

The 143mm back clamp fits on the 17-50 nice, though I did put on a sliver of tape around the edge of the lens to insure the solid grip.... it's because I put it on the sketchy contraptions like this :)

46115_1577059434681_1481477285_1530751_4039172_n.jpg
 
Mike McEntire said:
That does look sketchy. You got some balls to shoot that style going that fast.
Best
Mike
Click to expand...

It's not the balls. I didn't have any choice, you left for France. ;)

When I asked the driver if I needed a helmet, he said no need just make sure you keep your arms in (crossed on chest) if we roll. :/

Since this is a 17-50 thread, here's a still...

5004966337_ce837bc33b_b.jpg
 
Thanks Ketch. In addition to it being a still capture from a motion clip, the ride was extremely stiff and the camera mount wasn't the most solid (client requested a camera movement in the shot, hence the use of the high hat), it was a shaky, bumpy ride ....
Props to 1stAC Scott Beckley!
 
There is a bellows back for the 143mm clamp ring. It is the one used in the MB20-II, which also has a 143mm back. It holds a 138mm filter stage within it. But this cannot be used with the 17-50 as it fits directly to the 143mm clamp ring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top