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...

this lens is really attractive when comparing to the other zooms (short optimo,optimo rouge, cooke cxx)

which diameter does it have?
does the focus hold through the whole range?
is it telecentric?
is the glas element on the front still moving when zooming, if so, is it now protected?
does it really weigh 3,4 lbs?
does it hold the stop through the range?
how about the focus markings, enough of them?
its a little "slower" than the others, but it costs 1/4 of the optimo dp, and 1/10th of the cooke cxx.

(hope you get my questions, i am so excited, that my rubbish english is back)

i know a lot of questions, but i love short zooms, they fit in my style of shooting, i often combine a short zoom with 3 fast lenses (18,25,50), using them when the zoom is too slow, this combo gives me the overall possibility to shoot at the pace i like

i am not using lenses above 50 anyway, so this lens, can be my working horse.

( i am tired of renting optimos or the heavy cooke cxx, which is the fastest at T2)
 
I'd like to know about a possible future 50-150 or whatever comes next.
It sure would help me planning all those future investments.
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
Sanjin, (IF) that were true, then all you would you need from them would be the rights to use a patented optical design, right?
I ask you because I think you would know if this would be the jist of it, and I don't.

So if that is how it would work, then perhaps it is worth mentioning that if this were BASED on a Tamaron optical design, you would still get different (BETTER) glass, radically different (EXCEEDINGLY BETTER) mechanical design, Red coatings, easier serviceability considered into the barrel design, more iris blades, and (FAR) better barrel and mechanics materials. All of it would be subject to (FAR) higher tolerances from top to bottom, in and out, barrel and glass. Furthermore, all of that would be coupled with higher quality control. Add the Red customer service associated with such an investment.

It would would be better in every way (unless you want a stunt lens and don't mind compromising on IQ). It would also be a completely different lens.
Click to expand...

This could be something the same as I heard from Carl Zeiss representative at IBC stand last September

about difference between n Zeiss Compact Primes and Zeiss ZF still lenses.

He explained to me that the glass elements are similar to Zeiss/Cosina's ZF still lenses

but all other mechanical parts, measures,...were designed and made in Germany to match the cine lens Zeiss standards.

So in this case of RED's new 17-50mm zoom lens could be that Jim "bought" from Tamrom that "stock" of glass and

then RED with maybe another lens designer made totally new cine lens zoom enclosure, mechanics

and focus/distance measure marks...

But this is just my own speculation based on that focal range zoom from one of the newest zooms I found at Tamron's page

and another is Jim's earlier positive reaction/reply to one of my earlier tests that had also Tamrom zoom 28-105mm f/2.8 FF35mm lens.

I do not have any other source of information...sorry...
 
Cüneyt Kaya said:
this lens is really attractive when comparing to the other zooms (short optimo,optimo rouge, cooke cxx)
Click to expand...

Yes, I can't wait to compare it to a Rouge 16-42. It's starting to look like that extra $13.5K only buys you 1mm shorter on the wide end and T2.8 instead of T2.9. If the optics are on par with the rest of the RED Pro lenses, the DP 16-42 just got pwned once you consider price tags.

Yeah, I would definitely like to know if it's an IF design. I'm guessing not since it seems to have the integrated hood. No big deal either way. Looks like the budget is going to make me choose between the 18mm RPP and this lens for now. At the moment, I'm more attracted to this new zoom.
 
Sanjin,

I have used that Tamron 17-50 lens and it's a complete piece of crap. Both optically and mechanically. There is no way RED is basing anything off of that turd. I know you are unwilling to believe, but just consider for a moment that RED could actually be designing and producing their own lenses.
 
3.4lb.. wow
Again.... does the focus hold through the whole range?
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
... but just consider for a moment that RED could actually be designing and producing their own lenses.
Click to expand...

Exactly. RED are in this for the long haul. Why wouldn't Jim use his resources to design and produce his own lenses? He certainly has experience with R&D in optics of another kind.

I wouldn't be surprised if RED will even make their own CMOS sensors from scratch. If they make some revolutionary breakthrough in chip design, why risk outsourcing....
 
Jannard said:
We are announcing the release of the new RED 17-50mm T 2.9 Pro Zoom. Deliveries will begin in about one month. This lens is built to the same optical and mechanical standards as all other RED Pro lenses like the 18-85mm zoom and the RPPs. Price will be $6,000. Photos will be up soon.

This is the lens that was used for "Snappy" and the ISO 4000 footage.

Our standard RED 18-50mm T3 zoom will be discontinued and will go on sale starting tomorrow for $3995 until supply runs out. Progress.

Jim
Click to expand...

Sweet, an excellent compliment to my Tokina Ultrawide 11-16...for Steadi-Cam work...

Wigth the 18mm on the way, plus this tasty option... I'm glad I bought two lens cases!
 
How about a front shot looking straight down the barrel?

What's the filter thread size?

david
 
Hi Ryan,

Some Panavision offices rent RED ones, Panavision or PL mounts are available.
Panavision is also Arri's biggest customer and own more Sony 900's than anyone else.

Stephen

Ryan S said:
Stephen, I drew this conclusion from the fact that when I was last at a rental house, I chatted with the Rep about how I'd love to use Panavision glass on a Red with a PV mount. He told me that Panavision would resist me every step of the way if I tried to do that, and that only big names live Steven Soderbergh can get them to bend. I don't know if this is true or not, as I'm still pretty new to the world of professional film/video, and have never rented from PV before. But I assumed that if that were the case, Arri would have a similar attitude- they would prefer that you use their lenses on their cameras. I know that Arri is a manufacturer only, and so would have little ability to control who uses what lenses, but...do you see where I'm going?

From your post, I guess I've drawn a completely incorrect conclusion. Ah well, not the first time my newbiness has shown, I'm sure it won't be the last.
Click to expand...
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Sanjin,

I have used that Tamron 17-50 lens and it's a complete piece of crap. Both optically and mechanically. There is no way RED is basing anything off of that turd. I know you are unwilling to believe, but just consider for a moment that RED could actually be designing and producing their own lenses.
Click to expand...

Jeff,

I speculate all the time, but I would consider it wrong for anyone to take it as anything more than that, a speculation, accompanied by some arguments...
 
Mitch Gross said:
It sure looks like they started with the same lens and had the mechanics made better, much as they did with the 300mm v. the Pro 300. Just a guess, but that likely would be why the profile is fairly similar and the size and weight are still in the same territory. Too bad the /i data goes away.
Click to expand...

Does not look at all the same optically to me, from what little I have seen its a big improvement. I am ok with no i/data if it means I save $$$$$$$...look forward to the release Jim, this could become a standard tool in my kit that I have been looking for. Jim would you say it has a more of a "cinema" feel then the non pro?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top