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...

Roberto Lequeux said:
I guess it does look big, but is it definitely bigger than RPP diameter? I think I remember the diameter is somewhere in this thread.. :looking:
Click to expand...

RPPs are 110mm, I believe the 17-50 RPZ is 143 or 144.
 
All these quotes are all from this thread:

Jarred Land said:
This lens will fit Arri cameras. It has a shorter flange depth than the RPPs. No data link.

Minimum Focus is down to 4" in front of the hood, 11" from focal plane and Marked 1 foot on the lens.

Weight is 3.4 lbs.

Built like the primes.. great mechanics, incredible glass.
Click to expand...

Jarred Land said:
18mm is shipping in small numbers.. will ramp up quickly.

17-50mm outside ring diameter is 144mm. threads on the inside of that ring at 139mm with 1.0 pitch. Overall length is 129mm. 3.2 Pounds.
Click to expand...

Jarred Land said:
Satsuki the actual Flange to Sensor distance remains 52mm, but the actual barrel behind the flange extends longer into the mount.

11" is minimal distance but it is not marked. 12" is the first mark on the lens, which is 12".
Click to expand...

Jarred Land said:
17-50 will cover 5K 2:1 :)
Click to expand...

These are from the last RED Day:
.
(click for larger)


Some of it might have changed obviously. Ted said the lens was 5lbs., but he could just be having a hard time with the gazillion specs number being released today. Just saying. :)
Honestly though, I wouldn't care... weight of RPPs if anything is a GOOD thing in my mind now. With such a big battery in the grip, and such a light camera I would probably welcome the added mass to smoothen out operation. Perhaps if one were using that awesome jib-on-a-steady rig, then you'd consider keeping it extra light, since the cage, and the jib are not made of air... but for anything else... And for run n gun you can always stick to Canons where missing the RPP quality and mechanics won't kill you. Lord... the options are STAGGERING! Is there anything RED didn't cover??
 
Ryan Hamblin said:
Any updated word...seeing as its RED day?
Click to expand...

I kinda get the feeling that RED isn't going to post any updates today. They didn't post anything the last two REDDAYS. Maybe something on REDCINE and REDSTATION, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
 
Guidofilippi said:
Looks like lens iris only goes up to f/11... a little disappointing I should say...
Guido
Click to expand...

But Guido, that is an old picture. You know there is no way in hell it will just go up to f/11. Ted said something about it in one of the NAB videos that made it sound like they were getting much closer to final design, so back on the last RED Day that had to be very early stages. I bet if you look closely on oe of those videos you'll probably see different markings.
 
on one of the most recently posted videos you can see it marked 11 16 22. So I am sure 11 will not be the cut off.
 
Guidofilippi said:
Looks like lens iris only goes up to f/11... a little disappointing I should say...
Guido
Click to expand...

Probably a good thing, stopped down past F11 I doubt the lens will resolve that well due to diffraction.
 
Maybe they were working on the iris mechanics, or the blades... Either way, f/22 sounds like a minimum, and I'd bet it will be the same as the RPZ 18-85mm, which I think is f/22
 
I think you can see "22" peeking from under the plastic cowl in these shots.

zoom01.jpg


zoom02.jpg
 
There ya go, thanks Petri. I am hoping we hear some good news regarding the weight. In one of the videos Ted said 5 lbs. but we got that 3.4 lbs. earlier.
 
Guidofilippi said:
That cannot be the case for a modern lens with such a big image circle, Stephen... apparently it was marked up to 11 because it was an early prototype (strange anyway...)
Guido
Click to expand...

Modern lens be damned. Its physics, and has little to do with glass, just with small holes and wave/particle duality etc. etc.

Don't close down the iris past f11 unless you forgot your NDs and are desperate. You're going to drop resolution bad passed that point.
Less important with Epic as the new brain is multi-ISO, thank God. This will help with IR issues.

If you need to keep it all in focus, rent a T/S lens or lens system for those big scenics or city-scapes. So much fun...
I'm thinking of the Canon mount to keep it on the cheep.

On the topic of multi-ISO, perhaps we need some new terminology here? Arri is calling Alexa's architecture a "dual-gain channel", but as far as I'm concerned, gain=bad and dual = worse. At some point tech-talk has to meet the marketing department. In the automotive realm it usually results in cheesy acronyms like, vtech or whatever.

As we learn more about how red chokes the sensitivity of its imager, perhaps we can find a worthy name that satisfies the "tech-keting" department and is sales/user friendly.
 
bert tan said:
How can we order the 17-50? It is up on the red store but i cant seem to be able to make the order. Is it officially released yet?
Click to expand...

Ted said it was still a few weeks away...
 
Ryan S said:
Having now seen more real-world pictures of this lens from NAB, I have to wonder why the front ring is so bloody big when the glass is so small within it. Red couldn't have trimmed a single millimetre off that cowl (pardon my terminology, I don't know what to call it) to make it play nicely with standard matte box sizes?

Does the size of the ring have to do with the field of view at the wider end of the lens?

I'm sure a solution will be developed, and I'll still buy the lens. But why is that front ring so wide?
Click to expand...

probably to avoid vignetting at 17mm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top