18-50mm Zoom?

[Alexander Nikishin]

Hi,

Very little, less than older primes, that's one reason it was a breakthrough when introduced.

Stephen

And it runs for around $7,000...hmmmm...18-50 or Cooke 20-100?

 

[Stephen Williams]

And it runs for around $7,000...hmmmm...18-50 or Cooke 20-100?

Hi,

On Ebay the 20-100 Cooke SELL's for $3000 and less. Sometimes there listed for way more, they dont sell.

hmmmmm makes the Cooke seem like a good deal!

Stephen

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

Yup, I guess one shop either has a mint one or is just over priced.

Stephen, do you still own the 20-100?

 

[Stephen Williams]

Yup, I guess one shop either has a mint one or is just over priced.

Stephen, do you still own the 20-100?

Hi Alexander,

Yes.

Rental houses usually ask about $5k, 6 months later they try Ebay around $2.5k and they sell.

Stephen

 

[M Olsen]

And it runs for around $7,000...hmmmm...18-50 or Cooke 20-100?

Just remember the 20-100 is a big heavy lens and can be awkward in a tight workspace.
Big Matt Box required also.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

Just remember the 20-100 is a big heavy lens and can be awkward in a tight workspace.
Big Matt Box required also.

I've thought about the pro's and con's of both the 18-50 and 20-100....

Red 18-50:

PROS
- Lightweight / compact
- Close focus
- i technology integrated

CONS
- Limited focal range, 18-50 leaves you needing an 85 and 100mm
- A little pricey in comparison to the Cooke 20-100
- Many reports of breathing

Cooke 20-100:

PROS
- Excellent focal range covering all the necessary lengths
- Affordable at just $3,000
- Proven quality having been used on many great films
- Very little breathing

CONS
- HEAVY! 12 lbs.
- Large front diameter requiring a 6x6 matte box which ups the cost of use
- No close focus, limited to 2' 4" minimum
- Very lengthy leaving int. car shots and tight spaces impractical
- Steadicam / hand-held work will be a pain

If Red could only hurry it up with the 18-85, I'd be a happy man. :waaa:

 

[Stephen Williams]

CONS
- No close focus, limited to 2' 4" minimum

Hi,

It's actually very good for macro product photography / close ups. Due to the length of the lens the 2' 4" from the film plane is quite close to the front element. I don't have a lens & camera with me but I am sure it's under 1'.

Stephen

 

[Martin Drew]

Hi Stephen

Did you ever get to the bottom of whether the 8" min focus on the 18-50 was from the front elements of from the sensor plane?

M

 

[M Olsen]

I've thought about the pro's and con's of both the 18-50 and 20-100....

Red 18-50:

PROS
- Lightweight / compact
- Close focus
- i technology integrated

CONS
- Limited focal range, 18-50 leaves you needing an 85 and 100mm
- A little pricey in comparison to the Cooke 20-100
- Many reports of breathing

Cooke 20-100:

PROS
- Excellent focal range covering all the necessary lengths
- Affordable at just $3,000
- Proven quality having been used on many great films
- Very little breathing

CONS
- HEAVY! 12 lbs.
- Large front diameter requiring a 6x6 matte box which ups the cost of use
- No close focus, limited to 2' 4" minimum
- Very lengthy leaving int. car shots and tight spaces impractical
- Steadicam / hand-held work will be a pain

If Red could only hurry it up with the 18-85, I'd be a happy man. :waaa:

Hi Alexander,

Stephen is, as always spot on, the close focus is very good on the 5-1 Cooke. nearly 1:1 on a match box.
A couple of good features I have enjoyed are the internal rear gel holder and the cable release type of thing where by you press the button and the iris opens up so you can check focus etc, then it goes back to the iris setting.
No way would it go a Steadicam and H\H in very rare situations unless you are a grinder on an America's Cup yacht.
They are two separate lenses hopefully something else will come from the Red stable that runs a bit longer or complements the 18-50.

 

[Stephen Williams]

Hi Stephen

Did you ever get to the bottom of whether the 8" min focus on the 18-50 was from the front elements of from the sensor plane?

M

Hi Martin,

No one answered, but as the lenses are marked in F stops I will assume that the focus marks are from the front element, until told otherwise. Odd really IMHO.

Stephen

 

[Steve Gibby]

My impression reference the 18-50 minimum focus of 8", was that it was from the sensor focal plane. The lens is about 5" long from the flange to its barrel end, thus minimum focus is about 3" from the end of the lens. None of this is verified, except the minimum focus distance of 8", which was clearly marked on the prototype lens barrel. If RED has an 18-50 available for testing, we'll include it in our upcoming Los Angeles testing of my RED #8, thus answering some questions about the lens. As for breathing, Evin worked with the prototype 18-50 for four days and has stated that he felt the breathing on the lens was within expected parameters for a professional cine lens. In a quick observation at NAB, I saw very little breathing. Others felt they did see some. It was a prototype lens, not a delivering product, so we should reserve judgment on breathing, and the overall performance of the 18-50 until a finalized lens is professionally tested.

One other observation about the RED 18-50 that probably should have been included in your list Alexander: the 18-50 is a new lens, with new lens technology, that is being designed for use on a CMOS sensor S35mm camera, with specifications defined by the same company that is developing the camera (RED). Conversely, the Cooke 10-100, which BTW IMO is an excellent lens, is an older lens that was designed for 35mm film use. Only real world testing of a RED 18-50 and a Cooke 20-100 on a RED One camera will define how those lenses perform on a RED One.

I see the RED 18-50 and the Cooke 20-100 as very different lenses in size, optics, and utility. Ideally I'd like to own both and use them where appropriate. Due to its lightweight, small size, and close focus, I see the 18-50 being a very good choice for hand held, shoulder mount, and stabilization unit use - something the Cooke 20-100 wouldn't be my choice for. Conversely, the Cooke 20-100 is obviously a good choice for projects where it can be tripod mounted and focal lengths between 50-100mm are also needed.

I have no knowledge that they will, but if RED decides to offer an 18-50 + 85mm prime 2-lens package, for most of the work I do, that would be a better choice than the proposed RED 18-85. I originally reserved a RED 18-85, but due to the highly mobile genres of work I do, the size, weight, and close focus capabilities of the 18-50 made it a much better choice for me. If and when RED makes a longer focal length zoom, to dovetail with the 18-50, I'll take a serious look at that too.

The Cooke "i" technology incorporated in the RED 18-50, and not incorporated in the Cooke 20-100, is a big point to me. Having the metadata of the "i" technology dovetails real nice with a modern field/post workflow like that of RED One. To me, a complete camera package has a complimentary mix of optics and electronics - something using metadata-enabled lenses brings to the package.

As I said, for my RED One camera kit, I'd like to own both a RED 18-50 for more mobile work, and a Cooke 20-100 for other projects. In fact...I think I will.

Some very good input on this thread...

 

[Evin Grant]

I'll state it again here...
From the prototypes I played with I would be perfectly happy with the minimal amount of breathing I found in the lens at normal distances. Obviously racking focus from 2" from the front element to infinity on a zoom lens will show some breathing. Personally I'm fine with the performance even if it does not improve in the shipping units.

 

[david farland]

Evin,
thanks for sharing your knowledge / experience with hacks like myself.

In regards to the breathing you found on the Red 18~50mm, do you have a sense of whether it was more or less than the Nikon 17~35mm you tested?

Cheers,

 

[Evin Grant]

In regards to the breathing you found on the Red 18~50mm, do you have a sense of whether it was more or less than the Nikon 17~35mm you tested?

Hard to say, let me go look at the 17-35 again.......




OK I'm back.
My first impression not having the 18-50 here is that it breathes more at 50mm than the 17-35 at 35mm, but less at 18 than the 17-35 at 17mm. Zooms can be odd sometimes, the Nikkor really does breath more at 17 than 35. Huh, strange. I'd say that the 18-50 may be a touch better given the better wide performance. Honestly though, you should wait till Gibby and I have a chance to test.

 

[david farland]

Many thanks Evin. If I knew anything about lens techniques for holding magnification over focal length I could help you
.....but it's a little bit ' picture comes in here, the little man inside has a magnifying glass and shines it on the back of the camera!

But thanks again and thanks for all you work on this forum.

Dave,

 

[Dan Blanchett]

As of right now, I plan on getting the 18-50 zoom with my RED. For budget reasons, I was also thinking about getting a Nikon D40 (comes with 18-55mm zoom) to use for pre-production, slates/plates, taking quick shots on set, act as a Director's Finder, etc. It's less than $600 new with lens. Would this camera and lens cover a similar area as the RED with 18-50 zoom and provide a comparable perspective?

 

[Brian Kaz]

Just noticed on RED.COM that the ETA has changed on the 18-50 zoom from Summer 2007 to "End of 2007"

 

[Steve Gibby]

Just noticed on RED.COM that the ETA has changed on the 18-50 zoom from Summer 2007 to "End of 2007"

The wording has been that way since right after NAB. Below the picture of the lens it says "Estimated Ship Date: End of 2007", but above the picture it says: "Delivery time for the RED 18-50mm f2.8 close focus zoom lens is scheduled for Summer 2007".

Hopefully the "Summer 2007" estimate is the more accurate of the two estimates. We'll see...

Link: http://www.red.com/lenses.shtml

 

[tj williams]

Hi Gibby totally agree with your guestimate on the focus issue. It would be rather strange if RED marked their lens from the outer end like video lenses rather than from the film plane like Film lenses, then sold it in a PL mount!!

 

[jaadgy akanni]

As of right now, I plan on getting the 18-50 zoom with my RED. For budget reasons, I was also thinking about getting a Nikon D40 (comes with 18-55mm zoom) to use for pre-production, slates/plates, taking quick shots on set, act as a Director's Finder, etc. It's less than $600 new with lens. Would this camera and lens cover a similar area as the RED with 18-50 zoom and provide a comparable perspective?

I'd be much obliged if any of you could answer this question posted by Thinkbug 'cause I'm looking to buy me a camera to act among other things, as a Director's finder too. Now, Evin has been conducting his Nikon lens tests with a D2X, but I'm hoping there's a way more affordable alternative-at least something similarly spec'd in terms of the image I'd get. But as I said, something way ,way, way more affordable. What do you say Evin, instead of a D2X what can I get to test my lenses, take quick shots, use for pre-production, etc.?

Ok, I'm back from doing some investigating. Now, RED One is 12 megapixel and the D2X is 12.4, so how much difference does that .4 make as far as the image? The D40x is 10.2 megapixels, so I guess that wouldn't cut it in the lens tests. Anyone care to comment?