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 :)

Have RPPs been discontinued? Why?

IMO the RPPs are the best bang for the buck for shooting motion content on large single sensor rigs. Lenses made for still photography can be used effectively for shooting motion projects - with cost and weight savings. That said, unless keeping the rig small is a crucial consideration I'd take the RPPs every time - especially for narrative.

Cheers - #19
 
Wow guys, if these lenses are so popular like all you guys say, It's imaginable that they would continue manufacturing them. Hmmmm, I wonder why they stopped making them if they were selling so well...
 
Jon Jones said:
Wow guys, if these lenses are so popular like all you guys say, It's imaginable that they would continue manufacturing them. Hmmmm, I wonder why they stopped making them if they were selling so well...
Click to expand...


RED made these out of necessity at the time. Who knows what kind of profit they were making but I suspect it wasn't huge. Ever since laws were passed for products to no include lead, many lens manufactures had to redesign the lenses. Today, RED probably looked at this undertaking as unnecessary as there are many options available now. So I'm not surprised that the RPP well had dried up.
 
I would wager that like many such endeavors building lenses is more cost effective when done in decent sized runs. While there is obviously some market for the RPPs, if the minimum cost effective run is several times more units than they sold in the last 12 months it has the potential to create aging inventory dynamics that smart businesses prefer to avoid.

I would also venture a guess that since they have been able to make such a wonderfully small camera, their next foray into lenses, when and if they ever do so, will feature smaller and lighter designs better matched to the platform.

Cheers - #19
 
I completely agree!

Blair S. Paulsen said:
I would wager that like many such endeavors building lenses is more cost effective when done in decent sized runs. While there is obviously some market for the RPPs, if the minimum cost effective run is several times more units than they sold in the last 12 months it has the potential to create aging inventory dynamics that smart businesses prefer to avoid.

I would also venture a guess that since they have been able to make such a wonderfully small camera, their next foray into lenses, when and if they ever do so, will feature smaller and lighter designs better matched to the platform.

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...
 
Does anyone have experience with the zoom they still sell? I was thinking of getting a BT red zoom vs a real old Angie... Imagine the newer glass from Red would be better mechanics/breathing then some super retro stuff. Basically trying to move into PL and way from Nikkors at some point
 
Its a shame you have to work with directors who are very misinformed. RPP Glass is great... Best bang for the buck hands down!

jordan levy said:
full frame still lenses are much more affordable, hold their value, way more versitle and serviceable!
i even get directors that say; "as long as you are not shooting on red lenses..."
Click to expand...
 
RPP's are vastly underrated. I'd take them over any still lens. Sure they're a bit heavy, but hell, I use an Alexa all the time and the body size alone makes up the difference between that and an Epic/RPP's package. They're lighter than a Fuji 19-90. Any steadicam op worth they're weight has little to complain about, especially if they're were raised on film.

They had some issues. First, at certain stops they'd have odd flaring artifacts. But once you found its sweet spot, they looked great. The other moan from AC's was that the focus scale got too tight at the high end of the scale, making for a less than progressive pull. I respect my AC's but I never saw this as a huge problem as we rarely would get buzzed on them any more than any other lens. In short, they adapted.

I think it became fashionable to bash them, for whatever ill informed reason.

Here's a fine example of RPP footage I've found: http://www.timnaylor.com/vid_martin.html. I was told it was all RPP. Can't see any RPP's deal breakers here.

In short, of all the sub 30k lenses, I think these were the best and in many ways held their own or surpassed many lenses that cost more. I'd take them over Panchros. Need that extra stop for commercial work when I'm shooting in tight spaces. Definitely blew the old Schneider Xenars away (though Duclos says the new ones are awesome).

Anyway, I hope Red sticks around in the glass business. Good glass is the long term low yield bond while cameras are short term high yield (which is why I'm out of the owner op game).
 
Jon Jones said:
Yes were all just a bunch of dummies here... I prefer the term mannequin thank you!
Click to expand...


Sorry Jon, I did not mean to offend you personally, but a more likely story than "sales suck" is that their profit margin was so minimal on the RPPs that they let their manufacturing line die a natural death, rather than continuing to sell something at such a slim margin of profit. No other manufacturer has been able to replicate the quality for the price point, to date.

But neither of us really know the real reason, and RED has never disclosed it.
 
Brian Merlen said:
Does anyone have experience with the zoom they still sell? I was thinking of getting a BT red zoom vs a real old Angie... Imagine the newer glass from Red would be better mechanics/breathing then some super retro stuff. Basically trying to move into PL and way from Nikkors at some point
Click to expand...

Maybe I am just lucky but my 17-50 is as sharp as my primes ( or very close), I love it. It will vignette a bit at the 17mm end in 5K so it's not perfect. But it's light, compared to the RPPs and great for hand held or steadicam.
 
Mark Andersen said:
Maybe I am just lucky but my 17-50 is as sharp as my primes ( or very close), I love it. It will vignette a bit at the 17mm end in 5K so it's not perfect. But it's light, compared to the RPPs and great for hand held or steadicam.
Click to expand...


The 17-50 does vignette at 5kFF but that is why I also have the Angenieux glass as well. I imagine if some cinema glass has issues with the dragon sensor, RED will re-release a set of RPPs.
 
I think RED get's a lot of street credit for breaking up the lens world, I mean before red you mainly rented cinema glass and often were not even allowed to buy it in the contract(even if the lens was damaged, you had to return it). This also continued into the cinema vs still glass, i mean what movie camera can you use just about any piece of glass. What ever the reason is (and I'm sure the RED exec's would love to tell us and are sitting on their hands), I'm really glad RED did what they did and I have a few of the RPP's (which I'm sure will be classic's).
 
Meryem Ersoz said:
Sorry Jon, I did not mean to offend you personally, but a more likely story than "sales suck" is that their profit margin was so minimal on the RPPs that they let their manufacturing line die a natural death, rather than continuing to sell something at such a slim margin of profit. No other manufacturer has been able to replicate the quality for the price point, to date.

But neither of us really know the real reason, and RED has never disclosed it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think the reason is quite obvious. Red did not manufacture these lenses from scratch, there was other parties involved in the making. And when other companies now have started to produce low cost cine glass or basically cut their prices down. Then there is no real reason for RED to continue to make lenses. What they did was great for everyone except other lens manufacturer ( some might say even they benefitted as, red made just about any film guy thinking of buying real lenses, that was not really the case prior to red pro primes) Now when the market has responded and lowered it's margins Jim is vice enough to get out of the water and focus on other things, that is probably more interesting to him and also more profitable. Making lenses for less is probably not his main focus in life, especially now when just about everyone else is doing the same :)
 
I think releasing the dragon and keeping the RED Pro Primes lineup would be a quite strange way forward for RED. To me it would be more suitable then to come up with a new line of lenses that is covering 2x dragon or such, something that will last for a couple of years and sensors. The whole obsolete talk does not fly so well with lenses that does not cover the whole sensors does it?

I like them for jobs where the lens should not show in any way. Like green screen jobs and such. We use them every other month shooting commercial for a fabric retail chain. For that they are quite good, sharp and good color accuracy. But I do not fancy them for anything else than straight shots. Do not see them having any appealing focus fall of like the leicas and the cooke's. They are more like a low price alternative to masterprimes. That to me also has no real character just sharp good image and opens up without loosing sharpness. but the out of focus looks a lot like poor computer blur to me and can not be even compared to the Summilux -C's in that regard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top