Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Introducing new wide zoom!!!!

tonaci said:
Hi Stuart,

Can you confirm ff35 coverage?
Click to expand...

All Nikon lenses (excepting the DX line which are designed for a smaller sensor about the size of s35) actually work the way they're supposed to and are 'ff35.' None of this "the image circle of this lens is half a millimeter too small, that lens is perfect size, the other lens is .75 millimeters too small, you can use the full sensor at 4K with this lens but the other lenses in the set require cropped 3K mode" craziness of the cine market.
 
PaulClements said:
Hi Stuart,

Do you mean that from one lens to another the T-Stop might vary or that at one end the of the zoom it's 2.7 and the other 2.9? Are you recoating the lenses or using the original?

Paul
Click to expand...

Paul,
We are using the original optics. All lenses vary in T stop weather zeiss Angenieux etc about 1/3 or less. are lens does not ramp.
Stuart
 
Lee Saxon said:
All Nikon lenses (excepting the DX line which are designed for a smaller sensor about the size of s35) actually work the way they're supposed to and are 'ff35.' None of this "the image circle of this lens is half a millimeter too small, that lens is perfect size, the other lens is .75 millimeters too small, you can use the full sensor at 4K with this lens but the other lenses in the set require cropped 3K mode" craziness of the cine market.
Click to expand...

Lee,
Our lens covers 35mm full frame 6k
Stuart
 
FocusOptics said:
Paul,
We are using the original optics. All lenses vary in T stop weather zeiss Angenieux etc about 1/3 or less. are lens does not ramp.
Stuart
Click to expand...
Stuart,
Thanks for answering my questions. Finally, I wanted to ask what modifications were being done to the lens that required such a cost increase over the stock lens? A quick search revealed one can pickup a Nikon 14-24mm for $1600. Could you help me understand why it should cost nearly $9,000 to rehouse? I'm not trying to be disrespectful, it's sincerely not my intention. In light of cine lens prices coming down more and more I genuinely wish to understand the improvements that must have been made for it to be more expensive than say a Red 18-85mm which to the best of my knowledge has been designed and built from the ground up.

Thankyou
Paul
 
Stuart, I would also like to thank you for all your answers and would also like to kindly ask for a basic explanation of what goes into the re-house that makes it so expensive. I know all too little to really understand why it could be so expensive.

Did you think about posting one or two of the finished lens pictures on the first post of this thread? Not a big deal, but it might help those just getting around to checking it out for the first time to see how sexy it looked in the end. :)
 
To all of you who are questioning Stuarts More than reasonable price for this lens you need to seriously think about the steps involved. Put yourself in his shoes:

1) buy a $1,600 lens (16% of the total asking price out the door immediately)

2) completely take it apart 15 times to get a feel for the lens design. As in a bunch of lens elements sitting on the desk in front of you. Then take it apart again.

3) throw almost everything else away.

4) figure out how to put it back together with the exact same spacing and perfect centerline tolerance.

5) Decide what kind of focusing mechanism to design. Hellical, Cam, etc

6) redesign the iris actuator.

7) Design and machine all those parts. Keep in mind the machining tolerances aren't going to be the kind you find at your average machine shop. This is a job for only the best mills/lathes, cutters and operators.

8) Assemble to the highest standards cinema lenses require, and pray.

So that give or take would be about 1000 man hours. Each lens after that will probably take 24 man hours to assemble and test. Then factor in that you will realistically only sell 100-300 of these. So material and quantity discounts for supplies really don't factor in.
Guys this is a job that literally only a handful of people in the world can do. If you dislike the fact he's charging a minimal price for his experience (20+ years?) and delivering a superb lens at the end of the day, maybe you should go back to the Nikon mount version and take your chances.

(disclaimer: I have the Nikon mount version of this lens and use it on the Red all the time)
 
Mike Prevette said:
To all of you who are questioning Stuarts More than reasonable price for this lens you need to seriously think about the steps involved. Put yourself in his shoes:

1) buy a $1,600 lens

2) completely take it apart. As in a bunch of lens elements sitting on the desk in front of you.

3) throw almost everything else away.

4) figure out how to put it back together with the exact same spacing and perfect centerline tolerance.

5) Decide what kind of focusing mechanism to design. Hellical, Cam, etc

6) redesign the iris actuator.

7) Design and machine all those parts.

8) Assemble to the highest standards cinema lenses require, and pray.

So that give or take would be about 1000 man hours. Then factor in that you will realistically only sell 100-300 of these. So material and quantity discounts for supplies really don't factor in.
Guys this is a job that literally only a handful of people in the world can do. If you dislike the fact he's charging a minimal price for his experience (20+ years?) and delivering a superb lens at the end of the day, maybe you should go back to the Nikon mount version and take your chances.

(disclaimer: I have the Nikon mount version of this lens and use it on the Red all the time)
Click to expand...
Hi Mike,

It's not that I dislike anything and if one is to promote their wears in a forum then they should expect questions to be asked about price and performance. As I said before, and I did try to put it politely, I wasn't trying to be disrespectful, but I'm guessing from the tone of your reply both you and DigitalFX probably thought I was.

I have the upmost respect for individuals with such talent. But with the introduction of the Red Camera there is a new market for selling such lenses which people are only now beginning to tap into where lower prices and higher quantities converge.

I was hesitant to write my previous post for want of being flamed and I hate the fact that I'm writing this in response in order to defend a line of questioning which personally I feel is perfectly reasonable given this is a public forum for a camera company who sell their own lenses and are direct competition.

Finally, whilst in your own email you have outlined what has been done it hasn't necessarily outlined the improvements. For instance, if the lens housing is a complete overhaul and the whole lens is being dismantled and the glass only inserted into an entirely new housing then why not make the focus marks more spread out with a greater throw instead of the equivalent distance they are as a still lens? As I wrote in another thread when I visited Van Diemen I was shown the housings used on their leicas back when they use to convert them. These things had their own bespoke, patented design and cost approximately two to two and a half times that of the original still lens. He explained to me what they were doing and why it cost the price it did, I could see the value because of his explaination. That's all I was asking.

Paul
 
Thanks for posting Mike. I too am only curious. I can only judge by seeing the images and playing with the rings. I am just curious to learn about the work behind the courtain, that is all.

Didn't he re-use some of the mechanics? Otherwise why is the focus throw not longer? Os is that also limited by the design of the glasses which only give you so much room for movement?
 
Paul,
Sorry, my post wasn't directed at you. I was only attempting to say that there are many ways to convert a lens and Stuart choose the most expensive method. The saying you get what you pay for applies, and Stuarts work speaks for itself as Mike more eloquently stated in his post. Sometimes my humor is lost in translation.
 
Mike Prevette said:
To all of you who are questioning Stuarts More than reasonable price for this lens you need to seriously think about the steps involved. Put yourself in his shoes:

1) buy a $1,600 lens (16% of the total asking price out the door immediately)

2) completely take it apart 15 times to get a feel for the lens design. As in a bunch of lens elements sitting on the desk in front of you. Then take it apart again.

3) throw almost everything else away.

4) figure out how to put it back together with the exact same spacing and perfect centerline tolerance.

5) Decide what kind of focusing mechanism to design. Hellical, Cam, etc

6) redesign the iris actuator.

7) Design and machine all those parts. Keep in mind the machining tolerances aren't going to be the kind you find at your average machine shop. This is a job for only the best mills/lathes, cutters and operators.

8) Assemble to the highest standards cinema lenses require, and pray.

So that give or take would be about 1000 man hours. Each lens after that will probably take 24 man hours to assemble and test. Then factor in that you will realistically only sell 100-300 of these. So material and quantity discounts for supplies really don't factor in.
Guys this is a job that literally only a handful of people in the world can do. If you dislike the fact he's charging a minimal price for his experience (20+ years?) and delivering a superb lens at the end of the day, maybe you should go back to the Nikon mount version and take your chances.

(disclaimer: I have the Nikon mount version of this lens and use it on the Red all the time)
Click to expand...

What Mike says. Been there done that (with one hell of a lot of help) it is not easy.
 
Very nice Stuart -
I really like the fact that the exterior design is so similar to what one would usually find at Panavision, who I feel make & re-design the best lenses. Simple flat surfaces with rings/focus scales that run flush.
I really wish more lens makers would just simplify their housings to look more like this and most of Panavision's lenses. The marks never look off a line while at off angles. No itsy-bitsy window frames to look through and to try to write in a mark with a grease pencil or lay a little tape mark down on, like on the dumb side of the new Red 18-85. And no thick ridges like on Zeiss lenses (and these early mockups of the Red primes.)
A flatter design is much nicer for the focus puller.

Have a good one,
Jozo Zovko
 
Sorry guys If i came off harsh, I pulled an all niter in the edit bay last night and wasn't being as sensitive with my wording as I should have been.

I have a huge amount of respect for Stuart (and chuck and the Duclos's and a hand full of amazing techs). I was emotionally reacting to something I see more and more as we get farther away from the "Before Red (BR)" days . It's this attitude that film equipment is like the consumer electronics business and that these guys are going to be making millions of these things. Red literally DOUBLED the number of PL mount cameras in the world! And with it a lot of people "stepped up" from the more consumer oriented video world. B+H never sold Arri 435's or Aaton's, almost everything in the film industry was made to order because there was just so few out there. The idea that each lens should be cheap just because people are coming from the world where Nikon or Canon makes 500,000 of a certain lens doesn't hold up in the professional cinema world. Even with 10,000 PL mounts out there in the world you can't lower your prices to the same margins Nikon or Canon do.
 
digitalfx said:
http://www.imtoocheaptodoitright.com
Click to expand...
The link seems to be broken Dfx, do you know anywhere else I can find them :)

Oh and Mike, I very much agree with having respect for these fellas. I'd love to learn half of what most of them know about modding and constructing lenses. For me it's probably the ultimate tinkering one could do and something that very much fascinates me.

Paul
 
I've been consulting on the design of this lens since the beginning so hopefully I can clear a few things up...

1st of all the focus throw is expanded, and quite ingeniously but I'm not going to give away any secrets. You can expect about twice the rotational distance/precision on Ruby than a geared up stock 14-24 Nikkor not to mention the correct cinema direction of travel and zero backlash. Also don't forget calibrated witness marks, the distance markings on the stock lens go from 2.5' right to infinity:yikes: This is a wide angle lens that starts at T2.8 pulling focus on it should not be an issue with these marks.

2nd, modified zoom mechanics for precise tracking like a real cinema lens.

3rd, manual, geared iris with calibrated T stops.

4th, cinema standard size front OD barrel with ruggedized support and stainless steel PL lens mount.
 
PaulClements said:
The link seems to be broken Dfx, do you know anywhere else I can find them :)

Paul
Click to expand...

Try the corner of Canal and Lafayette in NYC...there is a little shop, go to the back. They are behind the fake wall.
 
Mike Prevette said:
Sorry guys If i came off harsh, I pulled an all niter in the edit bay last night and wasn't being as sensitive with my wording as I should have been.
Click to expand...

You :cursing:! Hehe... don't think it was but if this was directed at me then no worries man!
(we really need to get rid of the white pixels... I can't communicate as fast without smileys)

Evin Grant said:
expanded, and quite ingeniously but I'm not going to give away any secrets.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. It would have been interesting to learn a little bit about how the mechanics work. All I can imagine are little gears set up flat against the barrel and with the teeth cut at an angle. I'd be happy to know if that is how the stuff works.

Evin Grant said:
This is a wide angle lens that starts at T2.8 pulling focus on it should not be an issue with these marks.
Click to expand...

I am really hoping this will be the case in my personal opinion, but it is hard for me to foresee that. However I am very optimistic after hearing so many with much more experience sounding exited about the focusing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top