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 :)

Is Red getting ready to release Pro Primes, Mk II?

I hope they are smaller, lighter, and T1.3! haha. The RPP's are so sharp and clean, only down side is the size, weight, and lack of markings. It would be awesome if they came out with lenses that cover FF and are light and fast. They would be a huge hit.
 
Matt Ryan said:
It would be awesome if they came out with lenses that cover FF and are light and fast. They would be a huge hit.
Click to expand...


Yeah if RED could make a small set of Super Speeds that covered DRAGON, that'd be ​awesome.
 
Last edited:
If I'm remembering correctly, Jim or Jarred said that they were preparing for another production run of the current generation of RPPs, and were working on a new generation of lenses that were going to be available "not this year"
 
It has been rumored that the supplier of RED's glass has run out. And they are finding new guys.


ALL HEARSAY. Jarred, don't find me.
 
Wouldn't it be cool if they could manufacture faster, smaller, sharper and lighter lenses for a more affordable rate! Obviously the Rokinon's aren't the highest quality but their new Cine Lenses look pretty good and are practically free in terms of cinema lens prices. Then theres the new zeiss Super Speed CP.2's, and the Canon Cine Lenses all which cover FF sensors and are light and fast. I think RED has a real opportunity to blow away the competition if they bring out faster and better lenses.
 
At CiniGear this past year I was present when all the major lens competitors talked about the future of lenses making. RED was not there.

To boil it down to basics. Lenses are VERY difficult to make right. Not much is gonna change in the years to come. Old good lenses will stay valuable. New lenses will be expensive but ever worse than that, they will have you waiting years on a list when they do come out. Here's hoping for RPP MK II. Small, light, T1.3 fast.

Matt Ryan said:
I hope they are smaller, lighter, and T1.3! haha. The RPP's are so sharp and clean, only down side is the size, weight, and lack of markings. It would be awesome if they came out with lenses that cover FF and are light and fast. They would be a huge hit.
Click to expand...
 
Are we contributing to something terrible on the gathering side, akin to Blood Diamonds? Where is the glass for our optic's coming from?

Zac C said:
It has been rumored that the supplier of RED's glass has run out. And they are finding new guys.


ALL HEARSAY. Jarred, don't find me.
Click to expand...
 
I am not in the market for cine lenses. But I have opinions. Many of them! Here is just a small sample from my fine, well maintained collection:

- Why this obsession with wide apertures? T/1.3 is not necessary. T/2.0 will be fine. You like shallow DOF? Okay, cool. But don't feed me that 'film look' BS. What are you, a DSLR kid?

- No distortion please. None. That Zeiss ZF (and CP) 18mm is a POS.

- 'Full-frame' is not necessary either. You people are cinematographers - 'full-frame' means 4-perf 35mm.

- Ceramics have been used in lenses for some time now. Maybe it's worth considering this material?

- Maybe focus on bokeh rather than sharpness and contrast. Obviously it's never an either-or decision, but some Leica lenses, usually older ones, are very sought after because, even though they resolve well, they have a beautiful rendering quality.

- Minimize CA. I know it can be done because some SLR lenses - even inexpensive super-wides - have very low CA while others have very high CA.
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
I am not in the market for cine lenses. But I have opinions. Many of them! Here is just a small sample from my fine, well maintained collection:

- Why this obsession with wide apertures? T/1.3 is not necessary. T/2.0 will be fine. You like shallow DOF? Okay, cool. But don't feed me that 'film look' BS. What are you, a DSLR kid?

- No distortion please. None. That Zeiss ZF (and CP) 18mm is a POS.

- 'Full-frame' is not necessary either. You people are cinematographers - 'full-frame' means 4-perf 35mm.

- Ceramics have been used in lenses for some time now. Maybe it's worth considering this material?

- Maybe focus on bokeh rather than sharpness and contrast. Obviously it's never an either-or decision, but some Leica lenses, usually older ones, are very sought after because, even though they resolve well, they have a beautiful rendering quality.

- Minimize CA. I know it can be done because some SLR lenses - even inexpensive super-wides - have very low CA while others have very high CA.
Click to expand...

1. Wide aperture is there if you need it. I shoot concerts from time to time and documentaries where a t1.3 is a benefit (rather than cranking ISO). Sure 2.0 is plenty for anything I light, but having the option to open up is a huge benefit. I also shoot night shots of the city, cars, buildings, etc, so 1.3 is a huge bonus for that. This is a reason I love the Super Speeds. I tend to use them around f2.8-4.0 most of the time but always have that fallback if necessary or for close ups where I really want to minimize the focal plane. I have also never even owned a dslr so no to your question if I'm a "DSLR kid," which I find offensive. The reason I want lenses that cover FF is the new Dragon sensor is larger than S35, and the following Monstro sensor is said to be FF. This would make the lenses useful for years to come without being obsolete. Sure there are plenty of camera's that have s35 sensors, but I don't want to window down to 5k on a 6k sensor just so my lenses cover when shooting with RED cameras. Plus using FF lenses on s35 sensors means your using the best part of the glass. "Film Look BS," don't even know what your talking about....

2. Full Frame coverage is strictly for the reason above. If the upcoming sensors were S35 size I wouldn't say we needed FF lenses. I hate CP.2's with a passion. The distortion, CA, color shifts, and shitty wide angle lens make the set terrible in my opinion. Even though 4Perf 35mm is considered FF, these are Digital cameras with digital sensors. FF is completely different on digital systems unfortunately. Otherwise all would be good.

3. The reason I said similar to Super Speeds is the bokeh is beautiful and the skin rendering is amazing... I also love the flares.
A012_C031_08111P.0000802.jpg


Slate.jpg


A012_C003_0811J1.0001075.jpg


and a shot on the Super Speed 50mm at t1.3:
ColetteBCKGRD2.jpg
 
Matt Ryan said:
1. Wide aperture is there if you need it. I shoot concerts from time to time and documentaries where a t1.3 is a benefit (rather than cranking ISO). Sure 2.0 is plenty for anything I light, but having the option to open up is a huge benefit. I also shoot night shots of the city, cars, buildings, etc, so 1.3 is a huge bonus for that. This is a reason I love the Super Speeds. I tend to use them around f2.8-4.0 most of the time but always have that fallback if necessary or for close ups where I really want to minimize the focal plane. I have also never even owned a dslr so no to your question if I'm a "DSLR kid," which I find offensive. The reason I want lenses that cover FF is the new Dragon sensor is larger than S35, and the following Monstro sensor is said to be FF. This would make the lenses useful for years to come without being obsolete. Sure there are plenty of camera's that have s35 sensors, but I don't want to window down to 5k on a 6k sensor just so my lenses cover when shooting with RED cameras. Plus using FF lenses on s35 sensors means your using the best part of the glass. "Film Look BS," don't even know what your talking about....

2. Full Frame coverage is strictly for the reason above. If the upcoming sensors were S35 size I wouldn't say we needed FF lenses. I hate CP.2's with a passion. The distortion, CA, color shifts, and shitty wide angle lens make the set terrible in my opinion. Even though 4Perf 35mm is considered FF, these are Digital cameras with digital sensors. FF is completely different on digital systems unfortunately. Otherwise all would be good.
Click to expand...



Just because you are using the center of FF glass doesn't mean it's going to be better than well made glass that doesn't cover FF. I've seen plenty of lenses that are FF photography lenses that still have crappy distortion, CA, and even vignetting, and I was using the 'sweetest' spot of the glass. Doesn't mean anything, really. It just means you are being spared the awful awful shit that resides on the edges. I'd compare Zeiss Ultra's to the centers of full frame lenses any day of the week.

I won't be shooting on FF sensor unless forced to in the future. I don't think it is the future, and if it is, point #1 is going to be pointless, because i'll be shooting everything at a 5.6/8 split to get my DoF back.
 
Matt Ryan said:
so no to your question if I'm a "DSLR kid," which I find offensive.
Click to expand...

I was talking to the air, so to speak, and not to anyone in particular. Sorry about that.

As for the Super Speeds, I do wonder, like most people, why they are not at least reproduced, if not updated. I don't think that any DP would prefer the Compact Primes to the Super Speeds. A big WTF there.

That frame you posted of the girl on the couch is beautifully lit (and composed). No doubt the lens adds at least some of the character to the image. It seems true that cutting edge sensors require more classic optics - proof that newer isn't always better. It's close to film-like - no doubt a function of the sensor more than anything, but the lens doesn't hurt! The noise isn't quite film-like but hey, you can't have everything. :-)
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Just because you are using the center of FF glass doesn't mean it's going to be better than well made glass that doesn't cover FF. I've seen plenty of lenses that are FF photography lenses that still have crappy distortion, CA, and even vignetting, and I was using the 'sweetest' spot of the glass. Doesn't mean anything, really. It just means you are being spared the awful awful shit that resides on the edges. I'd compare Zeiss Ultra's to the centers of full frame lenses any day of the week.

I won't be shooting on FF sensor unless forced to in the future. I don't think it is the future, and if it is, point #1 is going to be pointless, because i'll be shooting everything at a 5.6/8 split to get my DoF back.
Click to expand...

Then I guess you wont be shooting in 6K on Dragon or on the Monstro Sensor as they are larger than S35 and Monstro is FF. Anyways, there are many reasons for FF lenses from an owner POV. I'm not talking about shitty CP.2's here and still lenses which have terrible CA etc. I'm talking about RPP's made in FF that are lighter and smaller like Super Speeds. Obviously it would have to be good glass. I'm saying they are beneficial for S35 as well as then you would get good proper center of glass to shoot with. Then if you want to shoot FF your lenses are already set, or if s35 is what you want, great you can have that too with the same set of lenses....
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
I was talking to the air, so to speak, and not to anyone in particular. Sorry about that.

As for the Super Speeds, I do wonder, like most people, why they are not at least reproduced, if not updated. I don't think that any DP would prefer the Compact Primes to the Super Speeds. A big WTF there.

That frame you posted of the girl on the couch is beautifully lit (and composed). No doubt the lens adds at least some of the character to the image. It seems true that cutting edge sensors require more classic optics - proof that newer isn't always better. It's close to film-like - no doubt a function of the sensor more than anything, but the lens doesn't hurt! The noise isn't quite film-like but hey, you can't have everything. :-)
Click to expand...

Hey sorry as well, I took that the wrong way.

I really wish Super Speeds could be copied well as they are beautiful lenses, fast, and in a small and light housing. That would be amazing.

The girl on the couch wasn't lit which was my point in proving that a t1.3 comes in handy when you need it. The only light in the room is an 80W lamp to her left about 5 feet away. Every once in a while I have to grab a shot like that, so to me having the option of going to a 1.3 is a huge bonus. It's not for everyone, and any shoot where you light properly a 2.0 is more than enough. I just hope that if someone spends the R&D money to create new lenses that they will make them as versatile as possible as well as near future proof in making the FF to cover every possible sensor size available.
 
Big fan of uber speeds. However, they fall apart contrast wise wide open. I tend to stay at 2.0 or above. That said, when you have to open up, it's there for you. I do wish they just updated them. The last revisions of Mk 3's were so spot on. RPP's on the other hand, sharp as they are require a bit of know how to get them to look real nice. Here's a fine sample of footage shot on RPP's:

http://www.timnaylor.com/vid_martin.html
 
Ned Wilson said:
Big fan of uber speeds. However, they fall apart contrast wise wide open. I tend to stay at 2.0 or above. That said, when you have to open up, it's there for you. I do wish they just updated them. The last revisions of Mk 3's were so spot on. RPP's on the other hand, sharp as they are require a bit of know how to get them to look real nice. Here's a fine sample of footage shot on RPP's:

http://www.timnaylor.com/vid_martin.html
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say fall apart wide open, but they do lose contrast. But that milky contrast actually helps capture more DR because it is effectively raising the blacks. The pic I posted of the girl above is wide open and I didn't make any post corrections. The good thing is contrast can always be added back in post. Thats lit with one 80w bulb in the lamp to her left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top