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 :)

Is T2.0 lens worth it?

Is T2.0 lens worth it?

  • Yes, and this would satisfy my desire for interchangeable lenses

    Votes: 31 26.5%

  • Yes, but I still want interchangeable lenses

    Votes: 36 30.8%

  • Yes, and I never wanted interchangeable lenses

    Votes: 26 22.2%

  • No, because I want it to be as small and light as possible

    Votes: 10 8.5%

  • No, because I want it to be a cheap as possible

    Votes: 14 12.0%
  • Total voters
    117
Chris Newman

Chris Newman

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
171
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Boulder, Colorado
Poll: Would you prefer Scarlet with a T2.0 lens for shallower depth of field and better low-light performance? Hypothetically figure it would cost $300 more, would weigh 1/2 lb. more, and would be 1 inch longer (vs. T2.8 as announced).

I am thinking that a T2.0 lens would make a lot of people more satisfied with Scarlet. Red set out to make Scarlet "Pocket", but I think small-at-all-costs is probably not in most users' best interest. For example, for weddings and ENG, the shallow depth of field and low light performance would be greatly appreciated. For zero-budget indie films, this would mean two-three stops shallower depth of field than a typical 1/3" camera, and close to major feature films and TV shows shot with 2/3" (Star Wars II, III, et al). Even "soccer moms" (and Finner) would like the low-light performance for birthday parties, school plays, etc.


Edit: Summary of this whole thread so far (5/3/08) as I remember it is below:
  • Some people think T2.0 would cost significantly more and be significantly bigger and heavier than this poll implies, and some don't. Canon 2/3" ENG lenses were presented for comparison.
  • Someone offered to burn in hell if Red could pull this off.
  • Many people would like the wide end to be as wide as possible because afocal adapters for telephoto (e.g., 2x) have better image quality than for wide angle (e.g., 0.7x).
  • Some people think a long zoom ratio (like the Canon XH-A1) is more important than aperture because a lot of people would want to use it to shoot sports.
  • Some people still seem to not understand crop factor and think that interchangeable lenses would mean they can use Nikon lenses.
  • Someone suggested that rather than a zoom lens, a variable focal length lens (that doesn't hold focus as you zoom) may be a way to get T2.0 in a smaller lens.
  • Some people think a T2.0-2.8 ramping aperture (with possibly a switch to make it fixed 2.8) may be the best compromise. (It should not significantly add to size or cost, but will provide a wide aperture in the wide focal lengths where shallower DOF is needed most.)
  • Some people think $3000 is already out of range of people shooting home movies (so Red shouldn't consider what they want.) Others don't.
 
The biggest hurtle with going from 2.8 to 2.0 is going to be zoom power. With a fixed lens, people are going to want a big magnification factor from wide to tight, to deal with all kinds of situations. Its much harder to manufacture a zoom lens that covers great focal length distance and can open really wide. THe difference would be a lot more than $300
 
Exactly. Scarlet is advertised as having an 8X zoom (all things subject to change). For me, that could be good or it could be bad, we don't know the focal lengths yet and what we may see in regards to add-ons such as wide angle or telephoto adapters. I'm assuming someone will be mounting a 35mm adapter onto Scarlet within a few hours of the first units being delivered, but that's a different animal.

I would also think that pushing the lens from T2.8 to T2 will probably require a larger lens and more than $300 expense. But then again, that's more speculation, just like most everything else in this forum.
 
How did You exactly calculate the figures?

Here is something to give You an idea of how big is the difference between f/2.8 and f/2.0 and please keep in mind that this is prime lens, zoom lens difference will be even greater...

EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM: 3.3" x 5.4", 1.7 lbs. / 83.2 x 136.2mm, 765g
EF 200mm f/2.0L IS USM: 5.0" x 8.2", 5.6 lbs. / 128mm x 208mm, 2,520g

EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM: $ 640,- USD
EF 200mm f/2.0L IS USM: $ 5999,- USD

:matrix:
 
PS: Canon, who is un-doubtfully the Master of lens design and manufacture, has NEVER managed zoom lens with constant "speed" bellow f/2.8
With all those years and experience - how could anyone ever build a lens so small (as to fit on Scarlet - even if double its size) and make it f/2.0 through out its entire zoom range???

For RED to be able to make the lens f/2.8 is already miracle and one that I will only believe once I see it myself in person. Asking anything more then that and You have crossed the line between reasonable request, even "realistic" dream and You are way into a territory of M.J.-induced hallucination...

No hard feelings - just trying to make You realized how impossible Your request is...
 
The lens You have linked is SD and will not be of sufficient clarity even for HD, let alone 3K Scarlet. The lens I've referred to is 35mm, true - but I was demonstrating the difference (both the lenses are 35mm).

The reality is that You couldn't get 8x zoom 2/3" lens with form factor to fit Scarlet being able to "run" at f/2.0 and resolve 3K without blowing the cost, size and weight out of proportion...

Trust me - be happy it the lens is going to be f/2.8 as advertised. That is going to be miracle on its own, but one I believe RED is capable of...
 
Sorry, the SD lens was a bad example. Here is an HD version:
http://www.canon.com/bctv/products/kj16ex7.7b_irse.html

SD/HD doesn't make much difference in size/weight.

My point is that f1.8 is pretty typical of professional 2/3" zoom lenses, even pretty small ones, and is not an unreasonable request for a "Professional Motion Capture Device".

Are you afraid if we ask for too much, Jim will decide that we all have bad attitudes and take Scarlet away from us?
 
Chris Newman said:
Sorry, the SD lens was a bad example. Here is an HD version:
http://www.canon.com/bctv/products/kj16ex7.7b_irse.html

SD/HD doesn't make much difference in size/weight.

My point is that f1.8 is pretty typical of professional 2/3" zoom lenses, even pretty small ones, and is not an unreasonable request for a "Professional Motion Capture Device".

Are you afraid if we ask for too much, Jim will decide that we all have bad attitudes and take Scarlet away from us?
Click to expand...

I might be wrong but isn't that a B4 mounted lens for a three sensor camera?
 
If you check out the specs of this Fuji camera 2/3inch sensor, this is a "somewhat" realistic of an option specs-wise. Obviously not a constant at 2.0, but a nice size zoom on it (14.3x)...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms100fs/

Anyway, I'll make 2.8 work, as I'm sure others will. RED continues to amaze me and the Scarlet is no exception.
 
Chris Newman said:
Sorry, the SD lens was a bad example. Here is an HD version:
http://www.canon.com/bctv/products/kj16ex7.7b_irse.html

SD/HD doesn't make much difference in size/weight.

My point is that f1.8 is pretty typical of professional 2/3" zoom lenses, even pretty small ones, and is not an unreasonable request for a "Professional Motion Capture Device".

Are you afraid if we ask for too much, Jim will decide that we all have bad attitudes and take Scarlet away from us?
Click to expand...

It might not make much difference in size/weight, but the "HD" version will set You up for $ 8K+ USD - here alone You could see my point... Now imagine the glass quality You would need to resolve 3K with f/2.8 and You could add zero to the end of the price of the original "SD" example...
 
Chris Newman said:
My point is that f1.8 is pretty typical of professional 2/3" zoom lenses, even pretty small ones, and is not an unreasonable request for a "Professional Motion Capture Device".
Click to expand...

I don't know of any pro 2/3" zoom lens that will keep f/1.8 through out its zoom range. The ones that are f/1.8 wide open go down to f/2.8 or worse in the tele-photo and in any case You are talking $ 30K USD price range for these babies! For that money You can buy Red One and outfit it with lens and accessories! Asking this from Scarlet is almost heresy - be careful or You might get burned at the stick! :innocent:
 
I think I'm missing something here. I thought Scarlet is to be a single chip camera. I believe if you want to use those 2/3" zooms like the one listed above you would need additional glass between it and a single chip sensor. This would result in some light loss but if you can live with that then there are a whole boat load of lenses out there. This might not matter as I also thought it was to be a fixed mounted lens.
 
chuck colburn said:
I think I'm missing something here. I thought Scarlet is to be a single chip camera. I believe if you want to use those 2/3" zooms like the one listed above you would need additional glass between it and a single chip sensor. This would result in some light loss but if you can live with that then there are a whole boat load of lenses out there. This might not matter as I also thought it was to be a fixed mounted lens.
Click to expand...

Chuck, You are not missing anything - in fact You are only "adding" to my explanation why such a request (viz. original post) is impossible and "heretic". For Scarlet to include 8x zoom that will HOLD f/2.8 through out its zoom range is miracle on its own and explains Jim's statement that the lens alone is worth three times as much as the whole Scarlet...

:gun:
 
Peter Majtan said:
Chuck, You are not missing anything - in fact You are only "adding" to my explanation why such a request (viz. original post) is impossible and "heretic". For Scarlet to include 8x zoom that will HOLD f/2.8 through out its zoom range is miracle on its own and explains Jim's statement that the lens alone is worth three times as much as the whole Scarlet...

:gun:
Click to expand...

Ok,

Since we don't know what that 8x range is in focale length, it's a bit premature to say that the ability to hold a constant f/T 2.8 is a real big deal. 8x is a very short range and should not be to hard to make as a quality lens. Twenty years ago Angenieux made a very sharp little lens for 16mm cameras and it's focale length range was 9.5-57mm and was a f1.6 as I recall. With the new glass formulations and the ability to generate aspherics rapidly by CNC surface generators and the more wide spread use of floating elements I think (mayby) that it would be possible to make a lens of a constant f2.0-2.8 at a price mark that would fit with the Scarlet. Decent aux. front mounted optics can extend the operating focale length on both the wide and long ends at affordable cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top