Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

  • 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 :)

RED 17-50mm Test

Ryan Hamblin

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
840
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
43
Location
Nashville TN
Website
www.alrrp.com
http://vimeo.com/11952040

There are a few things to let you know about, if you see a finger in the shot, its cause its holding the filter in place... We have yet to get a mattebox for the lens...thats to come soon. Other than that its a pretty down and dirty quick test. Hope it helps in your purchase decision.

Thanks to Adam of TVC (www.tvcnashville.com) for letting us use their RED. Also thanks to Zach Al-Chokhachi and Jeremy Curtis for assisting me in this test.
 
Ryan, thank for throwing up the informal test. Lens looks like a winner. What will be the mattebox of choice? What are the observations with flare control?
 
I'm going for the arri mmb-1, but mb20-II will work as well...havnt had it in a flare situation yet, so.... I guess I'll have to test asap.
 
ill try to have up some of the comparisons with cooke's up tomorrow. Its just some stills, but its pretty uncanny. They damn near match, I mean you really have to look hard to see the difference. I was surprised to see a zoom perform so well against primes.
 
Ryan, your zoom seemed a bit jerky to me. Is that the lens or operator or what? (I'm assuming it's the "what" since you seem to be the operator.
 
I was not the smoothest of opperators, nor did I have a focus controller, all hand turned. Though it is a new lens and the mechanics in the zoom are smooth, but stiff.
 
Based on the clip you posted there is a massive color shift from 25-32mm. Would you attribute that to the lens or other factors?

David
 
It was a white balance hiccup in redcine-x accidentally hit the wrong button... sorry guys. Just discovered this.
 
great price, great range, glad to hear you have an explanation for the color shift, that was scary. but what about all that breathing? it breathes more than my fat uncle albert in a hot humid day.
 
Was the 17mm breathing test at the end related to your friends breathing? :P

Beucase I didn't see you pulling focus at the end.

Great, you could shoot a whole movie with only this lens.

great price, great range, glad to hear you have an explanation for the color shift, that was scary. but what about all that breathing? it breathes more than my fat uncle albert in a hot humid day.

Is it really that bad compared to other high end short zooms?
 
Thanks for sharing this test. Everyone who does this is contributing so much to our knowledge.

Breathing seems so much more exaggerated at 17 compared to 50. Is that normal for this lens configuration?
 
Besides 17, the breathing is not that bad.

it is not at 17 where you would be doing your rack focus shots, it's in the long end, and yes, it is very bad for a movie lens, normal for a still photo lens.

the angenieux 30-80 rouge that i had did not breath in either the wide end or the long end, and that is what you would expect from a movie lens.

then again, what can you expect for such a low price? i am very happy the focus tracks, that is a biggie.
 
even at 17, its not terrible unless your racking the entire distance. In just about every normal shooting situation you do not notice the breathing.
 
Its really hard not to like the lens once you use it. I never never ever was one to use primes and I sold all my standard speeds and just have this. Now that sensor's are getting more sensitive its just a no brainer to use good zooms, and if you can go toe to toe with cookes (beating it is detail, loosing to it a bit in contrast, but basically indistinguishable) that says good zoom to me.

We intercut with the cookes alot in the Amy Grant video.
 
Back
Top