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 :)

RED 18-50 vs Nikon

Well, if you want a full set of focal lengths, aim for Nikon. If you want cinema-grade performance, go with the 18-50. Obviously, stepping up to the 18-85 is a much easier choice (ie. Get the 18-85!) but if the 18-50 is your only option, then you've got a tough choice to make.

Think about it, you could buy a 17-35mm 2.8, a 28-70mm 2.8, and an 80-200mm 2.8 zoom lens for about the same price as the 18-50mm 2.8. You'll have full manual control of the lenses and you can carry them up to the FF35 sensors on Scarlet and Epic once they come out.

However, if you're only going to be on S35 sensors, like the current RED One, then you could always try for DX-sized glass like the 17-55mm 2.8 or even, the all in one, 18-200mm 3.5 and use the modified Nikon mount from Douglas Underdahl, which you would want anyway for the Nikon mount right off the bat.

Then, there's always the primes. You could go onto Kenrockwell.com and do some research on which lenses work best for you. But here's some focal lengths you could look at for the price of the 18-50.

20mm 2.8, 24mm 2.0, 28mm 2.0-2.8, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2-1.4, 85mm 1.4, 105mm 1.8, and 135mm 2.8.

That's a good range, but you could go higher, like 200mm 2.8, but it all depends on how far you want to go with primes versus getting the 80-200mm 2.8 for the price of a single higher up prime.

You can mix and match the zooms with the primes too. Plus there's specialty stuff like the 28mm 1.4 prime, the legendary 58mm 1.2 prime, 14mm 2.8 prime, 11-16mm 2.8 DX Tokina zoom, and, if you have the modified Nikon mount and no need for filters, the phenomenal 14-24mm 2.8 zoom. It all depends on your budget and what you're going for.

But realize that with still lenses, you're giving up the robustness of the 18-50mm PL zoom. The iris ring doesn't click, the focus is repeatable (ie. you can mark it for 100% consistency), and it's just designed for filmmaking. But, again, it just depends on your budget and what you're going after.
 
great example. makes me hungry. I'd be curious to see the same subject shot with nikon then the red lens.

thanks,
Howie
 
Thanks for the feedback Zack. I've got a set of Nikons and the RED lens, but for some reason I felt like the RED wasn't as good as the Nikons initially so I stopped using it. Now I'm wondering if I should give it another shot. The only time I used it was for a test a few months back. Of course, without renting additional lenses, I'm limited to 50mm where as with the Nikons I have up to 200mm.

I have the red nikon mount. Maybe I should look at the one you mentioned.

Howie
 
aviddv1 said:
great example. makes me hungry. I'd be curious to see the same subject shot with nikon then the red lens.

thanks,
Howie
Click to expand...

I think it would look about the same.
The big difference is of course the
difference between using still & cinema lenses.

These shoots were with two different cameras
and at two different locations.
 
Zack Birlew said:
Think about it, you could buy a 17-35mm 2.8, a 28-70mm 2.8, and an 80-200mm 2.8 zoom lens for about the same price as the 18-50mm 2.8. You'll have full manual control of the lenses and you can carry them up to the FF35 sensors on Scarlet and Epic once they come out.
Click to expand...

I bought all 3 for $3553 :) about half of the RED 18-50

I'd argue about the 18-85. It's an amazing lens and an amazing value. However it's also a monster. Just for me personally, I'd rather get the 18-50 and 50-200. The 18-85 is 10 pounds and a foot long! Plus it requires extra hardware like a lens support. All that makes it almost impossible to handhold or steadicam easily, and just slows down production in general for a small crew.

If the camera's never leaving the dolly then the 18-85 is a better value, but the two 3 pound zooms seem much more versital to me. Plus, i/pin data :)
 
Jason Ing said:
Brandon, how are you liking your 3 lenses? Got or know of any footage?
Click to expand...

Function wise, I love them, but to be honest, I'm having significant CA issues and I'm not sure what to do about it. Hopefully some friendly REDusers will help me out.
 
CA issues on all of them? shit. Thanks for the heads up. I was considering the 17-35, but I read that it isn't sharp opened up.

I just cancelled my birger mount (i have the canon 24-70L and 70-200L).

I was considering the Nikon 85mm (1.4?) and 50mm (1.8?). Or a 24 and 14. Something like that. Just 3 lenses, good but reasonable. Maybe because they're prime they'll be better and won't have CA issues?
 
I wonder if AE has a plug-in or feature that will correct the CA like lightroom does? There's got to be a CA correction ability for one of the compositers.
 
Jason Ing said:
CA issues on all of them? shit.

I just cancelled my birger mount (i have the canon 24-70L and 70-200L).

I was considering the Nikon 85mm (1.4?) and 50mm (1.8?). Or a 24 and 14. Something like that. Just 3 lenses, good but reasonable. Maybe because they're prime they'll be better and won't have CA issues?
Click to expand...


these are Nikon's premier zooms, so I'm going to assume they're just on my lenses. Also, I just noticed the CA, so it might not be all the lenses, maybe just one. I'll find out the next time I shoot.
 
Red isn't full frame, right? So what is a 50mm on the Red, etc.? I remember a post that figured it out.
 
remember that Nikon and Canon's DSLR's are not full frame (well, some of them are, but most are not) so a 50mm on your DSLR is about the same as 50mm on RED
 
As for the 18-50 to compare... It's been discussed here before, lots... But here's my take on the 18-50 vs. Nikon lenses (or other similar still lenses).

The 18-50 offers some nice advantages such as continuous iris (no detents to click into) and much longer throw distance for rotation of focus and zoom. It's measured in T stops for those that are more cine-minded. Overall it's a good lens for the money, especially for a lens that provides cine-style operation. Oh, it also has the /i data contacts. The compact size makes it excellent for handheld and steadicam use. It also has a great close-focus ability. Overall, the lens is rather good optically. Nice contrast, pretty sharp for a compact zoom, good color rendition.

Some of the caveats or trade-offs of the lens is that there were compromises made with the design. Just part of the deal in order to make the desired price to performance ratio. The mechanics can often feel a bit gritty or even loose, it tends to vary from one lens to another somewhat. My 18-50 runs pretty smooth, but I've felt some that are very loose or gritty by comparison. The lens mostly holds focus throughout the zoom range, but I've found the focus to drift a bit if you're racking from one end of the zoom range to the other, a bit more so if going from tele to wide. However, it holds focus better than most still lenses out there. The breathing on this lens is bad. There, I said it, it's awful. It's not an internally contained design, the front element telescopes in and out when zooming. Hence the permanently attached front hood on the lens to protect the lens.

I'll leave the comparative shots to others who have already done them. But I will say that the 18-50 is priced fine for what it is. It's a cine-style lens that performs more like a still lens, but overall fits in between most still photo lenses and cine lenses. It has a lot of advantages. I originally did not purchase this lens with my RED because of all the compromises and some of the gritty feeling ones I had encountered. But I picked one up about 2 months ago and I regularly find good uses for it. I don't own any good PL mount primes right now (holding out for RED primes) and the 18-50 has been a life-saver for steadicam use as it has saved me from renting lenses on several occasions. I just try to not rack focus or zoom much or at all with this lens to avoid the breathing or the occasional gritty motion.
 
im in the same boat... still vs RED zooms.

The Zeiss ZF look nice though. and a nikon 17-35 f2.8... but still it gets up there... The 18-85 is soo nice but huge and this is an issue for me.

Arggh Dilemma. (add a Epic upgrade and alot of dough in that regard..)
 
One of my RED cameras has a Nikon mount, and the others have PL mounts. My crews and me regularly use Nikon lenses and PL cine lenses.

We don't shoot narrative cinema (by choice), but we do shoot about every other genre you could name.

The Nikon lenses we use are:

Zoom: 17-35 f2.8, 28-70 f2.8, ED 80-200 f2.8 AF, 50-300 f4.5 AIS

Prime: 14mm f.2.8 AF, 20mm f2.8 AIS, 24mm f2 AIS, 28mm f2.8 AIS, 180mm f2.8 AIS, 400mm f3.5 AIS

Except for the 17-35 and 14mm, I bought each of these lenses used, some from B&H, a few off of Craig’s List, and a few in local photography shops.

We've had very good results with our Nikon lenses - very few obvious problems (CA, vignetting, pin cushion, etc.). All the ones we have are designed to cover full frame 35mm still, thus on RED One, where S35mm is being covered, you’re using the center portion of the lens, usually the strength zone of a 35mm stills lens. Google reviews on each of those lenses and for the most part you'll find very good reviews. That said, each individual lens will vary. If buying new, test the lens out quickly, and if it is sub-par, send it back for another one. If buying used, check the lens out carefully, and if it doesn't meet your expectations, sell it and find another. Once you get a good kit of lenses, treat them well and they will usually perform very well for years.

RED lenses:
I own and have been using the RED 18-50 and RED 300 for the past 15 months now. In general, I agree with what Jeff Kilgroe posted about the 18-50, although mine doesn’t have the gritty feel in mechanics he described, and it doesn’t breathe anywhere near what he described. It is different than most cine lenses in that the front element telescopes – but in our lightweight mobile workflows we rarely use a matte box with the 18-50 and we simply use 72mm screw in filters on it. Optics are the strength of the 18-50. It is crisp, good contrast, nice bokeh, etc. I really like the 18-50, and for the price point in a cine lens, its price to performance ratio is very high. We’ve shot with the 18-50 underwater, in helicopters, on jibs, on stabilization units, etc. – all with excellent results. Is it a perfect lens? No. Is it an excellent lens for to money? Yes. Would I buy it again? Definitely, because it fits our needs well. BTW – the RED 300 is an excellent lens – crisp, good contrast, well built, etc. I’ve had great results from mine.

Field workflow:
Our work is in three different styles: cine style, hybrid cine/EFP style, and EFP style. If you do strictly cine style production, in a non-union environment, with mid-sized to small sized crews (or single operator), the 18-50 could be a good wide-angle cine lens solution for you. If you do large crew and/or union work you may find crews complaining about the telescoping center column on the 18-50 and insisting on the brands they are used to (Zeiss, Cooke, Angenieux). If you do hybrid cine/EFP style or even pure non-hardlined EFP style, with non-union and mid to small crew size, and you sight focus rather than traditional focus pulling, then either the 18-50 or Nikon zooms may fit your requirements (17-35 and 28-70). If your work is destined for the big screen, then generally cine glass should be your choice. For delivery in mediums smaller than the big screen, either cine or 35mm stills lenses may be the ticket, depending on your crew size, crew composition, focusing style, and the genres of production.

RED 18-50 vs Nikon zooms:
In a sense, apples and oranges. If a wide-angle cine lens is within your budget, you frequently find the need for geared lenses, and you need a crisp, small (mobile) wide-angle lens for a relatively good price, then the 18-50 may be your ticket. If you are on a limited budget, want generally good optics, work in crew situations where 35mm stills lenses won’t be a problem, then the Nikon zooms may be the ticket. In artistic and experienced hands the 18-50 and Nikon zooms will all generate very good images on RED One. I own both, I like both, and I've had good results from both.

Looking to the future, I'm very interested in the new RED electronic zoom lenses that were just announced. I definitely anticipate buying them and testing them out in our field workflows.

Note: even though I could have bought one of the very first RED 18-85 zooms available, I didn’t buy one because its size to focal length ratio wouldn’t work well in the mobile production we usually do. If you do more stationary, narrative type work, it would probably be a very good choice.

Hope this insight I’ve given helps answer some of the questions posed on this thread.
 
If your going to think about using Nikons on your RED, look into converting them 1st. I have a set of Nikon Zeiss ZFs that were modded by Peter Sensor of RPlens.com and this set is so professional both mechanically and optically in my opinion that I am able to rent them with my RED package. Over the last year I have worked on a variety of shoots from Pepsi cola, Avon to PBS pilots and indie features and for me, optics is a huge part when determining the look you want achieve so I would recommend testing out the glass 1st. I owned the RED 18-50 but sold it cause it simply was not a look or feel I was into, but others like it so to each his own right. I am strongly considering the RED 18-85 at the moment and will be renting soon this time around. Test them 1st. Cheers.
 
gsheff said:
What is CA?
Click to expand...

Chromatic aberration - in short, fringes of color around an image. Each color in the optical spectrum can't be focused at a single common point on the lens optics. Thus lenses low in CA usually have elements and coatings designed to reduce CA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top