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 18-85 vs. Cooke 18-100 with images/clips

M

Matt Uhry

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
1,302
Reaction score
0
Points
0
10_1223011427.jpg

I've Just had the chance to compare the new Red 18-85 and my Cooke 18-100, the short story is Red's new lens is really good and if you are looking for something in that range you should buy it. It's, the optics are great, it's really well made and represents an incredible value.

Our test took place at VR in Santa Ana, CA Brad Hagen had 2 new 18-85's and we had a look at one of them in his conference room. Brian Ferguson from Red stopped by towards the end to say hello. MJ Kerber, my friend, colleague and kick ass DP came along to offer a second set of eyes and to help out.

10_1223011483.jpg

Physical Package:

The lens is all metal, presumably aluminum alloy, it's got a nice finish on it that's matte black. The lens is fat and stubby, I did not weigh it but it's a few pounds lighter than the cooke 18-100.

Over the front element there is a mask with a rectangular cut out. The cut out may be a bit aggressive if you were to use this lens on a 4perf super 35 setup. I had no way to test this for certain, but it looks like you could remove it if you wanted to. Likewise if you mounted the lens 90deg off rotation you might experience a performance drop. No Problems here.

The front filter thread is 138mm. This is unfortunate because, cinematographers use 138mm filters, but they are drop in and NOT screw in. The retainer rings and sunshades for this system are a slightly larger diameter. It seems like an easily avoidable mistake the designers could have prevented if he/she had bothered to check what a 138mm filter actually is. You could screw in an adapter, but it could not live full time on the camera unless you got a new front cap.

The lens has slick built in .08 module gears, the front focus gear part was so fat it did not work with our chroisziel follow focus, but I think it will work for most using a studio style follow focus. When our 18-85 lens arrives we'll probably modify the support for the follow focus to make it work.

The focus ring was slightly over dampened for my taste, but it's not a problem, I wonder how it will be in cold conditions, not that I have to worry about that in Southern California.

Zoom ring and Iris felt great. Not sure how many blades there were on the iris, but it was nice and round and linear.

There is no built in provision for a support and very little real estate ( on level, non rotating parts ) to use a clamp on one. I'm sure we'll be able to get a support on there somehow, but it seems like the designer did not anticipate that anyone would want to use one. It would be great if in the future they included 2 tapped holes like the ones on the cooke so a support could be bolted on.

The rear mount area looks good, back element is adequately protected.. Mount appears to be stainless steel.

Visual Tests:

On the camera the lens FFD and focus scale were set correctly at the factory, It appeared to actually be "perfect" in total agreement with our Cooke which was recently serviced. Nice going Red ! Zoom tracking was off a little, but our camera's mount / sensor is not aligned correctly so that's to be expected.

A good way to view these comparisons is to open them in different tabs in your browser and toggle back and forth. All tests were done WFO - 2.9 on the red and 3.0 on the cooke.

Breathing: Very minimal at 18mm, increases a little at longer focal lengths. Here's a clip comparing it to the cooke 18-100 @50mm The rack is from 10ft to 4ft to Inf. and back to 10ft.


http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/red_rack50mm.mov
http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/cooke_rack50mm.mov


Center Resolution

In these cases we went for best for best focus on the putora chart, using a panasonic 17" HDSDI monitor and image magnify mode. Chart distance was 10ft.

http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/red18mm.jpg
http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/cooke18mm.jpg


http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/red32mm.jpg
http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/cooke32mm.jpg


http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/red50mm.jpg
http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/cooke50mm.jpg

http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/red85mm.jpg
http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/cooke85mm.jpg

Edge Resolution / Distortion:

We focused on the chart in the center of the wall and then moved it to the corner. Shots were at 18mm, distance 12ft. It's also a chance to see the mild barrel distortion both lenses have. The Red has a bit more resolution than the Cooke in the corner. 18mm on the Cooke is a bit wider than 18mm on the Red.


http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/red-edge.jpg
http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/cooke-edge.jpg

Field Illumination and overall Color tone:

This white projection screen lit within .02 of a stop edge to edge with a 4 bank 5600 kino. directly over the camera. The Red lens has much more even field illumination than the Cooke and a cooler rendering of color tones

http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/red-field-illum.jpg
http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/cooke-field-illum.jpg

Bokeh

Looks like the Red uses some aspherics to get the even field illumination and good edge resolution, the price is some funky donut shaped bokeh.

http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/red-bokeh.jpg
http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/cooke-bokeh.jpg


Flare:

Test of flare resistance and character using a led flashlight.

http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/red_flare.mov
http://mattuhry.com/18to85test/cooke_flare.mov

Conclusion:

Red's first pro lens effort is a great success, it's a serious lens that can compete side by side with much more expensive lenses from cooke and angenieux, but at 20% of the cost. It's shortcomings are minor, but annoying none the less, the front filter thread and the lack of preparedness for a lens support. Both are fairly easily solved by aftermarket accessories, but also could have been avoided by a few clicks of the mouse while it was being designed.

Thanks for Reading,

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
Great test. I'm really liking what I see of the 18-85!!! Not sure about that bokeh yet, would like to see more samples.
 
Thanks Matt indeed!

Emanuel :-)
 
I saw the lens yesterday in the Red store and played with it and they had a lens support on. It is similar to what Offhollywood did with Zacuto parts in that it only holds up the lens but doesn't bolt it in place (it's more of a holder than a Ring). It doesn't allow for the traditional mounting of a motor either. I don't know if this is the final design. Workable for most situations but I would hesitate to use it on a car mount, helicopter, etc.

Lens looks and feels great.
 
Matt, is it possible that you mislabled/mixed up the Cooke/Red 85mm shot? The Red seems warmer, a little muddier and a 1/3 stop slower whereas is in all the other shots it's the Cooke that exhibits those qualities.

The Red lens looks very nice. I guess the character is more Zeiss inspired, crisp, clean.

Thanks for posting Matt!
 
florianstadler.com said:
Matt, is it possible that you mislabled/mixed up the Cooke/Red 85mm shot? The Red seems warmer, a little muddier and a 1/3 stop slower whereas is in all the other shots it's the Cooke that exhibits those qualities.

The Red lens looks very nice. I guess the character is more Zeiss inspired, crisp, clean.

Thanks for posting Matt!
Click to expand...

Oops - you are correct. I've fixed it.

Matt
 
Thanks for the test Matt,

I think that it is not easy to come to any conclusions with such so little testing, but I do love the fact that the RED team went for the much desirable Zeiss fill, as I'm for one, in favor of such image it produces been MP's my absolute favorite lenses, both in image detail, quality fill, and mechanical build.

I prefer as in Photography to add any warmth to the image as I needed but if is there from factory I fill is more challenging to color correct the images to give them that clean clinical fill.

It is a good test, even so I would have preferred to see an image in focus in the foreground with a colorful and possibly some lights in the background to be blur out of focus and better judge the Bokeh, its just not as pleasing to the eye to be looking at an image totally out of focus, not complaining about the way you decided to do your tests, not at all just giving my opinion and preference of such a particular test, as important to me as the Bokeh is, as I like to shoot wide open and as close to the subject while leaving the background as far as possible to inance the Bokeh effect, and further Isolate the subject drammatizing the character of is/her presence on screen.


Much appreciated the time put in to this test, and hope to see more, as this lens is no doubt my most and strongest contestant in my new Lenses set up, both for personal and rental use here in Vegas, were there is such an absurd need for more lenses.

ciao
 
I agree with Ketch that bokeh is more than just how a lens renders out of focus highlights. It's also how the focus falls off and how it renders shapes out of focus. That's a hallmark of Cooke lenses and I think the Red lens holds up on its own judging from what I could tell at the Red store.

I think Matt did a great and valid test addressing most of the technical aspects of the lenses. Nothing can replace using a lens in real life to be able to judge its character.
 
cooke


red


different.. not bad though..
 
florianstadler.com said:
I agree with Ketch that bokeh is more than just how a lens renders out of focus highlights. It's also how the focus falls off and how it renders shapes out of focus. That's a hallmark of Cooke lenses and I think the Red lens holds up on its own judging from what I could tell at the Red store.

I think Matt did a great and valid test addressing most of the technical aspects of the lenses. Nothing can replace using a lens in real life to be able to judge its character.
Click to expand...



I would say it's character is like that of the Zeiss Ultraprimes, neutral, sharp, even, cool toned, and maybe a bit clinical. That's just where you start - the rest of the distance is up to the DP. Obviously you can light and filter your way in many different directions.

I agree my Bokeh test is lacking... Maybe a lucky someone who's taken delivery of their lens could pick up the ball and do some urban night exteriors ? It would be much more relevant than what I've posted.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
center resolution@32mm

center resolution@32mm

It looks like at 32mm Red lens is softer in center. Do you think it's the zoom curve(doesn't hold focus well while zooming) or just the performance @32mm ?
Jacek Zakowicz, OptiTek
 
OptiTek said:
It looks like at 32mm Red lens is softer in center. Do you think it's the zoom curve(doesn't hold focus well while zooming) or just the performance @32mm ?
Jacek Zakowicz, OptiTek
Click to expand...

Hard to say what's going on with a camera test, it would be easy to spot using a lens projector. That's the best we could get with that particular Red lens at 32mm, it does seem a bit off to me too. There's many variables that could explain it and I'm not at all worried about it unless they all are like that !

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
sidderke said:
Exept the Lens Flare is a lot nicer in the Cooke lens.
Click to expand...

...If you want the flare, that is. The RED lens seems to be more resistant to flaring, but this is one of those things that can be subjective. I'd like to test it myself and see how it holds up with more than just an LED flashlight -- with sunlight, etc..

Overall, I like the cooler color rendition of the RED lens better, sometimes I find my Cooke to be a bit too "yellow". Not to mention the better field illumination on the RED, it's a bit sharper / cleaner, etc.. But it's a new design, the 18-100 design is around 20 years old. I really want to get my hands on the 18-85 and give it a workout myself.
 
Matt, thanks for the nice lens test.

But I always compare lenses with women.

Not always the most beautiful and expensive women models are the best girls (especially in sex, for example).

I have a huge experience with that (issue) and always have got the best and most exciting results just with an ordinary women.

That is the reason I like an ordinary lenses that still lenses at value can provide in a wide range.

RED, Cooke, Angenieux, Ultra Primes, Master Primes, Panavision Primo's,...

all of them can give you a beautiful pictures but also

an ordinary Nikkor's, Leica's, Canon's, Olympus's, Sigma's,...

can give you extraordinary picture in a way that you

are enough "professional" to get it out of them

(all that tricks are at DP's/Cinematographer's hands).

Red 18-85 vs. Cooke 18-100 nice two "girls' but I get enough with my

"dirty" and ordinary still zoom lens Canon EF-S 17-85mm 1:4-5.6 IS USM

Of course you get all of them on (your) RED if you want risk a bit and have enough :) courage .

Have a look once more, nothing scientific, just an average Joe's RED user life and its dirty test:

Canon EF-S 17-85mm 1:4-5.6 IS USM real life lens test

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19543
 
18 to 85 Lens test and rental

18 to 85 Lens test and rental

Thanks to Matt and MJ for bringing the Cooke and putting our new 18 to 85 Red lens to the test. We will be shooting with the new lens this weekend and will update this thread with the results.

The lens fits our Vocas and the Chroziel Matte box just fine and we will do vignette tests with 4x5.6 filters on Monday. The follow focus is another story through... neither the older style Chrozeil or their newer Follow Focus are compatible with the lens. We are looking at what factory mods are available and will update you when we learn more. We will also check with other models and manufactures to see what is optimal. Bummer that nothing we have in house works as is.

As Matt said, we have two of these puppies and they are available for rent with or without the RED camera. Send a private message or contact us through http://www.videoresources.com

Brad
 
The Third Man said:
Matt, thanks for the nice lens test.

But I always compare lenses with women.

Not always the most beautiful and expensive women models are the best girls (especially in sex, for example).

I have a huge experience with that (issue) and always have got the best and most exciting results just with an ordinary women.

That is the reason I like an ordinary lenses that still lenses at value can provide in a wide range.

RED, Cooke, Angenieux, Ultra Primes, Master Primes, Panavision Primo's,...

all of them can give you a beautiful pictures but also

an ordinary Nikkor's, Leica's, Canon's, Olympus's, Sigma's,...

can give you extraordinary picture in a way that you

are enough "professional" to get it out of them

(all that tricks are at DP's/Cinematographer's hands).

Red 18-85 vs. Cooke 18-100 nice two "girls' but I get enough with my

"dirty" and ordinary still zoom lens Canon EF-S 17-85mm 1:4-5.6 IS USM

Of course you get all of them on (your) RED if you want risk a bit and have enough :) courage .

Have a look once more, nothing scientific, just an average Joe's RED user life and its dirty test:

Canon EF-S 17-85mm 1:4-5.6 IS USM real life lens test

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19543
Click to expand...
agreed.. saving money for your filmmaking is the key.. tools are just tools.. no more than this.
 
filmmaker's gang said:
agreed.. saving money for your filmmaking is the key.. tools are just tools.. no more than this.
Click to expand...

Finally you are right man or you are one of the filmmaker's gang (mostly a straight men) :)

but also the other sort of man can be accepted without prejudices :blink:

but not more than for a filmmaking :),

also without any insults to the "other side" of men :biggrin: .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top