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

Matt excellent test.
Thanks for taking time and preparing it.

I am very happy with the peripheral resolution and almost non existent vignetting in comparison to Master Primes.
The 32mm test, is there possibility that you misalign something there?

Lack of few holes for support is a drag, also these 138mm, drop in, screw in, mixup could be avoided.

Looks like they are taking the orders from RED literally and exactly, I see consequences of military like engineering in a few other cases on RED camera.

Better this than artistic creativity with it.
 
3D Look

3D Look

I must say that the 3D "look" of the Cooke wins over the RED. It is subtle, but there. As Matt says, the Cooke adds some magic to the look and this includes the 3D.
 
Hans von Sonntag said:
Matt,

how do you find the 3D feeling of the Red 18-85 compared to the Cooke? Personally I find the Cooke second to none in this regard.

Thanks for the test!

Hans
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't know why this is and if it can be measured in any way, but I like the 3-D look the cooke can create.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
Thanks for the test Matt.

I'm most concerned about the focus at 32 mm. This doesn't look right.
Can anybody else with a 18-85 mm confirm this problem or is it just a flaw with the particular lens used in the test?
 
What is it you're concerned about? Is it that the chart looks a little "muddy"? IMO all the chart shots are a bit soft as far as the chart itself is concerned. There is a difference between focal lengths of the two lenses, just slightly. I'm wondering if 32mm on the RED lens is at a point where it presents the size / detail of the chart in a way that doesn't jive with the RED One sensor resolution or OLPF?

I would really love to see 4K R3D files of a slow rack zoom and rack focus for each lens.

Anyway this is a great initial test (thanks again, Matt!) and it does answer several of my questions. But I think the rest of what I want to know will have to wait until I get my hands on an 18-85 for myself.

If anyone has the lens coming and wants me to do more extensive comparisons against my Cooke 18-100, please PM me. Maybe we can make some arrangement for me to borrow / rent the lens for a few days.
 
big lebowski said:
Thanks for the test Matt.

I'm most concerned about the focus at 32 mm. This doesn't look right.
Can anybody else with a 18-85 mm confirm this problem or is it just a flaw with the particular lens used in the test?
Click to expand...

I've uploaded a slightly better frame of the Red at 32mm. It's still a little off...

It's possible that it was not mounted quite right for that shot. I'm giving the Red's super lens the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
What is it you're concerned about? Is it that the chart looks a little "muddy"? IMO all the chart shots are a bit soft as far as the chart itself is concerned.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the RED lens is mostly in the same ballpark as the Cooke. Only at 32 mm it seems way softer.

Jeff Kilgroe said:
I would really love to see 4K R3D files of a slow rack zoom and rack focus for each lens.
Click to expand...

Seconded. That would be great to see.

Matt Uhry said:
I've uploaded a slightly better frame of the Red at 32mm. It's still a little off...

It's possible that it was not mounted quite right for that shot. I'm giving the Red's super lens the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Click to expand...

Thanks Matt. Yeah let's hope it's not a design flaw.
Any other lens owners want to chime in?
 
32mm test

32mm test

Since we have two of the 18-85 RED lenses we will take another run at this (the 32mm) specific test this week. Stay tuned.
 
Thanks for going back to look at this again. Would also love to see another couple bokeh shot with some out of focus lights -- leds, cars at night, etc.. That little doughnut-shaped highlight in the previous test has really got me wondering...

If you guys don't have time for all that, no worries...
 
bradvr said:
Since we have two of the 18-85 RED lenses we will take another run at this (the 32mm) specific test this week. Stay tuned.
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for your efforts.
 
18 to 85 test - round 2

18 to 85 test - round 2

Though we didn't have a chance to do an extensive test, today we put both of our 18 to 85's to the test. One appears perfect, unfortunately it is not the one we used for last weeks test with Matt! If you set focus at 85, and pull out, lens 1 does get slightly soft around 32mm. Lens 2 works perfectly and holds focus throughout. We are benching the lens tomorrow and will likely send to Red for a look.

More details: We informally set the camera up with a chart at 10' from the focus hook. On lens 2, I was able to manually focus and hit the 10' mark every time at all of the marked focal lengths (ok, not at 18, but it was close and can be blamed on human error since everything looked damn sharp). On lens 1, the one Matt and I used last week for testing, I also hit all the marks with the exception of 32mm which came in around 12' (instead of 10') which is a likely indicator of the problem. David got similar results which lead us to believe that lens 1 has a minor defect.

Annoyance: I feel the lack of camera support threads or a mechanism for support is a problem which hopefully will be remedied in the future. Though a likely after market solution will be in the form of a bottom, passive support, this is not adequate as in many cases a proper mount should HOLD the lens in place to prevent or minimize both horizontal and vertical movement. Threads will be needed for this. Speaking of threads, the lens has 138mm filter threads on the front. These are 138mm ID and can not accommodate industry standard 138mm drop in filters. This can be remedied with a threaded adapter but will be a pain and require another accessory. And, if you are like me and are likely to keep the adapter on the lens, this will preclude the use of the provided lens cap

Bottom line: The 18 to 85 lens is a great value, makes for beautiful pictures (looks snazzy too) and compliments the Red One well.

Thanks to David Winter for the assist on todays shoot out! David also brought his Arri MB30 and FF5HD for testing. The MB20 worked fine and had zero vignetting. Though not ideal, the FF5HD worked well too with a little finesse. See Davids pictures here http://tinyurl.com/4bvl6g

*the photos below show the 18 to 85 in use. Pic 1 and 3 shows 18 to 85 with MB30 and FF5, Pic 2, shows the RED 18 to 85 on Ripley (#15) and a Cooke 18 to 100 on Connor (#16)
 
bradvr said:
lens 1 does get slightly soft around 32mm. Lens 2 works perfectly and holds focus throughout. We are benching the lens tomorrow and will likely send to Red for a look.
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking another look Brad, I thought I might have made some sort of a mistake during the testing...

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
Brad,

Thanks for the update!

I agree that the lack of any mounting points on the lens for supports and bracketry seems like a severe limitation. The 138mm threaded front is a bit strange from a cine point of view, but filters in this size are available and considered a standard size. I would have like to see a drop-in filter tray at the rear of this lens like we see on the RED 300mm and Cooke 18-100.

Oh well, guess we can't have it all in a big lens like this for under $10K. Still looks like a good overall value.
 
I can't believe I only just noticed this test! Many thanks Matt and Co. - very much appreciated. I'm impressed with what I've seen so far. Slightly worried about quality control on a couple of lenses from a small batch seeming to differ but nevertheless impressed. Exactly how Red is going to be able to make these things fast enough boggles the mind!

Thanks again
Paul
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Brad,

Thanks for the update!

I agree that the lack of any mounting points on the lens for supports and bracketry seems like a severe limitation. The 138mm threaded front is a bit strange from a cine point of view, but filters in this size are available and considered a standard size. I would have like to see a drop-in filter tray at the rear of this lens like we see on the RED 300mm and Cooke 18-100.
Click to expand...

138mm screw in is not a standard size at all, 138mm drop in (drop in means no threads, ) is absolutely a standard cine size, different animals. 138mm drop in filter retaining rings and sunshades use a 145mm screw thread.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top