Red Lenses

[JD Holloway]

Need help with Red Lens reviews....

Personal experience or professional testing.

I'm not seeing much out there right now.

I need to find a quality/pricepoint I am comfortable with in a PL mount.

EDIT: I have read the LART quick synopsis.

 

[Steve Gibby]

I see you found our review of lenses at LART. I assure you the lens test impressions itemized on the LART results are accurate, as per the opinions of Matt Uhry, Finner, and myself.

I'm one of the very few people you'll find on RED User who owns both the RED lenses that have shipped (18-50 and 300), and has used them repeatedly for over five months in a variety of genres and conditions. I also shot for two days with the prototype RED 50-150 zoom.

On another thread on this forum I recently posted spme more insight into the RED 18-50, 50-150, and 300 lenses:

Link: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8959&page=2

Beware: You'll find certain "experts" on this forum and elsewhere voicing supposedly educated opinions of RED lenses. Truth be known most of them have never even used a RED lens, or have only used one once or twice, and now they seem impelled to enlighten the ignorant masses about the supposed shortcomings of RED lenses. In my opinion their opinions are much more based on tradition, brand loyalty, peer pressure, and resistance to change, than any real world analysis of the lenses, their performance to price ratio, and the excellent images that can be created with them.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

Beware: You'll find certain "experts" on this forum and elsewhere voicing supposedly educated opinions of RED lenses. Truth be known most of them have never even used a RED lens, or have only used one once or twice, and now they seem impelled to enlighten the ignorant masses about the supposed shortcomings of RED lenses. In my opinion their opinions are much more based on tradition, brand loyalty, peer pressure, and resistance to change, than any real world analysis of the lenses, their performance to price ratio, and the excellent images that can be created with them.

Bravo! Well said!

 

[bradvr]

Ditto!

Ditto!

The very good news is that the PL mount provides users plenty of options, and one of the options are the RED lenses. Bravo to RED for creating wonderful lenses with more to come. Are they are great value. Yes. Do they make excellent pictures. Yes.

 

[Kenn Michael]

Agreed. Both the 18-50 zoom and the 300mm put out fantastic (and very sharp) images. Can't wait for the 50-150.

 

[Evin Grant]

My experience, having actually shot a bit with the 18-50 and 300 is that Red has created a new category of lens. Lets cal it Mid-Pro, because they are definitely not prosumer but also not hand built like the PL mount lenses that cost three to five times as much. Optically they deliver very well and hold their own against all but the most cutting edge cinema optics from C, Z and A.
Mechanically they are well built and provide the necessary gears and information for cinema style shooting but something has to give somewhere for the price and so they lack that hand built fit and witness marks of their pricier competitors. Under most circumstances this is not an issue and as Gibby stated only seasoned film snobs will look down their noses at them.
I am personally very impressed with the 300mm and it is on my lens lust list. I'm also very curious about the primes, we will just have to wait and see.

 

[Michael Hastings]

My experience, having actually shot a bit with the 18-50 and 300 is that Red has created a new category of lens. Lets cal it Mid-Pro, because they are definitely not prosumer but also not hand built like the PL mount lenses that cost three to five times as much. Optically they deliver very well and hold their own against all but the most cutting edge cinema optics from C, Z and A.
Mechanically they are well built and provide the necessary gears and information for cinema style shooting but something has to give somewhere for the price and so they lack that hand built fit and witness marks of their pricier competitors.

I think Evin has nailed it here.

Under most circumstances this is not an issue and as Gibby stated only seasoned film snobs will look down their noses at them.

One of the best endorsements of the RED 18-50 came from the people at the ARRI/CSC office here in Ft. Lauderdale. I was making a deal for Ken Corben on the Arri 8R and had his camera with me with Gibby's 18-50 on it (a very early one by the way) and their lens guy asked if he could throw it up on their projector. Since I was curious too, I said why not?

They were very impressed with the optics and that is the most important part for me. They criticized the mechanics but going to Gibby's point, these guys are the ultimate film snobs - handling millions of dollars of Zeiss cine lenses every day.

It's not like the mechanics are crap - they just aren't as good as the lenses you pay another 20K for.

I have a BMW and I appreciate the nice "thunk" the door makes and the crisp, solid driving feel, but truthfully, Toyota makes some pretty nice cars too that get you where you need to go very nicely for a lot less money. I think the situation is the same here.

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

In the not unlikely case to out myself as an "expert" I found it interesting that I nowhere saw an opinion about the front-element of the RED 18-50 wich extends and retracts almost half an inch or so when zooming. This is of course not bad image-wise but at least odd. Nowhere in Cine and TV land I've seen this, only in Photo land. It does mean that in the case a mattbox is used the front lens moves closer or farer from the filter. Actually the only thing that I found a real turn-off when operating this lens.

I am not saying that the Red Zoom is a bad lens (The price, T3 and the lightweight form factor are not bad at all).

Hans

 

[Michael Hastings]

This is of course not bad image-wise but at least odd. Nowhere in Cine and TV land I've seen this, only in Photo land. It does mean that in the case a mattbox is used the front lens moves closer or farer from the filter. Actually the only thing that I found a real turn-off when operating this lens.

I am not saying that the Red Zoom is a bad lens (The price, T3 and the lightweight form factor are not bad at all).

Hans

Hans, pretty solid speculation is that it is a rehoused Sigma 18-50 zoom/macro designed for use on APS-C digital sensors - hence your reference to Photo land is probably accurate.

I think you buy the RED 18-50 for its high quality optics, PL mount and cine style focus and iris and its exceptional price (for comparison rehoused Canon and Minolta zooms from Century/Schneider run about $15K)

You accept its limitations based on value, or, if your situation allows, you go with the manual Nikon or the electronic Canon EOS/EF Birger solution as I plan to do.

 

[Mitch Deoudes]

Question regarding rehoused lenses: if a $1k lens becomes an $8k or $15k lens when rehoused cine-style, does that mean you're getting $7-14k worth of mechanics, or is it largely markup? If the latter, then what reasonable argument could be made for buying a PL-mount camera and lenses for personal use (i.e. outside of renting it to the aforementioned "film snobs")? It would seem that with the money you save with a Birger mount system, you could almost buy a spare camera body (PL-mount), if you cared about renting to cine folks.

Partially in response to my own question: how big of a problem is breathing with the 18-50 (or other rehoused photo lenses, if people have specific knowledge of such)? I'd think it would be significant.

I apologize if these questions have been addressed in other threads. As more and more info accretes around here, it becomes more difficult to find what you're looking for. Sometimes, when you see a fresh thread, you have to take advantage of it.

 

[Steve Gibby]

In the not unlikely case to out myself as an "expert" I found it interesting that I nowhere saw an opinion about the front-element of the RED 18-50 wich extends and retracts almost half an inch or so when zooming. This is of course not bad image-wise but at least odd. Nowhere in Cine and TV land I've seen this, only in Photo land. It does mean that in the case a mattbox is used the front lens moves closer or farer from the filter. Actually the only thing that I found a real turn-off when operating this lens.

I am not saying that the Red Zoom is a bad lens (The price, T3 and the lightweight form factor are not bad at all).

Hans

I've addressed the issue (or non-issue to me) of the telescoping center barrel element on the 18-50 on several threads since 8/31/07 when I started using my RED lenses. To be clear, it is an unusual feature for a cine lens. So unusual in cine lenses, that IMO that is one feature that irritates cine lens purists about the 18-50. Crossover shooters from the DSLR and TV/video industries don't seem to mind it.

Does the telescoping center lens element affect most usage of the 18-50? No. Are there some setups where it may? yes and maybe. Let me explain:

As a lightweight wide angle zoom, the 18-50 is at its best in usage with commensurately lightweight, streamlined setups while shooting mobile hand held, with stabilization system, in water housings, shooting aerials, etc. Me, GibCor, and other of our crews, have been using it for those uses and beyond, for over five months now. In those scenarios we have never used a matte box with the 18-50. A matte box would simply be unnecessary bulk and weight. So, what have we been doing for attaching the ND filters that RED ONE is usually hungry for to open up the iris? A very simple and inexpensive solution that works perfectly with the space and mobility requirements we have: the telescoping center element has 72mm threads, so we bought a wide range of cost-effective screw on ND filters, and simply screw them onto the element. Problem solved.

So, in what situations can the telescoping center element affect use of the lens? If you have to, or simply want to use a matte box, then some adjustments to the placement of the box on the lens may be needed to ensure proper use of the box. I've seen others post their workarounds (spacers, etc.) here on this forum for that. A hybrid situation would be to use a MB and flag to shade the lens from reflections, while simply using a screw on filter on the front of the telescoping lens barrel element. That would eliminate any problem of the telescoping barrel getting close to a drop in filter.

In summary: for five months of mobile cine-stye and EFP style use of the 18-50, me and my crews simply haven't used a matte box with the lens - and haven't missed it a bit. In fact, not using a MB, and instead using screw on filters, has kept our rigs lighter, smaller, less costly, and more mobile.

While cine lens purists have quibbled over unusual mechanical features on the 18-50, me and our GibCor crews have been nailing excellent footage with it, have a trail of happy clients and networks, and are smiling all the way to the bank. To us, the telescoping center element, and the other mechanical nuances of the 18-50 are simply non-issues.

Multi-posted original Gibby mantra: "Think outside the (matte)box"

 

[Steve Gibby]

Hans, pretty solid speculation is that it is a rehoused Sigma 18-50 zoom/macro designed for use on APS-C digital sensors - hence your reference to Photo land is probably accurate.

I think you buy the RED 18-50 for its high quality optics, PL mount and cine style focus and iris and its exceptional price (for comparison rehoused Canon and Minolta zooms from Century/Schneider run about $15K)

You accept its limitations based on value, or, if your situation allows, you go with the manual Nikon or the electronic Canon EOS/EF Birger solution as I plan to do.

Question regarding rehoused lenses: if a $1k lens becomes an $8k or $15k lens when rehoused cine-style, does that mean you're getting $7-14k worth of mechanics, or is it largely markup? If the latter, then what reasonable argument could be made for buying a PL-mount camera and lenses for personal use (i.e. outside of renting it to the aforementioned "film snobs")? It would seem that with the money you save with a Birger mount system, you could almost buy a spare camera body (PL-mount), if you cared about renting to cine folks.

My take on that:

To my knowledge at no point has anyone from RED Team responded to, much less agreed with all the repeated assertions on this forum that the RED 18-50 is a rehoused Sigma 18-50. That remains conjecture only.

On another thread here someone who is fond of that conjecture asked me “What are the advantages over using a Sigma 18-50 with an even more attractive price point?”

My response was:

“The RED 18-50 comes stock with a PL mount. In order to use a Sigma 18-50 you'll need to purchase your Sigma with a Canon mount, then purchase a Birger Canon adaptor. Birger initially announced they were thinking of making a Sigma adaptor for RED ONE, but they received exactly zero orders for a Sigma mount last time I checked. The Birger Canon mount may work with a Sigma lens with a Canon mount. I asked Birger that specific question, and the response was that it should work. That's a lot of "may" and "should" for someone who needs a lens right now - and the PL mount RED 18-50 will work well right now.

Also, for traditional cine-style shooters, the RED 18-50 has cine gears for aperture, focus, and zoom, so the follow focus units they're used to using will hook right up to the 18-50. Not so with the Sigma, even if the Birger adaptor works with Sigma, a cine-style follow focus won't be usable on the lens.

Lastly, the RED 18-50 has the electronic i-data capability of the Cooke S4 lenses, something you wouldn't get with the Sigma.

I think the above are plenty of good reasons in favor of the RED 18-50 over the Sigma 18-50. Trust me, I'm all for using 35mm still lenses on RED One. Just today I was out shooting nature with my Canon FD 150-600 zoom on RED 8X. My 150-600 has a Century PL conversion, and of course the lens is fully manual. The footage from the RED ONE/Canon 150-600 looks great"

 

[Mitch Deoudes]

Ah, yes - the gears. Sorry for the oversight. Most of my experience is with cine-style lenses, so it's not immediately apparent to me what might be missing. (Though you'd think that some sort of retrofit for a focus gear wouldn't be rocket science, and would get you most of what you need - no?)

And point well taken about the Red 18-50 over the Sigma. I guess the comparison I was trying to question was: PL mount + one or two lenses, vs. Birger mount + several lenses. It sounds like what you're giving up would be: 1) mechanical lushness, 2) less breathing, 3) gears, 4) street cred with film nerds.

For personal use, it seems like really #2 is the big one - and even that advantage goes away when you're talking about a rehoused still lens (assuming that's what it is, of course).

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Gibby,

Your voice is one of common sense, logic and your attitude that of "if something works well but has flaws, let's work around them instead of dismmising the option". You're the ultimate professional. However, much as I agree with you on the screw on filters, a MB is also just as useful for shading the lens than for using filters, so it is not just dead weight and added bulk. Anyway, I'm pretty sure I'll give the RED lenses a try and certain that I'll be happy with them, and like you, laughing to and from the bank. My concern is, has anyone really tried pulling focus on the lenses under regular cine style work? I think Ofhollywood has used their RED's with the usual suspects, not the RED 18-50, so unless I've missed a post on the forum pointing to the contrary, I've yet to read anyone's comments to the tune of "the 18-50 was no problem to pull focus on" or "it was impossible to pull focus predictably and reliably on the 18-50 and we had to switch to Zeiss". Any comments?

 

[Steve Gibby]

Meeotch,

If the alternate mounts (manual Nikon, Birger, Canon FD manual) change out as easily and rapidly as RED, Birger, and Kmuse indicate, then mount changes are not a big issue. I own two REDs, and me and Corben's company (GibCor) owns two more. I can definitely see us changing out mounts almost daily, while we match up the best type, and focal length of lens for each day of production. I already own several cine lenses, several Canon FD and Nikon lenses, and multiple B4 2/3" HD EFP/ENG zoom lenses. We'll simply match the glass to the projects each day.

The 35mm still glass I've used on RED ONE has brought excellent results. I'll definitely use it when it makes the most sense for a project.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Gibby,

Your voice is one of common sense, logic and your attitude that of "if something works well but has flaws, let's work around them instead of dismmising the option". You're the ultimate professional. However, much as I agree with you on the screw on filters, a MB is also just as useful for shading the lens than for using filters, so it is not just dead weight and added bulk. Anyway, I'm pretty sure I'll give the RED lenses a try and certain that I'll be happy with them, and like you, laughing to and from the bank. My concern is, has anyone really tried pulling focus on the lenses under regular cine style work? I think Ofhollywood has used their RED's with the usual suspects, not the RED 18-50, so unless I've missed a post on the forum pointing to the contrary, I've yet to read anyone's comments to the tune of "the 18-50 was no problem to pull focus on" or "it was impossible to pull focus predictably and reliably on the 18-50 and we had to switch to Zeiss". Any comments?

Thank you for the kind words Rudi. I definitely agree with your point about the need for a matte box in certain light conditions for shading the lens. When mobility permits I use a matte box quite often - but not with the 18-50 yet. My production partner (Ken Corben) comes from more of a film background that me. He has used matte boxes extensively with cine lenses on our projects over the last five months - but not the 18-50 to my knowledge - and certainly not for his water housing and aerial cinematography with the 18-50. Though we do a lot of mobile EFP style productions, several of our projects have been cine style, with full cine accessories, including follow focus, etc. On those projects, Ken and others have used follow focus units to pull focus on the 18-50 with no problems. The PL mount must be calibrated accurately (easy with the new PL mount), the lens collimated correctly, and focus pulling can be done accurately. At LART we had several crews shooting cine style with the 18-50, pulling focus in a traditional way, and I don't remember any complaints about not being able to pull focus effectively.

The first PL mount RED made needed to be shimmed accurately or pulling focus was a problem. If it was shimmed correctly, it wasn't a problem. The new mount solved those issues for the most part by eliminating shims, but obviously care must still be used to make sure the mount is in proper adjustment - something you can easily do yourself.

I'm not anti-cine accessories in the slightest, but rather I'm pro-efficiency since we do a lot of very mobile TV programs, features, commercials, etc. The lightest, most streamlined setup we can get away with, and still get the quality level of shot we're after, is the setup we use. In view of that, we've found that the simple and inexpensive ND solution of screw ons, and leaving off the MB and FF have not hindered the quality of our shots at all.

Note: I have also yet to personally use a MB or FF with my 18-50. I manipulate all three gears by hand quickly, and in the process have kept the camera setup much lighter. I also don't use (or need) an AC. I rack my own focus simply using RED's 2x image magnification. I usually set iris using zebra. I have to get shots quickly and accurately - no time to say "Hmmm..what if I did this...or this?". In many of the genres I shoot in, the shot would be gone by then.

I had the guys at LART scratching their heads watching me work alone, without an AC, quickly pulling focus accurately without a follow focus (racking the gear) simply using 2x image magnification, and setting exposure quickly using zebra. I did this there with my RED 300, my RED 18-50, and a prototype RED 50-150. With the 50-150 we were short an LCD, so I shot a scene with no EVF or LCD (in the blind), estimated distance to the subject for setting focus on the lens barrel, guessed the exposure by estimating available light, followed the subjects for framing by sighting down the lens barrel, and guess what - those shots came out quite well. My point is that I come from a non-union production background, doing mobile EFP style and cine-style productions, and I learned how to nail shots on my own with streamlined rigs.

When needed, I can and have worked with an AC pulling focus, in a much larger crew cine-style environment - but it's just not my favorite scenario to work in.

The RED 18-50 can be equally at home in a bare-accessory, run 'n gun indie approach, or in a tricked out big crew scenario.

Hope this additional info helps you Rudi...

 

[Kevin Lang]

Not having seen or used the Red18-50 I presume it would work well as a variable prime for steadicam. Would this be a accurate assumption?

 

[Steve Gibby]

Not having seen or used the Red18-50 I presume it would work well as a variable prime for steadicam. Would this be a accurate assumption?

A very accurate assumption...

At LART a Steadicam ace, Charles Papert SOC, flew the RED 18-50 on a Stadicam and as I remember, liked it very much for that use.

Also at LART, Brian Goff flew a RED 18-50 on his ActionCam RED stabilization system. He liked it very much for that use.

I also use stabilization systems, but I haven't gotten around to flying the 18-50 yet. Knowing the lens well, and after those educated hands-on opinions mentioned above, I have no doubt it will fly real well for me.

 

[Michael Hastings]

First of all, Gibby has been extremely helpful to me directly through providing several days of #8 to allow design/construction of the prototype underwater housing at at time when any RED camera was like gold. In addition, he has been a tireless tester and responder to the frequently asked questions, as well as a consistent counterweight to the idea that RED is primarily a cine style camera. So I would personally like to thank him for all he has done for me and the RED community.

I generally agree with Gibby at a near 100% rate, and I don't really disagree with him now, but would like to clarify some of my own points.

To my knowledge at no point has anyone from RED Team responded to, much less agreed with all the repeated assertions on this forum that the RED 18-50 is a rehoused Sigma 18-50. That remains conjecture only.

It IS conjecture, and I have been guilty of spreading that rumor quite a bit, but I have done it for two reasons:

1) I picked the rumor up from another post, but then in examining the Sigma 18-50 it really seems unlikely that it is just coincidence that its physical and optical specs are identical. It wouldn't be unusual that there are numerous 18-50 zooms, but one with the EXACT same close focus/macro performance - when macro in that range isn't that common to begin with - is highly unlikely. And there is nothing wrong with this - the Sigma is completely modern and one of the most highly rated mid-range zooms available. And I have always pointed out that for a rehoused lens the RED is still a bargain - compared to rehoused mid-zooms from Century at about $15K. As you know those prices are based on very low volume and the extensive amount of re-engineering and hand craftsmanship that goes into each lens.

2) More importantly, regardless of whether it is actually the Sigma, it seems pretty likely it is a still lens rehoused (the telescoping front element is another clue) - and my point is that modern still lenses are OPTICALLY extremely good, and well suited to use with RED 4K. So if the RED lenses are rehoused stills, then it helps to allay some of the FUD that surrounds using still lenses in general.

In order to use a Sigma 18-50 you'll need to purchase your Sigma with a Canon mount, then purchase a Birger Canon adaptor.

The Birger Canon mount may work with a Sigma lens with a Canon mount. I asked Birger that specific question, and the response was that it should work. That's a lot of "may" and "should" for someone who needs a lens right now - and the PL mount RED 18-50 will work well right now.

First of all, Erik has implied that most USM-type (the other manufacturers have different names for ultrasonic motors) EF compatible lenses SHOULD work, but it is hard enough to properly support the numerous Canon lenses, much less all of the Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. It also would be a bit IN-YOUR-FACE to promote using the $600 Sigma direct competitor instead of the RED lens - politics does play a role (and often should.)

The real point is people should consider still lenses whether rehoused or not.

Not necessarily specifically the Sigma 18-50. Generally, in the still world, the discussion is whether Sigmas are as good as the equivalent Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or the 24-70 f2.8 L series, but hardly anyone would argue that Canons are worse. So if you need a lens now, buy a Canon. In the case of Birger on RED the idea is: buy one of those two Canon lenses and you will have extremely good optics, excellent build, and guaranteed function on the Birger for about a $1000 - not that much more than the Sigma and the cost difference is insignificant compared to $6500 for the RED. AGAIN, ONLY IF THE BIRGER PARADIGM WORKS FOR YOU over PL/Cine style lenses. ... I just happen to think it does for a lot of Gibby's applications, and virtually all of mine.

I am testing the EF-S 17-55 as it is essentially L (canon's premium line) glass but designed for APS-C (and RED) sized sensor. Since it is a little more recent than the 24-70L it also incorporates Image Stabilization - not proven on motion pictures yet (we are hoping), but extremely useful in still photography.

If independent testing shows the Sigma 18-50 works on Birger then that will be useful too (I like the macro capability) but don't expect Erik to confirm it.

Lastly, the RED 18-50 has the electronic i-data capability of the Cooke S4 lenses, something you wouldn't get with the Sigma.

As you know i-data has not yet been enabled in RED. However, that same metadata is readily available in all of the Canon (and other) still lenses and the data can be transmitted through the Birger mount as well.

And without trying to stir up a sh*t storm, I can see no reason why auto-iris could not be implemented fairly easily - although entirely dependent on RED since the necessary exposure/waveform/histogram data is internal to the camera. Since it could be controlled through RS-232, it is probably easier to implement than iris control of B4 lenses, most of which use analog voltages (and therefore a separate hardware circuit) for iris control. This would be much harder to do for cine lenses.


BTW I don't think RED should confirm the Sigma 18-50 rumor even if it is true because many would perceive it as somehow a negative. Personally, I think it is a positive - they were smart and chose an excellent lens - that I have seen for my own eyes on Arri's projector has carried optical excellence through to the final product - and a bargain price to boot. If my situation called for PL glass, it would be my first choice unless I won the lottery and money was no object.

 

[Charles Angus]

Problem:
Telescoping front element.

Solution:
Clip-on matte box.

No? I have used Arri clip-ons (maybe a LMB-3? I forget). Totally serviceable.