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 ONE 18-50 T3.0 PL Zoom Lenses vs other alternatives (Side by side comparison)

What are your thoughts?
What do you see?

People will tell you all sorts of information for various reasons. I've actually never used them myself, but given the chance, I wouldn't mind evaluating them for myself and seeing what I create with them.
 
Kyle Simukka said:
What are your thoughts?
What do you see?

People will tell you all sorts of information for various reasons. I've actually never used them myself, but given the chance, I wouldn't mind evaluating them for myself and seeing what I create with them.
Click to expand...

I used DSLR canon 5d mark 2 for all my life... with different lences. What I know for sure that as F is lower, as better for colors in video. For example canon 50 mm F 1.2 will give exreemly beautiful colors and lights compering to 50 mm F1.8
But RED cameras has wider range of sensor.. and Red zoom 17-50MM has onlyF 2.8 but the image Red gives is even better than Canon 5d mark 2 with 50 mm F1.2 in terms of light sensetivity.

I newer used any other lences with red... my question is what if I will use 50 mm F1.2 from my canon with RED one... with mount. Will I effort from that in terms of light sensetivity and quality of colors like it was with my Canon photocamera?
 
Sergio Popirechnik said:
Hi guys,
Im a new Red One owner. Ive been told that mine Red zoom 17-50MM and 18-85MM lences are shitty comparing to other lences zeiss for example. Could anybody tell me why? Any examples of side by side with same scene and light amount?

http://www.red.com/products/lenses
Click to expand...

Shitty in what way?
People start using vintage lenses on Helium's 8k and love the look it gives them (vintage lenses are kind of shitty when you want a lot of resolving power).
It all comes down to what you like. Zeiss often make very clean lenses, Cooke lenses have a certain character (distortion) that is pleasing to some, etc...
The 18-85 mm is kind of heavy compared to the competition, that doesn't make it a bad lens.
 
Optically I don't think there is anything wrong with the Red lenses. Mechanically, they don't stand up to rental use, but are probably fine for personal projects.

Nick
 
I have the Red 17-50 zoom. Mechanically it is a proper cine lens, focus rotation is long and smooth and markings are plenty, zoom is a bit stiff, not really usable for smooth zooms during shooting. On the inside it is a still lens, I believe a Tamron 17-50. Optically it is adequate, usable wide open. If anything the image you get out of it is bit boring. I hardly use it but am reluctant to sell it as prices are so low these days. If you plan to use it as your main lens for productions you need a longer lens like a 85 as well as 50 is just too short for close-ups of people.

I have never seen the 18-50 or 18-85 Red lenses. The 18-50 had a lot of mechanical problems so be careful if you buy one unseen. The 18-85 seems to be very big and heavy but mechanically okay.

Zeiss cine lenses are better made and much more expensive and hold their value much better. No comparison there. If you are going to see the difference in the image all depends on circumstances. Are you shooting wide open with lots of back light for instance.
 
Go to a camera house on a slow day and take a look at a variety of lenses on your camera. You can decide what's best. I have the 17-50 - it's decent if not super sharp. I have used it on a lot of different shoots. If I have a budget I rent something better. I shot this mostly with the 17-50 - it turned out ok. https://www.lightingnewyork.com/content/video_ad_lp.html?vip=H65DX459
 
sander kamp said:
. The 18-85 seems to be very big and heavy but mechanically okay.
Click to expand...

I have two RED 17-50s. They are def not sharp wide open, which is where I shoot them almost all of the time. Still, the close focus is literally like 3 inches or something from the front of the glass. The bokeh is ok, better than some others. I have owned the much maligned 18-85 RED lens and it very nice for what it is. People complain that it is heavy at 10 pounds, but a Fujinon 18-85 T 2.0 lens weighs 5 pounds more, (is one stop faster) and costs almost $90K. YMMV.
 
Owning the 18-85, just purchased the 18-50 and 50-150 recently. Mechanically the 18-50 is the most challenged, the zoom and focus were sticky, but even the iris at times would jump with the zoom. It is not sharp at 50 full open. The 50-150 is sharp full open, but CA at 150. The 18-85 is not sharp around 28-40 for 4k full open, but at 5.6 they are all just fine. The 18-85 zoom has a nasty clunky sound when you hit the ranges end. but optically I compared it to the 18-80 Alura and the Cabrio 19-90 and it is totally comparable. The short zooms are Sigmas. In spite of their shortcomings, they are still a great set to have. For one, they exhibit little distortions compared to most other zooms.To shoot a portrait around 100mm with a zoom that doesn't start having pincushion distortion almost doesn't exist. Than the 18-50 focuses wicked close, and both cover a fantastic range for their compact size. They are also great on the Mini Ursa, since its chip size is close to the MX. Also, maybe unrelated, but the old MX footage with IPP2 in Resolve is a tremendous improvement, especially highlights and skin color .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top