Red Primes Suggestions box

[Matthew Rogers]

Mac, I'm not sure witness marks would ever be accurate on the 18-50, pretty much anywhere in the range of the distance number may be accurate depending on the play of the lens. Every one I've seen has been slightly different. Honestly, eye focus from T2.8-T5.6 and scale focus from T5.6 on.
You'll do fine.

Are you saying that if you had someone or RED engrave them they wouldn't be accurate? Or are you talking about if I measure the distances and mark it on my 18-50 the next time I focus the lens it would already be off? Also, what do you mean by scale focus at T5.6 on? I'm confused!

Also, I forwarded your post onto a friend who has written a bunch of shorts scripts.

Matthew

 

[Evin Grant]

Thanks Mac,
What I mean is that there is enough play in the focus ring that you may be on or slightly off at any particular time because the tolerance of the focus mechanism is not tight enough to maintain the repeatable mark. This is by design, as I stated earlier to make the tolerances tighter and to add witness marks would raise the cost of the lens by many thousands of dollars. By scale focused I mean focus by distance, at T5.6 there is enough depth of field to overcome any focus inaccuracy inherent in the lens mechanics.

 

[chuck colburn]

One thing I would suggest is an optical tech at the factory or at least at RED headquarters performing REALLY tight quality control on each and every lens. Rejecting any that are not up to snuff. This is going to be very important if RED wants to impress the movie making community with their primes. These are new lenses and I assume new designs as opposed to rebarrled still camera lenses. And they better be consitently good or the word will spread fast if they aren't.

 

[Sean Michael Johnston]

I'm with Shawn - I hope that they'll offer them individually.

 

[Matthew Rogers]

Thanks Mac,
What I mean is that there is enough play in the focus ring that you may be on or slightly off at any particular time because the tolerance of the focus mechanism is not tight enough to maintain the repeatable mark. This is by design, as I stated earlier to make the tolerances tighter and to add witness marks would raise the cost of the lens by many thousands of dollars. By scale focused I mean focus by distance, at T5.6 there is enough depth of field to overcome any focus inaccuracy inherent in the lens mechanics.

So what about pulling focus for a Focus Puller? If a move is non repeatable, then it makes it a pretty worthless lens for a focus puller?! I kinda feel that's pretty sad considering the $1,000 Fujinon lens on my JVC HD110U can repeat a pull each and every time!

Matthew

 

[Evin Grant]

A focus puller can do fine from T5.6 and above. Below that it's a bit of a guess but if you have the monitor there you'll know if it's good or not. The $1000 Fujinon is no better it's just on a 1/3" camera which has enormous DOF and so the tolerance for error is much greater.

 

[Sven Seynaeve]

However the Red team decides and takes care of the quality questions about the primes I hope they come up with some high end quality primeset. If the primes are not equal or almost equal to some higher priced primes this won't benefit the the comunity believing in Red.

Maby it's a little based on rumours from around, but this would be one of the biggest dealbreakers in case of credibility for the Red brand, especially if we had to discuss this over with the ones using our gear in the future.

I'd love to see a sollution that would'nt cost us a fortune to get amazing quality, but not being a dealbreaker if a job's depending on it and most of all the decision taken by the dop which gear he'd like to use and be confident in.

Paying more for them could be an option for us , but the build quality should be much better then, causing the rumours to discappear forever.

 

[Mark K.]

15mm, 24mm, 35mm and 85mm all work for me. Given a choice, I'd ditch the 50mm in favour of a 135mm in an instant. I can't really see myself wanting to shoot a 15mm lens much below f/4-5.6 unless I absolutely have to, so f/2.8 would be okay there.

 

[Zack Birlew]

1. Sell the lenses individually.

2. Add a few more to round out the range. (ie. 18mm, 28mm, ect. to 100)

3. Add the pro features people are asking for. (ie. marks, ect.)

4. Maybe also offer a smaller set? (ie. 15mm, 50mm, 85mm/100mm) [wide, medium, close]

5. If you can, make all of them 1.9 or less.

6. I don't know, coming from a video world, maybe develop, by comparison to a whole lens, an economic Wide Angle and Telephoto attachment for those on a tight budget? Heck, maybe even a RED-approved rear/front anamorphic adapter?

 

[nick allsop]

witness marks please

 

[Matt Uhry]

15mm, 24mm, 35mm and 85mm all work for me. Given a choice, I'd ditch the 50mm in favour of a 135mm in an instant. I can't really see myself wanting to shoot a 15mm lens much below f/4-5.6 unless I absolutely have to, so f/2.8 would be okay there.

Can you explain why ? I find your statements strange.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

 

[Matthew Duclos]

Can you explain why ? I find your statements strange.

Agreed. Wouldn't people want a set with a consistent speed? It seems that a lens with a speed of 2,8 in a set of all 1,8 would be unwanted.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I would like to know opinions.

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

T 2.8 for a prime is not acceptable, unless it's a extreme lens like the Zeiss R8 or a telephoto.

Hans

 

[Nova Invicta]

Red Lens set

Red Lens set

Only one post here asked the MOST important question, are they good optically and better than re-badged average stills lenses? You can have any focal lenght you like but optical performance is the most important factor much more so than any sensor (crap in crap out). Arri sell their Zeiss lenses individually so does Cooke and any camera store and so should Red.

We have rejected Arri Zeiss lenses / Cookes if they were not good enough and so should anyone purchasing from Red. Red should also issue the factory spec in terms of MTF etc so you know your lens performs within the specification.
Which ever lens you choose always go for the best you can afford their MORE important than the camera.

 

[Andrew Madu]

Which ever lens you choose always go for the best you can afford their MORE important than the camera.

Ain't that the truth! Just got my quote from Arri for a set of Master Primes. Someone in my household is going to draw the short straw for bred and water for a few weeks!

 

[Florian Stadler]

The lens with the highest minimum aperture of a set is what you will have to light for every time (you'll probably want to close it down a 1/3 stop at least for performance). Making the wide lens the slowest lens is a big mistake and is the reason I would not even consider a set of Red lenses sight unseen.

That being said, my regular A.C. has a wooden light meter that has 2.8 1/3 written on it with a sharpie that she likes to wave around the set from time to time.

Lenses are the new filmstocks and I would be most interested in characterful lenses.

 

[Mark Pedersen]

Lenses are the new filmstocks and I would be most interested in characterful lenses.

Love it.

Sound like there are plenty of characterful lenses out there ;0

Just not that many good ones that are also cheap.

Maybe you get what you pay for? Hmmm. Seems I've heard that one before.

M

 

[Charles Angus]

Primes without witness marks are not worth using. Not cine quality.

If focus pulls are not repeatable, the lenses are not worth using. Useless for cinema.

T2.8 for a prime in a T1.9 set is disappointing, to say the least. However, Canon's offering in this range is f2.8 (for EF mount), and it costs the same (assuming each lens costs 1/5th).

In the end, I would not consider a lens set to be "cine" if it did not meet Evin's "what I'd like to see list".

It's only a bargain if you get what you need.

 

[Matthew Duclos]

It seems to me that the masses do not want still lenses that have been converted. I assume this is due to build quality and mechanics. If problems such as "lost-motion" in the focus and iris were eliminated and a consistent speed of 1.8 was applied throughout the set. AND the lot had focus scale witness marks on both "smart" and "dumb" side, and the set was all PL mounted, would that be a viable purchase for most people?

 

[Scott Webster]

It seems to me that the masses do not want still lenses that have been converted. I assume this is due to build quality and mechanics. If problems such as "lost-motion" in the focus and iris were eliminated and a consistent speed of 1.8 was applied throughout the set. AND the lot had focus scale witness marks on both "smart" and "dumb" side, and the set was all PL mounted, would that be a viable purchase for most people?

Matthew,

Urban legend has it that Band Pro went to Zeiss with the proposal for what is the Digi Prime/Zoom range. Zeiss said yes but to get them to build them they needed a minimum order from Band Pro. Not sure what the actual number was, but let's say it was 1000 for Zeiss to be interested in tooling up for manufacture. Band Pro went all in.

Let's look at Red. Conservative sales of 5000 cameras by the end of 2009.

From what I can tell RedUsers are looking for a standard set of 5 primes 16-85
with your specs priced between 25000-35000.

What I think Evin is subtly trying to suggest that if Red or an alternative manufacturer lift the specs of there prime set the market will be there. We are starved for product at this price range.