RED PRO 18-85mm T2.9 ZOOM -VS- RED 17-50mm T2.9 ZOOM

[Ravi K]

Please take a few moments and let me know which will be a better option. It would be great if you can give a few reasons too.
Some senior Red users have suggested 17-50mm but I wanted to know how it stands against 18-85 as well.
Both of them are of the same price but 18-85 is a BT.


Thanks
Ravi

 

[noah newtown]

i use and like both but the 18-85mm is really big and heavy thats for me the only reason why i use also the 17-50mm... for handheld, steady etc.

 

[Kwan Khan]

Thanks Ravi

For Dear Fellows.. please few reasons on both....
I have both for over 24months and still trying to figure-out which one to keep (lol - sorry)

 

[Ketch Rossi]

They are both FANTASTIC Zooms, with very Sharp image, and little Artifacts, when compared to their RPP's counterparts, which us rare for Zooms, only a hand full of Zoom manufacturers in fact are capable to
build Zooms which are so close to their Primes, that you would have a very Impossible time differentiating the two when Zooms are used as Vary-Primes shot at the same Aperture distance and Focal distance.

Now as far as the differences form one to the other, what is that one needs are, is the first question to be asked, as again, as far as image quality they are both Fantastic, same for the build and over all performance.

So the only real question one must ask him self here, is "WHAT DO I USE THIS ZOOM FOR?"

If the answer is Studio work were the Camera is ALWAYS on a Tripod, then the answer to your question is simple... THE 18-85 is a better choice do to its longer range.

If the answer is Occasional Studio work with some SteadyCam and Shoulder mount or even Hand Held Run n' Gun, then your answer is... THE 17-50 is a better choice
because is lighter and much smaller.

Ideally one needs BOTH, same as why you have a SET of Primes and not just ONE...

Different Glass for different needs, if you have a Dolly when shooting in Studio, then you can Dolly your Shot in, and the 17-50 will also serve you well,
just know that Zooming in to a Shot has a different effect perspective then Dolling in to one...

 

[Peter Cote]

I've never used the 17-50 but to be honest I hate the 18-85. Optically it's great, it's sharp. But people are not really expressing how big it is. It's huge and heavy. It's so big that I couldn't get a follow focus to fit on the rails, and I tried 5 different types of follow focuses. If you have lots of time to shoot then I could see the 18-85 working for you, but not at all for a run and gun.

Here is a pic of a friend using it the other day so you can get an idea of the scale http://twitter.com/?photo_id=1#!/petercote/status/134719387163836416/photo/1

 

[Matt Bowden]

Holy S$%# Peter...thanks for that. Helped me make my decision. HAHA I didn't realize how big it was.

 

[Stephen Franchek]

Curious which one you ended up with, almost a year later. The 18-85mm isn't the worst out there when it comes to weight. I was just on a production that rented an optimo 24-290... that thing is a BEAST! As far as big zooms go, the RPZ 18-85mm isn't that bad