RED PRO ZOOM 17-50mm v2 VS GL OPTICS 18-35mm

[J. C. John]

I'm between these two lenses and I would like to hear your thoughts about them. Has anyone tested or used both of them
on a shoot? The obvious is the T stop between them, but what about continues focus through out the focal lengths, what is the degree of focus rotation on the Red zoom?
Witch one is more neutral colour wise? What about sharpness?
Any feedback will be appreciated!
Thanks
John

 

[Ho Perry]

There's different lever, I will go for Red Pro 17-50mm Compact zoom...

 

[Matt Uhry]

I took a chance and got the 300 Deg version of the GL from the first batch - It's a great lens, I like almost everything about it. The Image and Build quality of my Sigma 18-35 is exceptional. Nan's conversion is nicely done and a very good value.

Only issue is that the optional swappable Canon EF mount he sent me for it never fit and is not unusable - wasted about $200 on that. I leave it in PL.

I've used Red's 17-50 a few times, Optically pretty good, based on a Tamron I think. Mechanically - you should maybe test it out before you commit .

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

 

[Ho Perry]

Hello Matt!

I have the GL 18-35mm as well, personal I know Nan for long times, and had been advise a lot for the rehousing lens commends too, just order the Leica R rehoused prime lens set from him too...
GL 18-35mm is a great wide compact zoom, had been used for many projects too...

 

[Alan Peterson]

Witch one is more neutral colour wise?
John

The Red Pro Zooms render out very neutral color-wise with RED's color science. I usually don't have to do much to footage from the RPZ 18-85 to make it look fairly true to what the eye sees. Sigmas (I shoot frequently with the 2nd gen 120-300mm and the 300-800mm) tend to render things a little on the cool/magenta side, but it corrects out nicely without much effort.

 

[J. C. John]

Is RPZ 17-50mm Parafocal? Thank you all for your reply so far!

 

[Roger Viloria]

Yes, the RPZ 17-50mm is parafocal.

 

[Mark K.]

Is the converted Sigma parfocal?

 

[Roger Viloria]

Yes, It is a Sigma parfocal

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

The RED 17-50 is a nice lens. There is a v2 version of the lens that is the same as the first, but has a modified hood to keep it from vignetting on MX 5K frames and Dragon -- I know RED was taking them in for a while and doing the v2 modification, it's pretty simple. Optically speaking it is very nice. The mechanics are fine too, much better than the older 18-50 T3 /i RED zoom. Similar construction to the RPP's and similar feel. I've seen many references to the RPZ 17-50 as being based on the Tamron 17-50 and I have to disagree. The two have different optical characteristics, the RPZ being noticeably sharper and relatively aberration free. All things considered, it's not as nice as an Optimo 16-42, 15-40, etc.. or other much higher priced cinema zooms, but it's a nice lens and sells for a whole lot less.

I have not used the GL Optics conversion of the Sigma 18-35. However, I've used the regular Sigma version. It's also a nice lens. I actually think the RPZ is a bit sharper, or at least it seems to be sharper around F5.6 or so. Both are very neutral for color rendition and both have a very pleasing look to their image. The RPZ holds focus fairly well throughout the zoom range, not completely perfect, or comparable to most anything else unless you want to spend the money for the Zeiss or Angie zooms. It has a significant amount of breathing, if that bothers you. Of course, the Sigma 18-35 SLR zoom also breathes a lot. And in SLR form doesn't hold focus well, shows a lot of shift and has a very short focus throw (rotation), but I'm assuming those issues are addressed with the conversion to PL. I don't recall how much rotation the RPZ 17-50 has -- definitely more than 200°, as I recall.

Coverage is similar between the two. Ultimately, if I were buying today, I would lean toward the converted sigma due to the F1.8 aperture and the optics are great. Nan G seems to do a pretty good job on his conversions. I think I'd chance it, but would also like to hear from someone who actually owns that converted lens. Matt Uhry's comments about that are brief, but I trust his judgement there as we have agreed on a lot of lens matters in the past.

 

[Matt Uhry]

Cheers Jeff,

Lenses are a personal thing and and a great or mediocre copy of a lens can form individual opinions. In a perfect world you could demo a lens you're going to buy on a few real shoots.
Not sure what the options are where you're located but at least you can try one and see how it works for you, if not move on to the other.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhy.com