Red Zooms - who is producing these lenses

[laguun]

big grin here in berlin - i have a 5 hours meeting and gibby doubles the lenght of thread.

i agree with most points gibby made, on some i have a slighty different perspective.

as a bottomline, i think we can sum up several points.

a) most important, final judgement on red lenses has to be made after delivery. there are many indications that their quality might be excellent. offering cooke /i tech, a very interesting pricing and having convinced top-directors so far, they might be an excellent choice. gibby and his l.a.r.t. will probably offer the first insights, if everything proceeds fine, results will be public shortly before ibc.

b) the traditional manufacturers products offer better techspecs on their best products, in range and f-stop, at a considerably higher price. These techspecs, however, don´t equal imagequality - and quality seems to be paramount for most posters in this thread.

c) we will see a very broad spectrum of different users, different technology, different standards used by the dps working with red. dare i to say: probably the widest spectrum of all cameras in recent moviemaking history.

d) older cinemalenses can be pretty interesting choices for many of the posters here.
d²) same applies to certain photolenses(d² is also called the evin grant disclaimer)

e) there is no "one-size-fits-its-all" lens

f) different from the camera, which (if red is able to ramp up production as planned) took the 35mm sales marketleadership at once, opinions are somewhat different if the same will happen to lenses (having me in the rather not camp)

g) and finally, and additionally on topic: whoever is that lucky british manufacturer who builts the lenses will probably see a -slight- increase in revenue this year.

p.s.
h) never mix eng and efp in a thread monitored by gibby.

 

[Steve Gibby]

LOL...nice summary Laguun. I think you expressed yourself very well in your summary post, and yes, I agree with most of your summary. :biggrin:

Yeah, I'm passionate about the variety of potential uses for RED One. For the past 20 months since I attended the very first RED One camera specification meeting at Oakley (12/05), and wrote the first published interview with Jim Jannard about the RED One camera system and its intended uses (3/06), I've had to exchange posts with a never-ending parade of guys on all the RED boards who've tried to insist that RED One was just a cine-style camera system, and guys who made "its not an ENG camera" posts. Time and again I've had to correct guys on the difference between EFP and ENG, and explain how RED One was definitely being developed as an EFP style camera - beyond its obvious cine style uses.

Correct EFP & ENG definitions are definitely one of my concerns when it comes to RED One discussions. :wink:

 

[chuck colburn]

Good lenses are complicated and cost a lot of money.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Good lenses are complicated and cost a lot of money.

Kinda like good women, eh! :wink:

 

[PaulClements]

Kinda like all women more like!

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Silicon bulbs

Silicon bulbs

Like the silicon bulbs from Formentera this summer.

View attachment 880

 

[Antoine Baumann]

I don't think faster lens are better, in fact you better choose a T4 lens if you intend to shoot at T4 and not a T1.3.

Of course if you shoot at night you might consider a T1.3 lens, but with the low noise level of the RED camera, and the high sensitivity, it might not be a necessity.

Well you should have less DOF at T1.3 than at T4, but is that really so important?

If your saying the Red Zoom does not breathe.........I will get a chance to see them at IBC then I will know the answer.

Stephen

I would also look to that at IBC.


antoine.

 

[laguun]

I don't think faster lens are better, in fact you better choose a T4 lens if you intend to shoot at T4 and not a T1.3.

rule of thumb: a lens can never be too fast, it can only be to slow.

Of course if you shoot at night you might consider a T1.3 lens, but with the low noise level of the RED camera, and the high sensitivity, it might not be a necessity.

think about:
- highspeed (96/120p)
- night, as in carchase
- underwater. deep underwater. every f/t less is basicly more viewrange, clear waters given.
- light using candles/torches/campfire etc as in western/historic/drama/horror etc
- documentary / hidden camera
- think about a -huge- exterior shot (castle? harbor?) where yoz have to light up details
- wildlife
etc pp

there are to many reasons why a low f/tstop is extremly important in many situations to list. even in the studio. less heat, electricity, weight make the set faster.

Well you should have less DOF at T1.3 than at T4, but is that really so important?

yes, very important. think wideangle interior.

 

[Matt Uhry]

Of course if you shoot at night you might consider a T1.3 lens, but with the low noise level of the RED camera, and the high sensitivity, it might not be a necessity.

Well you should have less DOF at T1.3 than at T4, but is that really so important?

antoine.

Selective focus is considered by many DP's to be an important part of their craft.


Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

 

[Stephen Williams]

rule of thumb: a lens can never be too fast, it can only be to slow.


t

Hi,

Whilst in principle I agree, lens theory would suggest that a lens that opens to f2.8 might perform better at f4 than a f1.2 lens at f4. The reason is that the light has to travel through more glass, which is in theory a bad thing.

So a small light slow lens could 'in theory' perform rather well optically, practice is another matter & thats what tests are for!

Stephen

 

[Antoine Baumann]

rule of thumb: a lens can never be too fast, it can only be to slow.

lagun no you are wrong the rule of thumb (or whatever, as I don't understand "rule of thumb") is the less glass the light has to go through the less aberration you get.

So why expect a T1.3 lens to give a finner picture at T3.2 than a lens with a max apperture of T2? There is strong arguments to say it won't.

I am not saying there is no need for fast lens, I am saying it is not true that they are always the good choice, and you cannot say it is better just because it is faster.

antoine.

 

[Chris Burket]

heard some rumours from people who has some good connections to the lens manufacturers that the RED zooms seem to be from Sigma - rehoused and redesigned anywhere in the states. any comments on this?

I would be much more interested in who designed them. It doesn't matter who makes them, every manufacturer could turn out the same lense with the same set of specs and extremely strict manufacturing tolerences.

And after the lenses hit the market, I'm sure someone will project them, take them apart etc... and will then be able to report on their characteristics.

 

[explosive]

heard some rumours from people who has some good connections to the lens manufacturers that the RED zooms seem to be from Sigma - rehoused and redesigned anywhere in the states. any comments on this?

AS far as i know, they are being made in england. sigma manufactures in japan.

 

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

If Cooke were involved in the lenses I think Jim would have told us.

Stephen

 

[PaulClements]

Maybe not directly Stephen but I do wonder whether Cooke's designers and technicians were employed to work on them under the guise of another company and setup and run the production line. All the evidence points to some involvment but I don't believe Cooke themselves actually make them, if you see what I mean. That way Cooke protect their products and make a load of cash and Red gets decent lenses made by some of the finest glass makers. Perhaps it's the fact that the glass is being mass produced rather than hand made that Cooke didn't want their name put on it.

Who knows, the whole thing could be a giant RedHerring™.

 

[Stephen Williams]

Maybe not directly Stephen but I do wonder whether Cooke's designers and technicians were employed to work on them under the guise of another company and setup and run the production line. All the evidence points to some involvment but I don't believe Cooke themselves actually make them, if you see what I mean. That way Cooke protect their products and make a load of cash and Red gets decent lenses made by some of the finest glass makers. Perhaps it's the fact that the glass is being mass produced rather than hand made that Cooke didn't want their name put on it.

Who knows, the whole thing could be a giant RedHerring™.

Hi Paul,

I think if they were, Cooke would know about it!

Stephen

 

[PaulClements]

I don't understand what you mean Stephen?

What I'm meaning is that between Les Zellan and Jim they make a company called Red Lenses or similar based in the UK and employ people that work at Cooke to help set it up and design lenses.

If you ask Cooke if they are making them they catagorically deny it. But it doesn't mean the tech's can't be involved through another company for the mutual benefit of Red and Les Zellan.

 

[Stephen Williams]

I don't understand what you mean Stephen?

What I'm meaning is that between Les Zellan and Jim they make a company called Red Lenses or similar based in the UK and employ people that work at Cooke to help set it up and design lenses.

If you ask Cooke if they are making them they catagorically deny it. But it doesn't mean the tech's can't be involved through another company for the mutual benefit of Red and Les Zellan.

Hi Paul,

Leicester is a small place & Cooke optics is a small company, I think people would have a good idea what was happening.
In any case how many lens designers work for Cooke?

Stephen

 

[Emanuel A.]

Hi,

If Cooke were involved in the lenses I think Jim would have told us.

Stephen

Maybe not Stephen.

Cooke is too much involved with their own business. And the money has no voice nor favorite soccer team.

E.

 

[PaulClements]

Hi Paul,

Leicester is a small place & Cooke optics is a small company, I think people would have a good idea what was happening.
In any case how many lens designers work for Cooke?

Stephen

Hi Stephen,

Leicester isn't that small, a few hundred thousand people live there so by English standards it's probably one of the top 25 cities. I'm not sure how many lens designers work for Cooke but I know it wouldn't take much to make them sign a non-disclosure.

At the end of the day the only fact that we have about the manufacturing of Red Lenses is that there is secrecy surrounding them. The fact we don't know who makes them or heard on the grape vine who is, should be enough of an argument to suggest that people wouldn't have a good idea what was happening.

We've been introduced to many of the people involved in the production of the camera such as Graeme, Rob etc but oddly we've never had a single person come on the forum to tell us about the production of the lenses... seems a little odd if they were infact working for an independent Red Lens company don't you think? Throughout Red's productions Jim has put together teams of the best people to produce his stuff, why would he choose anything less than the best personnel for his lenses? He invited Eric and Birger to make the mounts but didn't have them hide any information for whatever reason? Curt and his company have been making bits and pieces and again nothing has been disguised. So why do so with the lenses unless there is something to hide?

It's one of two things, either Red wants us to think that Cooke or its employees has had some kind of involvment in the production of Red Lenses or they actually have, because all of their hints point that way.

It's all speculation and I agree that I don't believe the lenses are being produced at the Cooke factory in Leicester by Cooke. The fact is that if you were a billionaire wanting to produce a set of decent quality cine lenses would you come to England to have them made and completely ignore Cooke Optics? - Especially when that billionaire has said that they are his favourite cine lenses and Les Zellan has been at many of the Red functions and curious other bits of information exist that point towards it.

If the lenses are good they could turn out to be an even bigger cash cow than the camera itself. I find it hard to believe Les Zellan wouldn't be rubbing his hands at the thought of turning over a profit of a few million extra because of it - I would lol.

Paul