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 :)

RPZ 17-50 review?

lens is well made, feels like a real heavy cine lens. mechanically nice.
sharp, mine holds focus throughout the zoom range.

it is a 'dumb' lens that does not read out the lens data electronically.
hope this helps.

For the money I do not think there is anything like it out there
(this is why I bought one...).

If you have 20k to spare buy an Angenieux Rouge.

best

axel
 
Its a nice lens, short in length and fat so isnt a lightweight. It make nice images. Well engineered from a user point of view. Would have been nice to have both Imperial and metric markings. It has a nice out of focus area and is very sharp. We are pleased with our lenses and clients ask for them by name and model more so than the Angenieux, probably because of price and there isnt anything out there that is similar excepting the origional 18 50 which is also nice but the 17 50 is a better though larger lens. Cant give you any actual test figures though.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #4
Thank you.

I'm familiar with Nikon lenses. 17-35 is sharp and 14-24 is even sharper. Both not so sharp as Nikon primes, but they're nice cheap zooms.

Can you compare 17-50 with these lenses? Is 17-50 sharper?
 
I cant give you any figures. We have a Nikon 17 35, Id say the 17 50 is sharper and has smoother Bokeh. The 14 24 is probably much better Opticaly. The 17 50 is a Cine lens and has much better mechanics, hold focus, but is is much bigger and more expensive. This is just a user opinion just based on actual use, you really need a lens tech to give you a real opinion. I still dont think you will get a better lens for the money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top