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 :)

SALT Results... (Part 1, Results)

Florian Stadler said:
Great write-up. Curious why no Red 18-85 was included? It seems like it would have belonged there...
Click to expand...

By the time it was requested, it was too late to get one from RED. The Fuji showed up late enough that we wouldn't have had enough time to do a proper test between the lenses [with the 17-80mm Optimo as well].

Matt Uhry did a great test of the 18-85mm when it first came out against his Cooke 18-100mm.
 
Thanks for the great work guys. Very much appreciated and great to put the RRP's into some perspective.
 
After all the tests reports reading I would say that I'm pretty happy with my lens set (new and vintage mostly still lenses and some cine lenses). :hurray:

If I would be interested in to owe some of expensive cine lenses then some of Optimo range zooms (both Rouge and 24-290 long Optimo),

Master Primes whole set and Hawks Anamorphic (V-Plus and V-Lite) would be on my priority list.

Also fast Fuji(NON) 18-85mm T1.8 zoom lens looks very attractive even it's a bit heavy (that for handheld with EasyRig 3 Cinema can EASY CARRY your RED1 on shoulder) and expensive.

Oh, I just forget that Dalsa/Leica/Leitz/Sasaki-Peterson Panavision like a rehoused FF35 lens set (6K) would be actually my first purchase choice. :emote_head_explode:
 
Gentlemen,
EXCELLENT REPORT !
I hope that in a future test that the Master Primes, and also another favorite, the Optimo 17-80mm would be included.
Best Regards,
Woody
 
Thank you for your time...

Thank you for your time...

Thanks a lot to have put so much effort and time into such a huge write up of this lens comparative test.

I really did appreciate the reading as it isn't limited to numbers striking you down.

I was wondering, as you guys know how to do the tests, if the missing lenses could be tested separately later on and be included then.

Cheers...
 
Rodney James said:
Thank you Matthew I did read your review but are you completely sure that U are not forgetting something?
Click to expand...

I think everyone knows that Duclos has had a key part in the Uniq Optics primes I am not sure why Matthew is hiding that fact. Just call UO and ask.
 
Michael Lindsay said:
I would like to thank the team for there efforts..

I have a couple of questions:

Did you detect any pincushioning on the Optimo DP 30-80?

Was there any testing of the lenses close focus 'performance' (not just a min focus capability)?

kind regards

Michael L
Click to expand...

There was a little barrel at the wide and pincushion at the long end with the Optimo 30-80 but it's quite minor.

We did not test performance at close focus - Trust me we had our hands completely full doing what we did in a day.

I'll take a look at the RPP's as a CF set when I get them and our camera comes back from being on rental.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
Excellent work, kudos to the SALT crew.

Evin Grant said:
(Opinion 2: David Mullen)

The 100mm lenses were generally the weakest of everyone’s line of primes.
Click to expand...

This is interesting. And a little disappointing, as I really like the 100mm focal length.

Is the RPP 100mm noticably inferior to the other focal lenghts apart from the flaring issue?

In my Nikon mount Zeiss ZF set, I feel the 100mm is the best lens in the set optically. Zeiss have adapted the ZFs to cine lenses with the Compact Primes -- all focal lenghts except the 100mm. Curious.

For reference, is the 100mm Master Prime weaker than the other Master Primes?
 
The 100mm lenses were softer in comparison to the other primes in the same series, that doesn't necessarily mean they are soft overall, just that usually the next prime shorter in focal length was sharper -- or at least, looked that way. But I find long lenses in general start to look flatter and thus less snappy and edgy, could partly be due to how hard it gets to focus them, or a loss of contrast, I don't know. You are looking through more air, so to speak.

Maybe Pawel can compare his 100mm Master Prime to his 50mm and 75mm and tell you.
 
Last edited:
great review guys. thank you so much for your efforts. (brook, thanks for all of your comments with respect to onset practicality and usability of the lenses too! i have worked with a lot of different lenses and camera systems and it amazes me when small little details are missed when designing a new lens or camera system.) i am in the market to be putting together a camera package soon. could we list the price points of all the sets and/or zooms?
rrp 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm 19 000 usd or approx 4000 each?
uniq optics 18mm, 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm 30 000 usd or approx 5000 each?
zeiss compact primes 18mm, 21mm, 25mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm 6000 usd per lens? set of 5 being approx. 30 000 usd
zeiss ultra primes 12 000 usd each???
cooke s4's 18 000 aprox each a set of 5 being 90 000 usd??
ang rouge zooms 20 000 usd each?
new fujinon 18-85 85 000 usd?
 
Brook Willard said:
RED Pro Primes [T1.8]

On the Cooke, the outer barrel is only present forward of the focusing gear. This means that from the rear element of the lens forward, the two largest outside diameters are the two gears - the iris gear and the focus gear. The lens has a larger outside diameter forward of the focusing gear, but not aft. This allows a lens to be swapped without having to disengage your motors or follow focus - just slide one lens out and slide another lens on. Everything lines up. This is true on every cinema lens I can recall ever coming across.
Click to expand...

Brook the Uniq Optics have a recessed focus ring if I can remember correctly but you did not mention it in the review. Or am I wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top