Which lens would you choose?

[Jan Schuster]

Hey guys,

I'm getting my first epic setup very shortly and the biggest question for me is which zoom lens do I go with? The RPZ 18-85 or the RPZ 17-50.

I realize the 18-85 is 3x the weight and requires a rail/support system, not a big deal as I want to use either lens with a clutch shoulder rig. I just really like the advantage of being able to zoom to 85mm.

The 17-50 is great because its lightweight, also because the close focus is a few cm from the lens where the 18-85 is quite a bit farther than that.

Is there a difference in optical quality? Is it crazy to use the 18-85 on a shoulder rig? Which lens would you choose?

Thanks for the help, I've been pondering this one for a while now.

 

[Jason Beckwith]

I would, and in fact did, get the 17-50.

I've shot with the 18-85 on the Red One, and I consider it to be the better of two.

The size and weight is a deal breaker for me, and that's why I went with the smaller, lighter lens.

It's crazy, IMHO, to consider the 18-85 for shoulder mount work. It's just too bulky.

 

[Ryan De Franco]

Shoot with both. If you can rent them in your area ask the house if you can test them in one of their bays for free--most places are cool with this.

If there are none near you.... Remember you're spending thousands $$$ on a lens and camera.
Might as well fly to LA and pick up your Epic in person ask to shoot both zooms, compare the results at your hotel and pick what you like. I would never sped that much without handling the lens myself before paying....

Good luck!!

 

[Jan Schuster]

I would love to handle everything in person before purchasing, flying to LA is not really an option but I really like the idea of finding the lenses in town and trying them first.

I'm leaning towards the 18-85 because I think I'm ok with a little extra weight (my tripod will do more than 50% of the work) and the extra 35mm zoom is a big advantage. Also, if it is really heavy for shoulder work I can sub in Canon lenses (which I have quite a few of). That way I have the extended zoom for tripod work and options for shoulder handheld work.

I will try and use the lenses before purchase, if anyone else has input it would be appreciated.

 

[kevin holmgren]

Basically trying to figure out the same thing. Want the lightness of the smaller, but want the extra capabilities of the longer zoom, even though it seems to weigh a ton and need to be on rails.

Love to see more suggestions on the pros and cons of each lens.

 

[Roy Gregorio]

I was on the same boat for a while and decided to go with the 17-50mm, and eventually just get a separate 85mm prime. 17-50mm gives me a broad enough range without sacrificing portability. Eventually, I'll get the 85mm to complement the 17-50mm and I'll be able to take advantage of the lower F-stop. But honestly, it's becoming too close to NAB to make any purchase because Red may or may not announce a new lineup of lenses.

 

[Ryan De Franco]

As will others. Zeiss is said to introduce compact zooms, as well as anamorphic primes.

I think it also depends a lot on what you shoot. Over the last three years, I've noticed the 18-50 (then 17-50) works well as a "get through the day" lens. You have a lot of narrative material to shoot, way more shots called for then time allows, the zoom keeps you moving light and fast.

The 18-85 approaches traditional cinema territory: rigorous work all day with the camera mounted on dolly, sticks, etc. Images are less photographic, you can feel the texture in the images a bit more.

Roy's idea is genius. The thing about that extra range you want out of the 18-85... is that a zoom lens on 85 will never look like a portrait on 85. With the zoom, you're utilizing glass elements that produce every focal length between 18 and 85 to create a telephoto image instead of utilizing a design that just creates a gorgeous telephoto image.

For the last century, lens designers have created genius arrangements of glass that yield beautiful results, each crafted to a different field of view. These have been recycled and renamed, closely guarded then discarded, by every manufacturer... many, many, many lenses all of us own, from Canons to Cookes, are exquisite refinements of the double Gauss design that dates to 1817. All that effort and consolidation has yielded some gorgeous prime lens design, which zooms mimic but cannot equal.

Zooms are the Roy Rogers / Golden Corral / Chinese buffet of lens design... they serve everything, but only so well.
I think the idea of a fast, wide-normal zoom with a prime for stunning close-ups is the smartest start-out lens package idea I've ever heard.

 

[Jan Schuster]

I was on the same boat for a while and decided to go with the 17-50mm, and eventually just get a separate 85mm prime. 17-50mm gives me a broad enough range without sacrificing portability. Eventually, I'll get the 85mm to complement the 17-50mm and I'll be able to take advantage of the lower F-stop.

You feel the 18-85 is too big to travel with? I think it would be better to have one lens zoom up to 85 instead of a separate 85mm prime, that way you wouldn't have to re-balance everything if you need to switch lenses. In a lot of cases you could shoot all day with the 18-85 and never switch a lens. Then when I have $4,250 for a new lens I can do the 100mm prime.

I really like the 3lb weight of the 17-50 tho...

But honestly, it's becoming too close to NAB to make any purchase because Red may or may not announce a new lineup of lenses.

I'm already waiting on the new MacPro tower, I don't think I can wait on a new lens :'(. Talk about a love hate relationship with technology

 

[Jan Schuster]

Roy's idea is genius. The thing about that extra range you want out of the 18-85... is that a zoom lens on 85 will never look like a portrait on 85. With the zoom, you're utilizing glass elements that produce every focal length between 18 and 85 to create a telephoto image instead of utilizing a design that just creates a gorgeous telephoto image.

I think the idea of a fast, wide-normal zoom with a prime for stunning close-ups is the smartest start-out lens package idea I've ever heard.

The 18-85 would retain the same image quality up to 50mm as the 17-50mm would, as far as I know(?). If were talking about losing quality with a zoom lens, would it not make more sense to have a longer zoom lens complimented with a 100mm prime. And in the end you'll have more focal length to work with.

 

[Ryan De Franco]

Depends where you're traveling to. The ease with which that little 17-50 can fit, well padded, into a photo backpack for one man band shoots, airplane travel, backpacking etc is pretty incredible, makes up for the image issues

The 18-85 is not well suited to all of those situations because it's a traditional cinema zoom, i.e. BIG. You'll want to hang the camera literally behind your shoulder if you want ideal, hands-free balance--or use a Pro I/O module Red Brick plus additional gear for counterweight.

As for image quality, I guess this is that other definition of quality, intangible feeling... Compare a close-up of a face from an 85mm prime to that from a matching zoom at 85mm. All lenses have to compensate for aberrations while trying to deliver a pleasing image. This is much, much easier to do when you're tackling the strengths and weaknesses of a given focal length instead of trying to deliver a compromise across many.

Whereas the 17-50 keeps you light and agile, saves you $3,000 to put towards a prime for close-ups. This is if you're shooting mostly narrative, shot by shot. I think the zoom + telephoto prime idea goes out the window for doc, corporate, ENG, etc.

 

[Roy Gregorio]

It just sounds to me like you're going to be using the 18-85mm as a primary run and gun, shoot anything anywhere type of lens, when it's really meant to be stationary somewhere on a set. Not saying that you couldn't do it, but you'll probably end up kicking yourself once you have it actually mounted in front of you and you feel how big/heavy it really is. Especially if you intend to shoot all day. 17-50mm is perfect for that and I have no regrets making that decision. Especially if you still plan on purchasing a 100mm prime anyway, it would still go well with 17-50 and 100mm combination.

 

[Nick Morrison]

A Zoom is always a compromise, unless you are using a $50k lens. But even then, it's not the same a prime. By all reports, the RPP 18-85 IS supposed to be cinema caliber. While the 17-50 is supposed to betray some of its "still zoom" SIGMA origins.

Personally? I would skip the 17-50, because if I wanted a still origin zoom I'd go for a LEICA or ZIESS zoom. Several come to mind.

And I think RYAN is right, an 85 1.4 portrait lens is just not the same at 85 as an 85 2.8 zoom.

The CONTAX 85 1.4, for example, is OPTIMIZED for portraits. Its a little soft and less contrasty from 1.4 to 2.8 so that its pleasing to faces and skin tones. I can't imagine a zoom can be so specific at every focal length.

 

[Ryan De Franco]

Well, if we're talking personally.. I would skip the red lenses all together, as they are workhorse well built get the job done awesome American lenses that have, well, less personality than their European / Japanese counterparts. We tend not to mention this here but it's mentioned everywhere else so may as well be forward. They are sharp, and they are well made, but they are still highly affordable for a reason.

If the Optimos are way out of your price range, and you want a run and gun leave it on your shoulder all day lens, I would strongly suggest waiting a month for NAB. Or considering as Nick points out old photographic glass--The Angeniuex 28-70 f/2.6, the Zeiss 28-85, Nikor 35-135. Much respect for those who require cinema mechanics for their work but I love making my ACs job difficult, that Zeiss 85 is heaven on a stick.

 

[Richard Gale]

17-50 RPZ on Contagion

17-50 RPZ on Contagion

By all reports, the RPP 18-85 IS supposed to be cinema caliber. While the 17-50 is supposed to betray some of its "still zoom" SIGMA origins.

Here's a report that the 17-50 RPZ is most definitely "cinema caliber:"

When asked whether the lens was cinema quality, Jim Jannard confirmed it was used by Soderbergh on Contagion.

 

[Jan Schuster]

I would love to wait another month for NAB but at this point I need something.. Plus I'm sure it will take a lot more time after that to have one in hand.

The point that the 18-85 is not a run and gun lens is a big thing for me and probably a deciding factor against it. Also, I can save a few bucks over the 18-85 and wait for new releases at NAB.

If I had more money I'd get faster lenses but right now I can afford some red lenses, get a Canon mount and use the Canon lenses I already have. Sounds like a good start to me!

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

FWIW I think the usage flexibility offered by the diminutive 17-50 RPZ is a big plus over the much larger 18-85 RPZ. I would also point out that if you want the kind of zoom-ability you might be used to on a B4 video lens, even 18-85 is not much zoom ratio. YMMV.

Cheers - #19

 

[Peter Strietmann]

Get both. Used or battle tested. They are both great lenses but apples and oranges as people have already stated. You can't beat the price, no way...

 

[Nick Morrison]

Here's a report that the 17-50 RPZ is most definitely "cinema caliber:"

When asked whether the lens was cinema quality, Jim Jannard confirmed it was used by Soderbergh on Contagion.

I'm not saying it's not "good". The Sigma 17-50 is universally acknowledged as "awesome". So I'm sure the RPZ 17-50 is great.

But I'm with Ryan on this, and I think I'm a sucker for character and would probably just go with the Contax 28-85. Much slower at 3.3-F4, but for run-gun, I think pretty awesome.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Jan Schuster]

I would like to go with something with a little more "character" but end of the day it 'll be great to have an Epic with a Red lens. Especially for a "starter" kit.. I'll have a load of Canon lenses as well.

FYI, I am going with the 17-50. Weight was the biggest factor and there are many options to cover longer focal lengths. With the 18-85 the mobility doesn't seem to be there and it doesn't come across as the best option for a first lens. Maybe in the future when I can afford to have both

 

[Roy Gregorio]

Good choice! Most certainly won't regret it. Good shooting!