Red lenses

omen said:
I imagine the comparison between:

a) the cost and time of further developing this type of lens technology, centuries old, dependent on many glass limitations
-keeping the price cutting in mind

aand

b) the cost to develope liquid lens technology, which could most probably take things to a whole new level.


I see it like this...compare glass treatment and all the hardware that goes with it - with research in types of liquids and membranes etc. needed for the liquid lens technology.
Click to expand...

You have a point. I think that it's almost inexcusable that the lens technology remained *essentially* the same so many years. You see, it's far more convenient to step on the same path than discover a new, better one. Too many academic papers and not enough creativeness...
I also would encourage the RED team to dare to seek for something different than what everybody else is using....whatever that would be. Even if that will take a couple of years (with the right minds involved). BTW how about a parallel optics research team?

omen said:
And for actors who feel better having a huge cylindrical things in front of their face......pffff:

-If you need that, my friend, to act...
go do something else.
Your occupation existed waaay before the camera did.

And the camera doesn't exist. Remember ?
Click to expand...

I agree. If someone has been used to see big cameras, make him do all rehearsals in front of a ...little pocket DV camcorder and then shoot with the regular camera. That will make him see it *much* bigger than it is!
 
Graeme_Nattress said:
Actually, it's the hyperspace lens light bending technology that I'm working on for future lenses.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Haha LOL, I wonder, will it work on the fifth or sixth dimension Graeme? :grin:
 
Last edited:
This has been a great thread:)

When Jim Jannard was aked by someone? (reffering to Page 3 Red Dawn at NAB 2006 fxguide-visual effects school) about lenses he was quoted as saying "He explained that while Cooke lenses are brilliant,Red is building for a much higher volume and yet it still produced exceptional clarity in the lab" There was also a comment from Ted Schilowitz that they were working on a zoom lens which is currently spec'd at 11-100mm lens.

IF Red produce the goods (the camera) as expected, then i will feel really confident that the lenses will also be priced similar. Guessing the price of a zoom at prices anything approaching a Cooke must surely be exactly opposite what Mr Jannard envisages. Somewhere between Jarrads $5,000 and $8,000 would be a realistic price given that HE MUST sell thousands and to do that he has to sell cheaply. Many of us who have reserved a Red have went out on a limb (and more than a few prayers) to buy into Red AND factored in a Wide angle zoom at prices as above. If Red were to produce a great camera then in a few months time produce a zoom at say $15,000 then it would not be in the spirit of what Red is all about (i think and hope). IF Red sells really well (in the thousands) and their predicted zoom likewise at prices above THEN later on they can make other lenses that have lower f stops, otical viewfinders and othr expensive items etc. The big movie people will buy into all that whilst us wee guys will be delighted with our cheaper slower lenses and cheaper EVF etc.

Red removed the comments about the zoom lens and indicated that future lenses would probably not be ready until after the camera is in production. This is understandable given the huge task ahead of them and the importance of getting the camera out at or near the "engineering target" as possible without the carry on that we had with the HVX AND the trickle feed production. Red has already stated they are geared to mass production coupled with the founder's comments, i gather the first batch will be for the testers (Jarrad and Gibby etc) and that is good for Red and all the rest of us that have reserved further down the line as the bugs are more likely to be spoted by these guys and hopefully sorted before the first production run (for all those who have reserved:) )

How many s35mm zoom lenses are out there spec'd at 11-100mm? My bet is very few indeed hence Red is hopefully working on this one despite the withdrawl of comments.

Whilst on my huge learning path i was freaked out when i seen and read just how complex it is to produce a really good zoom lens. Since Cooke make great lenses i just wondered if there is advantages is waiting to produce the camera first and designing the zoom lens purpose built to suit the Red camera or does that not matter at all. I can appreciate lenses are made for any camera but just wondered are they tested on specific camera's during the process of making the lens.


When Red announced its first lens the 300mm prime, i got the ompression most people were surprised they choose a specialist lens. Why did Red choose that particular one? Like was it simply to see if they could produce a good lens similar to a Cooke but at much less than the price.

Being new to all this i hope i have not rambled on a load of rubbish if so sorry in advance:(
 
mike the beginner said:
When Jim Jannard was aked by someone? (reffering to Page 3 Red Dawn at NAB 2006 fxguide-visual effects school) about lenses he was quoted as saying "He explained that while Cooke lenses are brilliant,Red is building for a much higher volume and yet it still produced exceptional clarity in the lab" There was also a comment from Ted Schilowitz that they were working on a zoom lens which is currently spec'd at 11-100mm lens.

IF Red produce the goods (the camera) as expected, then i will feel really confident that the lenses will also be priced similar. Guessing the price of a zoom at prices anything approaching a Cooke must surely be exactly opposite what Mr Jannard envisages. Somewhere between Jarrads $5,000 and $8,000 would be a realistic price given that HE MUST sell thousands and to do that he has to sell cheaply. Many of us who have reserved a Red have went out on a limb (and more than a few prayers) to buy into Red AND factored in a Wide angle zoom at prices as above. If Red were to produce a great camera then in a few months time produce a zoom at say $15,000 then it would not be in the spirit of what Red is all about (i think and hope). IF Red sells really well (in the thousands) and their predicted zoom likewise at prices above THEN later on they can make other lenses that have lower f stops, otical viewfinders and othr expensive items etc. The big movie people will buy into all that whilst us wee guys will be delighted with our cheaper slower lenses and cheaper EVF etc.

How many s35mm zoom lenses are out there spec'd at 11-100mm? My bet is very few indeed hence Red is hopefully working on this one despite the withdrawl of comments.

When Red announced its first lens the 300mm prime, i got the ompression most people were surprised they choose a specialist lens. Why did Red choose that particular one? Like was it simply to see if they could produce a good lens similar to a Cooke but at much less than the price.
Click to expand...

I don't recall 11-100 being mentioned. Such a wide angle (approx. 100 degrees horizontal) zoom lens for the S35 format would be physically GIGANTIC. I think it was more like 17mm at the wide end. As for the low price you mention, time will tell. I would personally be impressed by a $15,000 price tag.

I don't believe the RED 300 mm lens was designed and built from scratch by RED. Jim may choose to correct me. Its price is comparable to other Canon 300 mm tele lenses remounted for movie cameras.
 
Last edited:
Some thoughts

Some thoughts

Based on a discussion with a friend that knows A LOT more than I do about lenses, he is very very sceptical about how the 16mm lenses will resolve the image on this sensor.
He opinion is that the sensor is simply NOT film and there could be a major sharpness issue. Frankly his reasons for saying this were a little over my head... But he seemed to make a lot of sense.

I guess the real answer will be this fall.

Another person brought up their extreme dislike for the cage concept. Let me see if I can say what he said:

He wants to see a larger body to allow for larger easier to use controls. He's fine with a "bracket system" that would allow additional items on the camera, but would prefer a larger body for the camera itself.
I asked him about size and he said "About 75% of the size of a sony 900 or Panasonic 900, a little smaller, easier to maneuver, but enough size to hold onto and work with." A good example (And I have heard this from a lot of people) is his distaste for the HVX 200. The body is bulky and off balance. Connections are too close together and hard to work with wearing gloves.

I see his point a little.. I would not mind larger controls that can be worked with gloves on. So if RED body were 35% LARGER That would be cool with me.

Over all there is a very pessimistic view of this camera in the professional world (Or at least the one I am exposed too). It is also worth noting that they HOPE they are wrong. "If it works, I will get in line" I was told by one person.
Jay
 
Cheaper lenses

Cheaper lenses

Greg Lowry said:
I would personally be impressed by a $15,000 price tag.
quote]

Many Greg I'm with you.. Any 35mm movie zoom lens under $20k would blow me away. Especially if it were a sharp and pretty lens!

Jay
Click to expand...
 
QUOTE:I don't recall 11-100 being mentioned. Such a wide angle (approx. 100 degrees horizontal) zoom lens for the S35 format would be physically GIGANTIC. I think it was more like 17mm at the wide end. As for the low price you mention, time will tell. I would personally be impressed by a $15,000 price tag.
______________________________________-

You may be right Greg probably a missprint since i recall two other articles that mention a 17-100mm lens and 18-100mm lens. I do hope your wrong in the lens guessing. It would make a mockery of the whole idea of producing a camera for the small type of operator, then coming out with a zoom at the same price (almost) of the camera. I need the s35mm lenses low light abilities and so do quite a few others. I dont want to reduce that quality by sticking on a much smaller (and cheaper) lens and i certainly would not have ordered a Red camera if i thought the zoom lens would come out at $15,000. Renting for me is not an option.

I wonder how much it cost lets say Canon to produce their xh1 or Panasonic to produce their HVX 200. Would they produce a loss if they only sold in their hundreds rather than thousands. My take on this is that they (Canon and Panny) factor in the prospect of selling in bulk otherwise it would not be worth their while making such a camera. Cooke only sell (from what i have read) to a limited amount of buyers. Their profit margin HAS to be much higher or they would loose money.....surely. Red's vision is to sell THOUSANDS at a lower profit margin....much lower (i hope):)

Does anyone know how many s35mm lenses are sold to give us an idea of costs and profits etc.

Michael







What weight would a 17-100mm zoom come in at?
 
The Cooke 18-100 is 12 lbs (5.5 kg), 14.65 inches (372 mm) long.

Of course I don't speak for RED, but to put things into perspective, it is not uncommon for a full set of lenses to cost considerably more than a high-end film camera. A set of Zeiss Digiprimes can be as much or more than a Varicam, Sony 900 or TGV Viper. And at the lower end of the scale, as the price of 2/3" video cameras declines, lens prices seem to holding firm. They can be as much or more than the camera body. Don't you think it's reasonable to plan to spend at least as much for lenses, recording systems, viewfinders, etc. as for the camera body? That's generally the expectation for pro gear (except perhaps for high-end DV equipment).

One disadvantage of RED marketing focusing so heavily on the $17,500 camera body for so many months is that the other essentials are somewhat off the radar screen in some people's minds.

BTW, if you need low light capabilities from your S35 lenses, zooms generally aren't the way to go. Find some used primes or use remounted still camera lenses.

On the subject of volume and profit margins, somewhere in my files I have info on how many sets of Zeiss Digiprimes have been sold to date. I'll see if I can find that as a frame of reference.
 
Last edited:
An S35mm 17-100 zoom lens is not designed for everybody, and people who expect to OWN one of those, should get to their senses.

A used prime lens kit, remounted still lens kit, or even a 16mm zoom are amongst the most popular optics we will see REDowners carry. If you need a zoom lens, you can rent. If you´ll be running/gunning and need a zoom lens, shoow windowed 2K, as you won´t be able to shoot 4K anyway. And if you are running and gunning and want S35mm DOF, you might want to think again and choose to hit the occasional focus, instead. I consider a minimum 3000 maximum 15000 dollars lens package for a RED owner (as a reasonable investment), and the 15000 dollar package is not the RED zoom.
 
Quote:One disadvantage of RED marketing focusing so heavily on the $17,500 camera body for so many months is that the other essentials are somewhat off the radar screen in some people's minds.

Somewhere in my files I have info on how many sets of Zeiss Digiprimes have been sold to date. I'll see if I can find that as a frame of reference.
_______________________________

Thanks for that information Greg it is really appreciated.

I wonder what most people think about your comments regarding the other essentials? But more importantly what are Jim Jannard's whole outlook towards this. Red is billed quite rightly as a revolutionary camera at a price point that more than a few pros got completely wrong!!

We had estimates over $50,000 for a Red camera. I just think the founder not only wishes to make a great camera but to completely shake things up in other ways and not just in camera design etc. I would not be surprised if Red is hoping for sales appproaching the likes of a sony fx in three years time. Some of you have already said there are plenty of big hitters sitting on the sidelines waiting to see if Red delivers. There are also a lot of small time operators assessing if they can afford Red plus lenses. Maybe i am cuckoo on this one but i happen to think that Jim Jannard is not in this for profit but for other reasons such as a passionate love of camera's over many years.

Some wealthy individuals crave for ways of making more money. In this instance the crave (if i have read him right) is all about making something that was NOT available to him AND giving the opportunity to the small independent operators to have these tools to compete with those much higher up. I have faith that Red will deliver on the other items at a great price and much lower than most expect. I also think that he stands a pretty good chance to turn loyalty on its head and instead of going for anything that is similar in price in future, we might just find people so taken back with the initial products that they may change their outlook and start supporting a company that has delivered what was un-deliverable by all the other manufacturers.

The same thing i hope will happen to the lens manufacturers if Red can deliver a zoom at a great price.

Greg i do worry though on what you said about their 300mm prime lens. If it does indeed compare with existing prime lenses then it is entirely reasonable to think that the price of a zoom will be as you state much higher. If they do price it at over $15,000 then i think a lot of small operators might be doing their sums again and re-examining their purchase of Red.

Bearing in mind i am a complete beginner so i respect fully the views of experience. I would like to hear more from the pros on this or better still the "man himself":)

Michael
 
Quote:And if you are running and gunning and want S35mm DOF, you might want to think again and choose to hit the occasional focus, instead. I consider a minimum 3000 maximum 15000 dollars lens package for a RED owner (as a reasonable investment), and the 15000 dollar package is not the RED zoom.

Thanks for that Tabkin....WOW. I really need to quickly learn up on this. Maybe the whole aspect for me of doing fishing videos without having to worry about FOV being so limited with a 1/3rd camera sensor. My desperation for low light during the best opportunities of catching my target species during the last hour of light and the first hour of dawn is just something i might have to live with. I know Red will be much more difficult to focus with using the full sensor and me a beginner from a boat ha ha. If i am not in a boat i am beside a river on bank filming angler in water fly fishing and i would have to wade out to get close ups.....one trip and the camera could be in the water hence the zoom requirement. Am i trying for the almost impossible?

I am trying to learn all this theory in such a short space of time. So far i have heard very little of the difficulties of using a s35mm camera never mind one with a zoom lens. Jim Jannard has mentioned it will be more difficult to use but where are the views from all the others who have used a 1/3rd ccd HD camera AND used a 35mm camera.

My limited knowledge tells me i can't get close ups without ....getting close other than a zoom. I know so little ...yet i am very keen to tackle the issue and learn if at all possible.

I am glad this has been brought up. I look at the massive advantages of having a s35mm camera and lens. Well how about the disadvantages in the real world. Heck i know and accept it will be extremely difficult but please others tell me just how difficult.

The weight of the zoom lens does not bother me compared to the thought of not being capable of focusing properly through lack of experience. I have factored in one full year to learn, i worry now it just may not be possible? HELP......

Michael
 
3 things:

3 things:

Has anybody considered the ZEISS Lenses for Nikon F Mount as an option?

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Contents-Frame/4AE4CD3C0EC87F91C12571110038C241

more info here:
http://www.zeiss.com/de/photo/home_e.nsf

For what the Zeiss webpage says they "incorporate new technical advances from the ZEISS Ultra Prime®, Master Prime® and DigiPrime® lenses for motion picture cameras". Currently available are a 1.4/50 and 1.4/85, priced at 499 and 999 euros respectively, and more are supposed to come during 2006.

Also, a quick question, how will the aperture on a SLR lens be affected when used in the RED ONE?

And finally, a question that's been bugging me since NAB, why will the first RED lens be a 300mm prime? I don't know if you guys agree, but it seems a rather odd choice. Any thoughts?
 
If a 300mm still prime can be made for $5k, then they can make just about any other prime for that price or less. Looking at the still-photo world, long telephoto lenses tend to represent the most expensive lenses in a line.

Additionally, a zoom that operates in the normal range should be feasible for within the $5k range as well. Why? Because the physical components required to make such a lens are not so far beyond the physical components used to make a 300mm prime. Zooms require more internal lenses, gears and motors and electronics. It might seem to require a lot of extra money to do those things, but really they can be added to the manufacturing process for less than $1000. The most expensive part of creating a zoom lens is the cost of the R&D to get everything perfect... but that's familiar territory to the Red engineers, so it won't likely add much to the cost.

My prediction is that the first zoom lens will come in at around $3500.
 
Luis,

Yes, the Zeiss lenses have been mentioned many times and are an excellent prospect. They're particularly well-suited because they're fully manual lenses and can be purchased from Zeiss without a lens mount.

The 300 was the first lens finished, simple as that.

Greg
 
Last edited:
Lowkus said:
If a 300mm still prime can be made for $5k, then they can make just about any other prime for that price or less. Looking at the still-photo world, long telephoto lenses tend to represent the most expensive lenses in a line.

Additionally, a zoom that operates in the normal range should be feasible for within the $5k range as well. Why? Because the physical components required to make such a lens are not so far beyond the physical components used to make a 300mm prime. Zooms require more internal lenses, gears and motors and electronics. It might seem to require a lot of extra money to do those things, but really they can be added to the manufacturing process for less than $1000. The most expensive part of creating a zoom lens is the cost of the R&D to get everything perfect... but that's familiar territory to the Red engineers, so it won't likely add much to the cost.

My prediction is that the first zoom lens will come in at around $3500.
Click to expand...
You're rather fast and loose with the numbers and predictions, but time will tell.

Since when do S35 format zooms have "internal motors and electronics"?

No one should confuse the complexity of a zoom lens with that of a 300 mm telephoto. A zoom is a MUCH more complex beast.

The bottom line is that the only thing that will materially lower the price of the lenses compared to Zeiss, Cooke and Angenieux is manufacturing and sales volume. Time will tell on that too.
 
Last edited:
taubkin said:
A used prime lens kit, remounted still lens kit, or even a 16mm zoom are amongst the most popular optics we will see REDowners carry. I consider a minimum 3000 maximum 15000 dollars lens package for a RED owner (as a reasonable investment), and the 15000 dollar package is not the RED zoom.
Click to expand...

You make some good points. This thread got my interest peaked, so I started asking around about lenses from a couple DP's. And I have to say, I probably underestimated the cost. These are VERY APPROXIMATE figures I was told :

I'm not a big fan of used lenses (the due diligence and micro examination you have to do before purchase, and the upkeep costs). The only ones that come close price-wise (new) for 35mm are the Russian Elite one's I mentioned earlier. They are about $3000 U.S per Prime. A minimum of 5 focal lengths is a bare minimum. So 15K there.

A Cooke zoom at 18-100mm T3 is about $39K.

Used 35's run form about $18,000 for a MK2 small set of Superspeeds. Around $3000 per prime. The Dp's I spoke to weren't to complimentary about used Agenieux's so I don't know the price on them.

Now if you want to shoot Super 16, you have, new the Arri/Zeiss Ultra's at $13,000 a piece. Or the Canon zoom 6-180 at $18,500.

Used S16 there is the zeiss SuperSpeed 11-110mm at around $10,000.

Personally, I'm only interested in the 35mm-Super16mm field, when it comes to owning. For projects that need Super35 specialty lenses, or cutting edge new 35, I would rent. I can't see owning lenses at those prices.

So, after talking to the Dp's, I think the remounted still lenses are more and more attractive. There are some huge reservations the Dp's had, but I won't go into that here. I think many of us are trying to come up with a budget and explore ALL the options, so when the camera comes we will at least have a hand hold on expenses and workflow - although there will be tons more research and testing needed to be done.

If any of the figures I mentioned sound off, please feel free to correct them. For my research, I think Taubkins $3000 figure would only apply to remounted still lenses, and the minimum for cine lenses would be at the $10K and on up range. Of course, there are some who probably be happy with MKI's and older Angeniuex's (less $$$). I guess it will depend on what you are shooting for.

This has been a cool thread :beer:

Maybe Jim will pull of another potential revolution in lenses ? Making obsolescence obsolete (camera) - Making dreams affordable.(lenses) sounds good to me :beer:


Cheers.

RED #wish I was higher
 
mike the beginner said:
We had estimates over $50,000 for a Red camera. I just think the founder not only wishes to make a great camera but to completely shake things up in other ways and not just in camera design etc. I would not be surprised if Red is hoping for sales appproaching the likes of a sony fx in three years time. Some of you have already said there are plenty of big hitters sitting on the sidelines waiting to see if Red delivers. There are also a lot of small time operators assessing if they can afford Red plus lenses. Maybe i am cuckoo on this one but i happen to think that Jim Jannard is not in this for profit but for other reasons such as a passionate love of camera's over many years.
Click to expand...

Context is everything. A fully loaded RED at $30k, $40k or $50k looks like a bargain compared to high-end cameras where it's possible to spend $60k-$120k for a camera body and $100,000+ just for lenses. I think that's how many purchasers look at it. You're coming at it from the other direction. Everything that has happened so far indicates that RED has a very broad market in mind.
 
zeiss lenses

zeiss lenses

Thanks for the answer, Greg. So, if you can buy the Zeiss lenses without a mount, does that means you can fit a PL mount into it? Is it that simple?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top