Red lenses

I have been reading just about all of the posts on Red and the general conclusion from some very experienced forum guys is that most users will be working with s16mm lens (or even 2/3rds lenses if they already have them) have i picked this information up wrongly? Or perhaps others will be working on much cheaper still lenses adapted for the purpose? Perhaps not shooting 4k but windowed 2k and utilising the 120 fps etc.

If it is the case that most people will be working on 2k or 1080p and S16mm lenses why then does it look like Red is concentrating on s35mm lenses? The price of a Red camera is similar to a good 2/3rd camera so who would'nt want to just go for a Red camera. But the 2/3rds mounts may be the last mounts (or way behind others) for Red to produce, why?

Are most peoples needs satisfied by the shallow DOF that s35mm lenses provide or are they like others more concerned with the other advantages of using an s35mm sensor, but still wanting to use cheaper lenses and a lightweight camera for handheld use. Some of the books/videos i have recently read/viewed are at pains to point out that creativity is often best served when you take the camera off the tripod and use it handheld/shoulder mounted. Others have pointed out rightly or wrongly that a normal cine style s35mm zoom lens would be very heavy and difficult to focus when handheld? What will the handheld/shoulder mount guy use with the Red one?

I have looked at the s16mm lenses and the prices are like $6,000 minimum for a decent second hand lens. I went on to a web site on photography recently and the guy stated quite firmly that he now largely uses an 18-200 zoom lens or whatever and it is brilliant and as sharp as other lenses etc. His ONLY other lens was a wider zoom lens. He even carried out various tests to prove his point!

I would love to put on the Red one a zoom lens wide enough to cover most needs and magnification sufficient for most needs. Add to that one prime lens for use say on underwater housing work and i would be happy.

s16mm lenses at current prices seem expensive to me. Would a s35mm zoom lens that was LIGHT and as cheap as a decent s16mm second hand lens produced by Red not cover more events/uses by giving you far more options that an s16mm zoom lens.

The current weight on s16mm zoom lenses seem pretty heavy to me.You cant make an s16mm become a 35mm lens, but you can make an s35mm lens become an s16mm lens or a 2/3rds lens. Is its only current drawback its sheer weight?

I cant get my head round this logically because it seems to me that if Red does come out with a Red zoom that is as light or lighter than an s16mm zoom lens and at a great price then why would you want to go with a s16mm lens.

Ok none of us knows what price a Red zoom lens will come in at. But if it was much the same as a second hand s16mm zoom and lighter why would one go out and buy a s16mm lens.

Perhaps i am not explaining this properly :( Will do another post and think before i print

Michael
 
Last edited:
oli said:
This are my dream lenses
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm
Could oakley (or red) build some of thise? :D
Click to expand...
I think you'd find your dream lens a nightmare to use. A 50mm f0.7 lens focused at 5 feet has depth of field of roughly 1-2 inches.

When Kubrick used those lenses for Barry Lyndon, the fastest film stock was only 100 ASA. He pushed it to 200 ASA to gain a stop.

With current digital sensor speed, a T1.3 lens can shoot in the same light or lower and provide more DOF. Even Kubrick stopped using those lenses after Barry Lyndon, although he considered them for Eyes Wide Shut but soon realized that they were no longer necessary.
 
Last edited:
Greg's right.. when we were shooting even with a 60mm f2.8 the DOF was incredibly narrow at 5 feet. It of course was a nice initial bonus to see that shallow depth, but that nice wore off really quick and it started to become something we had to keep an eye on.
 
mike the beginner said:
Someone tell me where i am going wrong here? :(
Click to expand...
Mike,

You're asking some good questions in your post, but sometimes it's not clear (to me) if you're referring to S16 or S35 lenses. If you edit your original post and separate the questions that only RED can answer from the general ones and be careful to specify when you mean S16 or S35, I'm sure you'll get lots of comments, including some of mine. But right now I think your post is a bit too expansive to easily reply to, at least for my tired, weekend brain.

Regards,
Greg
 
I am not a expert with lenses, so I wonder what the difference is about F and T numbers, I never saw T numbers on my Iris... hmm...
can someone explain that to me? :)
 
oli said:
I am not a expert with lenses, so I wonder what the difference is about F and T numbers, I never saw T numbers on my Iris... hmm... can someone explain that to me? :)
Click to expand...
There is a technical/theoretical difference between an F stop and a T stop, but I am not able to sufficiently explain the differences (can't remember my school lesson sorry!).

I treat the two as essentially equal terms, so T1.4 is equal to f1.4. Cinematographers and motion film based people refer to T stops, still image photographers refer to F stops. So cinema lenses have T stops on the lens, whereas 35mm still lenses have F stops.

HTH. No doubt somone with the technical explanation will correct me or enhance my layman's answer, but for me personally I treat them as the same and you'll probably find most others do too.
 
In very simple terms, a T stop is the f stop with the lens transmission losses factored in. What the T stop will be as an f stop will depend on how much light a particular lens will lose due to internal reflection and other factors. In general, zoom lenses will lose more than prime lenses. You use the f stop for calculating your depth of field and the T stop for calculating exposure. Professional cine lenses are marked in T stops. Professional ENG-style lenses and still photography lenses are marked in f stops.

Hope this helps...

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
 
For the most part, photographers work with F-stops and cinematographers work with T-stops....F-stops is a mathematical representation of light transmitted to the camera, while a T-stop is the actual transmission. Both yield similar results, T-stops are more accurate and preferred by cinematographers.....When I read this it made sense.
 
I posted earlier about different lenses for use with Red but did not explain myself properly. I will try again in this post.

For those like me that will use the Red camera handheld/shoulder mounted or ENG use etc the use of cine style s35mm or s16mm zoom lenses may be considered too heavy for that type of work. The shallow DOF associated with s35mm in particular makes focusing much more difficult. Gibby for instance has suggested for my own use in earlier posts ie, doing fishing videos from a boat etc and also requiring a deeper depth of field, that a 2/3rd ENG HD zoom lens coupled with a shoulder mount is the way to go.

But looking through the used lenses market i find the price of those lenses expensive at $6,000 plus. The other possible drawback is the electronics may not even be capable of being supported by the Red camera. With that in mind and the possibility that those lenses may or may not cause problems, as only a small part of the sensor is being used, means looking at the alternatives. I know there are no answers to some of the things i ask until Red ships and is tested with various lenses, i accept that. But when Red one is ready i dont want to be hanging about with no lens to even practice with!

So i am trying to understand some things without any practical experience and i find that very difficult.:(

Spending more than $6,000 and not knowing that particular lens (2/3rds zoom) will work (being attached to a s35mm sensor) is too expensive a risk to take so is not an option to get me started when i collect the camera. Also Red has suggested that the B4 mount is not likely to be near completion when the camera is ready, so another reason to forget about that option at that stage. What are the alternatives.

Please don't bother to suggest an alternative fully professional camera as Red is head & shoulders above the alternatives in price and value for money, also i am hoping its resolution lattitude and contrast handling will produce a better 1080p footage than anything comparable to Red in price.

I am coming from a 1/3rd size sensor (with their usual lenses) with poor low light capabilities and a very narrow FOV compared to 2/3rds sized sensors or in the case of Red a massive large s35mm size sensor with massive light gathering qualities and a massive FOV(with the usual lenses that type of camera uses).

Say i bought a cheap still 35mm photo lens (not a zoom just a fixed focal length to start off with). Is there a way to accomplish a much deeper DOF and still get significantly better low light and FOV qualities compared to a 1/3rd ccd camera. If i simply windowed the s35mm sensor using 35mm still lens right down to the equivalent of a 2/3rds sized sensor would the DOF not be much deeper? I know the eqivalent FOV would be greatly reduced and the low light likewise. But would i then have a lens that is very light, very cheap and offering a deeper DOF.

If it is found that the problems envisaged by only using a small part of the sensor turns out to not be a problem, i could look for a quality zoom 35mm still lens at a fraction of the cost compared to any cine style s35 or s16 lens.

I could also have the options of utilising the full sensor when i am doing tripod work and landscape work where i would want to use the full s35mm sensor and convert in camera to 1080p.

One other point i am curious about. The night vision adapter that Canon sells can be bought for $6,000 (i think) It is used on the canon cameras for infra red vision has something like 12 stops. Red is hoping for between 9 and 12 stops for their Red one camera. If and i stress IF, the red came out at 11 stops would that mean that Red One would be so good that it could be close to a canon with a $6,000 attachment provided a suitable wide angle fast prime lens was used? Or is that adapter refering to 12 stops in the red spectrum only? If it was similar, that would be incredible.

I hope Greg (and others) understand what i am trying to say this time:(

Michael
 
Mike,

I started my career shooting documentaries for nearly 10 years. Choosing the right tools for the job is critical. Shooting documentary style with a windowed sensor using 35mm photo and short zoom lenses isn't practical. Based on what you've written and the work you intend to do, I think it's clear that what you need is an S16 zoom lens. Expecting the RED camera to deliver great images without an equally great lens just isn't going to happen. Lenses are at least 50% of the image quality equation. If you want to play, you have to pay. There is no way to circumvent this reality.

Greg
 
Mike,

Greg's input is very good. Let me build on his remarks and give you some ideas. My last Emmy Award was for my work as a director on a documentary profiling a professional rodeo event in Las Vegas. You can view a trailer for it on my Cut4 Media Group web site. I had a crew of 30 working for me. I love documentaries and plan to do many more. (Oscar-winner "March of the Penguins", narrated by Morgan Freeman, was one of my favorite docs this past year)

Greg is right - you get what you pay for in lenses. With a lower price on a lens you're inevitably giving up some image quality. But how good do your images need to be for a fast-paced fishing documentary-style program? You rarely need shallow DOF for that style of program, except for creative close-ups used in the opening/closing montages, and in-bumps/outbumps. The rest of the show is medium to deep DOF. S16 zooms or 2/3" ENG HD zooms should be your ticket for that. I wouldn't shoot 2k for that either. I'd shoot 1080p. It would be easier on your NLE, and those type of shows simply don't need higher than 1080p resolution, even if they somehow are shown on the big screen. You're also not normally doing any heavy compositing in post, so 1080p 4:2:2 should be fine for your shows. Shooting 1080p 4:2:2 you’d also get some good storage time on the REDDrive you’ll probably be using for that type of mobile work.

Assuming that you'll be doing a lot of shoulder-mounted shooting, possible solutions for your dilemma:

1) Rent a S16 zoom on a package rate for your first few docs, generate revenue from it, then buy your own S16 zoom. It should be a zoom with the widest range of focal lengths possible - as wide as possible on the wide end, and as long as possible on the long end. You need to push out to distant fishing action, but also be able to be wide enough to cover action inside the boat.

2) When the B4 mount for RED is released, I still feel that an 18x HD ENG zoom, with an attachable wide converter lens, is you best solution for fishing documentaries in 1080p with RED. That is assuming that RED supports via RS232 or power bus the servo zoom features of 2'3" lenses - something that has not been confirmed or denied by RED.

3) You just may be able to adapt a Nikkor or Canon manual zoom for use in your docs. Jannard has stated RED's intention to release the PL, Nikon, and Canon manual mounts first. There are some inexpensive gearless follow focus units on the market. I've seen banners for one right here on DVX User ($300). Since you'll be shooting from a shoulder mount, you may be able to adapt the gearless follow focus to the Nikkor or Canon manual zoom in a way that would enable reasonably easy shoulder use.

4) When you generate some more capital for equipment, you should keep your eye on the S35 RED wide zoom, the basic specs of which should be announced at IBC. If it is affordable and fairly light, it may be a good long-term solution for your needs. We have no indication what the focal length range for that lens may be, but my guess is that it will be pretty wide and then medium in zoomed focal length. You should then be able to put a 2x extender on the lens if you know you’ll be shooting a lot of distant fishing, then remove it for in-boat shooting. With an extender you lose (not loose by the way!) a few T stops, but your type of docs are usually shot in good available daylight so its not a big issue.

These are just some thoughts on how I would approach solving your production and fiscally challenged dilemma. As Greg has rightly said - you get what you pay for. But the above may be some partial workarounds for your genre of production that doesn't inherently call for the fabulous resolution of 4k, 2k, or a 4:4:4 colorspace.

Hope this helps...

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
 
Last edited:
Thought you'd like that! In reality I agree with you much more than I disagree with you - and even when I don't agree with you I still respect your opinion.

Dang, I'm sounding like a politician now...

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
 
Greg, Gibby. Man i just love you guys:dankk2:

Great stuff. i am now another stage nearer to my task. Can't rent anything though, as my project is something really special, it will take two years to complete!! It's something i have wanted to do for a long time so it comes first before any other work.

I wonder how many potential Red owners are now looking for lenses but are worried about buying second hand. These days people seem to be getting easily conned into buying a lemon. I wish i could have some idea of tell tale signs that a lens should be avoided. I don't think it is feasable to pay someone to go look at various lenses each time you see something that interests you!

Could someone maybe give some kind of clues as to what are good signs and what are bad signs to look out for when buying a zoom lens for use with Red (s16mm in particular). That would be very helpful indeed.

Michael
 
Mike, even if it doesn't make sense for you to rent lenses for a long shooting schedule, you might find it useful to rent a few different zooms for one day to help you define exactly what you need.

If you find something you're considering buying, you can certainly email me for an opinion. I'll help you "kick the tires" so to speak. Also, you should always have used lenses checked out by a qualified service tech. Any legitimate seller will understand the need to do this. Some sellers may have already had the lenses inspected and will provide you with the name of the service tech for a confirmation.

I know there has already been a big spike in demand for used lenses (particularly S35) since RED appeared on the scene. Prices have gone up and will probably continue to do so as demand increases. If you buy a used lens in good condition for a reasonable price, I doubt that you will ever lose money on it if you resell it in similar condition. I don't have much B4 EFP-style lens experience, so I'm most comfortable recommending a Ziess 11-110 or 12-120 as an S16 workhorse optic. They're the ones that most often turn up on the pre-owned market.

Here is a longer (but by no means complete) list of S16 lenses:

Canon 6.6-66 T2.7
Canon 7-63mm T2.6
Canon 8-64mm T2.4
Canon 11.5-138 T2.5
Canon 10.6-180mm T:2.7
Canon 11-165 T2.7
Angenieux 11.5-138mm T2.3
Angenieux 7-81mm T2.4
Cooke 10.4-52mm T2.8
Zeiss 11-110 T2.2
Zeiss 12-120mm T2.4
 
Last edited:
BTW, we've been playing around with different lenses, and glass DOES make a big difference in sharpness, etc. So a cheaper fixed lens will affect performance . . . we've found that the small c-mount lenses from Fujinon are a good compromise, but they don't compare in any manner to a nice Arri Ultra Prime.
Click to expand...
- ____________________________________________

Read this on the SI forum, interesting. Both Greg Lowry and Gibby have said on this thread, you get what you pay with lenses. So it seems although the cheaper lenses can be used with the SI camera you will not get the same quality as a superior lens. I note it said a big difference. Now that might just change things ever so slightly!

I wonder what the quality drop in percentage terms amounted to? Others here have said 10% to 15% is worth it considering the savings made by using a much cheaper lens. Since SI will be ready before Red we should be able to get some idea from using cheaper lenses with the SI.

Michael
 
It's important to remember that the smaller the sensor the sharper a lens needs to be to resolve properly. That's why S16 lenses are optimised for such small Airy disc. The larger the sensor (Or negative) the more detail is recorded even with a less impressive lens. Medum and large format cameras can do amazing things with very primative lenses. This is one reason I think useing the full sensor whenever possible is such a good idea. I'll make the prediction that any Pro caliber Nikor or Canon FD prime using the full sensor will be equally sharp on Red to a modern S16 zoom (egonomics aside) and possibly primes too. I shoot 12 megapixel stills with Nikon glasss all the time, and up-res them to the equivelent of 25MP for printing, and they still seem tack sharp. So I really don't think you're giving up much IQ by using them.
 
I agree evinsky; my plan is full sensor with nikor primes. I think that will be the best quality for the finacially challenged.
Aloha
-A
 
I fully agree. That's why I posted before you have been the perfect moderator here pushing the 35mm still photography lenses as RED option specially as an alternative before the RED PL mount offer.

:dankk2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top