Let's talk glass: Lenses for the AF100!

The reason its so much cheaper is because the 18-50 was disconitnued by RED some months ago. It's been replaced by the 17-50mm Pro zoom, which I hear is better optically and mechanically. RED themselves were selling the 18-50 at a steep discount for a while. Now I don't think you can buy one at the red store.

The people who make the old 18-50mm may be leveraging their assembly line to sell off some of their lenses now that they don't have an exclusivity agreement in place with RED. Or it may be just surplus from the same manufacturer.

pix2pixels said:
The deal seams to be that they are heaps cheaper at B&H.
Maybe they come from the same manufacturer that make the Red lenses, just at different times or shifts from the same production line.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Olsen said:
Really? I've never had the opportunity to use a set myself, but I have heard really good things about them (cost aside), even from rather independent specialists and technicians...

Edit: The DigiOptical zooms are rehoused Sigma lenses. Presumably these. They are supposed to be "decent optically" but rather poor mechanically (go figure).

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/18-50mm-f28-ex-dc-macro-sigma

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/50-150mm-f28-ex-dc-apo-hsm-ii-sigma
Click to expand...

I am very curious how many big feature films are shot with RedOne AND use red lenses. My guess is not many. The ONLY time I see Red lenses in use is on Red camera packages that are bundled with them because the owner owns them and gives a package rate for the whole deal. I've never seen another PL mount camera with Red lenses on it... ever. It's not desired glass in my circle except those who bought into it. Of course this is strictly my observation and opinion.

They are not garbage lenses by any means... I'd always rent French (angeniuex), German (zeiss), or English (cooke) glass any day of the week.


District 9 = Cooke S4's
Knowing= Cooke S4 + angenuiex
Angels & Demons = Cooke S4
The Book of Eli = Panavision lenses
The Lovely Bones= Zeiss and Angenieux Lenses
Sanctuary TV series = Angenuiex, as far as I can tell

Right now, all I can find for RED on that level seems to be sodenberg's stuff because it says "Red cameras and lenses" on IMDB. Does not say primes, zoom, or etc.
 
Last edited:
dadoboy said:
The reason its so much cheaper is because the 18-50 was disconitnued by RED some months ago. It's been replaced by the 17-50mm Pro zoom, which I hear is better optically and mechanically. RED themselves were selling the 18-50 at a steep discount for a while. Now I don't think you can buy one at the red store.

The people who make the old 18-50mm may be leveraging their assembly line to sell off some of their lenses now that they don't have an exclusivity agreement in place with RED. Or it may be just surplus from the same manufacturer.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly. Sounds like a great reason. I'd believe that.
 
I shot recently a feature with RED One. We got an incredibly good price for the camera kit, but without lenses. The cinema lens package was more expensive to rent than the camera. Ended using my old collection of Nikon primes and zooms. No complaints, just a little bit more difficult to pull focus.
 
I think that their $250 conversion does only a 80mm front ring, aperture deckling and a focus gear. A good cine style lens should also have a smooth focus mechanism with a long throw.
 
I keep a few of these around.
Click to expand...
Lol, so it's not just me then. I actually tried a loop, with a number of antennas coming off the lens barrel and it worked pretty well. Looks ridiculous though :cheesy:
 
xbourque said:
Where does 1.18x come from?

If Canon APS-C is 1.6x full frame and u43 is 2.0x, isnt 2.0/1.6 = 1.25?
Click to expand...
Your math is correct, but missing a crucial piece -- while the Four Thirds standard is a 17.3mm wide sensor, the AF100 doesn't use that. It uses an <oversized> sensor, which is about 19mm wide. Hence the smaller crop factor.

Which, funny math videos aside, can easily be proven by just looking at the relative field of view. I put an 85mm on my GH1, and a 100mm on my 7D, and they had nearly identical fields of view. 85mm x 1.18 = 100.3. The AF100 uses the same size of oversized sensor as the GH1 does, so -- it is mathematically and observationally proven, the AF100's "Cinema Crop Factor" is 1.18.
 
I'm sure that Duclos does a bang up pro job... But for those somewhat adventurous souls out there; Nikon lenses are fairly easy to 'De-click' the iris and dampen the focus & iris control.
Buy yourself a cheapo ruined Nikon lens at a junk / pawn shop and give it whirl. I did a set of Nikons to use on an adapter rig and it took maybe 15 minutes a lens.

Mind you won't get the long throw focus of a cinema lens, and it will still focus backwards compared to a set of Cooke's or Zeiss primes.

*Of course I bear no responsibility if you completely cock it up*
 
AdrianF said:
Lol, so it's not just me then. I actually tried a loop, with a number of antennas coming off the lens barrel and it worked pretty well. Looks ridiculous though :cheesy:
Click to expand...

It would be potentially useful to have something like a strap wrench only with a short light plastic handle, that could be quickly slipped over a ring and released just as quickly.
 
Barry_Green said:
Your math is correct, but missing a crucial piece -- while the Four Thirds standard is a 17.3mm wide sensor, the AF100 doesn't use that. It uses an <oversized> sensor, which is about 19mm wide. Hence the smaller crop factor. [...] the AF100's "Cinema Crop Factor" is 1.18.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. Then shouldn't we say that the Full Frame crop factor is 1.89x instead of 2x?

36/19 = 1.89

-X
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top