F55: New F5/55 capabilities?

RED 17-50 pretty well only available used. If the 18-35 is $5000 I'd be hard pressed to buy it over a RED 17-50 v2 as I think the RED lens will have a better resale value. But the 18-35 is faster.

Anyone know what glass is used in the RED lenses? I always thought it was Sigma glass?
 
starcentral said:
RED 17-50 pretty well only available used. If the 18-35 is $5000 I'd be hard pressed to buy it over a RED 17-50 v2 as I think the RED lens will have a better resale value. But the 18-35 is faster.

Anyone know what glass is used in the RED lenses? I always thought it was Sigma glass?
Click to expand...

Dennis,

Nobody knows for sure about Red glass. I've always assumed they were rehoused Sigmas. I have the original 18-50 and remain very pleased with it. I have a Sigma 50-150 in Nikon mount which I use with the Optitek adapter. Since only Sigma made a 50-150, I always assumed the Red 50-150 was rehoused Sigma.

Ned
 
nsoltz said:
Dennis,

Nobody knows for sure about Red glass. I've always assumed they were rehoused Sigmas. I have the original 18-50 and remain very pleased with it. I have a Sigma 50-150 in Nikon mount which I use with the Optitek adapter. Since only Sigma made a 50-150, I always assumed the Red 50-150 was rehoused Sigma.
Click to expand...

The orig 18-50 and 50-150 are Sigmas...that part was always very clear because at the time they were released, Sigma had corresponding still lenses with very similar mechanics (i.e. the 18-50 telescoped, visibly same front elements, etc). They were rehoused by somebody in the UK.

The lenses that came after were designed from scratch under contract to Red. I personally think it was Tamron, but I can't tell you why I think that other than I saw some evidence to that once at Red HQ. I could be wrong. That series of lenses are great for the money, but they still lack any sort of rental desirability...meaning, they are dead weight because very few want to rent them in all but the smallest markets.
 
I then absolutely refuse to spend $5k/$6k on a rehoused Sigma wide zoom lens.

The dog and pony show lens will just have to wait.
 
starcentral said:
I then absolutely refuse to spend $5k/$6k on a rehoused Sigma wide zoom lens.

The dog and pony show lens will just have to wait.
Click to expand...

Tamron. 17-50 is I think Tamron. Little difference, I know. But it's a guess, too. It's not FACT.

You'll not find a better lens for the money.
 
Yes I love the lens, just hard to justify the extra $$$ for the rehousing. But considering a prime is that much (if you want the cine features) then its a "good deal".

:)
 
Same price as the Zeiss CP.2 18mm T3.6 I was after, so a steal really. I hope to have mine in April or May :)
 
What do I do with 4k when everyone is using 2k?

Here is the justification I came up with: How much is an anamorphic lens - a good one with NO distortion whatsoever.... ok, ok, no such lens exists, so lets say one with MINIMAL distortion. So lets see, that would be the Master Anamorphic lenses - right? Ok, and how much do those cost? 43,000 EACH!!!!

Now, you shoot 4k, then chop off the top and the bottom and retain 2k and have perfect distortion free anamorphic video at supersampled HD - so that means you have EVERY prime lens and EVERY zoom lens because this works at every single focal length.

So, I ask you, would you rather buy an 43,000 x 6 lenses or one 4k camera and lob off the top and bottom and retain 2k+/-
 
Well lobbing off the top and bottom will "appear" as anamorphic but not really have any "real" anamorphic properties as if it were shot with an anamorphic lens. But still you're right... you can get some GREAT widescreen from it.

Another awesome benefit of a 4k sensor is: using 16mm lenses in 2k or HD resolution, B4 2/3" ENG lens with a built-in 2x optical doubler and NO optical adapter to FZ mount will yield approx 1600 x 1120 resolution. Not quite HD but you can scale it up in post slightly to get HD.

Also TRUE 2k resolution is possible once downscaled to 2k from 4k. If you shoot with a 2k sensor you're going to end up with less.
 
A while back when I was still shooting only with my 5D mark III - I purchased the EOS HD Anamorphic Guide and to be fair, there is a lot of good information in there. One of the best parts was the data on scaling. There is a table that says:

1. 1920 x 1080 -0 - non anamorphic 16x9
2. 1920 x 820 -35 EG LA7200 = 1.33x anamorphic 2.391
3. 1920 x 720 -50 EG Iscorama = 1.5x anamorphic 2.66
4. 1920 x 540 -100 = 2.0 anamorphic 3.55

Full HD = 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 total resolution

4k = 4096 x 2160 = 8,847,360 total resolution

USING THE BIGGEST CUT = 1920 x 540, interpolate that into 4096 x (2160-1040) = 1120 ------------- SO total resolution is 4096x1120= 4,587.520

even if you crop the top and bottom by 540 to "create" a massively elongated 2.0 anamorphic image of a 16x9 image - YOU STILL HAVE MORE THAN 2 TIMES THE RESOLUTION

so you miss the blue streak and the elongated bokeh - which you can get a filter and there is even a filter to create the elongated bokah too - all for about 300 bucks... IF you need that stuff.

I will definitely look at using the center scan!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top