Red lenses

yeah robert..

but there are a lot of poor filmmakers.. really indy people.. that care about the size..

well.. maybe, the weight(Y) specially when these people (indies?) are talking about PL mount..

dvxusers.. lol
 
Greg Lowry said:
The challenges of building an economical zoom to cover the S35 format are significant. There is no magic way to change the laws of physics in the design of optics. Take a look at Chris Hurd's photo of the ARRI Zeiss 16.5-110 T2.6 zoom (a very nice range).

http://www.dvinfo.net/gallery/showimage.php?i=630&c=42

It's quite huge, but reportedly delivers exceptional images, just as one would expect. It's a rental-only product at this time. If it were to be available for sale, it would probably sell for $60-$75k. Even the Zeiss Lightweight Zoom (15.5-45 T2.6) is about $45k.

I'm curious to know what prospective RED owners consider to be a "reasonable" price for a RED-branded zoom lens and what compromises, if any, to image quality, speed, zoom range, and/or mechanical design are acceptable?
Click to expand...
Wasn't Jim working on a 17-100mm zoom ?

I would guess a $60K Zeiss lens should be comparable to a RED 17-100mm zoom, at $13-15K ?

Perhaps that is optimistic. I could see having a compromised speed and zoom range to keep the price lower, but keeping the image quality high. :beer:




RED# wish I was higher
 
Perhaps it won't be so funny when we see a fully loaded 4K-capable RED with onboard recorder, viewfinder, and comparable zoom lens.
 
Last edited:
filmmaker1977 said:
yeah robert..

but there are a lot of poor filmmakers.. really indy people.. that care about the size..

well.. maybe, the weight(Y) specially when these people (indies?) are talking about PL mount..

dvxusers.. lol
Click to expand...

Well, I have two different thoughts about this.

First thought is that the bigger the better. It commands a lot more respect on set. It sets the tone that you're doing something significant. Even "24" star Keifer Sutherland admitted that he acts differently when a big ass Panavision is sitting in front of him.

The second thought is that smaller and light weight is better because it helps facilitate quicker and faster setups. Plus it's easier on everyone's backs. I'd much rather pick up a 17lb. XLH1 and move it then a 60lb. F900.

But the F900 gets the "wow" factor.
 
Greg Lowry said:
Perhaps it won't be so funny when we see a fully loaded 4K-capable RED with onboard recorder, viewfinder, and comparable zoom lens.
Click to expand...
???


I hope that wasn't with regards to my post :)

I estimated that the RED 300mm zoom was about 1/3rd the price of comparable zooms out there, so if a 17-100mm zoom is about 1/3rd the price then it should be in the range of 13-15K. Likewise RED's specs break the barrier between ability and price.

RED is a revolutionary camera. It'd be great if there was a comparable one in lenses. :thumbsup:

My question is - we know that part of the reason that RED was formed was to deliver technology that was being withheld from the public (to protect the profit margins and higher end lines)with buyers. Is there a similar discrepancy in the lens market? Anyway, I would love to see a RED 17-100 zoom or prime. And I have full condfidence in the team at RED...and that ain't no joke. :beer:






RED #wish I was higher
 
Last edited:
Robert Sanders said:
Well, I have two different thoughts about this.

First thought is that the bigger the better. It commands a lot more respect on set. It sets the tone that you're doing something significant. Even "24" star Keifer Sutherland admitted that he acts differently when a big ass Panavision is sitting in front of him.
Click to expand...
robert you know i enjoy your work.. i respect you quite but..

i know you're in LA and i'm asking if as all (?) americans, are you thinking that the world is just US?..

there are a lot of filmmakers outside LA, outside US.. and sorry my guts, but i've a feeling that the majority of the RED customers are out there.

do you know the run & gun style?.. i can't believe that you had a filmmaker like John Cassavetes and you don't care..

this argument is not even an argument.. see what Mathieu Kassovitz posted about it.. and he's famous and he's working with Spielberg and so on.. however he's thinking lightweight.




CONT'D
 
Last edited:
The second thought is that smaller and light weight is better because it helps facilitate quicker and faster setups. Plus it's easier on everyone's backs.
Click to expand...
the real 'wow' form factor..

cinema is not only hollywood..

and i dare to say RED is above all the indie cam not the mainstream camera..

if Jannard will change that, he will lose a lot of customers..

and i can not be the first one but i wouldn't be the last one..
 
D_and_G said:
???I hope that wasn't with regards to my post :)

I estimated that the RED 300mm zoom was about 1/3rd the price of comparable zooms out there, so if a 17-100mm zoom is about 1/3rd the price then it should be in the range of 13-15K. Likewise RED's specs break the barrier between ability and price.

RED is a revolutionary camera. It'd be great if there was a comparable one in lenses. :thumbsup:

My question is - we know that part of the reason that RED was formed was to deliver technology that was being withheld from the public (to protect the profit margins and higher end lines)with buyers. Is there a similar discrepancy in the lens market? Anyway, I would love to see a RED 17-100 zoom or prime. And I have full condfidence in the team at RED...and that ain't no joke. :beer:
Click to expand...

No, I was responding to another post about the size of the ARRICAM w/zoom. I don't buy into the conspiratorial economic theory. The point I was trying to make is that a zoom lens for the S35 sensor when used at full res will be quite large and heavy. Such lenses are usually expensive too. It won't be easy for RED to come up with an economical zoom lens solution. It also takes time. The price can obviously be lower if RED can sell in volume. But what's the magic price point and how many can they sell? Difficult questions right now.

I'm curious to know how you came to the conclusion that the RED 300mm lens (it's not a zoom, it's a fixed focal length telephoto) is 1/3 the price of comparable optics. What's the comparitive?
 
Last edited:
Greg Lowry said:
No, I was responding to another post. The point I was trying to make is that a zoom lens for the S35 sensor when used at full res will be quite large and heavy. Such lenses are usually expensive too. It won't be easy for RED to come up with an economical zoom lens solution. It also takes time.

I'm curious to know how you came to the conclusion that the RED 300mm lens (it's not a zoom, it's a fixed focal length telephoto) is 1/3 the price of comparable optics.
Click to expand...

Oh, I just did a casual search for similar lenses. Obviously, it isn't because I thought it was a zoom.
:( ... Telephoto, that's an odd choice.

Out of curiousity what solution would you lean towards ?


Cheers
 
filmmaker im not sure what kinda rampage your on.. nobody here is saying that RED should only make cameras for native LA people or only for americans.. they are making a global camera for the entire world... I dont get what the bejesus your talking about when you keep bringing up the only LA thing... I know your a smart guy and maybe its just me going nutso but I think you may of fell of your rocking chair a couple days ago :)
 
Greg Lowry said:
I'm curious to know how you came to the conclusion that the RED 300mm lens (it's not a zoom, it's a fixed focal length telephoto) is 1/3 the price of comparable optics. What's the comparitive?
Click to expand...

the 300mm lense is about 1/3 of the price as a standard prime... at least if you compare it to a cooke.
 
Greg Lowry said:
No, I was responding to another post about the size of the ARRICAM w/zoom.
Click to expand...
i thought it was to me maybe.. if it was, no hard feelings :) i have the same opinion..

these guys are thinking that PRO is the same than heavy gear..

not you Robert but you're working in hollywood.. as cinematography.com member, read the red forum and catch the idea what THOSE people have about the red revolution.. they don't want it and period

lol

why will it be?

and please robert, forget people like Kiefer Sutherland.. he's not an actor but a money maker.. :violent5:
(i'm sorry if once you're reading this, mister..)

but you don't think strange why will it be all that interest about 1/3" HD capture from people working with him?

i hope the same question from jannard's being the clever guy that he shows to be.
 
Last edited:
Jarred Land said:
filmmaker im not sure what kinda rampage your on.. nobody here is saying that RED should only make cameras for native LA people or only for americans.. they are making a global camera for the entire world...
Click to expand...
i hope so but there are a lot of different people here with DISTINCTIVE needs.. we aren't thinking the same..

I dont get what the bejesus your talking about when you keep bringing up the only LA thing... I know your a smart guy and maybe its just me going nutso but I think you may of fell of your rocking chair a couple days ago :)
Click to expand...
that's my big trauma.. i'm used to sleep when i'm going to see the last big box-office hit :)
 
Jarred Land said:
the 300mm lense is about 1/3 of the price as a standard prime... at least if you compare it to a cooke.
Click to expand...
But Cooke doesn't make a 300 mm. Not a real comparison. 300mm lenses for cine use are modified still camera lenses, mostly Canons. Most still camera telephotos are not as pricy as Zeiss or Cooke primes. Century Precision optics has a remounted Canon 300 T3. I suspect it's in the same price range as the RED 300 mm T2.8. I'm sure the RED 300 wasn't designed and built from scratch. It's probably a Canon. Just a guess, but an educated one.
 
Last edited:
ha ha thats why i said compare.. Cookes are between $15,000 and $20,000. I dont know how much they would scale a 300mm beyond their 180mm.. so who knows. And im being very generous to cooke.. it could very well be 5x the price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top