Red lenses

I posted some links on page 11 of this thread to sources of used 16mm and 35mm format lenses. You might want to start there.
 
My partner has a machine shop, we made a Nikon hard mount for an Arri IIc in a weekend. If there's a market we can make any mount we want.

Here's how I see my breakdown:
Own:
Nikon mount+
Assortment of Nikon AF and MF lenses
Zeiss ZF 50mm and 85mm 1.4s
Leica M mount
ZM 15mm 2.8
ZM 21mm 2.8
ZM 25mm 2.8
Leica M 35mm F1.4 Asph Summicron
Leica M 28mm F2 Asph Summicron
Leica M 50mm F1 Noctilux
Leica M 50mm F2 Summicron

These are all expensive lenses fro still, although the ZMs are much less than the equivelent leicas, but all are a pure bagain compared with ultra primes or Cooke S4s. You could piece meal an older Zeiss T2 prime set for the same money but I think the Leica M, ZM and ZF will actually outperform them. Zeiss has even said the design of the ZF and ZM lines was derivitive of thier Digi-Pime line.
E.
 
Wow the price does vary!

If I bought an Angenieux s16mm zoom as opposed to spending several times the amount on a Zeiss or Cooke for run and gun work would I live to regret it or never know the difference?
 
QUOTE:This is how I see my breakdown:
Own:
Nikon Mount, Leica M mount & a PL mount
Assortment of Nikon AF and MF primes and zooms.
Zeiss ZF 50mm & 85mm 1.4 (35mm 1.4 too if they offer it)
Leica M mount ZM 15mm, 21mm & 25mm 2.8s
Leica M 28mm F2 Summicron
Leica M 35mm F2 Summicron
Leica M 50mm F1 Noctilux
Leica M 50mm F2 Summicron
_________________________________
Fantastic stuff! AND very helpful.

Last year i went to a large Game fair held each year in Britain. They have various stalls mostly to do with outdoor sports etc. The various companies that make Binoculars were all there from big named glass makers with their £2,000 + Binoculars to the cheap mass produced makers with their £100.00 Binoculars (the type i have). The difference in quality HAS to be seen before anyone could possibly imagine!! Cheap Binoculars are a total waste of money IMO. However a russian company had brought with them Binoculars at fantastic prices comapred to the big names. Quite honestly the difference was slight IMO and it was possible to get a great pair of Binoculars for around £500.00.

My point: How does the lenses evinsky listed compare in a similar take on camera lenses. Also the coatings on new lenses with new methods give the impression of improvements. Does this mean we now get better lenses made now than say five -ten years ago? None of us wants to purchase a second hand lens with associated risks, unless we get similar quality from what is available now and at half the price!!......

We all want and seek value for money and Emanuel makes a great point that we are likely to have six months before the zoom lens comes out (forecast by Jim Jannard to be available mid 2007) IF!!! the Red manages to astound us and come out as estimated in early 2007. But as Jim Jannard has already indicated at DV info forum "There are a thousand things that can go wrong from here till then" interestingly i got the impression that is not the case with the lenses.

Some of us are buying Red to produce fantastic picture quality at 1080p for use on TV rather than big screen. Surely our lens requirement could be less discerning in terms of quality but still show brilliantly on TV.

I am lost in all this as i know nothing about the lenses on cameras. evinsky has given us the possibility of using different mounts (he and others can make them) and suddenly our options have increased substantially.

I want to start looking now on a possible good buy starter lens to get me started and learning with 35mm (FOV and low light essential). Just came accross these links that might help beginners like me.

www.Photo.net Lens Tutorial (How lens work etc)

www.Photo.net Making Photographs:Lens

www.The Case Against Zooms

All for photography but might be useful (havent read ....yet)


Michael
 
Last edited:
Primer and overview of S16 lenses types and uses: http://www.cinematechnic.com/resources/optics_for_super-16.html

Used lens outlets for cine-style, ENG-style, and photo lenses are easy to find by doing a simple Google search. No rocket science involved with finding them, but you'll want to make sure they can mount on your camera, they'll help create the images you need, and that they'll enable the mobility you may need.

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
 
Last edited:
ZaneIsNumber1 said:
Wow the price does vary!

If I bought an Angenieux s16mm zoom as opposed to spending several times the amount on a Zeiss or Cooke for run and gun work would I live to regret it or never know the difference?
Click to expand...
Which Angenieux? My observation is that the used S16 Angenieux's aren't really cheaper than their Zeiss counterparts. Gibby's link above is a good one.
 
Last edited:
Greg Lowry said:
Which Angenieux? My observation is that the used S16 Angenieux's aren't really cheaper than their Zeiss counterparts. Gibby's link above is a good one.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was a tad unclear. I was looking at the following link:

http://www.visualproducts.com/store04.asp?ID=28&Cat=8&Cat2=20

Would a $2000 S16mm zoom cut it?

Been doing some google searches and I clearly have a lot too learn about lenses (I think many of us do as this thread has reached 15 pages!). I've learnt a lot about prices today at least. Lenses are expensive, be they 35mm, s16 or 2/3". It seems I have been spoilt with years of shooting with fixed lens cameras.

Gibby mentioned 7k+ for a 2/3" hd zoom as an ENG solution. I need an ENG solution to make myself as employable as possible, but at that price, shouldn't I just buy an HVX as well? Especially since I have doubts about how well RED will perform with a 2/3" lens given how little sensor coverage that would allow.

Anyway, I'm going to go crunch some numbers. If I'm way off track feel free to yell at me.
:)
Thankyou for your patience!
 
My name is Steve and I am a fixed lens camera user. :)

When is that Glass for Dummies Bootcamp starting up?

Seriously I am learning a lot, I wonder how many of us will buying/bidding against each other for the limited supply of lens that appear to be available

I think I am finally getting some common sense. Initially I was going to buy a 35mm lens and do 2K scaled and crop/scale in post for HD. But after reading about potential workflow issues and considering the weight of 35mm zooms... I need to temper my excitement for the higher end stuff and go with a HD ENG zoom and buy primes when I have a better cash flow. I will continue to evaluate and evaluate but am thankful for this thread so far.

Best,

Steve
 
Just wondering - Has anyone put a still lens on a super35mm sensor camera before ? Or will this be the first time ?

The only ones I can think of that are comparable are the D20 & Genesis.

PS - That glass comparison/shootout (down the road)is a great idea Jared. :thumbsup:


Cheers.

RED # wish I was higher
 
Yes, it has already been done with the ARRI D20 and probably with the Genesis. There are many lenses out there that started out as still camera lenses and have been remounted. In fact, there really isn't that much difference between putting a still camera lens on a 35mm film camera or on a digital camera with a 35mm-sized sensor.

As an aside, I have recently read some observations from the Aussie camera crew on Superman Returns that the film lenses used on the Genesis exhibited slightly less depth of field than when used on a Panaflex film camera. The initial thinking is that the somewhat thinner imaging surface of the digital sensor relative to the layers on color film stock results in a different circle of confusion. These are the kinds of differences that will emerge as more large, single sensor cameras are used.
 
ZaneIsNumber1 said:
Sorry, I was a tad unclear. I was looking at the following link:

http://www.visualproducts.com/store04.asp?ID=28&Cat=8&Cat2=20

Would a $2000 S16mm zoom cut it?

Been doing some google searches and I clearly have a lot too learn about lenses (I think many of us do as this thread has reached 15 pages!). I've learnt a lot about prices today at least. Lenses are expensive, be they 35mm, s16 or 2/3". It seems I have been spoilt with years of shooting with fixed lens cameras.

Gibby mentioned 7k+ for a 2/3" hd zoom as an ENG solution. I need an ENG solution to make myself as employable as possible, but at that price, shouldn't I just buy an HVX as well? Especially since I have doubts about how well RED will perform with a 2/3" lens given how little sensor coverage that would allow.

Anyway, I'm going to go crunch some numbers. If I'm way off track feel free to yell at me.
:)
Thankyou for your patience!
Click to expand...
The only way to know for sure is to test the specific lens and to have it checked out by a service tech. One generally gets what one pays for in used equipment. Age, wear-and-tear, maintenance history, etc., are all important factors to consider. If the Angenieux is the least expensive lens on the list, there's a reason. The reason may be entirely acceptable relative to the price, or maybe not. Never buy a used lens without testing and having it checked out. Yes, I'm repeating myself, but you won't regret a bit of caution.

As I've never used a 2/3" format video zoom on a film camera I don't know from experience if that's a viable alternative to an S16 lens, but I do know that the frame dimensions of the 2/3" video format are smaller than the S16 frame, so an adapter is necessary so the 2/3" lens can cover the S16 frame. That makes me a bit nervous as I'd prefer a lens to have a larger image circle than the format I'm using rather than requiring an adapter to cover the format. But having said that, many S16 film lenses are really 16mm format lenses adapted to cover S16 (for example, the Zeiss 16mm format 10-100 becomes an 11-110 after the S16 mod.

It does seem intuitive (at least to me) that an S16 lens should perform better on a single sensor than a lens designed for a 3-CCD prism camera.

The other consideration is that as RED will be a fully manual camera, the auto-features of some 2/3" lenses won't work so why pay for them? But if you already have a 2/3" lens, that's another matter. The RED definition of ENG may not be the same as yours.
 
Last edited:
Ok i have now read up on the difference between zoom and primes. Thanks again to taubkin for his comments they have been very helpful.
For those without experience we have to know the pitfalls or we jump in regardless. I can now see why a cheap 50mm lens fixed lens (i think) might be suitable for starting and learning more about real world videography.:)

On reading up about lenses further i can see why primes have clear advantages over zooms all things being the same, primes offer better quality lenses. Zooms will always be a comprimise (but necessary at times) or you pay a huge price difference for a similar optical quality with a zoom.

But what i don't understand is why are several experienced videographers suggesting s16mm zoom lenses at prices of $12,000 - $15,000 when Red could (must IMO) come out with a s35mm zoom at below these prices??? Maybe they won't but i am usually pretty good at guessing prices with most things and i reckon you guys that state prices of $15,000 and $20,000 will be proved wrong !!!! by Red lenses.

You guys with experience are saying very little of the technical difficulties of using a s35mm zoom lens other than it is heavy! How can others with NO experience of 35mm camera's evaluate without clear guidance from those who know! Like others probably on this forum i am very keen to spend the time to learn but can we not get some more guidance from the pros out there....please.

I have heard that at the extreme end of zoom lenses on the HD 1/3RD format (canon XLH1) maintaining a steady picture without a tripod is really difficult and sometimes impossible. If that is the case then how much more difficult would that be with a Red camera using a s35mm lens with the intention of utilising the full sensor but windowing to 2k and cutting to 1080p. Does the cutting allow allow you to remove any shake? i am curious on that? What i want (need) to know is how difficult to use Red hand held with a s35mm lens (probably a zoom).

No one wants to jump in and make a balls up of it but without guidance we may just follow the herd.

Sometimes i wish Red was priced in the same region of the HVX then we would have some of the worries i have aired and discussed, maybe with Red we are in the bracket of real professionals and most (not all thankfully) distance themselves from the wee guy that knows little:(

Michael
 
sorry I Had Trouble With The Quotes, See The Next Post. I Need A Tutorial On Using Quotes Here. Haha.
 
Last edited:

QUOTE:
But what i don't understand is why are several experienced videographers suggesting s16mm zoom lenses at prices of $12,000 - $15,000 when Red could (must IMO) come out with a s35mm zoom at below these prices??? Maybe they won't but i am usually pretty good at guessing prices with most things and i reckon you guys that state prices of $15,000 and $20,000 will be proved wrong !!!! by Red lenses.

REPLY:
Maybe so, but when existing state-of-the-art 35mm zooms are $45,000 and up, an estimate of $15,000 for a RED zoom doesn't seem outrageously high to me. In fact, the opposite is more likely true. RED doesn't exist in a vacuum, the same laws of physics and optical design apply. Hopefully, a RED zoom will come in at a lower price, but who knows at this point? Higher volume can keep the price lower, but until the RED zoom is available all anyone can do is operate with the facts that exist today. If you can wait, then by all means wait.

QUOTE:
You guys with experience are saying very little of the technical difficulties of using a s35mm zoom lens other than it is heavy! How can others with NO experience of 35mm camera's evaluate without clear guidance from those who know! Like others probably on this forum i am very keen to spend the time to learn but can we not get some more guidance from the pros out there....please.

 REPLY:
There are no technical difficulties per se in using a zoom. The fact is that these lenses are much bigger and heavier than primes. That in itself changes how one can use the camera. Most often a 35mm zoom is on a tripod. Handholding a big Cooke zoom is no fun because of the weight and the center of gravity of the camera shifts forward considerably. Also, a zoom will tend to be 1, 2 or 3 stops slower than a prime, so they require more light. They're also not a sharp as a primes.

QUOTE:
I have heard that at the extreme end of zoom lenses on the HD 1/3RD format (canon XLH1) maintaining a steady picture without a tripod is really difficult and sometimes impossible. If that is the case then how much more difficult would that be with a Red camera using a s35mm lens with the intention of utilising the full sensor but windowing to 2k and cutting to 1080p. Does the cutting allow allow you to remove any shake? i am curious on that? What i want (need) to know is how difficult to use Red hand held with a s35mm lens (probably a zoom).

 REPLY:
"Shake" or image stability is a function of image magnification, camera and lens balance, weight, and, more than anything, the talent of the camera operator. It really has nothing to do with windowing the sensor. I can say from years of experience shooting 16mm, 35mm and 65mm film (and now digital) that I have used nearly every prime and zoom out there. If you're intending to do mostly handheld work, a typical 35mm zoom is a VERY bad idea. I personally hope that RED designs a short, compact zoom with, say, a 3:1 range like the new ARRI Zeiss zoom. I think that would be very useful -- perhaps more useful than a 17-100. Both would be even better. RED is listening. Tell 'em what you want. I just did.


QUOTE:
No one wants to jump in and make a balls up of it but without guidance we may just follow the herd.

Sometimes i wish Red was priced in the same region of the HVX then we would have some of the worries i have aired and discussed, maybe with Red we are in the bracket of real professionals and most (not all thankfully) distance themselves from the wee guy that knows little.

REPLY:
The RED camera IS a pro camera. There is no shame in realizing that maybe you're not ready to buy a RED camera (due to budget, the kind of work you do, or any other reason).
 
Last edited:
QUOTE:The RED camera IS a pro camera. There is no shame in realizing that maybe you're not ready to buy a RED camera (due to budget, the kind of work you do, or any other reason).[/quote]
_____________________________________________

Thanks Greg for your response. I hope to work mostly with suitable tripod but at times i will have to take camera off tripod and hand hold. I fully accept it is a pro camera and i am prepared to learn how to use it properly. You have been very helpful throughout the various threads in giving an alternative viewpoint which is healthy... right. But you evade the real question.... HOW difficult is it to use a s35mm zoom lens on a Red camera???? compared to say using an XLH1. I am sure the guys at the other extreme end of Red possible users might want to know this too?

On the price of zooms all i will say is that correct me if i am wrong but i read somewher that the nearest camera to Red is priced at $125,000. That leaves plenty room for lenses at much lower than you think! Greg i know you have the experience in all this but i have bben very good up till now in simply guessing prices and i reckon that $7,000 to $8,000 will be the price of their first zoom.

I am not the kind of guy that thinks, oh it would look cool having a Red camera or whatever, quite frankly i don't give a damn so long as i achieve what i want and an s35mm format appears to solve the problems of low light and FOV ETC. I would use a $10.00 camera if it achieved my objective!

I am not running around with a camera all day, i am hoping to film specific situations on water in and out of a boat and i really want to know that if i do use the Red camera handheld it is not an impossible situation to get a superior quality of picture with this format using a zoom.

If you guys feel pretty certain that with a s35mm zoom it is too difficult to get a steady picture hand held then i want to hear it said ......now, not when i have purchased the camera and i learn through my own attempts.

Ps. i am one of the poor not the rich so massive sacrifice for a Red.

Michael
 
Last edited:
There is no evasion. No one on the planet has used a RED camera yet! How can anyone give you a definitive answer?

But considering the size and weight of the camera body we've seen to date (even though that design is fluid), a typical (i.e. currently available non-RED) zoom lens will be bigger and heavier than the body, unless it's a compact zoom. A recording device and battery will help balance out the package, but i personally would not want to handhold a typical 35mm zoom all day. For the occasional shot, sure.

Given your comments so far, I'd buy some primes and forget about the zoom unless the kind of work you do DEMANDS a zoom.

I hope that helps.
 
Here is a photo taken by Chris Hurd of dvinfo.net of the ARRI Zeiss lightweight 15.5-45 zoom (on an ARRI 235 film camera). It's a nice size for handholding, but it's by no means small. And it's $45,000. Cooke makes a comparable lens with a similar price.

http://www.dvinfo.net/gallery/showimage.php?i=616&c=42

At the other end of the scale is the ARRI Zeiss 16.5-110 which is gigantic (and made to look more so by the exaggerated perspective in the photo).

http://www.dvinfo.net/gallery/showimage.php?i=631&c=42

Both of the these lenses are designed to cover an S35 format (film or digital).

Which one do you want to handhold? That's why I think it would be a good idea for RED to build a compact zoom too. How they do it for $10k is up to them.
 
Last edited:
Quote:There is no evasion. No one on the planet has used a RED camera yet! How can anyone give you a definitive answer?

Good point Greg, i do appreciate you taking the time and trouble to responding it is appreciated believe me:dankk2:

You make a good case for a shorter zoom. What do others think?

Ok so the camera's that would compare does not exist or are much...much heavier accepted. But i can't believe that Red will come out with a zoom that will not balance with the camera!! Surely they will design the camera so that it can be "balanced" with a zoom they make for the camera!!!

So given the expected weight of the zoom that RED will make for the camera and that it WILL be balanced by whatever means, how difficult will it be to use handheld/ Perhaps we will have to wait until Jarrod/ gibby etc get a hold of it and try it to find the answers.

In addition to the lenses we still have the recording to sort out. I note this has been discussed over at DV info and Mike Curtis has posted some brilliant posts (i thought) with regard this.

I just want to try and sort things in my head to see if i am still on the path to Red or not. Me thought what you guys did was simple.....ha ha

Michael
 
I doubt that Jim Jannard believes a zoom is a replacement for primes. Primes are the workhorses for film-style shooting. A zoom is generally part of a comprehensive lens kit. On many movies the zoom is used maybe 10% of the time or less, sometimes not at all.

If you're shooting documentaries or ENG, EFP type stuff, then I think you should reconsider using the full sensor with 35mm format optics. It's serious overkill.

I'm sure RED will be very conscious of the size/weight/ergonomics of every component of the RED system, lenses included, but don't expect miracles from a zoom, especially if it's in the 17-100 range that has been previously discussed. And if it's a physically small 17-100, it will likely be slower. For example, there is a 2-stop difference between a T1.4 prime and a T2.8 zoom. That can be a big difference. There is no free lunch with optics.

As you don't seem to like any of my answers despite my experience with 35mm gear, and prefer the opinions of Jarrod or Gibby, by all means wait for their critical assessment. And keep asking other people. Mine is only one opinion. All I can do is use my cumulative experience and knowledge to provide enlightened speculation about how a 35mm zoom may function on the RED camera. But please be careful not to keep asking until you get the answer you want, rather than one that's realistic.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top