Red lenses

toke lahti said:
I think that 10-100T2 S16 lens would be great for both ENG and cine.
Click to expand...
A small correction: The S16 version/conversion of the Zeiss 10-100 results in an 11-110 T2.2.
 
Last edited:
Both ARRI and Panavision (and probably Aaton and every other S16 camera) use a gate size of 12.5mm x 7.5mm for S16. But this yields an aspect ratio of 1.66:1. This is the aspect ratio that S16 film has always been since it was invented in the late 60s. Don't forget that S16 was originally designed for the 1.85:1 and 1.66 cinema aspect ratios long before the invention of 16x9 widescreen TV or HDTV. The RED Lens Format chart indicates S16 sensor dimensions of 11.1mm x 6.3mm. This is an aspect ratio of 1.78:1 or 16x9 -- the aspect ratio for HDTV.

S16 film images have to be cropped top and bottom (to about 12.5mm x 7mm) for a 16x9 aspect ratio, but RED S16 is a native 16x9 format. No wasted pixels ... in theory.

There is, however, still a bit of a discrepancy when one does the math for the number of pixels x pixel pitch (size):
1980 pixels x 5.4 micron pixel pitch = 10.368mm
1080 pixels x 5.4 micron pixel pitch = 5.832mm

Hmmm. 10.368mm x 5.832mm isn't the same as the RED S16 dimenions on their chart (11.1mm x 6.3mm). Somebody in the know at RED is going to have to explain that one.

The difference between the dimensions of the S16 film frame and the dimensions of the RED S16 frame means that the lens angles of view currently calculated for the standard 12.5mm x 7.5mm S16 frame need to be recalcuated for the smaller RED S16 format. No big deal.

If things aren't too crazy this coming week I'll have one of my co-workers whip up an Excel spreadsheet so everyone here can plug in their own numbers to answer questions about various lenses, angles of view, etc. for the various RED formats, etc. I'll post a link. *Disclaimer: Promise subject to workload.
 
Last edited:
from what i recall on converting the zeiss 10-100 T2 to S 16.
one conversion was a 12-120 T2.4 and another was 11-110 T2.2 .. the price to convert to 11-110 T2.2 was approx 50%-100% more then 12-120 T2.4 ....
 
my dear greg.. you're so prolific! mainly, here in this thread.. it's yours..

don't forget the lightweight subject.. not all of the shooters here have your non-fiction north american setup..

and congrats for your 200th post!
 
filmmaker1977 said:
my dear greg.. you're so prolific! mainly, here in this thread.. it's yours..

don't forget the lightweight subject.. not all of the shooters here have your non-fiction north american setup..

and congrats for your 200th post!
Click to expand...
200 posts? I hadn't noticed. Yes, quantity over quality. haha. Actually, I've been chained to my computer this past week so this thread provides some distraction from more business-related activities.

I can really only write about my personal experience. I do come from documentary roots but evolved into other areas. There are highly qualified individuals here who fill in my knowledge or experience gaps very nicely.

Thanks for the kind words.
 
toke lahti said:
I think that 10-100T2 S16 lens would be great for both ENG and cine.
And nobody's preventing to use that lens with 2/3" window...
That & red might be optimal package to own and bigger and expensive can be rented.
Click to expand...

Sure. We all shot S167mm documentaries on cine zoom lenses. But to have an integrtated servo zoom in your hand grip, and fast focus with no zooming, is also pretty cool to have. That's why Gibby said there's a place for HD Zoom lenses als well as cine-style lenses.

I too would prefer a cine zoom. If I had a RED today, and were shopping for lenses, I'd probably go for a Cooke 9.5 - 47mm T1.5. For me the price factor/sharpness/lightness is the best choice. For me, the lens opening more than T2, and wider than 11-12mm is a very cool feature. My Ideal would be a 8mm-60mm S16 T1.4 lens, but that Cooke is close enough. Couple with a nice follow focus and mattebox, and I'm set.

-EDIT- As greg pointed out, its a heavy mamma, not very good for handholding (can be done, though!)!

We can all rent other lenses if we need them!
 
Last edited:
Hi Taubkin,

Is this the Cooke lens to which you refer?

http://www.visualproducts.com/storeProductDetail03.asp?productID=11&Cat=8&Cat2=20&Cat3=28

That lens is a Super-16 conversion of the Cooke Varotal 18-100 or 20-100 35mm format zooms which are 320mm (12.6 inches) long and weigh 5.5 kg (12 lbs), with a 150mm front diameter. A big, heavy lens.

Having used the 35mm version, I recognize the design. If you look at the size of the PL mount relative to the lens, you can see that the lens is very large. The purpose-built Cooke S16 zoom is T2.5. The super fast 9.5-47 at T1.5 would necessarily be very large. You pay for the large maximum aperture with size and weight. (No free lunches in optics.) I think you would find that particular lens more than a bit unweidy for documentary production.

Where did you the get the information that this is a lightweight lens?
 
Last edited:
Lightweight?

I was being crazy. One thing I was saying that I'd be confortable using a S16mm lightweight zoom for docu work. Other thing is that I'd own that Cooke to use in Commercial/industrial work, wich is what I do the most with my equipment! It's funny how I can start writing one thing and end up writting another...

Anyway, stranger things have happened when I don't take the time to review my writing!

I used that lens as an example, of course, but I have worked with a Large Cooke for S16 (with a similar range, and similarly, very clear), owned by some guy, not a camera shop. I never realized it was large because is was addapted from 35mm, but it makes a lot of sense! I was really impressed with the results the cinematographer got with it, it looking so old and beat up.

But did I say it was a lightweight lens? Look at that picture, it's monstruous! hehehe!

Thanks for listening, and pointing that in!
 
taubkin said:
But did I say it was a lightweight lens? Look at that picture, it's monstruous! hehehe! Thanks for listening, and pointing that in!
Click to expand...
Taubkin wrote: "I'd probably go for a Cooke 9.5 - 47mm T1.5. For me the price factor/sharpness/lightness is the best choice."
That's the sentence where I got the impression that you thought it was lightweight. Perhaps you were referring to the large max aperture when you used the term "lightness". Glad to know you recognized it as a monster.

Actually, the purpose built Cooke S16 format zooms are all quite heavy and a bit larger than other S16 zooms, but they're engineered for tough physical production. I wonder how many 2/3" format video lenses will still be in use 20 years from now? Cookes aren't the lightest, smallest or cheapest, but they're optically and mechanically excellent.
 
Last edited:
QUOTE:
icon1.gif
Depth of field calculator dashboard widget for Mac OS-X
http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashb...alculator.html
Greg you are surpassing all expectations. I was looking at that last night!!

Well done as well for keeping us beginners in touch. Sometimes seeing lens format tables can make you even more confused unless someone like yourself points out the obvious pitfalls and assumptions the less experienced could (would) have made but for your explanations:dankk2:

Red will be producing the full sensor images in September, i wonder if they will have the new modular camera body by then???. I know Jim Jannard was hinting about locking things down at some point in time. This might allow some testing with some of the lenses that have been mentioned here. Just a thought, otherwise we may find it wise to wait until testing IS done before committing to some of the smaller lenses that were designed for 2/3rd sensors....no. Fine though if you already have these lenses but an expensive error if you go out and purchase only to find they do not work well with the Red camera (i mean those designed to work with 3 ccd sensors)

Michael
 
My pleasure, Mike.

If you can delay your decision on lenses that's probably a good thing. Accumulate as much info as possible and then take the plunge.

I would think that the modular camera body model or preprototype and other goodies will be part of the IBC display.

BTW, I read elsewhere that RED tested the full sensor (not just a test slice) at the beginning of July. No further details, but this indicates that they're on schedule. September will be here before we know it.
 
Greg Lowry said:
That's the sentence where I got the impression that you thought it was lightweight. Perhaps you were referring to the large max aperture when you used the term "lightness". Glad to know you recognized it as a monster.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I meant it had a wide aperture... Here in brazil we say a lens is Clear or Light, when it let a lot of light pass through them... Probably the beter translation would be "Brilliant" (although one would take the impression it's filled with internal flares!)...

Perhaps I did use a S16 Zoom that wasn't a 35mm addaptation. You're right - they are all big. In Brazil they are much more difficult to find than Zeiss lenses, and you're right when you say their quality is amazing. They truly are built like tanks!

But thanks for all the info! Your posts were great!

Cheers!
 
In the english-speaking filmmaking world, we typically use the term "fast" to describe lenses with a large maximum aperture.

I'm constantly impressed by the members here for whom english is a second, third or forth language. You guys do a great job of expressing your thoughts on complex subjects. It's understandable that occasional words don't translate well.
 
I have another thought on the subject of primes for the budget conscious. In the late 60s and early 70s, Zeiss made a set of prime lenses for ARRI (16mm, 24mm 32mm, 50mm, 85 all T2.2 -- the 16mm may be T2.4, my memory is a bit hazy) that covered the 35mm and 16mm format. For 16mm only there was a 8mm at the wide end. The 8mm MAY cover RED S16, but the other focal lengths would be suitable for both S16 and S35. The beauty of these lenses is that they're only 50mm front diameter and about the same length. Very, very compact compared to current primes that are twice that size. I owned a set of these lenses in the 70s and used them on an ARRI 35BL for TV commercials and some cinema work. For many years they were the standard primes used on ARRIs. On a 50' (15m) wide cinema screen the Zeiss lenses always impressed in terms of sharpness and contrast. Many were still in use at rental houses until a few years ago. Kubrick owned at least one set. They're obviously not as good as today's primes, but a set in good condition will still deliver beautiful pictures. I think you could probably pick up an entire set in good condition for $2000-$2500, if you can find them. I've seem them on ebay from time to time. They originally came with either the original ARRI standard mount or B-mount, but a PL adapter fixes that problem. Back in the day when I used that Zeiss glass, the film stock available was 100 ASA. I never found the T2.2 speed to be a problem. Today's sensors are considerably faster than 100 ASA. You don't necessarily need T1.4 lenses.

I just did a quick ebay search under "zeiss arri mount" and came up with this http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?cgiurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2F&fkr=1&from=R8&satitle=zeiss+arri+mount&category0=

You can do a more comprehensive search and probably find many more lenses. Don't buy anything without investigating the condition and history of the lenses from the owner.

Despite the "vintage" of these lenses, I would have no hesitation whatsoever in buying a set in good condition. If you decide to sell them at a future date, you won't lose money on them. For the more patient in the group, you can pick up individual lenses as they're available and build a complete set one lens at a time. They'll all match well.

What a great addition to a compact S16/S35-capable RED kit!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top