Red lenses

Thats a good link Gibby.:dankk2:

Wow 30kg for an s16mm fully loaded camera......ouch

And some of us were talking of using s35mm for wildlife!!!!

It kinda puts things in perspective.

I think its great though to have so much possible choices in lenses overall to use with a Red camera. With more than 11m pixels great lattitude and dynamics i can see why so many are getting so excited. Again refering to the link i noted the comment about using a particular lens and utilising the sweet spot. Is this sweet spot confined to say the centre part of the lens or do we also get a sweet spot on the sensor itself and if we do is it the whole sensor.
Trying to ask something here but being new to all this i hope you guys understand what i am asking?

If there is a sweet spot and it is usually only confined to the inner circle of the sensor and IF the Red camera does have a sweet spot, could we find a situation that an s16mm lens fully covers that sweet spot and could then give the best picture at that particular distance with that particular lens. Does that make sense?

Michael
 
Last edited:
mike the beginner said:
If there is a sweet spot and it is usually only confined to the inner circle of the sensor and IF the Red camera does have a sweet spot, could we find a situation that an s16mm lens fully covers that sweet spot and could then give the best picture at that particular distance with that particular lens. Does that make sense?

Michael
Click to expand...

not totally out there of an idea.. and lenses always have a sweet spot in the middle of the lens... so using a s35 may produce a better photo when windowed then a s16mm in windowed.
 
scaled should always be higher.. unless your using really crappy lenses that fall apart on the edges.

and remember.. windowed you get to overcrank the camera and shoot fast frame rates.
 
Jarred Land said:
scaled should always be higher.. unless your using really crappy lenses that fall apart on the edges.
Click to expand...
but as evin is posting, nikkor is affordable, nikkor is all but not crap.. if it's good to tim burton why not to me too?.. eheheh

and remember.. windowed you get to overcrank the camera and shoot fast frame rates.
Click to expand...
damn.. :furious3: i must buy pl mount lenses and 16 too..




:)
 
no... to shoot window you will need to buy a nikkor adapter. s16mm shoots window as well. so does s35.

All of this is a moot point of course if RED doesnt go the DSLR 35mm lens adapter route.. but im keeping my fingers crossed. To pull this off the window may need to be variable in size.
 
can't RED make some small compact lenses?

can't RED make some small compact lenses?

I never owned a Contax G2, but I heard they were great. The lenses were small and rated highly. RED will probably not make a mount for them, because the G2 is now defunct and the lenses were AF. But the point is that the lenses were cheap (around $400), light weight, compact, and looked cool in aluminum.

Can't RED make something similar? Could RED just go to Contax and ask them to make some lenses for them based on the G2 lens design (nix the AF.)

I don't want to have to mount my lens on rails. "And I don't want to pay a lot for my muffler."

I wish Contax would make a digital camera.

Maybe RED could buy out Contax like Sony bought out Minolta.

Would rangefinder 35mm lenses fit on RED?

Would RED make a lens mount for Leica rangefinder lenses? I am not going to buy Leica glass due to the cost, but I am just currious.
 

Attachments

  • contax 35-70.jpg
    contax 35-70.jpg
    3.1 KB · Views: 0
I am pushing for a Leica M mount, and the Contax lenses were made by Zeiss and Zeiss is now making a line of lenses in Leica M mount for their Zeiss Ikon camera.
http://www.zeissikon.com
So your dreams have almost come true. And if you ever can afford Leica glass then you have that option as well.
 
Contax SLR lens

Contax SLR lens

The Contax 28-70mm f/3.5mm Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T MF lens look good and is cheap at $400. It a 35mm SLR lens. It weighs under one pound too. Much cheaper than leica glass.

The point is that not all lenses have to cost thousands of $$$ to be good.

How much is RED going to charge for lens mount adapters? $400? I hope they don't charge more than the price of a lens, just for a mount.

photo from bhphotovideo.com
 

Attachments

  • 154236.jpg
    154236.jpg
    14.4 KB · Views: 0
thanks

thanks

the Zeiss rangefinder lenses look great. The 50mm is priced well at $800, but the 85mm is a bit steep at $2,800. Too bad there is not a zoom like on the Contax G2.
 

Attachments

  • zeiss50.jpg
    zeiss50.jpg
    9.9 KB · Views: 0
  • zeiss85.jpg
    zeiss85.jpg
    7.3 KB · Views: 0
Rangefinder still camera lenses were addressed in some depth earlier in this thread. They're an entirely feasible, high quality potential solution, provided the RED design allows for the use of lenses with a short lens mount flange to focal plane distance. Both Leica and Zeiss M mount lenses are excellent possibilities. Leica has a physically ultra-compact vari-focal lens (28-35-50mm f4) that I'm currently having adapted for another purpose right now. If RED develops an optical reflex camera, however, these rangefinder lenses are unlikely to be useable.
 
Last edited:
i cant see the short focal planes happening considering the PL infastructure, but i guess thats what engineers are for.
 
Jarred Land said:
i cant see the short focal planes happening considering the PL infastructure, but i guess thats what engineers are for.
Click to expand...
Consider that the PL mount was developed by ARRI for their cameras that use a 128mm circular, segmented, rotating front surface optical mirror shutter oriented at 45 degrees between the rear of the lens and aperture. This enables the optical reflex capability of the camera. The mirror between the lens and focal plane requires a flange to focal plane distance of 52 mm. But RED has no mirror shutter or optical reflex viewing. Yet it uses the same geometry as an ARRI camera, i.e. the PL lens mount with the same 52 mm distance between the lens mount flange and the sensor. That 52 mm is mostly a void (less how much the rear element of the lens extends beyond the lens flange).

Given this situation, it should be possible to develop a lens mount that reduces the flange to focal plane distance to 27.5mm so rangefinder lenses can be used.

In my opinion, one of the cleverest things RED could do is to make the camera flexible enough to have interchangeable "fronts" with each front suited to specific types of lenses:

1) PL Mount with standard 52 mm flange to focal plane distance;
2) A front for SLR still camera lenses (with interchangeable lens adapter mounts for Nikon, Canon, Olympus, etc.) with optimized flange to focal plane distance;
3) A front for rangefinder still camera lenses (with interchangeable lens adapter mounts (M mount, screw mount, etc.) with standard 27.5mm flange to focal plan distance;

There are two other important "fronts", but I'll save that info for RED if they're interested.

Why should there be different fronts rather than one that is adapted to different lenses? For starters, it can be difficult to use still camera lenses adapted to a PL mount due to their relatively small physical size. The aperture or focus rings can be positioned so its very difficult if not impossible to properly adjust them during shooting, even with, and sometimes ESPECIALLY with, a professional follow-focus device. With a PL mount and adapter, a physically compact rangefinder lens that's only 50mm long may be half-way into the lens cavity to attain the correct (short) flange to focal plane distance unless an appropriate lens front is used. How do you adjust the lens when you can't even reach the rings? The fonts could be designed for a common follow-focus system.

Interchangeable fronts is more complex than simple lens adapters, but is not a difficult opto-mechanical engineering and manufacturing issue.

This flexibility would be very useful and I think it would even be regarded as a major innovation. I feel certain that many RED users would love it. It's not only in keeping with the RED modular concept, but would open up a much wider world of lens possibilities, past, present and future. Many RED users are in the early stages of their careers. Giving them the flexibility to use affordable, high quality used cine lenses and still camera lenses of every description seems like good business to me.

This is obviously a rough concept whipped up at 4:30 a.m., but the details could be easily refined and streamlined.
 
Last edited:
Greg Lowry said:
Consider that the PL mount was developed by ARRI for their cameras that use a 128mm circular spinning mirror shutter oriented at 45 degrees between............... Now is the time to design that feature. It wouldn't be difficult.
Click to expand...
Beautifully put. I agree completely. With all the correct technical mumbo jumbo whats more.
I was looking at the front of the current RED camera mockup trying to eyeball the size of the interchangable lens mount and it looked a bit short of the 2 to 3 cm you would have lose however. So this, as you put it, is the moment to redesign the front end of the camera (if necessary).
Now that you don't need all that mirror mechanisms one could somehow have the possibility to mount all sorts of weird and wonderfull still camera lenses. Particularly the rangefinder lenses which have the advantage of a simpler design (less elements etc.).
Actually it would be nice that the front lens mount connections (screw hole distance, spacing, engineering etc.) were relativly simple so if needed one could easily machine up an alternative lens mount for whatever lens you wanted. It looks like this has already been thought out from the mockups but it never hurts to repeat at times.
 
Stephen, I made a few edits to my post before i read yours, including some that deleted your quotes, but the gist is the same. Thanks for your encouraging words.

At such time as RED develops its own optical reflex system they'll have to redesign the front anyway. If they take that into account NOW, they can more easily provide the features I describe above. It's really not that difficult. And I say that only because I some experience in these matters.

In fact, one front that I didn't previously think of was a B4 that would allow all of the electronic features of those lenses to be used on RED, including auto exposure control, etc.

Specifics aside, the concept of lens flexibility should be at least as important as flexibility of recording technologies, accessories, etc. It all starts with the lens.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top