RED Pro zoom 17-50 Anyone try this lens?

Erik Naso

Erik Naso

Veteran
I did a search on google and was surprised how little I found on it. Anyone try it on the AF-100 yet? It seems like a good fit for around $6K. I hope my wife doesn't see this thread:)
 
I can understand PL mount for those huge ARRI cine-zoom lenses but for an AF100 surely a Nikon adapter and Zeiss ZF.2 would be more cost effective, equally as sharp, lighter, faster, for $6k you could get a large range of primes etc.

Maybe I'm missing something :)
 
It's a great *affordable* zoom lens. The 18-50 (predecessor) is much worse mechanically, so the 17-50 is a vast improvement in mechanics... however I believe the 18-50 is lighter in weight. It (17-50) will cover m4/3 just fine, all the way up to 4k Red. Won't cover the full 5k resolution on Epic, from what I hear. I've used both, but on F3's or R1's... I've only used primes on my epic shoots, so I don't know this first hand.

if you're looking for a pretty decent entry level professional cine zoom lens... this would likely be it.

if using m4/3 camera, you might want to look into other lenses to rent, like the Angienuex DP 16-42... it's much more expensive to buy ($20,000) but if you are looking to rent, it has a wider focal length which will give you a closer FoV to that the 17-50 on a Red1. Since I like something around 18mm for my wide (in s35mm fov terms), I'd prefer a 16-42 over a 17-50... im0

If you can live with what a 17mm looks like on the af100 as your wide, then the Red zoom is great. I'd personally want something a bit wider for my wide.
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking about zoom lenses that would out live my AF-100. I'm good with still primes but loosing faith in the introduction of new zoom lenses for the AF-100 that hold focus when changing focal lengths. I'm not a zoom kind of guy however the ability to make quick focal length changes without the need to refocus is a must for certain situations. So a $6K cinema zoom that covers 17-50 or 24-100 on AF-100 is pretty good. Not that I can go and pick this up today.
Agree 100% the devil invented PL.
Also. Its cheaper than a B4 mount ENG lens converted for AF-100.
 
Last edited:
What don't you like about PL? It's one of the best. Can you give me reasons why you don't like it?

The PL mount is good because it has a very large four leafed flange which is very securely gripped in the mount. This means heavy, long, or likewise lenses won't sag in the mount, which would then negatively effect the focus plane. Similarly, almost all professional PL mounts are made from high grade heat resistant metal, which means you can shoot in the 120* degree heat or in 40* cold, and the mount will not expand or contract much, making focus marks remain more accurate and focus stays good.

It's also universal between big lens manufacturers. With the exception of Panavision..... Arri, Angeniuex, Cooke, Zeiss, Fujinon, Sony and Red (among others) all make PL mount lenses. It is convenient in the sense that I can swap an angeniuex zoom for some cooke primes and not have to down the camera for a tech to swap mounts.

The flange distance can be argued both ways. But I think the 52mm PL flange distance is good because it can allow for longer back elements, which can be beneficial as you see in the DP series of lenses, also when there is not long back lens elements, it allows for spinning mirrors thus the ability for optical viewfinders. Optical viewfinders are great for many reasons. Also, the longer flange distance allows adapters to be easily made since most other mounts are shallower than PL, so it's just adding space.


So to summarize, it's simple, sturdy, strong, solid, highly resistant to temperature expansion/contraction, other mounts can easily adapt to it, universal to all professional lens manufacturers (PV exception), and optical or digital viewfinders can be used. What else is there?
 
Last edited:
Haha. Its not the function of the mount only the price of those babies. All PL glass is pro glass hence the price tag.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
It's a great *affordable* zoom lens. The 18-50 (predecessor) is much worse mechanically, so the 17-50 is a vast improvement in mechanics... however I believe the 18-50 is lighter in weight. It (17-50) will cover m4/3 just fine, all the way up to 4k Red. Won't cover the full 5k resolution on Epic, from what I hear
Click to expand...

I believe it covers 5K wide on the EPIC without vignetting - but not full frame.

Note that they just released a new (2nd) version of the 17-50 with a smaller, 114mm front. Not so hulking as the previous version, and more accessory-friendly.

If it doesn't go wide enough, pair it up with the Duclos 11-16mm for a sweet pair of zooms.
 
Steve R said:
I believe it covers 5K wide on the EPIC without vignetting - but not full frame.

Note that they just released a new (2nd) version of the 17-50 with a smaller, 114mm front. Not so hulking as the previous version, and more accessory-friendly.

If it doesn't go wide enough, pair it up with the Duclos 11-16mm for a sweet pair of zooms.
Click to expand...

Thats news to me. I need to now more. Thanks for the post.
 
thats not correct, both the 17-50 rpz and the duclos 11-16 vignette on epic 5k full frame, and 17-50 rpz vignettes at 5k with 2:1 window,
you'll be fine for panasonic m4/3
 
J Davis said:
thats not correct, both the 17-50 rpz and the duclos 11-16 vignette on epic 5k full frame, and 17-50 rpz vignettes at 5k with 2:1 window,
you'll be fine for panasonic m4/3
Click to expand...

No, V2 of the 17-50mm RPZ has reduced vignetting; as per Jarred Land on REDUSER.NET: "There is no vignetting on 5K wide and below."

So both the Duclos and the RPZ are EPIC "wide" safe (but not full frame; but in my book, that's just fine).
 
Last edited:
Well the OP is using an AF100, so it's plenty of coverage. Even then, a decent investment since all professional cameras except for the Epic at FF are S35mm or smaller. Plus there really aren't many options for zooms in that price range, so it's quite possibly the best at that price anyhow
 
I know, Iʻm a broken record... (re: Nikon 17-55mm f2.8)

I know, Iʻm a broken record... (re: Nikon 17-55mm f2.8)

For the same coverage at a big savings in both money and weight, have a look at the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8. I know, I sound like a broken record, raving on about this... email me if you want to hear the whole story.

All the best—


Jeff
 
It's veering but its interesting. Thanks for the info. The RED 17-50 seems like a good bang for your buck lens. I'm going to see if I can find it for a rental on my next shoot and test it out.
 
Own it. Love it. It LIVES on my 2nd AF-100 package.

Along with the RED 50-150 I have with it, it makes it a sweet cine kit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top