whats in the pipline? kit Lens?

[MrSleep]

Red site state in the faq section "Pricing for other RED lenses will be announced later."

other than primes, i would hope to see a more cost effective starter zoom that may be coupled with the Red in kit form.

if the f2.8 18-85mm (equivalent 27-127.5mm) costs $9500
and the f2.8 300MM (equivalent 450mm) $4995
then there might be a chance for Red to release an affordable (yes even more affordable in its range) maybe costing about a 3rd of the price of Red?

1' stop slower f3.5 with less range 22-50mm (equivalent 33-75mm) that would cover a sensible wide, normal and close up in one neat tag costing $5900?

with RED kit f3.5 22-50mm $22.500 maybe..

nothing wrong with dreaming...

merry christmas

 

[Stephen Williams]

if the f2.8 18-85mm (equivalent 27-127.5mm) costs $9500

1' stop slower f3.5 with less range 22-50mm (equivalent 33-75mm) that would cover a sensible wide, normal and close up in one neat tag costing $5900?

Hi,

FWIW 1 f stop down from f2.8 is f4, remember the T stop will be lower still.

Out of interest will the maximum T stop change as you zoom in? Just curious, not saying there is anything wrong with the lens.

Stephen

 

[Graeme_Nattress]

Why do you say "equivalent" as the 300mm prime is just that - 300mm, not equivalent to anything bt itself.

Graeme

 

[MrSleep]

thanks Stephen!
i was never good at maths.


hi Graeme.
i read somewhere on this forum the 18-85 translates to Red's crop factor 1.5x = 27-127.5 and naturally assumed the 300mm to be accordingly.

 

[Stephen Williams]

i read somewhere on this forum the 18-85 translates to Red's crop factor 1.5x = 27-127.5 and naturally assumed the 300mm to be accordingly.

Hi,

Hopefully one day people will just accept a 18mm lens is always 18mm lens & just that! Until that day expect to be confused.

I am more surprised people don't quote the 1/3" equivalent, because that is I assume, what many people here have shot with.

Stephen

 

[Haakon]

Hi,

Hopefully one day people will just accept a 18mm lens is always 18mm lens & just that! Until that day expect to be confused.

I am more surprised people don't quote the 1/3" equivalent, because that is I assume, what many people here have shot with.

Stephen

Hi,

An 18mm lens is an 18mm lens, but just because that's the case doesn't mean you're going to be able to get the same field of view by using that lens on different cameras. DSLR owners are well aware of this and it gets frustrating using one lens on different bodies and ending up with wildly different results. Having some sort of benchmark (the 35mm format) can serve as a reference when determining what you're going to get from the particular lens you buy. I don't fault the original poster at all, and his statements are quite valid.

FWIW, most 1/3" cameras have fixed lenses so there's nothing to swap. Comparing a cine lens to a camcorder lens is not very helpful.

Häakon

 

[evinsky]

To clarify, it's 35mm still that is the refrence point. 35mm cinema is exactly what Red is.

 

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,
.

FWIW, most 1/3" cameras have fixed lenses so there's nothing to swap. Comparing a cine lens to a camcorder lens is not very helpful.

Häakon

Hi Häakon,

Do users of 1/3" cameras think in terms of focal lengths or in terms of Wide angle/Normal/telephoto when they compose their images?

Stephen

 

[Haakon]

Hi Häakon,

Do users of 1/3" cameras think in terms of focal lengths or in terms of Wide angle/Normal/telephoto when they compose their images?

Stephen

Hi Stephen,

Probably w/n/t, which was my point. RED is not a 1/3" camera, so there isn't much use comparing the two. However, as Evin pointed out, 35mm still is the reference point. Because individual lenses behave differently on different cameras, it's a good thing there is a reference point and there is a necessity for "equivalents." Although an 18mm lens is always an 18mm lens, if it doesn't behave like it would on a 35mm camera, it certainly is helpful to know what kind of result you'll be getting when you put it on your RED.

Best,

Häakon

 

[Stephen Williams]

Hi Stephen,

Probably w/n/t, which was my point. RED is not a 1/3" camera, so there isn't much use comparing the two. However, as Evin pointed out, 35mm still is the reference point. Because individual lenses behave differently on different cameras, it's a good thing there is a reference point and there is a necessity for "equivalents." Although an 18mm lens is always an 18mm lens, if it doesn't behave like it would on a 35mm camera, it certainly is helpful to know what kind of result you'll be getting when you put it on your RED.

Best,

Häakon

Hi Häakon,

Fairly sure that by this time next year the 'equivalents' will have evaporated!

Stephen

 

[Graeme_Nattress]

35mm Cinema is a lot smaller than 35mm stills camera format though. The RED sensor is super 35mm sized, so will have equivalent FOV to the same lens on super 35.

Graeme

 

[Chris Kenny]

Hi Häakon,
Do users of 1/3" cameras think in terms of focal lengths or in terms of Wide angle/Normal/telephoto when they compose their images?

A lot of 1/3" cameras don't give you focal lengths in millimeters, they just give it arbitrary units (0..100 from wide to telephoto on the built-in lens, for instance) or show it to you on a sort of slider graphic. So, using 1/3" 'equivalents' for focal lengths wouldn't be very useful.

I'm surprised so many people choose 35mm photo focal lengths as a reference point these days, actually. I'd imagine most people (who aren't shooting on consumer digicams where, as with 1/3" camcorders, people don't think in terms of focal length in millimeters a lot) are actually shooting on dSLRs, most of which have sensors fairly similar in width to Red's.

 

[Stephen Williams]

I'm surprised so many people choose 35mm photo focal lengths as a reference point these days, actually. I'd imagine most people (who aren't shooting on consumer digicams where, as with 1/3" camcorders, people don't think in terms of focal length in millimeters a lot) are actually shooting on dSLRs, most of which have sensors fairly similar in width to Red's.

Hi Chris,

In the past I used my Nikon F2 on it's side when location scouting. Now I use my D70, and the focal length is saved with the image. Life couldn't be more simple IMHO.

Stephen

 

[Haakon]

35mm Cinema is a lot smaller than 35mm stills camera format though.

Exactly the point! A lot of people have expressed interest in using 35mm still lenses with RED, so much so that RED is even making a Nikon mount for use with the camera when it ships. For those who are used to seeing their 35mm still lens behave a certain way on one camera, knowing the crop factor and how that lens will behave differently on the RED certainly helps. That's all I'm saying. And since the lenses are 35mm still lenses themselves, they are (and should be) the reference point when using the camera as such.

And no, Stephen, I don't think 35mm still cameras will have "evaporated" by next year, especially since full-frame DSLRs are gaining lots of popularity in the current market.

 

[Finner]

Hi Häakon,

Fairly sure that by this time next year the 'equivalents' will have evaporated!

Stephen

I don't think I would agree with this. I mainly work with 35mm and when I shoot 16mm cameras I always do the conversion to double the lens mm size because I think in 35mm format sizes. I think people will revert to the format mm size they work with the most and always think that way until they begin working with a new format more. With the Red formats ranging so much in the camera and also the huge options of lens configurations possible I think mm size and the lens confusion will only get worse.

 

[Jim Arthurs]

I think people will revert to the format mm size they work with the most and always think that way until they begin working with a new format more.

For whatever reason, I "think" in terms of standard 16mm frame coverage and everything else requires my feeble brain a moment or two of translation. It's ironic, 'cause I've probably spent the least amount of time with 16mm... it just happened at a formative period and stuck like epoxy glue...

 

[Finner]

For whatever reason, I "think" in terms of standard 16mm frame coverage and everything else requires my feeble brain a moment or two of translation. It's ironic, 'cause I've probably spent the least amount of time with 16mm... it just happened at a formative period and stuck like epoxy glue...

I jim I can't relate to thinking in 16mm as I think in 35mm frames. But I totally can relate to the "Feeble brain" situation. Man if I even started to list brain farts I think I would go in to a mass depression and not get out of bed. Ahhhhhhhhhhh!

 

[Brook Willard]

The RED sensor is super 35mm sized, so will have equivalent FOV to the same lens on super 35.

This is the answer. When you put a 50mm up on a S35 camera, you will see exactly the FOV you'll see with the same lens on the RED ONE.

As for the original question, I'd hate to see the RED team spend any time working on a sub-par [read: slow] lens just to reach down to those who cannot afford a faster piece of glass. RED is not about "budget" goods... they've always been about delivering big-budget goods [and revolutionary advancements] for a realistic price. An F:4.0 lens is not a good thing in my eyes and it would be downright unforgivable to any RED nay-sayers.

I'd also hate to see them spending time on something other than the camera at this point. They're clearly up to their ears [and loving it] in work right now, I can't wait to see what's next.

That said, I'd rather have a fast set of primes be what's next... beats a slow "budget" zoom any day.

 

[firewallet]

I'd also hate to see them spending time on something other than the camera at this point. They're clearly up to their ears [and loving it] in work right now, I can't wait to see what's next.

That said, I'd rather have a fast set of primes be what's next... beats a slow "budget" zoom any day.

I would also like to see a set of fast primes with the RED Quality(at least this is something that I perceive to be the case)/price point. Something like the Elite Super 35mm Format Lenses - 18mm-75mm/ T1.3 lenses. Their wide angle set would be nice as well.

Jim mentioned a possible set (T1.9-if I remember correctly, please correct me if I am wrong) later down the road. This would be the answer to many obstacles... but that is what RED does... we hope!

Andrew

 

[Muttondraw]

I am with Stephen on this one. I can see why people think in equivalent focal lengths when they are not familiar with a format, but it seems to be the source of so much confusion, especially if the equivalent format is not specified. Of course in the case of Red the camera can be used in a number of windowed modes too so it gets messy really quickly. If one is going to quote an equivalent focal length it should be spelt out exactly what is meant eg:

300mm (when used at 4K this would be equivalent to a using a 480mm lens on a 35mm stills camera)

or better still:

300mm (when used at 4K the image would be 1.6x bigger than when using a 300mm lens on a 35mm stills camera).

The shortening of the full explaination always seems to lead to some people getting mixed up and assuming that focal length actually changes when used in a different format.

Martin