f/2.8, more details follow!

http://www.red.com/products/lenses/300mm.html

Lens looks like a monster http://www.red.com/images/vert_red_lens.jpg

300 f2.8

MSRP: $4,750

yeah, but I don't think it's possible to have a 300 2.8 lens for a 35mm sensor that isn't a monster in one way or another.

yup ... and that RED band... doesnt Canon also put a RED band on its L-Series lens?

Great price... if they can pull off a zoom lens in that range I will be really impressed. That being said, shooting 4K with a zoom, it is going to be very hard to get something that wont have heavy aberrations...hence the normally very high cost... we'll see...




ash =o)

Nikon VR lens with the same spec 300mm f2.8... sells around $4500.. so its about the right price for this kind of lens...

So, would this lens allow you to use the camera at the highest resolutions?

I think the lens quality is high enough to use it at that resolution and designing a zoom won't be as hard as people think - Don't forget that many people use zooms with 11mp still cameras without problems. Optically, it has already been done with good results.

Indeed, the zoom shouldn't be too difficult to produce at a respectable price point, but if it retains its speed at 2.8 or faster, then I'd expect something pretty pricey. Then again, the RED system has blasted through all the preconceived notions of what should or shouldn't be in this caliber of a system, so maybe I will be surprised...yet again.

I think the lens quality is high enough to use it at that resolution and designing a zoom won't be as hard as people think - Don't forget that many people use zooms with 11mp still cameras without problems. Optically, it has already been done with good results.

The problem is the mechanics: it's not important on a stills lens, it's very important on film or video lenses. You'll also need support systems for these lenses, it'll be very much a case of mounting the camera onto the lenses with the 5:1 and 10:1 zooms.

There are some 35mm zoom lenses for Steadicam which could form the basis for lower cost zoom on the RED. However, a set of good lenses isn't going to be cheap.

Correct Bryan... you cannot begin to compare cine-zoom lenses to still zooms. A cine lens must be far more robust, motorized and avoid aberrations on movement and zooming... it is not easy at all...




ash =o)

Nikon VR lens with the same spec 300mm f2.8... sells around $4500.. so its about the right price for this kind of lens...

Yeah, but you can't really compare still camera lenses to cinematography lenses. A Cooke 180mm T2 is $22,750. A Zeiss 180mm T1.9 is $17,500. I don't have pricing on longer lenses than that, but as you get up into that kind of extreme telephoto range the price gets really scary. Remember, when compared to 35mm still cameras there's about a 1.5 crop factor in effect, so a 300mm lens is more like a 450mm lens in terms of angle of view.

This is a real Peckinpah lens. You can do that long walk from the end of The Wild Bunch with all the telephoto compression your heart desires. Nice stuff. I can't wait to see a test of the optics. Of course, people having been joking for years that Oakley puts more advanced optics in sunglasses than most people get in microscopes, so I kind of expect it to be a monster.

A cine lens must be far more robust, motorized and avoid aberrations on movement and zooming... it is not easy at all...
RED will make it easy

If I can get a reasonable priced lens with camera I might just get it, even though I really can't afford it ;) I don't need great zoom. Just a few times zoom would be fine. I'm more concerned about the wide angle. Also need a reasonable priced storage solution...

If I can get a resonable priced lens with with camera I might just get it

Well, with PL mount lenses you have a *lot* of options. A quick glance at the inventory at Visual Products shows used PL mount zoom lenses ranging from an Angenieux 35-140mm f3.5 at $750 up to things like a Cooke Varotal 18-100mm T3 for $13k. There's a pretty wide range of options available and it's not like you'll never be able to sell your lens if you decide to upgrade later. Lotta nice PL Mount primes out there, too.

BTW, let's not forget anamorphic lenses. This thing has an academy aperture sensor, so it should be an excellent camera for anamorphic acquisition. Shooting 2.35 anamorphic at 4K sounds like a recipe for post-production nightmares right now, but it should eventually be a really cool option.

Thanks, I don't know much about optional lenses, as every previous camera has had a fixed lens. So I can can an inexpensive lens for red that can do full resolution?

Well, with PL mount lenses you have a *lot* of options. A quick glance at the inventory at Visual Products shows used PL mount zoom lenses ranging from an Angenieux 35-140mm f3.5 at $750 up to things like a Cooke Varotal 18-100mm T3 for $13k. There's a pretty wide range of options available and it's not like you'll never be able to sell your lens if you decide to upgrade later. Lotta nice PL Mount primes out there, too.

Thanks, I don't know much about optional lenses, as every previous camera has had a fixed lens. So I can can an inexpensive lens for red that can do full resolution?

Any 35mm cinematography lens with a PL mount will do "full resolution" and most of them will resolve detail that even the Myterium sensor won't be able to see. That's not to say that all lenses are created equal or whatever, but there's not as much disparity between the various optics as you'll hear.

It was more critical with small sensors because only a very small section of the lens was being used, but once you start getting into big sensors things are both a lot more and less forgiving. Resolution won't be as big an issue because a wider piece of glass is taking on the job, but the RED can record at 4K RAW and that will reveal all the little oddities of contrast and optical wierdness that separates the truly great lenses from the mediocre lenses.

I wouldn't sweat it too much, though. Like I said, you'll be able to make almost any decent PL mount lens do a great job for you. Get what you can afford and upgrade when The Sickness makes you NEED better glass. ;-)

Great, I am glad I can get a lens then. I was hearing about the 10k+ options for a 35mm lens and that would be too much for me. So why is the first lens offered by RED almost 5 grand? Is is because of the zoom range? Or is it a quality issue?

Great, I am glad I can get a lens then. I was hearing about the 10k+ options for a 35mm lens and that would be too much for me. So why is the first lens offered by RED almost 5 grand? Is is because of the zoom range? Or is it a quality issue?

It's not a zoom, it's a 300mm prime and it's fast. That's an expensive combination.

It's not a zoom, it's a 300mm prime and it's fast. That's an expensive combination.

O.k.
its not a zoom...so whats fast, what do you mean about prime.
(true Im new to this, but am fascinated with technology)

what do you mean about prime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_lens

Basically a lens with a fixed focal length or no zoom.

...so whats fast.
Opinions vary, but IMO, 2.8 or better, i.e. 2.0 - 1.8 - 1.4 - 1.2, that's a fast lens.
It can be confusing at times early on when studying the terms associated with "speed", sometimes people are simply talking about the shutter, but when someone references the speed of a lens, it is referencing how wide the aperture goes.
Some of the fastest primes on the market are made by Arri/Zeiss - and yes - they are PL mount.

What sort of shots would this lens be suited to? 50mm is considered the fov for the human eye, no?

What sort of shots would this lens be suited to? 50mm is considered the fov for the human eye, no?

Close-ups, or shots where you want a really really really short DOF, or where you want to play with distance (like people are standing closer to each other then they really are).

What sort of shots would this lens be suited to? 50mm is considered the fov for the human eye, no?

50mm is considered the approximate fov for the human eye in still camera lenses. Remember that film travels from side to side through a still camera and up and down through (most) cinema cameras, so the width of cinema film is actually what would be the height of still camera film. So the frame is smaller and consequently the crop factor is about 1.5 times what you may be used to with a 35mm still camera. So in cinema lenses about 35mm is considered a "standard" lens or the normal fov of a human eye.

A 35mm cinema frame is about the size of an APS sensor in digital still cameras. That's why digital cameras with an APS sensor make great director's finders for cinematographers. Well, unless they're shooting Scope.

Extremely wide lenses exaggerate distance, making small sets look much larger for example. Telephoto lenses compress depth, flattening distance. There's a famous shot in The Wild Bunch where the guys are walking towards the camera from a distance and it seems like they walk and walk and walk and never really get any closer. That's telephoto compression. It's a really handy effect.

Also, people's faces look better with a longer than standard focal length, so it's nice to be able to get out to 75-135mm somewhere for closeups.

Just a few really basic things to think about when you're thinking about lenses.

Thanks guys - I think I'll spend some more time in the cinematography section :)

Uses for a 300mm lens?

Keep in mind that features or indie "films" are only a few of the genres of production enabled by the announced RED One specs. Among the many other categories are: sports, nature, stock footage, commercials, music videos, business media, episodics, reality, news (yes news!), and on and on and on and on....

I've produced, directed and shot many national projects in each of those genres. Now...for which of those is the 300mm f2.8 lens useful for, including even using a 2x extender with the 300mm lens? Sports, nature, many categories of stock footage, some commercial sequences, some news coverage b-roll, etc. I'll use the 300mm lens a ton. Will I look forward to the RED super-wide zoom? Definitely, because I also use a wide zoom daily, and in each of the genres listed above.

If you're buying a RED One camera, and you are interested in not only having the camera paying for itself, but also turning a fat ROI, try thinking about the familiar phrase "media convergence". Why would you limit your professional growth, and bank account, by not taking advantage of each of the production genres that the RED One camera enables? If you think broaden your skill sets to match the RED camera, you'll have a good chance of generating the funds to finance your indie films or favorite projects.

Unfortunately, too often a specialist is someone who learns more and more about less and less - until they know everything about nothing.

Think possibilities, increase skill sets to match the RED camera, and finances will take care of themselves. I look forward to the 300mm lens, the 17-100mm zoom - and a whole quiver of arrows to hunt with.

BTW, let's not forget anamorphic lenses. This thing has an academy aperture sensor, so it should be an excellent camera for anamorphic acquisition. Shooting 2.35 anamorphic at 4K sounds like a recipe for post-production nightmares right now, but it should eventually be a really cool option.

I prefer anamorphic to s35mm for 2.35, but if you were to put an anamorphic lens on the RED ONE you'd actually end up with something like 2.6:1 ratio which is approaching early Cinemascope (20,000 Leagues Under the Sea etc.). That's because, although it has s35 width, the sensor is actually a 16:9 rather than a 4:3 one.

Not that that's a bad thing (and you could always crop the edges to bring it back to 2.35).

I prefer anamorphic to s35mm for 2.35, but if you were to put an anamorphic lens on the RED ONE you'd actually end up with something like 2.6:1 ratio which is approaching early Cinemascope (20,000 Leagues Under the Sea etc.). That's because, although it has s35 width, the sensor is actually a 16:9 rather than a 4:3 one.

I hadn't noticed that it had an S35 aspect ratio when I wrote that. I was thinking about the weight and size of anamorphic lenses last night. The RED looks to be very small. I've gotta wonder how easy it would be to rig a big anamorphic lens on the RED. You'd probably need to mount the tripod to the lens and let the body just hang off the back.

I hadn't noticed that it had an S35 aspect ratio when I wrote that. I was thinking about the weight and size of anamorphic lenses last night. The RED looks to be very small. I've gotta wonder how easy it would be to rig a big anamorphic lens on the RED. You'd probably need to mount the tripod to the lens and let the body just hang off the back.

You could have an anamorphic zoom lens with the RED hanging onto the back for dear life :)

I wouldn't expect anamorphic to be a major player in years to come. The lenses are cumbersome, slower and optically inferior due to the nature of the beast. A 4K Super35 image should be perfectly adequate for projection. The primary reason to use anamorphic these days (i.e. since filmstocks have improved to where the grain from the blowup is no longer an issue) is nostalgia for the shallow DoF, flaring and "cute" distortion that the format incorporates.

And because it's damn sexy!

Anamorphic = old and dying It is just a pain to deal with those lenses and as Charles points out... no real point anymore.



ash =o)

Anamorphic = old and dying It is just a pain to deal with those lenses and as Charles points out... no real point anymore.

Except that...

Your both wrong!

So there.

:D

Try telling Panavision that anamorphic lenses are "old and dying". There is a huge demand for their anamorphics. They're solidly booked. Git yer facts straight, boys!

OK - let's not let a comparison of opinions evolve into a confrontation. Opinions are like noses, everybody has one. It's all in how an opinion is presented. Obviously this would be an opportunity for you guys to agree to disagree. This is a board, with some highly-experienced members. We all have to develop strong professional opinions to even survive in the competitive film and television industry. That said, everybody's opinions won't always match. There's a huge knowlege base here among the members, but it's less confrontational than many other boards.

Greg, I know you from the CML board. I see this is your first post here. Welcome to DV Info Net!

Had an interesting conversation with a Panavision tech today. It is true that anamorphic is "in vogue" at the moment (apparently 3 of the 5 Academy nominated films last year were anamorphic). However, all trends seem to come and go (and sometimes come back and go again, etc). It will be interesting to see if it sticks around as digital continues to infiltrate. One thing to note is that a Super35 sized sensor, or even 16:9, is ill suited for conventional anamorphics which require a full Academy aperture. This would result in a new series of anamorphics that deliver a less-than 2-1 squeeze, or the eventual adoption of an Academy sized imager to achieve the classic anamorphic look.

So anyway--maybe not "old and dying" just yet (but it's actually pretty safe to call Panavision's anamorphics "old" in any event! Not that old means bad...)

i thought anamorphic was something in post to make your dv look like film ration. (o.k. i have been out of it for over a year) but still...if you are shoooting film, 35mm, etc. you have your ration? no? and does it really matter at the end? on the screen the movies all vary in size...the widest ones like L.O.T.R. is that anamorphic?

nevermind, wiki to the rescue...
what a backwards process. squeeze your image, unsqueeze it...etc.
Just make something that works the way it was designed to, instead of all of this squeezing stuff. :-)

I came back even more edumacated :-)
It does appear that digital 4k will do away with the need for anamorphic.
(dont shout at me...im not part of the debate....heheh)

peace

dalen

It does appear that digital 4k will do away with the need for anamorphic. (dont shout at me...im not part of the debate....heheh)


Actually, super 35 did away with the "need" for anamorphic :) These days it's more of an aesthetic thing than a necessary one, but personally I prefer anamorphic to s35.

As for it being a "backwards" process, a 2.35:1 image shown in a cinema is projected with an anamorphic lens anyway, regardless of how it's shot (the print can't be s35 'cause the soundtrack takes up the extra space). So at some point, the image (whether shot with anamorphic lenses or some other way) needs to be optically squeezed to fit onto the final print.

surely shooting with an anamorphic lens will give you a different field of view than just doing a crop in post does on footage shot with a standard lens?

Are there any small 35mm prime lenses, or are they all huge by their nature? I would mostly need a wide angle lens. If it had a few times zoom, that would be great. How about if I moved down to 16mm lenses? The lenses I have seen add a lot of size to the camera.

Are there any small 35mm prime lenses, or are they all huge by their nature? I would mostly need a wide angle lens. If it had a few times zoom, that would be great. How about if I moved down to 16mm lenses? The lenses I have seen add a lot of size to the camera.

There are many, many small PL-mount primes out there. Not so many small zooms.

Are all PL mount lenses 35mm lenses?

Do 35mm wide angle lenses suffer from barrel roll like wide ange adapter lenses do?

surely shooting with an anamorphic lens will give you a different field of view than just doing a crop in post does on footage shot with a standard lens?

Anamorphic lenses have a different optical length horizontally and vertically, so a lens might have a vertical "length" of 50mm and a horizontal "length" of 25mm, for instance. This of course leads to one of the drawbacks of anamorphic shooting, namely that the DOF is different vertically to horizontally, and focus must be pulled to ensure that the image is focused in the overlapping range between these two DOF zones to ensure accurate focus on both axes.

In order to get an equivalent FOV with a matte to 2.35 from a 16:9 or S35 source, one must ensure that the horizontal FOV matches that of the anamorphic lens you are simulating, and then the vertical crop will pull the image into a similar frame.

Other characteristics of anamorphics will not be reproduced, however, such as the horizontally stretched flares and bokeh present in anamorphic movies - so there's no way you'd ever reproduce the exact look of anamorphic with non-anamorphic lenses. That said, your average audience member will know nothing of such subtleties, and will most likely judge it on the ratio, which will still look as epic as ever...

FYI, a fair few HD movies have already used this technique - including "Once Upon A Time In Mexico" for certain, and I presume (although I can't be bothered to watch it again to find out!) Star Wars Episode III...