Originally Posted by Nate Weaver (Post 1620606)

They are both solid choices

The 17-102 is a newer design (late 80s, early 90s), so it's slightly better in my opinion.

I still see 20-100s on shoots that could get anything they want! Same with 17-102, maybe to a lesser degree

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver (Post 1619538)

I'm gonna make a bold, slightly obnoxious statement, and then I'm gonna backtrack, apologize, and explain.

The Red 18-85 is a better lens than you are cameraman, in all likelihood.

It's sharp throughout, solidly built, and 95% as good as an Optimo, ESPECIALLY if you've never used either, much less compared them critically on a projector.

Now for the apology. I don't really know anything about you, or your skills. But it is VERY much the sort of thing where, if you feel the need to ask, you haven't gotten to the point where you can tell the difference. So I apologize in advance if I misjudged where you're coming from experience-wise.

Now if you tell me you've used Ang Optimos, the 10-1HR, the 10-1HP, the OLD 10-1 coke bottle, the Zeiss Master zoom and tell me you like the Optimo because you like the way it flares when you shoot a 9-light down the barrel, then...maybe you have some perspective on where the Red lens is somewhat a lesser lens.

But I just made all that up, I don't REALLY know directly how it compares to those lenses, other than I know that it is pretty much just as sharp, except maybe on the edges at 2.8 and 18mm (I have used this Red lens AND Optimos, incidentally). That's it. It's a brand new design, made by a big Japanese lens company you've heard of (I won't say who, lest they come find me and beat me), and it's razor sharp.

The only shortcomings I can think of is that the front element is so big, some popular follow-focus units won't fit underneath the barrel (Arri FF4 comes to mind), so you need some less popular units (Willytec, O'Connor CF1) to make it work. Also, you would need a big honkin mattebox if you ever want to filter. Also, the focus marks are less than stellar. This would be an issue if you have a $600/day assistant cameraman who pulls focus THAT good while racecars zoom at you at 120mph as you shoot this years Pennzoil Indy car commercial. If it's just you twiddling a knob to make the image sharp, chances are you will never notice that there are no specific foot marks on the lens, just numbers.

One more thing. This is not a small lens. It's longer than the F3, weighs twice as much, would need 19mm or 15mm studio spaced rods (not the lightweight 15mm most small cameras use), and the built rig would weigh about 23 pounds (at least), upon which you might need a much bigger tripod head.

ALL that said, for the beginning S35mm shooter, this is a STELLAR lens, and a STELLAR value. Just don't go shooting million dollar commercials on it and you'll be fine. Frankly, I had no idea they were going for $6K from Red. I might pick one up eventually.

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver (Post 1622230)

I think I had been reading too much Reduser and had a real bug up my butt when I wrote that. That and I've been writing too many treatments so I'm typing faster and saying stupid stuff.

I still think it's a decent lens for an owner op who always gets an assistant to haul the whole rig around, AND doesn't mind you have to be careful with a mattebox and FF with it. Really sharp and consistent for $6K.

Originally Posted by Leonard Levy (Post 1649800)

I did try out a Nikon 24-70 the other day at a rentalhouse and didn't like the fact that the front element moved forward so much when changing zoom . Not matte box friendly. Also I prefer parfovcal lenses as they are much faster to use for B roll.