Jarred Land posted this photo of the first lenses in the Red prime lens set, in this post on reduser.net. Jim Jannard, Red Capo, says "Our Professional series lenses and accessories should begin rolling out
in force the next few months in support of the RED ONE and in
anticipation of Scarlet & EPIC." Of the lenses, he adds, "These are
incredible. The bench testing is beyond our widest dreams. As you know,
we have lots of lenses here for testing. These new primes outperform
them all...especially wide open...and it isn't close." Pictured above, in what order we aren't exactly sure, are the 18–85mm zoom T2.9 (far right?), 300mm T2.9 (far left?), 100mm T1.9, 85mm T1.9, 50mm T1.9, 35mm T1.9, and 25mm T1.9. (T-stops are an alternative to f-numbers that use total transmittance as a basis, since f-numbers don't take into account variations in absorbtion and reflectance of light within the elements and mounts of actual lenses. T-stops are more widely used in the film industry than in still photography, because professional movie camera lenses typically are more complex and often lost more light due to these factors.)
I didn't read the whole thread, as it goes on for more than 63 pages!
I wonder who actually makes these lenses???
Posted by: Michael Brochstein | Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 08:49 AM
There's a set of Cooke lenses for Red too: http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/secondary/cookeredset
Posted by: Account Deleted | Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 08:51 AM
Actually you can see that the 300mm is the one the right, and the zoom on the left. Or at least it says "RED 300" on the barrel of the right one...
Those things look so... menacing. If Darth Vader has a camera, it's sure to be a RED.
Posted by: fotomik | Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 09:30 AM
Seriously awesome. Not only does each lens cost more than a new car, they're bigger too! When you're hauling your RED around Ansel Adams style (with a pack animal), everyone will know you're a real man.
Posted by: Jed | Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 10:42 AM
They look very cool, very heavy and very, very expensive...
Posted by: Stan B. | Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 10:57 AM
Lens baby one day, uber Red lenses the next. What a roller-coaster ride around here.
Posted by: Robert Roaldi | Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 11:09 AM
There's a good reason for using T-stops in film and video -- when you want cut from a shot made with one lens a shot of the same scene made with another, you want the same exposure in both shots. Of course, Red, by offering to shoot raw will make all things possible in software, but still not having to correct is a big productivity enhancer.
scott
Posted by: scott kirkpatrick | Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 11:11 AM
As fotomik points out, the lens on the right does seem to be the 300 mm. That means that those are some massive lenses -- all of them, and the 18-85 mm zoom even more so. (They would already have been pretty hefty even if you had been right, Mike.) I'm guessing that price is commensurate with size and performance; designing high-performance lenses in a hurry may not be a problem these days, if there are no limits on size and price. I wonder if any of them have image stabilization.
Posted by: T | Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 11:39 AM
Scarlet...
As can be seen here, RED can also produce some bargains: a high-end fixed-zoom videocam under $4000. There's also a line of mini-primes for their non-fixed model starting at 6.5mm T1.9 (!!). No price found.
I use the term 'bargain' advisedly: way beyond my current means; cheap for an aspiring filmmaker.
Posted by: mikeinmagog | Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 11:47 AM
I'm wondering if the size is due to the available sensor sizes touted for the Scarlet and Epic. In that case, maybe the imaging circle has to be huge to cover the medium format sensors. Although I can't see a set of lenses for thier 16x6 cm sensor also being used on their 5x1 cm sensors - seems like massive overkill. Maybe they're just 35mm sized, but big for other reasons...
Posted by: David Bostedo | Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 12:43 PM
This is a CG render, not a photo...
So who knows when these lenses will actually exist.
Posted by: ben | Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 12:44 PM
Jim Jannard makes a lot of noise, but I just don't see the "DSLR killer" happening with the RED system. Way too expensive for us amateur types. And he's been making all this noise for so long now, it's time a real photographer actually got his/her hands on one, if it even exists.
Posted by: emptyspaces | Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 01:02 PM
What an unfortunate time to try to sell new boy toys.
Posted by: Ken Tanaka | Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 01:39 PM
The price... hold your breath.
hold it some more.
About 4k each. United States Dollars. And you have to buy the set of 5 or 6. It's in the thread around page 10 somewhere (one of the Jannard posts). 20k for the primes minus the 300mm, just under 25k for the primes plus the 300mm.
And then they do not cover full frame 35 mm sensors. Just Super 35 (I think), which is roughly APS-C.
Mind you, this is quite *cheap* for cinema lenses. The thing with cinema lenses, is that they're not just about the optics. The zooms especially, but the primes too is the smoothness of their mechanisms. The zooming is a visually continuous thing, which is generally not true for still-camera lenses. The same thing is probably true for the focus mechanism in primes, just focus, no change of framing.
Posted by: Pascal Scheffers | Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 03:15 PM
Oh, and one more thing, which is actually the title of the thread:
they're actually T1.8 lenses. They exceeded their expected manufacturing spec, and all came out at T1.8.
Posted by: Pascal Scheffers | Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 03:17 PM
Red says on page 3 of their FAQs that the lenses are made by "experts in optical design." I'm going to guess Sigma, because many of the focal lengths match what they already make.
Nothing wrong with that, of course. There's a big difference between what Sigma can make when they are trying to undercut OEM lenses and what they can make in a "cost is no object" scenario.
Part of the reason why the the lenses are so big is so that they can all use the same accessories (follow-focus, zoom control, mate box, etc). They also have to be serviceable, which means that you can't pack stuff in as tight as for "disposable" consumer lenses.
Posted by: Bernard | Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 04:28 PM
On page ten Jannard says:
"Yes to 18mm in development... no to FF35 coverage. Yes to incredible resolution (center to edge) and lack of aberrations. We hope people will put these on lens projectors and compare..."
Posted by: Eolake Stobblehouse | Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 06:38 PM
Call me a mulligrub if you must, but I'm skeptical of this whole RED enterprise. There's been a distant scent of BS around it, ever since the start. I've been wrong before - there was that time back in '63 when I predicted that Pop Tarts wouldn't sell -- and maybe RED is for real, but it looks to me more like a rich guy's hobby. We'll see.
Posted by: John Camp | Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 09:42 PM
Not exactly "pancakes", are they?
Posted by: John Roberts | Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 05:40 AM
It is a rich guys hobby. This is why Red came into being. Make the best cinema camera money can make, then set a good price on it. After that, become profitable. If that makes it BS?
Along the way, they figured they could also try to shake up the stills industry. I'm not so sure about that one, but hey.
The thing is, the hobby turned out a real camera (the RED ONE) which is actually being used for mainstream movies and TV shows you may have seen. You probably weren't aware they were shot on Red. But then, when was the last time you noticed that a photo was taken with a Canon or Nikon or whoever.
They're a strange bunch. The only manufacturer I know of who is serially numbering their camera bodies. They're around #5300 now. Now why would they be doing that...
Posted by: Pascal Scheffers | Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 05:56 AM
I think Red rock, but I'm just observing from a distance. The only way they could be better is to use more Captain Scarlet references in their products.
Posted by: Robin Parmar | Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 10:58 AM
Nerd alert: the lenses are L-R: 18-85, 50, 35, 85, 25, 100, 300. All focal lengths are on the barrels.
Posted by: Martin Doonan | Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 05:47 PM
It's real products, the RED One has been out for a while now and used in several professional movies.
Posted by: Eolake Stobblehouse | Thursday, 12 March 2009 at 12:22 AM