Jump to content


Photo

zooms: Canon Vs Red


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Matias Nicolas

Matias Nicolas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina

Posted 04 October 2017 - 05:36 AM

Hi!

Comparing: Canon 24-70mm  , 70-200mm t2.8     VS      Red zoom 16-50mm , 50-135mm

 

Can someone tell me which is optically better for shooting a documentary with an epic? Im not worried about, weight, size, or how to operate the f stops (but you can add what you want!) 

 

I just want to know: 

 

Does the red zoom breathe a lot more?

 

Which has better resolution & quality? 

 

what about flares? 

 

construction?

 

Sbdy told me , red zooms are built with sigma lenses (I don't know anything about sigma lenses) what do you believe? Cause for me, Canon is a better brand than sigma.. but for you?

 

 

 

 

 


  • 0


#2 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3527 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 October 2017 - 01:00 PM

The Red zooms are HUGE, I mean so big they dwarf most modern cameras. They do work fine and they don't look too bad, considering most people sell them for cheap money.

The other Canon lenses you listed are NOT cinema lenses. They don't have repeatable focus, they don't have smooth zoom controls, they don't have external aperture adjustment and I don't think either one are parfocal, which is really important to have in a cinema zoom lens.

The Canon's do look better, they're a warmer glass which requires less tooling in post. However, that Canon glass SUCKS for run and gun documentary stuff.

What camera are you using?
  • 0

#3 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Student

Posted 04 October 2017 - 01:29 PM


What camera are you using?

 

Seems like he is "shooting a documentary with an Epic".


  • 0

#4 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1530 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 04 October 2017 - 04:51 PM

The Red zooms are HUGE, I mean so big they dwarf most modern cameras. They do work fine and they don't look too bad, considering most people sell them for cheap money.


Out of the 4 zooms Red have released only one could be considered "HUGE" - the 18-85. The rest are actually quite compact.

The glass is made by Tamron. Except for the 18-85 I believe they are rehoused stills zooms, but they do have some cine functionality - they're parfocal, gear ringed and PL mount, with more focus marks and a longer focus throw than those Canon stills zooms. It's definitely an advantage to use cine zooms, but some people aren't fans of the Red ones.

The earlier 18-50 and 50-150 in particular were not very well designed mechanically, so watch out for backlash or image shift if you are thinking of buying one of these.
  • 0

#5 Matias Nicolas

Matias Nicolas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina

Posted 04 October 2017 - 07:31 PM

Well, im shooting with epic, cause the company owns these cameras. I think, red zooms are too sharp against canon lenses... but it's just a thougth ...  

I also prefer use canon, cause 77mm filters are easy to carry with me... So I din't need to use a clip on 4x4 filters... 

I know is better mechanical diaf than electronic, but for me thats ok ... the thing, is what about quality? which are more cinematic to you? always seemed to me, that red lenses were as cheap as the first red camera ever built... but don't know how is today their manufacture ... 


  • 0

#6 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3527 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 October 2017 - 03:55 AM

Honestly, if ya can't do focus racks, if ya can't zoom in and maintain focus, if ya can't do smooth zooms... if ya can't set the T stop at anything you want... then the lens is kinda worthless. These are the problems you'll run into with MOST "still" camera lenses like the Canon's you pointed out. If you're doing doc work, especially shoulder doc work, you'll be dying with those canon's.

The Canon's are FAR crisper then the Red's, no comparison in my point of view.
  • 0

#7 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3527 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 October 2017 - 03:59 AM

Out of the 4 zooms Red have released only one could be considered "HUGE" - the 18-85. The rest are actually quite compact.


Compared to what? Sure if you're talking about an Angenieux or Cooke 25-250, yes the Red's are smaller.

There is no comparison to the still canon glass the OP is comparing above. I was comparing the Red to the Canon still glass because those are the two options the OP provided us.
  • 0

#8 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1530 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 05 October 2017 - 07:20 AM

Compared to what? Sure if you're talking about an Angenieux or Cooke 25-250, yes the Red's are smaller.There is no comparison to the still canon glass the OP is comparing above. I was comparing the Red to the Canon still glass because those are the two options the OP provided us.


You said they were "HUGE" and "dwarfed most modern cameras", now you're saying oh I meant compared to the Canons? And I guess by "modern cameras" you meant your Blackmagic Pocket or a GoPro?

For what it's worth, the 3 compact Red zooms are all shorter and lighter than the Canon 70-200 f2.8 which is 200mm long and weighs 1.5kg. The two smallest Red zooms are roughly the same weight as the 24-70 (they're shorter but squatter), and smaller than a lot of compact, short range cine zooms, let alone a 25-250.

But I get the feeling you don't actually know what lenses we're talking about despite having opinions on them. You could just google them. The OP got the ranges a bit wrong, but given that Red have only released 4 zooms it's a pretty fair bet he was talking about the 18-50 (or 17-50) and the 50-150. You may be thinking of the 18-85, which IS large. Or maybe you're confusing the zooms with the Primes, I don't know.

I was willing to just correct your misinformation and move on, but if you want to try and rewrite what you really meant in some weird attempt to prove that you're never wrong I guess we can trawl over it some more.
  • 1

#9 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3527 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 October 2017 - 01:57 PM

You said they were "HUGE" and "dwarfed most modern cameras", now you're saying oh I meant compared to the Canons? And I guess by "modern cameras" you meant your Blackmagic Pocket or a GoPro?


Red Dragon, Alexa Mini, which in 2017 are still two of the most popular cameras.
 

For what it's worth, the 3 compact Red zooms are all shorter and lighter than the Canon 70-200 f2.8


Ahh, you're talking about the "compact" Red offering. I'm not referring to that offering at all. I'm referring to the lenses you can buy on ebay for a grand, those are the one's that most people buy because they're so cheap. It's what I "assume" the OP is talking about because the newer series is more expensive then the Canon's.

I personally only know the Red Cine lenses we have at school, that's the only experience I get with them and we RARELY use them due to their size. I can take pix when I'm there next to avoid further confusion.
  • 0

#10 David Hessel

David Hessel
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 120 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 October 2017 - 02:40 PM

Ahh, you're talking about the "compact" Red offering. I'm not referring to that offering at all. I'm referring to the lenses you can buy on ebay for a grand, those are the one's that most people buy because they're so cheap. It's what I "assume" the OP is talking about because the newer series is more expensive then the Canon's.

 

Just to avoid any confustion the lenses the OP are asking about are the "compact" versions as already mentioned there is no larger series of zooms, the only really large zoom lens is the 18-85mm. Here are some pics to get an idea of their size, I cannot speak to quality since I have only seen them on a shelf but never shot with one. Also I believe the 17 - 50mm pictured below is the first version of this lens and I am not sure what differences there are to the second version.

 

17 - 50mm

red_pro_zoom_18_50_lens_hire.jpg

 

 

50 - 150mm

red_pro_zoom_50-150_lens_hire.jpg


  • 0

#11 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1530 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 05 October 2017 - 08:31 PM

Red Dragon, Alexa Mini, which in 2017 are still two of the most popular cameras.

 

Yeah.. I was being tongue-in-cheek.. the Pocket or a GoPro are the the sorts of cameras that would be "dwarfed" by those Red zooms..

 

 

Ahh, you're talking about the "compact" Red offering. I'm not referring to that offering at all. I'm referring to the lenses you can buy on ebay for a grand, those are the one's that most people buy because they're so cheap. It's what I "assume" the OP is talking about because the newer series is more expensive then the Canon's.

 

What "compact Red offering"? We're talking about zooms, and there are only the four I mentioned. You're being careful to avoid the term, but I guess you were talking about the Red Pro Primes, even though the thread title and subsequent posts are explicitly about zooms. If you don't know the difference between zooms and primes you shouldn't be offering advice. 

 

Why not just admit you got mixed up, or didn't bother to actually read the posts, rather than once again try to justify giving out misinformation after the fact by twisting the narrative? Are you so desperate to always be right? A better technique would be to just stick to what you know in the first place.


  • 2

#12 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3527 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 October 2017 - 11:50 PM

Yea, those are foreign lenses to me. The one's we have at school look like this. We also have a shorter focal length version that's super large like this as well. I just assume these were the offerings Red had, I didn't know they made another generation of zooms. I apologize for the confusion.

I have used the Red cine zooms we have at school and they worked fine, but again in my opinion, they were big and heavy compared to the other offerings from Canon, Fuji and Zeiss that we also have. Again, this is coming from a "shooters" perspective, not from a technician's perspective.


 
s-l1600.jpg
  • 0

#13 David Hessel

David Hessel
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 120 posts
  • Other

Posted 06 October 2017 - 10:39 AM

To the OP if you are still watching the 18-85mm he pictured is large, as we have already stated,  but the two lenses you asked about are very compact and from what I have come up in researching them for my own purposes they seem to be well liked by those who purchased them. ThereIs are two versions for the 17-50mm and from what I have read quailty is similar with maybe better mechanics on the later version.


Edited by David Hessel, 06 October 2017 - 10:53 AM.

  • 0


Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Technodolly

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Glidecam

CineLab

Technodolly

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport