PDA

View Full Version : Back to basic question: which zoom lens?



moldcad
09-03-2011, 07:34 AM
Sooo.... OK, I know, I know - I should have used the forum search function, and then read through all those endless threads again. But if I decided to start another one instead, is not only because I'm too lazy to do the above - I thought this thread could also serve others as a "resume reference" of the long discussion that has started even before the FS100 hit the shelves.

To the merits: is there a consensus on which lens represents the highest price/performance ratio, if one wants more or less the functionality of the SEL 18200 kit zoom, but:

- faster (like F2.8)
- not ramping down (i.e. constant F2.8 even at the longest tele; speaking of which some 150-ish would suffice)
- parfocal
- fixed length (i.e. not extending as dramatically as the kit lens does, making using the matte box questionable)?

Since the A Sony lenses do not have IS afaik (instead, the Alpha-destined bodies do), the choice is getting limited. And even though it'd be nice if the lens had fast AF as well as Iris control from the FS100 body, I guess I'm demanding too much already. After all, I still have my EX1 with the lens that fulfills all the above criteria, and more...

Opinions, please?

morgan_moore
09-03-2011, 07:53 AM
So Ive thought this over a miillion times now

1) the zoom has its place and is a must have part of the kit

2) I cant find another zoom that starts at 17 or 18 and has decent Fstop feel etc

There are however a bunch of amazing 28-70 etc

My conclusion is that the best way to acheive coverage with a small package is an 18 prime and a 28-70 2.8 zoom

unless you want to go sticks only and can handle a heavy cine lens like the RRP 18-80

S

FelixGER
09-03-2011, 07:55 AM
F2.8 zoom lenses that are not completely tele, are always like 17-50 or 24-70. Im using the Tamron 17-50 2.8. Not the sharpest glass, but for the price its great.

morgan_moore
09-03-2011, 08:02 AM
getting a 17-50 has been on my mind but Id end up taking it off all the time anyway

to get 70

on that basis I think the smallesst kit will involve two lenses

That could be a 17 and a 28-70

or a 17-50 and maybe a 85/2 prime

considering the two options I personlly prefer the first

S

moldcad
09-03-2011, 08:18 AM
What do you guys think the Sigma 17-50 mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM? It's said to have APS-C coverage - how does it translate to the FS100 sensor?

morgan_moore
09-03-2011, 08:55 AM
thats a good range, but IMO a bit short at the long end for CUs

physically it is the typically poor construction of a modern stills zoom

thats my point , if you want to cover 18-70 in two lenses you are dealing with fine maunal glass if you go for a 18 prime and a 28-70 or 35 70

if you go for 17-50 you end up with a crappy modern zoom

if you MUST only have one lens a 17-50 is really your only choice outside of cine glass

moldcad
09-03-2011, 09:54 AM
OK, so let me tell you guys what I have now:

- the kit zoom 18-200
- the old but good Canon FD glass (with adapter): 24/F1.8, 50/F1.4, 85/F1.8 and 35-105/F3.5 zoom.

Which way to go, in order to fill holes and make the ENG style run&gun shooting easier? Of course, should the kit lens be faster, I'd probably be all set...

morgan_moore
09-03-2011, 10:00 AM
Exactly something like the 35-105 and a 18 prime and you ahve a lot of reach and very fine quality glass

Grug
09-03-2011, 12:04 PM
For me, on a S35mm sensor, my 17-55mm f/2.8 nikkor would be the lens I'd have if I could only have one (it's a superb piece of glass). I'd add an 85mm f/1.4 to have extra coverage for slightly longer stuff.

But I'd strongly suggest making your choice around the focal lengths you use more often. So if you shoot longer, get a 24-70mm instead.

AndyInBuffalo
09-03-2011, 06:51 PM
For me the Tamron 28-75 2.8 works well for interviews. I tried the Nikon 28-70, but it was really too heavy. The Tamron is just a tad less sharp, but still good in my opinion.