Sony FE 4/PZ 16-35mm Hands-on with A7IV Cinematic FITNESS VIDEO - Powerzoom

[morgan_moore]

Yeah, if someone doesn't mind jacking up the ISO to compensate for a slow lens,

al things being equal.. a ff sensor is less noisy so the iSO can be jacked up and the image will still be as clean as a smaller chip cam at lower ISO

(actualy it not less noisy it needs less magnification, so you cant see the noise as much.. for examle a ffsensor projected on 30in might be a magnification of 1000 while 2/3 projected on 30in might need a magnificatino of 4000, so the noise is 4X bigger)

ff vs 2/3 have different 'happy numbers' for exampe 8000 is probably happy on a ff sensor as is f4, these are both unhappy numbers on smaller chip cameras.

My happy numbers developed in the 1990s like '800 is enough iso thanks' need revisiting or Im not using the full toolset of a modern camera or may use more lights than required.

Im naturally disapointed that this lens is not 2.8 (like the 16-35s from 2010) - but in 2022 that probably doesnt matter

[jmone]

In fairness to Sony, there is a "modern" T3.1 (2.8f) 16-35 PZ option..... you just need to cough up a liver. Still no OSS, but if you hate the F4 offering, there is a faster option.

[Doug Jensen]

I don't see a broadcast zoom at b&h for 1/3" or 1/2" or 2/3" cameras that goes as wide as the 112.6" FOV of 12mm full-frame.

You're damn right. Almost nobody in mainstream broadcast television production would want anything to do with a lens that wide. I think Canon has a 4.3mm and Fujjinon has a 4.5mm (18mm FF equivalent), and even those are very rare and would only be chosen under unusual circumstances. Fujinon has a beautiful 18x5.5mm (22mm FF equivalent) that is pretty much the widest ENG lens that any maninstream production would consider using. If I could justify a second 2/3" lens, I would own that lens. But anything wider than 5.5mm is going to have too much distortion on pans. Try one and see for yourself. I see them being used occassionally on TV and the look is awful and completely un-cinematic. Even top-rated reality shows, such as Survivor and Amazing Race, don't use those extreme 4.3 and 4.5 WA lenses. I would be really surpised if you could name any mainstream broadcast productions that routinely use FF lenses wider than 16mm or 2/3" lenses wider than 5mm. So the reason you can't find a 2/3" lens to match the field of view of your 12mm FF is because nobody wants them so nobody builds them. I understand that you have chosen to use super wide quasi-fisheye lenses for your own productions, and you say you have good reasons for doing so, but that's not mainstream.

BTW, the advantage of a 2/3" WA zoom lens, compared to a 2x FF lens, is that the operator still has a 13x or 18x zoom range to choose from at the touch of the servo control. That kind of flexibility is priceless.

[ahalpert]

Probably everyone in this thread has shot at 16mm. I don't regularly use my 12-24mm, but when I do I find it invaluable, especially for shooting vertical video. (And it's definitely not quasi-fisheye.)

Of course a 13x zoom range lens has tremendous flexibility. But there are trade-offs. And if you want to shoot on a full-frame camera, I don't think such a lens is currently available besides an Angenieux 12x for $110k.

Most of the time I shoot on primes, most often on a 50mm.

[ahalpert]

As an FX6 user, I ideally want both OSS and PZ. The only zens that has both is the 28-135 which is on the FX6 most of the time.

Maybe they gave the 28-135 OSS because it goes long, but I think it had more to do with the fact that Sony cameras weren't using IBIS yet.

Now Sony is releasing a high-end 16-35 cine lens for users, as mentioned, who might not want OSS anyway. And they have cheap little lenses like this PZ 16-35 that assume you'll use IBIS. Nothing for an FX6 user who wants OSS

[Doug Jensen]

Probably everyone in this thread has shot at 16mm. I don't regularly use my 12-24mm, but when I do I find it invaluable, especially for shooting vertical video. (And it's definitely not quasi-fisheye.)

Vertical video? Uh, that's not exactly mainstream broadcast, is it? All kinds of crazy **** gets use all the time in various productions, that's why I made a point to qualify my comments as being about broadcast, as you mentioned in your own post. I still challenge you to identify any mainstream broadcast show that regularly makes use of lenses in the 12mm FF range. Maybe for a lock down shot on boblsed run or somehing of that nature, but certainly not for anything where the camera is in motion. It just isn't done. That's why there are no 2/3" lenses that offer than kind of field of view. Nobody wants them so nobody makes them.

As for that focal length being quasi-fisheye, we'll have to disagree on that one. I think 10mm is generally considered a fisheye, so 12mm can definitely qualify as a quasi-fisheye. Heck, in my opinion 12mm is a fisheye, but just in the interest of finding common ground, I will call it a quasi-fisheye. Can you meet me halfway?

Obviously, all my comments are for landscape orientted video. I have nothing to say about portrait aspect ratios because I don't work in that world. Thank god.

[ahalpert]

This 12-24mm is rectilinear, not fisheye. You could also have a 12mm fisheye. But this one is not. The widest rectilinear full-frame lens currently available is a 9mm. I also use it in landscape-oriented video, but it definitely becomes something of an effect lens, or architectural. Mostly I use it for getting wide shots at close-range. There is heavy perspective distortion, but not if you're in the base position. There's a fair amount of barrel distortion at 12mm, but not as bad as one might think. And you can correct it in-camera.

But I mean, again - this thread was about a 16-35. Who here hasn't used a 16-35 at 16? And who said we were only talking about broadcast?

If you're going to poo-poo the 16-35 PZ because there are faster zooms with larger zoom ratios available, you also need to consider price/size/weight/format and how wide those other zooms can go. if you can afford to change lenses, you can benefit from its other attributes

[Doug Jensen]

Good points, even if I don't completely agree with your viewpoint. Obviously there are lot of options available today so we can each choose the tools and techniques that work best for us. So If a 2x f/4 zoom meets the needs of someone, they've got it.