FS7: 18-105 on the fs7...Is it working for you?

Chris Johnston

Chris Johnston

Veteran
I have an FS7 with 24-70 F4 which is usually on the cam for most of my standard uses. I'm getting another FS7 soon to replace my aging fs100 which I use in studio 95% of the time.
I am thinking about the 18-105 to go with the new cam. Initially when it came out it had some bad pincushion issues but I think they've been corrected software wise.

Soo... Opinions on this glass with FS7? (and maybe occasionally with an A6300...)

Watching reviews seem to be all over the place depending on what cam you're using, I'm asking specifically for FS7 usage. (maybe a6300 too)

Is there another E mount that can do better at that price range? (I like oss and AF quite a lot...)
 
This lens is nice, works well with FS7, IS, autofocus all OK, but in 4K distortion is a real problem.


Both in wide and tele
 
Last edited:
I just got the lrns and in general it seems fine but its a convenience lens for me. The oss and rocker zoom makes it very agile and the reach is great. Pincushion is bad but the wide looks kinda good. Distortion control in 1080p, disables LUTs though.
 
Chris Johnston said:
The firmware fix only works in 1080?
Click to expand...

There wasn't any firmware fix for 1080. Distortion Compensation has always worked in 1080 and will never work in 4K. It is a stated limitation of the lens by Sony and therefore is not something that needs to be fixed. You have to either accept the lens with it's warts or choose another lens that suits your needs better. Personally I am not a fan of the lens but everyone's needs are different.
 
Just tested. Distortion control seems to work in 1080p and still engages in S&Q up to 60 fps. Crops around 5%. Seems to work pretty well I can see myself using it.
 
You might consider the 18-200 PZ which also has AF and rocker arm. Its slow as hell and not the world's greatest glass but it really does give you a solution when you need an all purpose lens . The camera is so damn fast these days that even 6.3 if often useable on interiors especially for event work under fluorescents. Just a thought.
 
As much as I dislike the 18-105 I have to admit it can be used successfully in a lot of situations, but the 18-200 is just a total dog. That lens has an extremely slow maximum aperture when zoomed in, ramping of the aperture, sluggish manual focus, etc. You can get much better results with an old EX1. If you really need a long zoom range and don't want to invest in decent lenses, why not look at a excellent cameras like the Z150, X200, or X320 that come complete with excellent lenses? Features like big sensors and S-LOG are only useful if you actually surround them with good lenses and workflows in post. Why buy a great camera like the FS7 and hobble it with a very crappy lens? Just my 2 cents.
 
What Doug said +1000!
Leaving everything else glass found in 18-200 just makes everything look dull. There's something really bad with it's optics, just stay away from it.
 
if your usage is in studio 95% of the time why do you need a zoom lens?

I was in the same boat when I purchased the FS7. The 18-200 went away with the FS700. The 28-135 does not fit my needs as universal lens for solo r&g. It's too long at the short end, it's too heavy for the Ronin. I mostly shoot 4K as cropping for fake perspective on interviews and headroom for stabilization is a real benefit. -> the 18-105 is an absolute no-go.

In the end I went for the 16-70z which I use for both the FS7 and the a6300 as well. It is not perfect but for me it was the best choice over 28-135, 18-200 and 18-105. I read about people complaining that is too soft but mine is very sharp and I am very satisfied with the image quality. AF works in general but AF is not a great feature of the FS7 at all. I would pay 5 grand for a 16-120 / 2.8 with constant focal length and 600g/1,3lb :-)
 
Well if you don't like the 18-200 I can understand that, however I find in my work that there are times when I am not trying to get the most beautiful image possible, I simply need coverage - fast and easy - and in those situations it fills a need. I do think of it as the closest I can get to an EX-1 which generally in that situation would be better but i don't always lug 2 cameras around. Actually I'd rather have a traditional B4 camera in many situations but don't have one.
Re it being slow and ramping iris: At 6.3 the iris holds steady and the camera is so much faster than an EX-1 that its not all that much slower.
Its a tool like any other and between that and the 18-105 I found it much more valuable. In fact I hardly ever shoot with it but its always in the toolbox. i know others agree as well.

I don't see any point in comparing a 16-70 to an 18-200. Totally different purposes. Might as well complain about SLR lenses vs real cine glass.
 
Lenilenapi said:
I don't see any point in comparing a 16-70 to an 18-200. Totally different purposes. Might as well complain about SLR lenses vs real cine glass.
Click to expand...

his initial question was about the 18-105. Apologies that I shared my thoughts and reported my experience about the 16-70z I did not know that the 18-200 is real cine glass. I will re-think my decision.
 
What other lens has the same focal length and works the same way without adapters, smart adapters, converters etc. with the FS7?

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
 
The 18-200 is the best way of getting the performance of a small sensor video camera out of a S35 sized sensor camera.

However, I have actually used the 18-200 for macro photography, it actually has quite a close focus (not true macro) for 200mm and I have got some shots I never would've been able to get without buying even more glass.

I'm with Clermont the 16-70 is an excellent choice replacement for the 18-105 if you find it too bendy. Getting hold of the 16-70 is another matter though. Stupidly priced at new and difficult to get hold of used.

Bengiles's artic video shot on the 18-105 looked splendid so it can work nicely maybe not so great in an urban environment with lots of verticals. I'd listen to Bengiles as he's shooting with it a lot and for broadcast. If he says it's OK then it probably is.
 
I've used the 18-105mm quite a lot on my FS5 but recently purchased the 18-200mm PZ. The main reason was I needed the 200mm reach for a lot of my R&G work and whilst the 18-105 sort of gives me that via clear image zoom, I can notice the drop in image quality at the tight end of the clear image zoom. I doubt I will sell my 18-105 since the constant f4 will prove useful in some scenarios. But I anticipate the 18-200 will get used more with my particular workflow, ie outdoor R&G.

Overall I think you need to work out what camp your workflow/projects mostly fall into. For the guys used to Cine lens because they do commercials, promos and drama (amongst others) the look and quality of a 18-105 or 18-200 will be sub par. But if you do a lot of conference/corporate, events/expos, youth and church gigs with uncontrollable environments and fast turnarounds (involving minimal grading), then the versatility of the 18-105/200 will trump the Cine glass.

Ironically a lot of the time the final product ends up on the Net where compression inside your NLE and via YouTube/Vimeo has somewhat levelled the playing field re quality anyway. Whilst Dave Dugdale isn't always on the money re his comparisons, he does build a reasonable case for this in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSdq81nyRWY
 
The 28-135 falls into a no-man's land that I would never use. 28mm isn't wide enough for handheld, 135mm isn't long enough for sports and wildlife, f/4 isn't fast enough for interviews, and on top of all that, it's an e-mount. There are better ways to spend that $2500.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top