FS7: About to Head to Mongolia - Lens Q

Joshua Milligan

Joshua Milligan

Well-known member
Hey guys. I'm leaving in two weeks to head to Mongolia for a run & gun documentary shoot. I'm gathering up the last of my gear and am trying to decide which of these two lenses to bring. I am shooting off of a FS7 as my main cam and have already picked out most of the lenses I'm going to bring. I'm down to the last lens which will be the main lens I use for this trip.

For a run & gun doc in which there will be no artificial lights, would you recommend a 24-70 2.8 L II or a 24-105 L II? I already own the 24-70, but am willing to purchase the 24-105 if it's the better lens for the job. I have zero experience with this lens, but the range and IS look great. I love my 24-70 and feel that it will be great for lowlight, not to mention how sharp it is. It also produces beautiful sun flares, sun stars and a shallow depth of field. But, it lacks image stabilization which I fear may be crucial for filming handheld or from the shoulder.

For a run & gun doc, which would you bring?
 
No question in my mind which lens I'd go for.
The 24-105 is very soft in comparison to the 24-70, and gets darker as you zoom in. I've had to rent it before for the range, but definitely don't like using it.

Go with the 24-70. Yyou could go for the Tamron which has has VC (image stabilization) as well, but if you already have the Canon go with that - but you'll be far better off with the 24-70 IMO. You can 2K Center Crop to get 'have to get' shots as well.
 
I head back to the Arctic next month.

Assume similar issues of keeping things light weight and simple and needing IS on a lightweight setup.

I have a 24-70/2.8 GM. But I'll be taking my 24-105.

Ben.
 
My .02 cents ---
Aside from the fact that I think the 24-105 is a sub-par choice...
You're not saying what you're filming or what your other lenses are.
Are you on a speed booster? if not, is the 24-70 really wide enough for either scenics or for walking around with a subject? What makes the most sense for your shoot? For darker interiors without a speedbooster would a Sigma 18-35 make more sense?
When travelling I look to make sure I'm covered and back up the weak links. Speaking of speedboosters, do you have a backup for it, or a backup lens that don't require an electronic iris (such as Nikon?). How about a backup for your battery charger? It sounds like you have a backup camera. Can you finish the shoot with your backup if the main camera has an issue? if a dslr do you you have the audio adapters for it? Have you arranged for an in-country rental source if you have issues?
 
To answer your question, I am filming a wildlife documentary in the Gobi Altai mountains. Many of the shots will be of wildlife and many will be of the people who are searching them. I will be hiking a lot and filming in extreme situations. I also will be filming the people who take us (locals) and the places we stay. Some shots will also be of ruins there from the Genghis Kahn era.

I will not be using a speed booster as I need the reach of Super 35 for wildlife. I don't have any weak links. I have have backup adapters, an ungodly amount of batteries, three cameras and all the audio one could need. I've shot docs like this all over, from Pakistan to Africa to Alaska, so I am confident in my gear. I just am seeking opinions on the 24-70 2.8 L II vs the 24-105 L II for filming people, action, B-roll around camp, shots climbing the mountains, etc.

I am bringing with me these cameras and lenses: Sony FS7, Sony A7SII, Sony A7RII, 16-35 2.8 L III, 70-200 2.8 L II, 100-400 4.5-5.6 L II, 50mm 1.2 L, 24mm 2.0 Batis and either the 24-70 2.8 L II or the 24-105 4.0 L II. Which of these two is where I am seeking opinions and experiences.
 
I'm with Ben - We all know it's a compromise ... but I would think you would want the extra range of the 24-105. Sounds like you'll be using those other lenses once you get to the destination. But that focal range is a sweet spot (I actually prefer it with the speed booster for the .7 focal reducer) while going to & fro - in real r&g situations.
I'm curious - semi related - if anyone has used the new II version of the 24-105 & perhaps if it truly stays an f4 throughout the range now? Of if Canon has fudged again?
 
It may be worth you considering the 18-110. I don't think it's worth 6 times as much as the 24-105, though, so I just can't bring myself to buy it.
 
I think if I can swing it, I might just spring for the Canon 18-80. Using it with the regular MB adapter (non-SB), it would provide a similar range as the 24-105 on a SB, just at basically an F/4 (T4.4). It has IS, is parfocal and looks to produce a really great image quality. The grip for it also looks great and would provide power zooming for doc work. I've read of several people who are using them on their FS7 and love it. Financially, it will be expensive, but man what a solid investment.
 
Of the two canons for some reason Im feeling the 24-70

The 24-105 extends and is a bit fragile.

Also how run and gun is this shoot..?

I dunno why but for a single day shoot often the 105 really helps.. (and a 24-200 would help more!) but if you can be a bit more considered and move in on your subject then 70 should be good?

The sony lens is interesting of course - but it would take a big jump to solely use it - which is where it would shine.

As for the canon.. 18-80.. I dont think you can keep this on all day and wonking between booster and no booster (if that is what you intend) and disconnecting the zoom motor will just do you in.

I really struggle with the concept of these 'not quite there' ENG lenses if they are hard to switch out and need supporting.

even when I was lucky to be rented a CN17 I still spent a lot of day ripping to off for a 70-200 or a 100mm macro - and ripping it off is no fast move

My nikkor 10-24 28-80 and 50-300 (or 180 prime for less hauling) all plonk onto the booster with little though and no lens support rods - hell my 10-24 is 'DX' but I just zoom in a bit!

The reality is that most shooting situations you will want to be in the 150-200 region at least once a day and the 10-14 region too - its a very specific doc that is all at 18-80.

S
 
Last edited:
Hey Morgan. So I'm actually just going to be using an adapter, so no speed booster, and will not ever take it off because I only am bringing Canon lenses (the one Sony Batis is just for my A7RII and gimbal work). I ended up getting approved today for a two year payment for the Canon 18-80 with the grip, so that's what I am going with. My reasoning is this: When we pack into the mountains each day, I'll have my A7SII with a 16-35 2.8 for landscape shots and time-lapses, my A7RII with a 24-70 2.8 for B-roll shots and my FS7 with a 100-400 for wildlife shots. When I'm not shooting wildlife, I'm going to take off the 100-400 and put on the 18-80. It has IS, is parfocal, is sharp throughout and on an adapter (which I'm never removing for the shoot) it will basically be a 27-120mm equivalent. That range is great.

I will likely use that lens with the FS7 for the vast majority of the project except for when I use the long lens for wildlife. The A7SII and A7RII will be in the bag for quick grabs and B-roll shots. I think this combo will serve me well in the mountains. I'm going to leave my 50, my Batis 25 and my 70-200 at camp and will only use them there for interviews, creative shots, etc. I think doing this will be better than using the 24-70 on the FS7 and losing IS and range, or picking up a 24-105 and losing image quality. The best part is that I use the Cine versions of the Metabones adapters on my FS7 and it's supported to my camera with a Wooden Camera plate. This means I don't have to use rails or lens support when in the field for any of these lenses. That makes changes quick and easy, even when putting on the 100-400 or 18-80.
 
Last edited:
Joshua Milligan said:
Hey Morgan. So I'm actually just going to be using an adapter, so no speed booster, and will not ever take it off because I only am bringing Canon lenses (the one Sony Batis is just for my A7RII and gimbal work). I ended up getting approved today for a two year payment for the Canon 18-80 with the grip, so that's what I am going with. My reasoning is this: When we pack into the mountains each day, I'll have my A7SII with a 16-35 2.8 for landscape shots and time-lapses, my A7RII with a 24-70 2.8 for B-roll shots and my FS7 with a 100-400 for wildlife shots. When I'm not shooting wildlife, I'm going to take off the 100-400 and put on the 18-80. It has IS, is parfocal, is sharp throughout and on an adapter (which I'm never removing for the shoot) it will basically be a 27-120mm equivalent. That range is great.

I will likely use that lens with the FS7 for the vast majority of the project except for when I use the long lens for wildlife. The A7SII and A7RII will be in the bag for quick grabs and B-roll shots. I think this combo will serve me well in the mountains. I'm going to leave my 50, my Batis 25 and my 70-200 at camp and will only use them there for interviews, creative shots, etc. I think doing this will be better than using the 24-70 on the FS7 and losing IS and range, or picking up a 24-105 and losing image quality. The best part is that I use the Cine versions of the Metabones adapters on my FS7 and it's supported to my camera with a Wooden Camera plate. This means I don't have to use rails or lens support when in the field for any of these lenses. That makes changes quick and easy, even when putting on the 100-400 or 18-80.
Click to expand...

Where does the 27-120 happen with the 18-80? The lens is designed for s35 sensors, so used with an adapter, it would still be 18-80 on the fs7... I don't see where the 27-120 factors in unless you're talking about center crop? In which case I'd have said, 36-160 (18-80 times two)....

Just curious. Congrats on the new lens
 
Wes. said:
Where does the 27-120 happen with the 18-80? The lens is designed for s35 sensors, so used with an adapter, it would still be 18-80 on the fs7... I don't see where the 27-120 factors in unless you're talking about center crop? In which case I'd have said, 36-160 (18-80 times two)....

Just curious. Congrats on the new lens
Click to expand...

He is referencing it to full frame field of view. In other words, he says that this lens on S35 sensor will give a field of view of a 27-120mm lens on full frame. Of course it never becomes a 27-120mm lens - it is always exactly what it is - 18-80mm, it is just its field of view that changes depending on a format.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top