FS5: All around zoom for the FS5

The Tamron zooms will probably not match AF performance of a Sony zoom (unless you got the Sony A mount version of the Tamron and adapted it? I dunno.) But for MF, they are probably better. My 18-270 has hard stops at either end of the focus range. The ring is very loose and it's a relatively short focus throw, but I have no problem repeating focus moves and controlling the speed.
 
drboffa said:
One combo I like is the Sigma 17-50 (adapted via Sigma's MC-11). You lose range, but if you need a shot in a pinch you can use ClearImage Zoom or Center Scan (assuming you're not using raw over SDI).
Click to expand...

I have a Sigma 17-50 in Nikon mount that I use for stills, but I didn't find if very useful for video, as it has a very short focus throw, and the focus ring isn't really dampened. It's better than focus by wire lenses, but still difficult to shoot video with in my opinion.

I only use the Sony 18-105 with AF, focus by wire just isn't usable for me.

The Canon 24-105 is a decent option, the focus ring doesn't have hard stops and the copies I used weren't particularly smooth in operation, but it's a versatile lens that you can probably get for around $500 used these days. If 24mm isn't wide enough, you could use a focal reducer.
 
Last edited:
I wound up ordering a used Sony 18-105 from BH. Probably at best average but useable. I never had an major issues with it on the fs5. My nightmare shoot was with it on the A7III. It's really just an HD lens. On FF/4K it's unusable - learned that the hard way...
 
Imamacuser said:
I suppose you could try Adorama and hope that you have better luck.
Click to expand...

I ordered one on Ebay... It seems like BH didn't even inspect the lens. Frustrating. Maybe they're short on staff because of Covid and one person is doing all the work in used? How can you rate a lens with no front element a 9? And besides that there were other nicks and scrapes on it....
 
They probably just missed it...didn't even notice.

I imagine it looked pretty good besides that part? Usually you're just instructed to look for physical, cosmetic damage unless it's a more complex electronic (especially one for a lot of $$$). Maybe twist the rings a little.

But what happened to waiting and testing lenses? lol
 
I don't think they took off the front cap. It's would be glaringly obvious to anyone. Which means they didn't look at the front glass. Not good, but under the circumstances understandable I guess. This is the first time I've gotten a dud from BH -- but then again I ALWAYS go into the store and inspect any item I'm going to buy beforehand at the used desk. Obviously, in this situation I couldn't do that...
 
I used the 18-105 and hated it. The manual focus was slow and unreliable....terrible, the zoom was slow and it just weighed me down. Unless I used the push Focus mode, it was unusable. I now own the Sony 18-110, which is a sharp lens with a great zoom and lovely manual focus. It is very similar to the lens on the EX1r which I thought was fine. It’s only drawback is that it is slow, F4 is a limitation, but when I need something faster, I typically go with the Sigma 18-35 on the wide end or if I need wider, a Rokinon 12mm. The 18-110 may be too expensive for you, but it is a fine all around lens for the money and works well with the FS5.
 
No, but I'd imagine that is has a ton of distortion (the Nikon 18-200 sure did), and I'm not sure if the FS5 can correct it while recording.
 
Lens-dependent, but who knows - maybe they programmed that lens in? My Tamron 18-270 didn't have unusable distortion on the wide end FWIW. It was fine IMO. Obviously this is a different lens though
 
I forgot about that one, do you have any experience with it? Too bad it's so slow, the 18-105 is 1 & 1/3 stop faster at 100mm.
 
Mine is for sale because I've switched to the FX9 which is full frame and I'd like to replace it with the 24-240 version, though that has no zoom motor. . I think its a good lens for an all arounder with great reach but of course it is slow .. However with the speed of cameras nowadays if you aren't looking for depth of field it can be surprisingly useful and its small and light. I've used it with the FS7 for indoor trade shows for example and if you stay at 6.3 or above then the iris doesn't ramp which to me is important, and it worked in that flourescent environment fine. To be honest I haven't used the lens much at all but I've kept it around for when I need a very flexible run & gun especially outside. Now that I have the FX9 with good autofocuis I think it would be a lot more useful, but figure the 24-240 would be better for me. I have a buddy who is a very well traveled documentarian and shoots alot with his A7 and he used the the 24-240 for more than half his shooting and loves it. Previously he used an older non zoom version of the 18-200 alot with FS700. It has very good reviews optically and as a Sony should be a good match for the autofocus on the FS5, but i've never used an FS5.
I hated the 18-105 fly by wire manual focusing and sent one back to B&H , as I recall this lens isn't that wacky. Of course its not parfocal and that's a drag but with autofocus it might be great. I haven't really tried it on the FX9 and I'm not shooting anything nowadays. I should give it a spin around the yard, but I'm too busy doing gardening these days.
 
I just received my 18-105 from Ebay and manual focus is surprisingly manageable. Much better than the copy I picked up from BH a few months back. I wonder if there is copy to copy deviations with this lens...

Also, re: lens distortion. There has been some reported with this lens so I have "lens compensation" turned on on the FS5. Is this necessary in firmware v04 on the lens? I would rather have that extra bit of FOV that lens compensation takes away...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top