Any experience with the 18-252mm (SCL-Z18X140) Zoom Lens

S

skimmel

Well-known member
Hi all:

Does anyone have experience (and sample videos preferably!) to share about the Sony 18-252mm zoom? I've seen a few online (most notably the review by Matthew Allard: http://vimeo.com/35203048), but am looking for additional user experience before I plunk down the, considerable, cash for this lens.

Thanks.
 
+1
Wait till NAB. If you want it later, I'm sure they will be on eBay.;)
Or put down 10k on a some real PL glass, and finance the rest with rentals.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a video guy, but played a bit with it at BVE and it was fine. I was amazed by F3 picture and how well defined it's- all ages looks so smooth.
What is wrong with it?

Is there other zoom lens with these range at this price?
Is not not like next one (good) jumps to 50K$?
 
Last edited:
I had the Sony Rep lend it to me for a few days and although I did not get to try it extensively, I was more impressed than I expected to be. First, with S-Log, there is so much more overall sensitivity that it seemed to perform well at f/5.6 which it can hold for most of the zoom range (this equates to about f/3 without S-Log). Interestingly, with the auto-iris engaged, I did not notice that the image exposure changed much even when the iris did make slight changes. I did not use the autofocus much but it seemed to work if ever needed. Mostly, impressed with the image quality which seems to match the Sony primes. I found the zoom to be quite smooth manually and stay in sharp focus throughout the range. It is surprisingly compact but you have to remove the PL mount which is a bother.
On the negatives, it is quite plastic and seems prosumer-ish. I have not been able to use the F3 shoulder mounted effectively, but with image stabilization, this could make this lens work well in a "run and gun" type usage. Probably not for serious movie making, and it is quite expensive, but better than expected in my limited experience. If it was 5K I would buy it.
 
I found no good points. It was terrible from start to finish. the only good thing about it was that it was light.
 
lasikdenver said:
I had the Sony Rep lend it to me for a few days and although I did not get to try it extensively, I was more impressed than I expected to be. First, with S-Log, there is so much more overall sensitivity that it seemed to perform well at f/5.6 which it can hold for most of the zoom range (this equates to about f/3 without S-Log). Interestingly, with the auto-iris engaged, I did not notice that the image exposure changed much even when the iris did make slight changes. I did not use the autofocus much but it seemed to work if ever needed. Mostly, impressed with the image quality which seems to match the Sony primes. I found the zoom to be quite smooth manually and stay in sharp focus throughout the range. It is surprisingly compact but you have to remove the PL mount which is a bother.
On the negatives, it is quite plastic and seems prosumer-ish. I have not been able to use the F3 shoulder mounted effectively, but with image stabilization, this could make this lens work well in a "run and gun" type usage. Probably not for serious movie making, and it is quite expensive, but better than expected in my limited experience. If it was 5K I would buy it.
Click to expand...

As I said- I'm not cameraman, but know a lot about video quality and this what I was seeing was impressive. Same feeling as yours- it did look sharp, clean and well defined on all range.

Problem is that you have no good zoom lens with such a range at less than huge money- because it's so difficult to make it- simple.
If I'm wrong some one please correct me- I'm happy to see name for good zoom lens, which is less than Sony (and easy to rent) and have better quality.
 
you might also wanna think about the abel pl to b4 adapter. it will compress the image off eng glass onto your s35 sensor. you'll get much better glass that way, light, compact, and proven in the field with a very wide variety of range. I'm sure you can find a lot of good deals on eng zooms these days. and i believe u'll get a close to doubling effect in the focal length so you'll have even more reach with the lens. and it's not like the sony zoom is really that cheap.

biggest drawback of the hdx2 is 2 stops of light loss. but luckily the f3 is incredibly sensitive...
 
TimurCivan said:
I found no good points. It was terrible from start to finish. the only good thing about it was that it was light.
Click to expand...
I have been using the lens for the past several weeks and have found it to be sharp, with good detail and color rendition. Auto focus is not lightening fast but it comes in handy. The auto-iris function works well, and as one poster noted, it keeps up quite imperceptibly with the zoom function. In addition, the vibration reduction feature is effective and useful. The poster's impression, "terrible," is of course his opinion. But proffering a one word opinion without explanation is hardly useful. Considering the current rebate structure, assuming one can recap the maximum $3700. amount, IMO, this lens is a bargain.
 
Last edited:
Yep- same impression after 15 minutes play with it.
Is REd 50-150 any good? This can be rent at reasonable price.
 
Ron777 said:
"Yep- same impression after 15 minutes play with it..."

Same impression as?
Click to expand...


probably as, it's terrible :)


the red 50-150 for the dollar is very good, but it's lower on the dollar scale compared to other pl zooms. I found it to be very soft, and doesn't come close to resolving what digital sensors can do these days. but for a inexpensive PL zoom, dollar for dollar you get what you pay for, and it can be a work horse especially for corporate and docu work. they are hard to come by now since RED stop selling them, and anybody who owns it is holding onto it. they suffered from a lot of mechanical issues early on too, so it can be a bit of a luck of the draw if you can come by one if it never went back to RED to fix some of the issues.

personal taste wise, i found the lens to have no feeling to it, and didn't resolve the image in a very pleasant way. combination of the way the focus rolloff/bokeh, what it actually resolves detail was ( subjectively there's good detail and bad detail, and i felt it kept more of the "bad detail" in there) and contrast was just average. but main point was that it wasn't very sharp which is why red probably discontinued them. and went for their 17-50 and 18-85 pro zooms which are light years sharper.
 
tom.wong said:
probably as, it's terrible :)


the red 50-150 for the dollar is very good, but it's lower on the dollar scale compared to other pl zooms. I found it to be very soft, and doesn't come close to resolving what digital sensors can do these days. but for a inexpensive PL zoom, dollar for dollar you get what you pay for, and it can be a work horse especially for corporate and docu work. they are hard to come by now since RED stop selling them, and anybody who owns it is holding onto it. they suffered from a lot of mechanical issues early on too, so it can be a bit of a luck of the draw if you can come by one if it never went back to RED to fix some of the issues.

personal taste wise, i found the lens to have no feeling to it, and didn't resolve the image in a very pleasant way. combination of the way the focus rolloff/bokeh, what it actually resolves detail was ( subjectively there's good detail and bad detail, and i felt it kept more of the "bad detail" in there) and contrast was just average. but main point was that it wasn't very sharp which is why red probably discontinued them. and went for their 17-50 and 18-85 pro zooms which are light years sharper.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

It's not for film production but for live event- not high end production- just want good quality picture. I think Sony zoom would be good- just it's new and hard to rent.
 
I think the biggest issue with this lens is the mount. How long is Sony going to use it? Will it be on the F4 or the F5 or whatever else they bring out soon? I have a bad feeling this lens will be useful to this camera and this camera alone. So, to say it is cheaper than something with it's range in PL, that is true on face value, but a 24-290 will be able to be used for years to come because of the standard mount and its build quality. So you have more time to use the lens and make it's money back. The Sony zoom is not an investment, it's a zip drive.

And the fact that you only have the zoom rocker? Unless you're holding the thing like grandparent at graduation, it doesn't work. If they could somehow use the remote port and let operators put a handle-mounted zoom control or a handgrip mounted zoom control that would be something, but I bet it's not very likely and if it did come out it would be at least $2,000 overpriced.

I think the idea of having a simple powered zoom on one of these new S35 cameras is pretty awesome, but I don't think they went about this the right way at all.
 
the issue is,

A. there are no focus proper focus markings

B. your focus throw is literally hair thing

for live events this would be a nightmare lens to use, especially at the telephoto end. the different between where the subject is, and where the next point of focus is literally hair thin on the focus ring. you'd have a miserable time just trying to keep your subject in focus. optics quality, and other mechanical qualities aside, this is the biggest issue with the lens itself. it's great that you have that range, but without any kind of tracking autofocus built into the system, you'll never be able to hold focus on a moving subject for more than a second or two at a time.
 
Tom. Timur and I had some hands-on time with the lens and it was on the basis of both that afternoon as well as a few more days that I wrote the review. Of the three of us, Tom was clearly the most critical of it, as reflected in his comments in this thread. Timur didn't exactly fall in love. I tried to be balanced about it. The image was nice. The lack of witness marks rules it out as a cinematic production lens but isn't that much of an issue with run and gun. But the focus was to me about the weakest part. Again, I could see that it could be useful in some applications and with the potential for up to $3700 in rebates for prior S-Log purchasers, it should not just be dismissed without at least taking it for a spin first.

The greater question here is whether it is worth trying to repurpose an F3 as an ENG camera. I think not. Hand-held or steadicam for appropriate shots-- yes. And best with a focus puller.

Ned Soltz
 
tom.wong said:
the issue is,

A. there are no focus proper focus markings

B. your focus throw is literally hair thing

for live events this would be a nightmare lens to use, especially at the telephoto end. the different between where the subject is, and where the next point of focus is literally hair thin on the focus ring. you'd have a miserable time just trying to keep your subject in focus. optics quality, and other mechanical qualities aside, this is the biggest issue with the lens itself. it's great that you have that range, but without any kind of tracking autofocus built into the system, you'll never be able to hold focus on a moving subject for more than a second or two at a time.
Click to expand...

Yes, but what about autofocus?
 
kolak said:
Yes, but what about autofocus?
Click to expand...

It works!
Like all tools, it has its place and purpose. And as already stated, it's probably not suited for cinematography, but not all of us are cinematographers. I am currently using it for stock and it works just fine ... or better than fine. The focus pulling dilemma described above has not been an issue under these circumstances. And unless dealing with fast moving subjects, the auto focus seems to lock on fairly well. Is this the do all, perfect lens? NO. But, then again, is there a single lens that will fill all needs? Not from where I stand. As I've stated before, if you can qualify for the full $3700.00 rebate it might just turn out to be a bargain. One poster seemed concerned that it might end up a dedicated camera lens, given its mount. But if it suits your style of shooting, and you can make money with it, while limiting the need to carry around a bag full of primes, it should pay for itself before the time arrives for your F4,5 6, or whatever.
 
Ron777 said:
It works!
Like all tools, it has its place and purpose. And as already stated, it's probably not suited for cinematography, but not all of us are cinematographers. I am currently using it for stock and it works just fine ... or better than fine. The focus pulling dilemma described above has not been an issue under these circumstances. And unless dealing with fast moving subjects, the auto focus seems to lock on fairly well. Is this the do all, perfect lens? NO. But, then again, is there a single lens that will fill all needs? Not from where I stand. As I've stated before, if you can qualify for the full $3700.00 rebate it might just turn out to be a bargain. One poster seemed concerned that it might end up a dedicated camera lens, given its mount. But if it suits your style of shooting, and you can make money with it, while limiting the need to carry around a bag full of primes, it should pay for itself before the time arrives for your F4,5 6, or whatever.
Click to expand...

Do "real" cinematographers use high range zoom lenses at all?
They will never match primes quality as it's simply impossible to do on the whole range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top