Buying lenses for your Sony and the debate about what MOUNT to choose

fatman

fatman

Active member
I like to get some thoughts on this as I'm looking to upgrade and buy cine-style lenses for my fs700.

As I've been reading this forum daily as well as other 'user' forums I've came across this thought multiple times and I want to challenge it and see what thoughts come about.

"Don't buy E-Mount, because you're stuck with it - if you're going to invest go with EF since it will be easier to sell"

I get the initial impulse to say that and I think it stems from a few things.

1) people coming from DSLR's (canon 5D) background are used to the EF system
2) people know the EF line of glass is more popular and there is more off it, so that system has more use when it comes to switching lenses etc.
3) people are afraid to buy the mount in sony because it will be harder to sell (smaller market)
4) PL seems to be considered 'hardcore' like, 'oh but then I can't put the lens on a 5d or a7s or other smaller rig I may have'

Those are my assumptions as to why someone would make the argument against buying in E-Mount.

Here are some thoughts I'd have to share:

My camera that I've invested in is in E-Mount and I like the camera ;) ... that fondness may lead me to continue with sony in the future - and as of right now I can shoot high-end 4k in it to the point where I believe the FS700 + Odyssey combo can hang with a RED. So why not go for E-Mount? I can switch it right on the camera and do away with ADAPTERS!

EF imo is no better than E. If I'm going to go with lenses of another mount than E - I'm very seriously considering getting PL mount. I think for Film/Video if I REALLY care about resale or FUTURE-PROFFING my lenses - I should really go with PL mount as it's the only true cinema mount - and it would make more sense to me to buy a PL adapter than a Canon adapter (or Nikon for that matter).

So am I missing something?

For what it's worth I'm considering this stuff from best to least desireable - although price is a major factor to me.

Sigma Cine 18-35 & 50mm & 85mm primes or 50-100mm( E or PL) ~ 10k
GL optics, Duclos, Allstar same thing.

Sony CineAlta 6 lens kit - ~13k (PL only) - kind of off the table for me though.

Veydra mini Primes 25,35,50,85 (NO PL, have to go E mount) ~ 4K w/ case

Rokinon Cine DS 6 lens kit 14,24,35,50,85,135 (NO PL, would go E mount) ~3k
I was going to go this route, but although I love the price, they are less appealing when I continue to research.

Anyway - I personally would not buy EF mount, and I don't see any reason to do so. If I later get a RED I'd want PL, and If I stay with Sony E or PL and I'm still loving my setup now which is E.
 
I had the same dilemma a while back for my FS700. I finally decided on E mount. First of all I have two meta bones adapters for EF mounts. I still use several canon lenses.
I begin add
some primes and went with Rokinon and Sigma in e mount. I understand the re-sale argument - but I decided I need to worry about today - I do not want to rely on adapters - that's just my opinion. I prefer native mounts - besides I am heavily invested in two Sony e mount camera - and to me it just seemed an more reliable work flow to now stay with all e mount lenses if at all possible. I will be getting some more primes and they will all be e mount.
 
One more thing to consider is speedbooster vs non speedbooster option on super35. For example I have FF 50 1.4 and I can use it on fs700 with or without speedbooster which give me "two lenses".
 
I have heard the "don't buy e mount" also. Yet I decided to jump on board and use Sony for a while and e mount makes life easier. Having 3 APS-C / super 35 cameras made it an easy choice. What also helped is I only had a few Canon lenses already and my FS700R came with a metabones adapter.
Since I recently bought an A7Sii I now am also getting a few FE lenses which hurt the wallet more than S35 but at least they also work on the other e mount cameras too.
So I've committed to Sony and E-mount for much of my video and photo work regardless of re-sell demand etc.
 
I wouldn't spend big on EF lenses right now, specially if they are electronic lenses (i.e. L glass). Mirrorless is the future, not only for video but for stills as well. It may take us 5 years to get there, or 10, or 15, but the future is mirrorless.

The only downside of PL is that it can't work on EF. This can be an important shortcoming in the short and medium term because both Canon and BlackMagic are still bringing out very nice cameras with EF mount.

I went with a set of vintage primes for the Leica-R mount, which works on everything but PL cameras, but they have gone up in price and right now I probably wouldn't go that way if I had to start over. Vintage Nikon AIS would be a good alternative but they focus "the wrong way" which can be a mental pain.

And Sony is doing great now but it's only Sony bringing out E-mount cameras, and you don't know if the one you'll want in two years will be APS-C or FF, so there's a risk there as well.

In general, it doesn't seem like a great moment to spend big on glass.

Personally, I'm keeping my Leica-R lens set, and spending small on E-mount lenses for those times when I need AF (Sigma 19mm f/2.8 and 30mm f/2.8, and Sony FE 50mm f/1.8) (some thoughts about them and tests here).
 
Last edited:
I have the Sony FS700 and A7S. So far I've gone with e-mount only.
I have a few Sony for handheld situations, the OSS and face recognition AF work surprisingly well in many situations! And the Samyang Cine line for the more controlled situations.
I've been considering getting the Samyangs as EF Mount so I can add a speed booster down the road... but at this moment a Metabones is way too expensive for me and I haven't really read any rave reviews of cheaper, "dumb" speed booster adapters.

So right now I think I'll continue this plan... Need Samyang 24mm & 50mm and would love if Sony release a cheaper app-c 24-70 2.8 with OSS... Other than that, I need some Sony FE lenses for stills and 4K with the A7S.
 
I had both Sony A mount and E mount for a long time, but I sold all of my lenses at the beginning of 2016 to switch to Canon EF lenses. All of my cameras are Sony: Sony A7SII, Sony A6500 and Sony FS7, but I'm very happy to have made the switch. Here's why:

Sony makes nice lenses, so I'm not going to say it's because the image quality is bad. It isn't. But, Canon lenses fit a wide variety of cameras while Sony lenses do not. This is the main reason I made the switch. I may have Sony cameras now, but what if I wanted to one day own or rent a RED, Blackmagic Ursa Mini, Panasonic Varicam LT, Panasonic GH5, AJA Cion, or even a Canon camera itself, like a C300 MKII? I never want to be limited to only Sony cameras. Even though I absolutely love my cameras, I understand that there are better tools for certain jobs depending on the requirements. I wanted to make sure that I was never making a creative decision based on what cameras my lenses can work with, but rather simply on what camera is best for the job. I know that with my Canon L lenses, no matter what the job is or what camera is needed to complete it, I am covered. Plus, it's only 2017. Who knows what cameras will come out in the next couple years that will be "must haves". With my Canon mounted lenses, I can get whatever camera I choose (except Nikon, but that's not really a concern for video).

The other reason for me personally was IS in long lenses. Sony's own long lenses lack IS, but Canon's don't, so for me this was a big deal. Canon's are completely weather sealed and seem to be much easier to manual focus with. This proved to be a valuable trait. They also are also built extremely well.

Metabones was another reason I went with EF lenses. Knowing that I could choose between speed boosting or simply adapting the lenses to my FS7 and A6500 was a huge plus. I can use a SB and shoot super wide with a 16mm or use a regular adapter and shoot a long way with a 400mm. This flexibility is truly amazing.

You mentioned PL lenses. I will say that if I wasn't going to go with Canon EF lenses, then PL was my next choice. PL lenses are also widely adaptable and share similar traits to the Canon lenses, not to mention they are the standard in cinema. They also are typically built extremely well. For me, it came down to wanting my lenses to double as photo lenses as well as my need for long focal lengths, so I chose EF over PL mounted lenses.

I hope my reasons for choosing Canon EF lenses as my choice of mount makes sense and helps you in your decision making.
 
No votes for MFT?

No, seriously. GH-5 with a 12-60 is the budget buy of the century. And we're only 16 years in.
 
Don't fall under the illusion that having expensive / higher end glass is going to bring you jobs or even necessarily bring you higher end work. There are all sorts of shooters out there using EF glass, getting work with it, and doing nice work.

There aren't many clients who are going to hire you just because you have PL mount glass or give much of a flip that you own PL glass. Or much care that you have Sony Cine Alta primes vs EF primes. So, in that regard, spending money on higher end glass is money spent that you are not going to recoup. Not unless you are able to rent the glass to other productions. I suppose it depends on the type of work, but very rarely do I have a client who will pay an additional amount for fancy glass over lower-end glass.

The G.L. optics 18-35mm and the Sigma Cine 18-35mm won't provide you with any higher quality an image than will the standard Sigma 18-35mm. The things those versions provide such as manual iris are more operator benefits than image upgrade. And, loosely speaking, what you get with an 85mm prime isn't that significant over a zoom at 85mm. I have yet to encounter a client who demanded primes or was willing to pay more for primes or request PL mount lenses. I spent just under $4k on a Red 50-150mm PL when I probably could have gotten along just as well with a Sigma 50-150mm EF for 1/4 of the cost. I want to have a set of Cooke primes or Zeiss Superspeed primes but I don't actually have any need. There is no money in it for me. We photographers tend be overly enamored with primes, PL mount, and higher-end glass. We are lured by the mystique and the knowledge that big-budget productions use the high-end glass. But if it comes down to it you can always rent a high-end set of primes should there be a need and the budget for them.


None of these lenses are going to make you a better shooter and the difference in optical quality between a Canon EF and a Zeiss Ultraprime, when shooting for tv or web, isn't all that significant. I know that is blasphemy in the eyes of the Lens Gods, but it is the reality. Optical qualities such as resolution and chromatic aberration don't matter as much in moving images as they do in a still photo. Take that with a grain of salt, but you know what I am saying. Breathing is a bigger deal but even that isn't a deal breaker. Speed is a consideration. f/4 can feel limiting after being on f/2.8 glass and f/4 lacks the shallow DoF pop. f/1.7 is yummy. But keep in mind that it wasn't long ago that f/2.8 was considered "fast" in a lens for cinematography. Don't become too hung up on speed.


I've been all over the place in response to your questions, but let me finish with this: More than deciding between mounts think about how important it is to you and to your work to have manual iris. It makes far more of an impact on your working and your product than does the type of mount. As soon as I think I am okay with electronic iris I end up in a situation where I have to perform stepped iris adjustment in-shot and I hate it. It looks amateurish. It sucks big time. And even when not having to adjust iris in-shot the electronic iris at times leaves me stuck having to choose between stops and neither one is right. I'd rather have a manual iris Rokinon DS than the optically superior but electronic iris Otus.
 
Last edited:
The main reason I don't use E-mount lenses is that every one I've tried has had terrible electronic focus rings.

I need my focus to be fully manual and repeatable. That is the main reason I use EF lenses over E-mount. Other reasons include the broader (affordable) lens selection, ability to use some real cinema lenses, Speedbooster ability, and the fact that it is a stable 2nd-hand market - I bought all of my L-series lenses 2nd hand, and in most cases I could sell them tomorrow for the same price, or maybe even more, than I paid a few years ago.

None of this is to say that E-mount is a poor choice for anyone else - these are just my preferences when choosing/buying glass.
 
I do not want to further complicate the discussion, but my choice so far from a compatibility viewpoint is Nikon Glass. It can be adapted everywhere (even to EF mounts), has mostly manual iris and if you use Sigma ART versions the focus turn direction is actually counter - Nikon wise on the Nikon version which is perfect for me coming from Canon FD and M43 glass ;-)

So far I was able to use all my Nikon Glass on every camera I bought the last years...
 
GMC said:
I do not want to further complicate the discussion, but my choice so far from a compatibility viewpoint is Nikon Glass. It can be adapted everywhere (even to EF mounts), has mostly manual iris and if you use Sigma ART versions the focus turn direction is actually counter - Nikon wise on the Nikon version which is perfect for me coming from Canon FD and M43 glass ;-)

So far I was able to use all my Nikon Glass on every camera I bought the last years...
Click to expand...

Here here. Got the Nikon mount and exclusively use Nikon glass just to maintain image consistency. I own the 28-70mm f2.8, 80-200mm f2.8, 28mm F2.8 AI and 50mm f1.8 AIS. The lenses are their ergonomics work incredibly well for me and I prefer the direction that Nikon focus. Beautiful glass, the 28mm f2.8 AI, less so, but everything else is stellar.
 
So what are the factors..

The advantages of a narrow flange depth.

A narrow flange depth means rear element can be close the sensor leading to small cheap light lenses.. eg rokinon 16mm and the new 'cheap' fuiji zooms. Such designs do not work on deep flange depths that must avoid a mirror in a DSLR.

The advantages of a deep flange depth.

A lens with a deep flange depth will adapt to many cameras.


Comms with your camera.

As lens camera 'talk' increases having a Sony lens on a Sony camera will become more and more handy.

For example
Digital and physical zoom working off the body rocker in a smooth combo.
Lens metadata passed to the file to autocorrect lens abberations (learn about hassy H1 system..)

The 'nightmare' is that Sony pull a firmware update that makes all the E-EF adapters go dead. They have huge incentive to do this.. by staying on brand you will not be done over.

The resale value.

My personal opinion is that unlike 5 years ago there are now enough sony emount cameras about for stills and video that flogging the glass is no longer an issue.

You next camera
So Canon C200 has 1000FPS raw at 4k for $5g.. you must have it. Well that is a gamble. Sony tend to be ahead on those figures anyway.

No Speedbooster

e-mount wont speedboost.. generally this doesnt matter because there is a similar S35 lens to the glass you were thinking of 'boosting'

Personal Comment

I have a selection of vintage manual glass.. for this I have picked Nikkor, but others would consider Contax. The flange depth adds versatility. For such glass I would select the deepest flange depth you can.
I also have some plastic electric lenses for 'special use' eg AF on a gimbal. Those plastic lenses are all 'on brand', when I sold my 5d and went to Sony I sold the 24-105 too.
 
I used to standardize on Nikon glass with my FS7 and A7S (I also did stills with a Nikon D810), but I found the number of their modern lenses with good, mechanical focus feel and good build quality was lacking. Lots of sticking focus rings and rubber falling off. So I moved to A-Mount after I heard the A99II announced (which was good enough to replace my 810 for stills). These days I have a LEA3 A-Mount adaptor living on my FS7, an LEA4 (AF A-Mount adaptor) sometimes on my A7S and, of course, the A99II is native.

Here's my current lens lineup:

Sony Zeiss 24mm f/2
Sony Zeiss 50mm f/1.4
Sony Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 (this was my first A-Mount pro lens and it's amazing)
Sony G 70-200mm f/2.8 SSM2 (weather-sealed, for when it rains and I can't use the 135mm)
Sony 16-50 f/2.8 SSM (decent for run-and-gun documentary use, plus weather-sealed)
Sigma 10-20mm 3.5 (good way to get ultrawide for Super35 A-Mount video.)

I love shooting with this lineup. The Sony Zeiss lenses have excellent focus feel and a comfortable throw without using gears. I'd like to get the 85mm Sony Zeiss, but I'm holding out for an updated SSM version with weather-sealing. As an added bonus, I prefer having the LEA3 on my FS7 since it "protects" the sensor by keeping it deeper in the body.

I also have a rather large collection of various E-Mount lenses, but they're not my primary glass for various reasons. They're used by other guys in the office.
 
Last edited:
Seems a lot of third party lens makers are future proofing their lenses with interchangeable mount options. Zeiss led the way on this. But others have jumped on the bandwagon.
I disagree with the notion that proper cine lenses with full manual adjustments regardless of mount won't make you a better shooter. They provide the proper controls like declicked manual iris, smooth long focus and zoom throws that make skilled precision camera work much easier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top