FS5: FS5 lens

B

billysurf

Member
I'm considering the FS5 but want to get an all purpose great lens for a trip I'm taking to Haiti. Lots of bumpy rides, pretty vistas and close ups on these beautiful people. A zoom is probably in order. The kit 18-105 is appealing, I like to get wide and the zoom aspect is awesome but I've read it's hard to use. Is it really the best option? I've also read the metabones adapter works well on this camera and that's an option. Things I need:


Image stabilization
Low light as i can get
Easy to focus (manual)
Auto focus
Constant aperture


I'm wondering what one lens you would recommend (and what metabones adapter if applicable).


I appreciate your time!
 
I have the kit lens with my FS5 and recently just bought a metabones speedbooster with a sigma 24-105 and a canon 70-200.

The kit lens has served me well on a number of projects, even before the focus improvement firmware update. For what it is, it really is a great lens. It's not the sharpest lens at all distances but it's certainly a very good choice. Including a power zoom and for it to be as light as it is. For me there is a reason why I'm keeping hold of it and not selling it on.

The sigma is beautiful (it's a comparable and if not sharper lens than the canon equivalent). But noticeably heavier than the 18-105 and of course with out the power zoom. You also lose all auto focus functionality with the speedbooster (at least with both lens I have, I can't speak for all lenses). The positive is you get that F2.8 rather than the F4 with the 18-105.

Considering your needs and if I was in your situation, I'd probably go with the 18-105. The recent firmware update has significantly improved the way the focusing handles. But if you don't need a power zoom then the quality of a canon or sigma 24-105 is obvious, but heavier and much more expensive with the speedbooster.

So no clear answer, but I hope that helps.
 
You might also consider combining the Metabones (non-Speedbooster) adapter with the two Sigma f1.8 zooms. One is the 18-35mm, the other is the 50-100mm.
 
I have both the Canon 24-105 with Speed Booster and the Sony 18-105, and i must say i find myself using the Sony much more often as its lighter and i rarely go wider than f4 for running around etc. When i do interviews or creative shots ill slap on a 50 f1.2, 35 f1.4 etc.

So having used both i'd go for the Sony 18-105 f4 especially for travelling as its much lighter and easier to run around with. And as mentioned above with the new firmware its much better. Just buy a Rokinin 50 f1.4 and an adapter for when u want to go very shallow. :)
 
Thanks BeeHop - and I would doing mostly manual focusing (as quickly as possible). I've read that's not easy with this lens. What are your thoughts?
 
billysurf said:
Does IS work on the Sigma 24-105?
Click to expand...

Yes IS works. Also metabones have just released updated firmware for the speedbooster ultra which adds AF support. Continuous didn't seem to work, but now push to focus DOES! It's not quiet though, would probably be enough to spoil on board sound, but it's certainly useful.
 
mattjeh said:
metabones have just released updated firmware for the speedbooster ultra which adds AF support. Continuous didn't seem to work, but now push to focus DOES!
Click to expand...

Hmm... My experience is just the opposite and that 's what was reported by others on another thread here. . Is that first hand with the Sigma 24-105?
 
Lenilenapi said:
Hmm... My experience is just the opposite and that 's what was reported by others on another thread here. . Is that first hand with the Sigma 24-105?
Click to expand...

sorry yes, the continuous focus does work on the sigma 24-105 with speed booster ultra, it's just fairly slow and quite noisy.
 
It's not as quick as the native E and not quite as accurate, but usable for sure. Saying that, 'usable' is subjective in many ways, depending on what you need it for and how you plan to use it.
 
well speed aside it either hits the focus accurately or not. Close is worse than way-off IMHO. With my lenses it was miles off, though continuous AF looked pretty accurate though very slow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top