FS7: FS7 Lens Decisions as a potential new FS7 user...

T

thoomp

Member
Hey guys,

After a few years of using a Canon XF100 (4:2:2 HD), a Canon 5D Mark II with Magic Lantern, a 60D, a T2i, and a bunch of L-glass – we’re ready to jump ship per Canon and potentially step up to a used Sony FS7 as I may have found one where the price is barely affordable on our end (albeit a very used model). These days, I’d rather make our kit pretty minimal, sell off all our gear that we’ve used to jerry-rig our HDSLR for video at this point, and just fund the FS7 purchase as much as possible. I invested in all the Canon lenses a few years back thinking they’d hold their value but Canon just hasn’t kept up with Sony on the video front and they’ve come out with version 2/3 models already. Last year, we seriously considered JVC’s LS300 but doing so just didn’t sit well with me. The FS7 seems like the current gold standard, and I’m guessing is a bit more than halfway through its product cycle and is safe to move up to.

All this being said, assuming the FS7 that’s arriving here is in good enough shape at the price point, the key question is per lenses: What you guys think should stay and what should go, and what should be replaced/purchased.

We’re primarily using this for a docu-reality style web/TV series that involves a lot of food beauty shots, kitchen shots, interviews, talking heads, and exteriors. So it will continue to be 85% of run-n-gun (IS is key) but we still need the shallow DoF for beauty shots. Finally, although some sort of autofocus may be anathema at this level (I’d kill for the face detection that the FS5 or the A7Rii or A7Sii have, but would prefer 4K framing options for HD, a great codec, and plenty of latitude in post), it would be super helpful for occasions for self-filming -- and I take it that even an inexpensive and single Sony lens with OSS might be just fine for those cases.

Here’s what we have left per our Canon EF mount gear, as we’ve sold everything else off:

16-35L f2.8 (v2)
24-70L f2.8 (v1)
24-105L f4 IS (v1)
70-300 IS non-L f4-5.6 (but a darned sharp copy)
100L f2.8 Macro IS
70-200L f2.8 IS (v1)

Letting go of the 100L and the 70-200L are no brainers; we’re largely just doing close-up work these days. As great lenses are they both are, they’ve been on the chopping block for a long time now.

Assuming we grab the Commlite EF-E adapter for $64, hanging onto the 70-300 also seems like a no-brainer as it would great for the rare tele shots where where we’re not zooming (effectively 105-450) and we love our sharp copy.

But the rest isn’t so simple. I’m thinking maybe the following:

* Buy a used Metabones Speedbooster (and a Commlite for the crop length at that price)
* Keep the 24-105L for the IS (despite the apparent reports of of a stop at the long end) which then becomes a f2.8
* Although we used it for beauty shots on the 5D, sell the 24-70L as there’s no IS – or keep it for better beauty shots than the speedboosted 24-105L. (We used to have a 35L 1.4 but rarely used it as the focusing range was too shallow – so we sold it.)
* Maybe just sell the 16-35L and get as much money for it as we can, as there’s no IS for video and we often don’t shoot that wide
* Buy a really cheap Sony 16-50 OSS kit lens for under $100 for self-filming situations as apparently the autofocus works (eventually the Sony 18-105 f4 when there’s more money on-hand)


Another possibility:

* Say goodbye to Canon and sell off everything
* Buy a Sony 18-105 f4 for 90% of the time as f4 is what we're used to for run-n-gun on the 24-105L - and the Sony will have autofocus
* Buy a 24mm T 1.5 E-mount Rokinon for food beauty shots and interviews (36mm effective)
* Grab that cheap Commlite for the 70-300 anyhow

But with this scenario, will the "full frame" look be gone? That always confuses me...as I figure that the 24mm would look exactly like use using a 35mm on a FF.

Thoughts? The FS7 is showing up early this week…and I have the option to return it. I really appreciate your input and thoughts!
 
With the glass you have, I'd say get a Speedbooster for sure. Short of stepping up to proper cinema lenses, the Canon L-series (especially Speed-boosted) are among the best and most flexible lenses you can have for video on a Sony camera, particularly for single-person operation without a dedicated focus puller.

The 16-35 and the 100mm are specialty lenses - it is up to you to judge how often you'll use them, and whether or not to keep them. Personally I could never live without my 70-200 2.8, but again - you're the only one who knows how often you need it.

I wouldn't treat lack of IS alone as a reason to ditch any lens. Keep in mind that the extra mass of the FS7, plus the psuedo shoulder-mount (or full shoulder mount if you choose to add one) means that your shots will be much more stable than with a 5DmkII anyway. You should notice a marked decrease in the micro-jitters that are common when hand-holding a DSLR, so IS becomes less important. In fact, IS is not even a thing on cinema lenses, even when hand-holding. So don't feel that lack of IS is reason alone to ditch your lenses until you've really tested them out with your personal shooting style on the FS7.

As for self-shooting, I wouldn't trust AF for that. At least with manual focus, you can set it and know that you can limit your movement to keep everything perfectly (or even acceptably) sharp. With AF, you may experience problems with hunting or even the AF locking onto the completely wrong subject, which you won't notice until you review the footage. AF is ok when there is an operator to monitor it and counteract any problems, but for an un-manned camera I'd always prefer to know exactly how it is behaving!
 
Hey

I went through a very similar decision. I had a C100 and T3i... and now an FS7 and A7s.
I kept all my EF glass, and have zero E mount lenses -> To the point I'm currently building a set of Leica-Rs, and modding them to EF still.

Sony's focus is 'fly-by-wire' (goes based on the speed you turn the ring, rather than distance turned) and in my opinion complete garbage for video because of it. I've tried several times, can't do it. Some of the newer Fujinon lenses may be a better option, but in terms of what Sony offer... No thanks.
Autofocus with Sony lenses is crap anyway from the people I know who have tried it.

Adaptors
I used a commlite and another knock off on my FS7 for over a year and a half. Only issue I ever had electronically was with my Tamron 24-70 (occasionally it would goes down to F22 immediately). The other trouble with them is internal reflections can be very annoying at times.
One of my knock offs just went, so I bought the Metabones V and it works perfectly with all my lenses (including the Tamron).

What I would do with your lenses:

16-35L f2.8 (v2) - KEEP
24-70L f2.8 (v1) - KEEP
24-105L f4 IS (v1) - GET RID OF
70-300 IS non-L f4-5.6 (but a darned sharp copy) - GET RID OF
100L f2.8 Macro IS - KEEP
70-200L f2.8 IS (v1) - KEEP

No clue why getting rid of the two best lenses you have is a 'no brainer' ... ?

16-35 -> not having something wider than a 24 will leave you wanting something wider.
24-70 -> I went with the Tamron for the VC (IS). Great all around event lens though, you'll want this range - keep the canon
24-105 -> Good range, but overall soft and not in the same league as the others.
70-300 -> Get rid of this - not in the same league. Your worst lens in my opinion -> The FS7 has 2X centre crop in HD if you need something at 300 or closer.
100 -> Amazing lens - if you're doing close up work, this is your no brainer to keep.
70-200 -> Must have - maybe consider going up to V2 of it, but dont get rid of this.


You could look at some Prime lenses for beauty shots - 35, 50, 85....

Of the list you put up, the two you said were 'no brainers' to get rid of are probably the best ones you have.
 
You guys are the best, and I really appreciate your fast responses!

Here’s a bit of the background.

For the past few years, as we got our project off the ground on a super-tight budget, we used the XF100 (proper XLR, 4:2:2 HD, etc.) as our handheld A-cam and gave our second shooter the 5D with the 24-105L on a monopod. Lots of quick setups, run-n-gun, nothing truly cinematic involving marks and blocking. Sometimes the 5D was just locked down on a tripod with a monitor. The IS on the 24-105L was great for the gorgeous B-roll to cut away to, but I always wanted the shallow DoF for interviews available on the A-cam – but that was way too expensive. And I always wanted a built-in ND filter – which neither camera had.

What’s totally driving the lens sale right now after selling the 5D and the XF100, is that I’d like to still unload whatever is unessential to make up most of the F7S purchase price. As people have said…it’s about what you use each lens for. If the camera arrives and it’s useable – it’ll be a stretch but I think it’ll be worth it in the end.

As a “no-brainer,” it was purely a money decision as to what we’re not using. Plus, by going over to a crop, the focal lengths would be even longer than what we need unless we buy a Metabones Speedboster. The 100L is clearly the best lens of the bunch, but has been just too long a focal length for regular use – especially in tight kitchens and indoor stuff - and it has just sat largely unused since we got it. The same goes for the 70-200L. However, some of the best photos we shot were clearly with both of these lenses, but weren’t used for video as they were too long; it’s more about what we can afford and us just getting into the F7S game. To raise money, maybe I could sell the 24-70L and just use the 24-105L as it has IS and it would then become f2.8 (for beauty shots). As for the 70-300 IS, the truth is that we’d get very little money for it and we’d keep it around for novelty tele use (some Canon users have called sharp copies of this a “hidden L”). Good to know that IS means less in practice, when you have more heft.

Per self-filming, the XF100 was perfect but there was no shallow DoF. But for the 5D, it was a mess and much was out-of-focus and unusable footage…and I and shied away from it ever using the 5D again for self-filming. But the most important thing – is that you’re right – what if the camera picks the wrong focus unattended? I’d similarly be dead in the water. Meanwhile, I thought that the face recognition on the FS5 or the A7r/s ii twins was pretty fantastic for shallow DoF from what I’ve read, but I’d rather have the FS7 for all the other key reasons as previously stated…and I think I’m done with the DSLR rigs. The FS5 seemed ideal but like a lot of people I want something that we can quickly just go shoot, solid 4K internal recording with a fantastic codec, and go to ingest with minimal fuss…and I’d rather pay a bit more for all that if the price is right.

Also, I’ve read a lot about how people think the older glass (most of what we have is Mark I) just isn’t sharp enough for 4K, and their value seems to be dropping significantly – so I thought maybe it’s time to unload stuff before they become worthless.

The key thing is that with the Metabones Speedbooster – I had sticker shock. Used, I could grab a used one for maybe $450-$500. But that’s almost the cost of a SELP 18-105. And the 24-105L has depreciated down to nearly that range too. Maybe people have complained more about the Metabones adapters for photo versus video?

Of course, it’s all about telling a good story and a good camera is just a tool. I’m sure we could continue to create stellar content with what we already have with our HD workflow. But at this point, I’d rather have a more simplified setup with significantly better footage/grading/4K options in post – even if there are visual flaws like CA and some loss of sharpness – as our viewers hopefully (and probably) won’t even take notice – as I want them to be thinking about the content if we’re doing our job right.

I’m definitely going to do more thinking about your suggestions so far; they’re stellar. You guys rock.

Please keep the thoughts and suggestions coming! This is really, really helpful - particularly as I'd be making the biggest individual production purchase to date here with the FS7! :)
 
thoomp said:
Also, I’ve read a lot about how people think the older glass (most of what we have is Mark I) just isn’t sharp enough for 4K, and their value seems to be dropping significantly – so I thought maybe it’s time to unload stuff before they become worthless.
Click to expand...

People have been using the mkI L-series lenses to shoot digital photos of similar resolution to 4K video since 2002 (11mp 1DS in 2002 - which equates to roughly UHD res once you crop to 16:9). And they've been happily shooting 21mp stills with those same lenses since the 5DmkII came out in 2009. These lenses are more than sharp enough for 4K video, which is roughly 8mp.

As for becoming worthless - they're not worthless if you're making good use of them until they finally die! My FS700 has dropped in value but it still produces incredible images and earns me plenty of money - I couldn't care less about its resale value at this point.
 
I use the 18-105, with lens correction in post, this lens is OK when you can't afford the 18-110, and even the autofocus works most of the time.

I think you already have the answer for your other lenses, you sold some lenses and you kept some lenses. Bet you kept the lenses you used most. Keep the lenses you used most before.
 
Sound like you have a decent set of lenses and should keep them.

Save for the camera buy it on lease finance or consider an fs5 or the Eva or a bmc

Ursa 4.6 is very capable - I'd choose that and your lenses vs and fs7 with less lenses.

Don't forget $1000 for media - I think the other cams have SD card options?
 
Publimix said:
In Davinci resolve or Premiere you can. (for Resolve you need dongle version) works fine.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the quick response. What exactly is the function called and what is it doing to correct? In other words, if I shoot 4K with that combo, how do I communicate to an editor to "fix" the footage?
 
This lens has it's flaws; distortion. Normally the camera does the correction, but in 4K the camera doesn't. The lens has Barrel-distortion. With Davinci or Premiere you can fix this in post.
 
Publimix said:
This lens has it's flaws; distortion. Normally the camera does the correction, but in 4K the camera doesn't. The lens has Barrel-distortion. With Davinci or Premiere you can fix this in post.
Click to expand...

I found a mention of a preset for "lens distortion removal" on the web " https://mixinglight.com/color-tutorial/lens-distortion-removal-with-premiere-pro/ "
with presets for DJI and GoPro. Have you made your own for the 18-105 or are the presets adjustable. I'm not the editor and I don't have any editing software other than FCPX.

Have you done this before or are you just handing off footage as I do?
 
In Davinci Resolve you can use a knob to correct the image. I use it the simple way, I turn the knob until things that has to be straight in the image are straight. I think it is hard to automate this process because the 18-110 is a zoom and the distortion is not the same at all focal lengths. (Though other Sony camera's can do this thus the computer should be able too). But I didn't find such software yet.
 
Publimix said:
In Davinci Resolve you can use a knob to correct the image. I use it the simple way, I turn the knob until things that has to be straight in the image are straight. I think it is hard to automate this process because the 18-110 is a zoom and the distortion is not the same at all focal lengths. (Though other Sony camera's can do this thus the computer should be able too). But I didn't find such software yet.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That makes perfect sense!
 
I'm putting down an order for the FS7 II next week along with the 18-110, the MK 18-55 and the MK 55-135.
If I do end up in a situation where I need something longer, I'd just rent in the 70-200 2.8 II but back when I owned it myself, I rarely took it out. It's an amazing lens, it's just too cumbersom and the new MK lenses are really light.

Will be nice to be rid of that Canon circus... and those lenses are stellar for the price :)
 
Again, these are all incredibly, incredibly helpful suggestions...and I really appreciate all of you all taking the time out to chime in and help. This is such a big decision on my end that I'd rather ask twice and then finally pull the trigger.

Plus, I’d like to avoid the heartache of selling off the good used glass and then having regret – particularly if I haven’t even figured out what works best on the FS7 yet for what we want to cover.

Where we are per our project, we don’t need the best stuff, or the newest and sharpest lenses. Most of this is one-man-band stuff although we do have a small crew on-hand for our more important shoots. We don’t even need the incoming FS7 to be in the best shape, as long as it’s working and very affordable. But we do want to finally get into the FS7 game and film (and not rent) at a moment’s notice, let alone have to use a workable but cumbersome HDSLR rig solution (i.e., GH5 plus Atomos). I want us to be able to just plug it in and go; most of our subjects are super busy and we typically don’t have the luxury of slow set-ups. Plus, the 4K for CUs and mids in post for HD content will be just brilliant.

Somehow the idea that the Canon Mark I stuff we already have wouldn't be sharp enough for 4K just didn't make sense. Particularly if we’ve been able to create gorgeous pro-level photos out of what we have with the 5D/60D/T2i, then wouldn't these same lenses be good enough for 4K video via a Super 35 video? With reasonably fast cuts, especially for HD content, are viewers going to be pixel peeping like shooters do per pro photography? Or notice a slight drop off in sharpness that maybe we as content producers notice? Probably not.

Most of what I learned about Canon glass was from photo forums during the early days of the DSLR revolution 7-8 years ago. Moving up to the FS7 is squarely pro video territory, but that’s the quality standard that we both want and need for our project – in order to effectively take it to the next level and hopefully and finally make it profitable.

I definitely exaggerate using the word "worthless," to be sure…and have panicked a bit given the used market prices have dropped in the past two years…probably as everyone and their cousin seems to be fleeing Canon DSLRs to Sony mirrorless on the photo side of things these days. But then again – maybe I’m partially confusing the video market (where FS7 users may still see any L-glass as wonderful video lenses) with the photography market (where Canon/Sony stills users cry for newer and sharper glass for stills)? So many people have been crying “ditch Canon / go to Sony / get native glass” – but maybe those are more coming from the mirrorless fans per the A7R/Sii twins as opposed to FS7 shooters who use these lenses in a completely different way.

As for the 18-105, is there any performance benefit at all for this lens at all vs. the 24-105L IS with the SpeedBooster? As both have IS, it seems like native glass won’t help much here in this case (fly-by-wire, bad autofocus won’t help per self-filming, extra reach I don’t want/need, f4 vs 2.8). Am I missing something here?

Until now, again we've largely used the 24-105L f4 because it has the IS and we saved the 24-70L for low-light and food photography. If we can eliminate one and save some money, great - but I'm guessing we'll need both.

Thanks again for the input and feedback. Very much looking to hearing more responses here.
 
Well the thing is there really isn't one magic hammer that will handle all nails and screws. A philips here and a flathead there. I wouldn't be too worried about IS unless you are working constantly on shoulder and even then.... well. They did manage to survive a whole lot of years in Hollywood without IS.

Over the years, I myself have grown a bit tired of stills glass. Not because of image quality, but I'm really starting to dislike short focus throws, breathing and the fact that you can shoot 2.8 in a 24-70 at 24 and then loose light at 70 or even between a 24-70 and 100 macro. It's not reliable enough for my taste anymore. And even though we own a lot of still lenses because our house is mostly foodporn in the still world, I more and more often just let the 28-135 sit on the FS7.

And the MK lenses from Fuji... parfocal with no breathing, same size lenses with long focus throw, build in macro in both and back focus. What's not to like in a T2.9 zoom set :)

I'll also be investing in Canon glass again, but wont be getting the speedbooster... will use it strictly for stills.

I'm all for the leasing suggestion posted... steady foreseeable down payments, and then get something that you will love getting, instead of something mid way. :)
 
Last edited:
You are correct in thinking that any lens that makes sharp stills will way out resolve the FS7.

Yes non canon lenses may breath less or have a better focus action but in terms of resolution they are beyond the fs7 4k

Really I dont know why you seem to hold the FS7 high. The ursa pro is a serious competitor at a keep your glass price.

And the sony glass is horrific apart from the new expensive zoom.

(btw I own an FS7 I have no axe to grind)

S
 
Personally I would look at the 18-110 or the 18-105 if your budget doesn't permit. The 18-105 is really cheap and perfect for much situations. Remember the Fs7 is a beast in lowlight so you wont need much more than f4. However if you are looking for that shallower depth of field and better low light; its worth considering the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and 50-100 1.8 with the MC11 Adapter They are super sharp and fast. The 18-35 is decently cheap however the 50-100 is a little more pricey. 18-35 is approx. 27-52 on the FS7 which is the range I personally shoot. The 50-100 is approx. 75-150 for when you need something longer. You may want to keep your 70-300 instead if you don't use this range often. But you could easily raise enough for these 2 lenses + the adapter by selling off some of your canon lenses.

Ive also heard that the MC-11 Adapter works well with Canon lenses if there was a few you were looking to hold on to.

Hope this helps!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top