FS7: FS7 Lenses

W

Woolfmusher

New member
Our Coop is buying an FS7 I was considering getting the sony kit (28-135mm F4 G OSS ) lens but some of the stuff I've read here is turning me away from it . Any recomendations for a servo zoom that might go with the FS7.
Cheers
Woolfmusher
 
I have two of the 28-135mm lenses. They don't go wide, but I have very few other complaints. Depending on what you're typically shooting, it's not a bad choice, potentially paired with a wide prime or wide zoom. And the digital center crop on firmware 3 makes it possible to get even closer in distance shooting situations.
 
For another perspective, I sold my cine-zoom. The servo is super slow and it's nowhere near wide enough for doc purposes.

If you specifically need a servo zoom, there aren't many affordable options unless you want to wait for the Canon 18-80 T4.4, which should be a big hit. Assuming you can power it w/a Metabones.
 
traviswears said:
For another perspective, I sold my cine-zoom. The servo is super slow and it's nowhere near wide enough for doc purposes.

If you specifically need a servo zoom, there aren't many affordable options unless you want to wait for the Canon 18-80 T4.4, which should be a big hit. Assuming you can power it w/a Metabones.
Click to expand...

I do find that lens interesting. You'll pay over $5k for it though, and it's slower than the 28-135mm. Tradeoffs for sure.

I wouldn't call the 28-135mm servo "super slow", but it definitely has an initial delay, and doesn't respond the way a traditional B4 ENG zoom does.
 
From talking to the Canon guy at their booth at NAB, guessing a Metabones isn't going to power their mini cine zoom. The only cameras that can power that lens through the mount are the Cinema line, so it's using more power than a normal EF lens.

I think he said there was an option for external power though.
 
Viddovation said:
I do find that lens interesting. You'll pay over $5k for it though, and it's slower than the 28-135mm. Tradeoffs for sure.
Click to expand...

The Canon 18-80mm T4.4 is not necessarily slower than the Sony 28-135mm f/4 lens, don't forget that it is T and the other is F. Sony is probably T4.3 so the difference (if any) is negligible.
 
I have the 28-135, and find it a solid lens with its hard-stop rings, both fully servo and fully manual (especially the forth and apt moving focus ring reminds me of my EX1 lens, and in the good sense, too). But it's what it is - sometimes not wide enough, and sometimes not fast enough. So I'm also thinking of buying another zoom, but please forgive my noob question (I know nothing of Metabones, or Canon EF/EF-S lenses): am I correct the following combos will both work on the FS7:



- Canon 24-105 F4 with Metabones Speedboster Ultra
- Canon 17-55 F2.8 with Metabones Mark IV

Which is considered "better" on the FS7? Also, speaking of wide primes, what the opinion is of:

- SAMYANG 16 mm T2,2 ED AS UMC VDSLR CS Sony E-mount?

Or to go even wider:

- SAMYANG 14 mm T3.1 ED AS IF UMC VDSLR MANUAL Sony E-mount?

Thanks for comments/clarifications,

Piotr
 
moldcad, I'd take the 24-105 over the 17-55 all day long.

Not a fan of the 14mm Samyang. Sold it after amonth. Too much distortion. Fine for stills where it can be corrected.

The 16mm is meant to be a lot better but I haven't used one.
 
Yes that is correct. a constant f2.8 decent quality zoom which goes from wide to portrait telephoto.

I don't use any electronic lenses but if that floats your boat at its current price point it's pretty much perfect.
 
Thanks again; do you think the 24-105 F4 L/Metabones Speedbooster Ultra will require lens support on that flimsy E-mount of the FS7?

Piotr
 
OK - thank you guys. Assuming I'll have the Canon 24-105 with Speedbooster capable of some 16.8 mm focal length at the wide end, does it really make sense to also purchase the 16mm Samyang prime (whose wide end will be 24mm, already covered by the Canon zoom range)? I mean, a prime lens is supposed to give a better PQ than an average, non-cine zoom - but will it hold true comparing Samyang with this particular Canon zoom? Apart from the T2.2 Samyang being a stop faster, of course. Please advise...

Piotr

PS. Or are my calculation wrong, and the Canon/Speedbooster combo will give me 24 x 1.5 x .71 = 25.56 mm at the wide end? As you can see, I'm completely new to this, so pls help me out :)
 
Last edited:
You'll get a lot of people telling you the Samyangs are amazing but the fact is they're not really. They're great for the money, which is slightly different. And a few years after their release, other companies like SIgma especially are catching up on the performance/cost ratio.

I have owned 6 of them and they served me well - have shot a BBC documentary exclusively on the Samyang 35mm but aside from the party trick of fast lenses for not too much money, most of them (35mm aside) leave a little something to be desired in the sharpness and rendering areas.

However, where they can come in quite handy is that once per month shot where you need a 16mm or wider but don't want to drop £1500 on the Zeiss 15mm f2.8, which for the record is just about the best stills-based wide out there. The CP2 cine version is amazing as well. For the few times you need something that wide they'

I'm not saying the 24-105 is leaps and bounds above the Samyangs in terms of IQ, but you're buying that for its versatility and a base level of 'useable' image quality. For adaptable stills primes with a better image quality you'll be looking at a level up from the Samyangs in my opinion.

My preference is modded Contax Zeiss glass but other people swear by Nikkors, or Canon L Primes.
 
Well - cost is a big consideration for me, unfortunately :( Could you please comment on my calculations of the real wide focal length of the 24-105 with Speedbooster? And name a not too expensive Canon L prime of some 16mm - I assume it could also use the Speedbooster?

Piotr
 
Sure, I'm not knocking them and we all start building lens sets with whatever resources we have to hand. My first set was all vintage Russian glass at £15 per lens!

They'll do a job until you can afford to swap them out for something better. I don't like Canon stills glass so can't really make recommendations, and they're going to be very pricey. I'd imagine Zeiss ZF/ZE will be going a lot cheaper now they've rebranded them as Milvus. You might find some bargains there.

Your calculations are a bit strange. I assume the '1.5' you have in there is some sort of crop factor?

The FS7 is Super35mm. S35mm is 'full frame' for film/video and almost every single time you have ever heard a filmmaker or cinematographer talk about a focal length they like for a certain reason, it is in relation to a Super35mm sensor size and so it really truly should not be referred to as a crop sensor.

35mm FF stills is another thing completely and just because there are now some 35mm FF stills cameras that shoot video, that's not the same as that being the standard.

As I'm sure you know, focal length is constant no matter how much of its image circle you are using. The optics of a focal reducer actually alter the focal length of a lens and so your calculation should simply be 24x0.71 = 17.04mm and 105x0.71= 74.55mm.
 
Last edited:
Ben Scott said:
Your calculations are a bit strange. I assume the '1.5' you have in there is some sort of crop factor?
Click to expand...

Exactly the same how we get the FOV of a 42- 202 mm lens on the FS7's S35 sensor using the 28-135mm, Full Frame kit lens...

Ben Scott said:
As I'm sure you know, focal length is constant no matter how much of its image circle you are using. The optics of a focal reducer actually alter the focal length of a lens and so your calculation should simply be 24x0.71 = 17.04mm and 105x0.71= 74.55mm.
Click to expand...

Yep - this has been my first attempt to calculate the effective focal length of the 24-105/Speedbooster; in the second one I additionally multiplied it with the same 1.5 factor of the S35 vs FF image circle... So in this case, it doesn't apply and I will effectively get a 17-74 mm equivalent on my FS7, right? Thanks

Piotr
 
You only get the FOV of a 42-202mm lens if you're treating 35mm stills film as the standard by which to judge. Which it isn't. You're actually getting the FOV of a 28-135 on an S35mm sensor. FF35mm stills is actually a lot closer to Vistavision :)

I'm going to beat this drum forever :)
 
Fair enough - the 35mm stills film has been the reference for years, though. So using your logic, on the S35 I'll be getting 25.56 mm and not 17.04 mm at the wide end, right?
 
No it hasn't. People who started with 5Ds think that is the reference for video. They are wrong.

When Spielberg says his favourite lens is 21mm, and that he sees the world in 21mm, or when Deakins or Malick talk about how they love the 28mm, they mean they love it on a Super35mm frame, not on a FF35mm stills frame.

If you put the 24-105 on a speedbooster you are actively altering its focal length, which is different from cropping in or out of an image circle.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top