Fujinon 18-55 T2.9 & 50-135 T2.9

AF to my knowledge does not yet offer a sensible interface for cinematography. Speed adjustment in the menu is useless.

Imagine a thumb is on a 'pad' on the rig handle

The position of the thumb shows as an X on the EVF, yellow for hover, red when you are pressing hard enough to make something happen.
Green X shows where the focus is now.

Press hard on the pad and the focus races to X, or soft and it crawls to X

When the thumb is not in contact focus tracks the last X selected

Double tap and focus disengages and stays still


Triple Tap. enables Tickle Mode which auto focuses not more than 3 inches plus minus where the manual focus is set. (or 3 feet near infinity, or 1 inch at full close)

Tickle mode nudges to just sharpen the image when the operator on a 1080 monitor cant actually get ciritcal focus for 4k/8k

or whatever

Obviously as well as the rig pad, there could be a wireless to a first a/c pad, or the first could operate from home via the internet on hire from 'FocusPullersAreUsDotCom'
 
Last edited:
It's a little better than that...different speed settings...just touch where you want it to change.

Will never replace the human brain and certain creative decisions/direction, but it's getting close:

https://vimeo.com/153889003
 
NorBro said:
It's a little better than that...different speed settings...just touch where you want it to change.

Will never replace the human brain and certain creative decisions/direction, but it's getting close:

https://vimeo.com/153889003
Click to expand...

Yep the tech is there but punching screen the back of a DSLR on the shoulder makes no sense - the remots X/pad system is what is needed for any sensible ergonomics
 
So what exactly is the market for this lens?

The Sony FS7 is primarily a documentary, reality TV, and corporate video camera. The A7s I see used on some super low budget films, but since the lenses are more costly than an A7s I don't foresee many A7s owners going for it.

So what you have is a lens that is best suited for narrative and commercial shoots with a dedicated AC pulling focus, with a lens mount that works with cameras that are best suited in corporate, reality TV, and documentary, where there are no ACs pulling focus. As such, the longer focus throw makes pulling on your own more difficult, the lens is longer and heavier than an equivalent still lens (such as the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 or Sigma 50-150 f/2.8), there is no auto-focus, and no IS. So all you're left with is a more impressive looking lens that feeds your aspirations of becoming a narrative filmmaker with your non-ideal and unpopular camera for narrative work.

I suppose best case scenario of this lens finding a bigger market would be if more cameras started adopting the e-mount, but that would take time and may or may not happen. Then again, lenses tend to last awhile.

_____________________

Regarding auto-focus, 9 times out of 10 all you need for a shot is for a particular subject to remain in focus. As people are often subjects, those subjects often move. As such, it's very common that a singular moving subject needs to be kept in focus. Most often this is a person's eyes. This is where auto-focus such as DPAF can shine, which is a lot of the time.

As far as gradually shifting focus from one subject to another, if you want a more organic look to the focus rack, then you simply pull manually. DPAF isn't meant for every shot. It works well for what it works well for, and for the rest, you can still use manual focus.

When I use DPAF, I mostly use it as a one shot focus. Constantly pressing it on and off to change focus on the fly as it is faster and more accurate than pulling manually. If I'm doing say a Steadicam shot for a walk n talk, I can turn face detection on and leave it on during the shot.

I do shoots with ACs pulling focus wirelessly with a cinema zoom lens, to one-man-band shoots with the C300 Mark II. Both manual focus and auto-focus have their place, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Though, auto-focus can make the need for an AC less important for some shoots.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
So what exactly is the market for this lens?

The Sony FS7 is primarily a documentary, reality TV, and corporate video camera. .
Click to expand...

Exactly. Lovely dead duck. The 18-110 sony is the right tool for handheld solo op tv/reality/conference floor which is the home of the fs7/5.

The owner of that camera does pop vids at the weekend on their 50mm Zenit lens they bought from a junk shop. So it doesnt fit in as a weekend lens either!
 
The long focus pull is a definite concern - and possibly a design flaw... in that solo op regard.
JPNola said:
The new locking e-mount on the Fs7 MkII may well be more of more significance than any of us realize. It possibly has taken the e-mount to another level and made the e-mount more viably a professional mount. It isn't unfathomable to think that before long we could see Red cameras and ARRI cameras with an e-mount. PL-mount, for all its provenance and "serious" camera status, is starting to seem a bit "old school". e-mount just opens up so many options for both lens makers and lens users. It was savvy of Fujinon to engineer lenses that take advantage of the e-mounts unique characteristics. Neither PL or EF facilitate any advantages in lens design. Both are passive players. Whereas e-mount is inspiring lens design and making what was once impossible ( or at least outrageously expensive ) now possible ( or at least far more affordable ).

Needless to say, I am a convert to e-mount. And I never thought I would say that.
Click to expand...
And this is where I find myself as well... on the precipice at least...have much disliked the Sony FBW lenses I've tried... but now things are getting much more interesting...
 
JPNola said:
The new locking e-mount on the Fs7 MkII may well be more of more significance than any of us realize. It possibly has taken the e-mount to another level and made the e-mount more viably a professional mount. It isn't unfathomable to think that before long we could see Red cameras and ARRI cameras with an e-mount. PL-mount, for all its provenance and "serious" camera status, is starting to seem a bit "old school". e-mount just opens up so many options for both lens makers and lens users. It was savvy of Fujinon to engineer lenses that take advantage of the e-mounts unique characteristics. Neither PL or EF facilitate any advantages in lens design. Both are passive players. Whereas e-mount is inspiring lens design and making what was once impossible ( or at least outrageously expensive ) now possible ( or at least far more affordable ).

Needless to say, I am a convert to e-mount. And I never thought I would say that.
Click to expand...

At this point, lens and camera manufacturers should be designing and making all lenses and all cameras with user swappable mounts that can be done in the field with a simple turn of the wrist in a few seconds like the FZ mount on an F55 and the aftermarket IBE/AbelCine UMS lens system on certain lenses and optical adapters.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
So what you have is a lens that is best suited for narrative and commercial shoots with a dedicated AC pulling focus, with a lens mount that works with cameras that are best suited in corporate, reality TV, and documentary, where there are no ACs pulling focus. As such, the longer focus throw makes pulling on your own more difficult, the lens is longer and heavier than an equivalent still lens (such as the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 or Sigma 50-150 f/2.8), there is no auto-focus, and no IS. So all you're left with is a more impressive looking lens that feeds your aspirations of becoming a narrative filmmaker with your non-ideal and unpopular camera for narrative work.

I suppose best case scenario of this lens finding a bigger market would be if more cameras started adopting the e-mount, but that would take time and may or may not happen. Then again, lenses tend to last awhile.

_____________________

Regarding auto-focus, 9 times out of 10 all you need for a shot is for a particular subject to remain in focus. As people are often subjects, those subjects often move. As such, it's very common that a singular moving subject needs to be kept in focus. Most often this is a person's eyes. This is where auto-focus such as DPAF can shine, which is a lot of the time.

As far as gradually shifting focus from one subject to another, if you want a more organic look to the focus rack, then you simply pull manually. DPAF isn't meant for every shot. It works well for what it works well for, and for the rest, you can still use manual focus.

When I use DPAF, I mostly use it as a one shot focus. Constantly pressing it on and off to change focus on the fly as it is faster and more accurate than pulling manually. If I'm doing say a Steadicam shot for a walk n talk, I can turn face detection on and leave it on during the shot.

I do shoots with ACs pulling focus wirelessly with a cinema zoom lens, to one-man-band shoots with the C300 Mark II. Both manual focus and auto-focus have their place, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Though, auto-focus can make the need for an AC less important for some shoots.
Click to expand...


" what you have is a lens that is best suited for narrative and commercial shoots with a dedicated AC pulling focus"

I don't get why you say that. It is because the Fuji's are manual focus only? Docs have been shot for decades with manual focus lenses. You seem to be suggesting that any manual focus only lens requires an AC to pull focus. But countless shooters are out there shooting with Canon EF zooms and no focus-pulling AC. I've shot just about every type of event imaginable ( not literally, but you know what I mean ) and I have never used AF or had an AC to pull focus. NFL Films shooters don't use focus pulling AC's and they aren't using AF ( not that I have seen, at least. They mostly shoot on Amira's and F55's ).

Image Stabilization? This was recently discussed, but I never use it. Others also said that they don't use it and even make a point to avoid it at all costs. IS is, in some respects, a 'no-no' and amateurish for video production. Or at least it was up until recently.

Maybe I am being anachronistic, my having worked for years in the time when any Auto-focus, auto-iris, or image stabilization assist was considered a failure on the part of a camera operator and "weakness". The "real men focus manually" age. I do see where AF is not only beneficial but essential- drone work, budget steadicam, Movi's, Freefly's, budget jib work, etc. And I also see that AF has matured to the point where, with oversight by the operator, it can be a highly useful replacement for manual focusing. But when you have worked for 25 years without AF and no one was complaining about your focus, it is easy to fall into perceiving AF as not all that necessary if not a crutch for under-skilled shooters. Okay, I am being anachronistic. I'll work on being more open-minded. Although, I do think some of what takes place is that people using stills glass struggle with focus as a result of the lenses not being designed for manual focusing...and that increases the want of AF and the use of AF...which in turn diminishes manual focus ability because the operator becomes more dependent upon AF and puts in fewer hours performing manual focus. Where, on the other hand, if the operator was using manual focus glass designed for manual focus there would be less need for AF assistance and over time the operator's manual focusing ability improves from all the time in the saddle. So in a sense the need for AF and the want of AF are in part a result of using improper lenses for the task at hand. Something often driven by funds / budget. Can't afford a quality piece of glass that facilitates manual focus...have to use cheap stills glass instead that wasn't designed for focusing manually...find that you both want and need AF to compensate for the fact that you are not using glass designed for manual focusing. But if you'd just used the proper glass from the start...
 
Run&Gun said:
At this point, lens and camera manufacturers should be designing and making all lenses and all cameras with user swappable mounts that can be done in the field with a simple turn of the wrist in a few seconds like the FZ mount on an F55 and the aftermarket IBE/AbelCine UMS lens system on certain lenses and optical adapters.
Click to expand...

Okay. But are you getting that the nature of the e-mount allows lens makers to accomplish things they cannot accomplish were the lens design also wanting to accommodate all cameras? On other words, designing a lens so that it can be adapted to all popular lens mounts currently in use is a constraint on lens design. Designing only for e-mount frees up lens design and allows for innovation not otherwise possible. It allows for specificity in design. A shoe designed to fit every size foot is never going to work as well for me as a shoe designed specifically to fit my size and shape foot. These new Fuji's were not possible had they been "constrained" by having to work for every popular mount out there.
 
I'm surprised they haven't announced MFT mounts too. Would be nice if we could buy the lens and a kit of mounts to attach to them for the many short flange mounts available.
 
This is where DLD comes in and says the Japanese have to respect each other and can't make it so easy...
 
JPNola said:
Okay. But are you getting that the nature of the e-mount allows lens makers to accomplish things they cannot accomplish were the lens design also wanting to accommodate all cameras? On other words, designing a lens so that it can be adapted to all popular lens mounts currently in use is a constraint on lens design. Designing only for e-mount frees up lens design and allows for innovation not otherwise possible. It allows for specificity in design. A shoe designed to fit every size foot is never going to work as well for me as a shoe designed specifically to fit my size and shape foot. These new Fuji's were not possible had they been "constrained" by having to work for every popular mount out there.
Click to expand...

I saw this mentioned in an article that designing the lens for e-mount specifically allowed them accomplish things otherwise not possible. What's so special about e-mount, besides it being a super shallow flange depth, which I see the advantage as huge on the camera side, because it can accept adapters that allow the camera to use most other lenses, but what am I missing on the lens side? Is designing a lens for a super shallow flange depth really that big of a deal that it is allowing them to do something not possible(or costing a lot more) if it had been developed for PL or EF or...?

I'd love for someone with the technical knowledge to explain why this is such a big deal and what the advantages are of a lens designed to work with a super shallow flange depth, like e-mount, as opposed to something much deeper, like EF or PL. I'm not being a smart @ss, I'd just really like the knowledge.
 
Retrofoal vs Range finder lenses

Retrofoal vs Range finder lenses

Run&Gun said:
I saw this mentioned in an article that designing the lens for e-mount specifically allowed them accomplish things otherwise not possible. What's so special about e-mount, besides it being a super shallow flange depth, which I see the advantage as huge on the camera side, because it can accept adapters that allow the camera to use most other lenses, but what am I missing on the lens side? Is designing a lens for a super shallow flange depth really that big of a deal that it is allowing them to do something not possible(or costing a lot more) if it had been developed for PL or EF or...?

I'd love for someone with the technical knowledge to explain why this is such a big deal and what the advantages are of a lens designed to work with a super shallow flange depth, like e-mount, as opposed to something much deeper, like EF or PL. I'm not being a smart @ss, I'd just really like the knowledge.
Click to expand...
Retrofocal lens design (invented by Dr Angenieux) made DSLRs possible by moving the glass away from the film plane to make room for mirrors. All dslr lenses are retrofocal by definition. It does however have disadvantages- one being size and the other complexity. Just look at the size difference between Canon EF lenses and equivalent FL and speed for Leica range finder lenses. There are (dslr lens) advantages ofcourse like the near telecentric rear of the DSLR lenses that minimizes vigneting and pixel shading (purple fringe off axis) that really shows on large sensors and fast wide lenses where the incident angles are steep.
But they can be canceled to a degree by careful optical design. The extra air space behind the (dslr) lens required for the light to pass takes a toll on light transmission and image quality unfortunately. Moving the glass closer to the film plane helps a lot.
Hope that helps...
 
cross post with above!

Im not an optical wizard but getting the rear element near the chip seems to have optical/size/price/mass advantages.

Still cameras like Alpa have always had a good rep for wideangle photography with their often Rodenstock plate lenses, (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=r...=isch&q=rodenstock+55mm+apo-sironar+digital&*)

Such lenses have a very symetrical design which one can imagine involves less optical jiggling.

PL is a bit different in that some (S16 zooms ??) have the rear element hanging well behind the actual flange locking bit.

The real killer to lens design is 'avoiding a flapping mirror' in a dslr camera which means that you cannot hang the rear element behind the flange.

MFT would seem to have a similar geometry to Emount and the same atributes therefore..

--
Interesting history? Nikon invented 'DX' with the D1 (16 shots per CF card.. http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d1.htm) because they were having problems with the fringing induced by the light coming in at an obtuse angle to the chip. Solution.. block out the edge of the chip. Result.. mugs like me had to relense down to 17 to get a decent FOV back.It was a big debate in 2002.. will Nikon ever produce a FullFram digital camera . Kodak beat nikon to fullraframe with the Kodak SLRn a text book in digital image problems.. fringing, moire and unusable noise above 100 ISO(!)
 
Last edited:
From Newsshooter's article about the lenses:

"There are two main reasons why Fujinon decided to only make these lenses available in E-mount. The first is that Fujinon have been conducting research that indicated that quite a lot of all lenses sold in the emerging production market were E-mount, in fact, the amount was second only to Canon’s EF mount. However when they looked at the camera quantity share based on mounts, more than half of all the cameras being sold were using the Sony E-mount. This really is testament to just how popular the Sony FS7, FS5, and Alpha series of mirrorless cameras have become.

The second reason has to do with the actual E-mount itself. By making the lenses E-mount only, Fujinon have been able to keep the design small and lightweight. The E-mount’s short flange back makes this possible. If they had tried to make the same lens in either PL, EF, or an interchangeable mount the physical size and weight of the lens would have been much larger. Building a constant T2.9 aperture cinema zoom with no breathing, that is parfocal, and weighs less than 1kg is only possible because of the E-mount."

Full article:
http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/02/...for-e-mount-mk-18-55-t2-9-and-mk-50-135-t2-9/
 
JPNola said:
" what you have is a lens that is best suited for narrative and commercial shoots with a dedicated AC pulling focus"

I don't get why you say that. It is because the Fuji's are manual focus only? Docs have been shot for decades with manual focus lenses. You seem to be suggesting that any manual focus only lens requires an AC to pull focus. But countless shooters are out there shooting with Canon EF zooms and no focus-pulling AC. I've shot just about every type of event imaginable ( not literally, but you know what I mean ) and I have never used AF or had an AC to pull focus. NFL Films shooters don't use focus pulling AC's and they aren't using AF ( not that I have seen, at least. They mostly shoot on Amira's and F55's ).

Image Stabilization? This was recently discussed, but I never use it. Others also said that they don't use it and even make a point to avoid it at all costs. IS is, in some respects, a 'no-no' and amateurish for video production. Or at least it was up until recently.

Maybe I am being anachronistic, my having worked for years in the time when any Auto-focus, auto-iris, or image stabilization assist was considered a failure on the part of a camera operator and "weakness". The "real men focus manually" age. I do see where AF is not only beneficial but essential- drone work, budget steadicam, Movi's, Freefly's, budget jib work, etc. And I also see that AF has matured to the point where, with oversight by the operator, it can be a highly useful replacement for manual focusing. But when you have worked for 25 years without AF and no one was complaining about your focus, it is easy to fall into perceiving AF as not all that necessary if not a crutch for under-skilled shooters. Okay, I am being anachronistic. I'll work on being more open-minded. Although, I do think some of what takes place is that people using stills glass struggle with focus as a result of the lenses not being designed for manual focusing...and that increases the want of AF and the use of AF...which in turn diminishes manual focus ability because the operator becomes more dependent upon AF and puts in fewer hours performing manual focus. Where, on the other hand, if the operator was using manual focus glass designed for manual focus there would be less need for AF assistance and over time the operator's manual focusing ability improves from all the time in the saddle. So in a sense the need for AF and the want of AF are in part a result of using improper lenses for the task at hand. Something often driven by funds / budget. Can't afford a quality piece of glass that facilitates manual focus...have to use cheap stills glass instead that wasn't designed for focusing manually...find that you both want and need AF to compensate for the fact that you are not using glass designed for manual focusing. But if you'd just used the proper glass from the start...
Click to expand...
Here is how I see it. You have the choice between a lens that has IS, auto-focus, and is cheaper, or a lens that doesn't have those features available, and is more expensive. Now, all else being equal (not saying it is), with just that information the obvious choice would be the lens with IS, auto-focus, and cheaper. If you don't like IS and auto-focus, you can always turn it off, and if you don't like cheap, you can always donate spare money to charity.

So what advantages does a manual lens have in terms of focus? Hard stops with proper marks and a longer focus throw, neither of which have as many benefits for a solo operator as auto-focus does, and are more so beneficial to an AC pulling focus while setting marks.

My take on IS is that it mostly benefits smaller cameras without rigging. Holding a DSLR handheld with no shoulder mount often results in micro jidders in the footage if you don't have IS turned on. On the other hand, a heavy camera with more inertia like an Arri Amira properly balanced on the shoulder will be quite stable without IS, and leaving IS off tends to have a more organic look to the shoulder mounted footage. I did a doc style shoot recently with a properly balanced shoulder rig and left IS off most of the time, but sometimes we shot on a 70-200 @ 200mm and for that I did find the IS kept the shot from becoming too unstable at that longer focal length. For Steadicam I almost always have IS off, unless sometimes when I'm trying to pull off a static shot from Steadicam. So the way I see it, IS is a useful tool in certain scenarios, and for those times you don't want it, turning it off is as simple as a flip of a switch. The real question would be, why would one not want that option?

I've heard the whole "I've been focusing fine for 25 years" thing before. My response is always, "Have you?" Really, I doubt a single cameraman (who hasn't died and is pulling focus perfectly in heaven) has never in their career missed focus. Focus is an issue. It doesn't matter how good you are. People miss focus all the time. You may not even realize it. Say you have a shot to setup. You pick up the camera, which is of course out of focus since you haven't set focus yet. So, you then spend one second setting focus. In other words, while the camera was on your shoulder, you were out of focus for one second. Now let's say that auto-focus would have gotten you in focus in .5 seconds. So you would have been out of focus for less time.

For me the whole "I don't miss focus" argument is also a pride issue, where one acts like their focusing skills are so amazing (unlike those lowly auto-focus users) and refuses to admit that a computer may be able to do a better job than them, when there are clearly (in my opinion) situations that auto-focus works better than the best human can.

I watch big budget productions; The Office, House of Cards, The King's Speech, etc., where I see shots making it into the final cut which were out of focus. I'm not saying auto-focus is the solution to those specific productions, but what I am saying is that focus is an issue and there is room for improvement, and auto-focus is one method of improvement which works for some types of shots and shoots. Again, like IS, since it can be turned on and off depending on when it would be helpful or not, the question would be, why would one not want the option?

I don't see why people think still lenses are bad for solo-operator manual focus. I own a Canon 15.5-47 cinema zoom and don't find it easier to manually focus as a solo operator than my 24-105 or Sigma 18-35. The shorter focus throw makes pulling focus on the fly easier. Now, there are some still lenses (particularly cheaper ones) which don't have proper drag to the manual focusing, or the focus ring is small, but most L-series lenses, for example, have smooth focusing with a good sized focus ring.
 
Eric..

One thing is that every AF lens Ive ever touched kind of made me feel ill. That is the main reason I stick with my manual nikkor, because, 18-250 sony, canon 24-105, nikkor 24-105, whatever.. they are all just sh_it and get in the way of operating with any subtle touch.

And AF/IS breaks after two years and you cant buy spares three after that. And Bob in town cant mend it, so send it to Korea for a six month world tour. And the contacts corrode and the camera says 'error no lense' and stops down to F22 and you cant shoot, so you wedge the iris open and with a matchstick, half remove the lens and try to finish the job without dropping your plastic fantastic on the deck. And then new camera firmware makes your speedbooster go nuts.

And how do I change the iris? It is on the function wheel somewhere behind my right ear - only 27 rotations (no gloves - the wheel is too small) to go down half a stop.

So Turning these electronics off is not the same as a fully manual lens.

---
I also use the AF lenses.. typically a walk towards where I know the AF is better than me.. but when the shot is done I put the lens away and wash my hands.
 
Last edited:
NorBro said:
This is where DLD comes in and says the Japanese have to respect each other and can't make it so easy...
Click to expand...
No. That's two pages down.

My current comment is that the next generation of the E-mounts is likely to have both the AF capabilities (consumer and run&gun use), with the higher end cameras providing a sufficient performance for any big budget production (internal or external Raw and/or a high bit rate codec). The super high end with their 8K sensors will probably still be PL but even sub-$10,000 models would be good enough for the big budget episodic TV and even features. And that's where the meat of the market will lie for the next few years. And that's where these Fujinon lenses will be too.
 
morgan_moore said:
Eric..

One thing is that every AF lens Ive ever touched kind of made me feel ill. That is the main reason I stick with my manual nikkor, because, 18-250 sony, canon 24-105, nikkor 24-105, whatever.. they are all just sh_it and get in the way of operating with any subtle touch.

And AF/IS breaks after two years and you cant buy spares three after that. And Bob in town cant mend it, so send it to korea for a six month world tour. And the contacts corrode and the camera says 'error no lense' and stops down to F22 and you cant shoot, so you wedge the iris open and with a matchstick, half remove the lens and try to finish the job without dropping your plastic fantastic on the deck. And then new camera firmware makes your speedbooster go nuts.

And how do I change the iris? It is on the function wheel somewhere behind my right ear - only 27 rotations (no gloves - the wheel is too small) to go down half a stop.

So Turning these electronics off is not the same as a fully manual lens.

---
I also use the AF lenses.. typically a walk towards where I know the AF is better than me.. but when the shot is done I put the lens away and wash my hands.
Click to expand...
I find "subtle touch" is not so important for doc style work where your focus is constantly adjusting a lot from shot to shot. I find the focus throw of the 24-105 to be pretty good for doc style work. The Canon 24-70 is rather rough, it lacks drag and feels like it has less throw than the 24-105.

I note your sig shows a feature film, so I guess you're more narrative minded than doc style run n gun? Which goes back to saying this lens is aimed at the narrative crowd, but is not compatible with a camera that is popular for narrative use. I'm all for manual lenses most of the time in a narrative environment.

AF/IS breaks after two years? What? I've had my still lenses for up to maybe five or six years and most of them haven't had issues, nor do I hear about all still lenses having issues from others who've had theirs longer. I had auto-focus break on my Sigma 18-35 a few months in, sent it in under warranty, got it fixed for free. My manual iris Nikon's pin busted which left aperture wide at f/2.8, got it fixed for $200. Other than that, all has been working well. Sure, lenses need maintenance sometimes, but so does other gear. If auto-focus breaks, typically manual focus still works, so you're not any worse off than if you had a manual only lens to begin with. Same with IS.

Change iris via camera body. By your ear? I suppose if you don't have a grip relocator, depending on what camera you're using. And, assuming you do a lot of shoulder mount. I don't do shoulder mount often; I find for event work a monopod is often a better tool for the job, which leaves the camera and lens in front of you so no worries about the aperture button being by your ear if you don't have a grip relocator.

I shoot Canon so don't need or use Speedboosters, so no issues for me there. I suppose if electronically controlled lenses often cause issues with metabones then that would be a pain for those who need to use that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top