FS7: Fujinon announce MK 18-55 T2.9 and MK 50-135 T2.9

Its true and its very counter intuitive to say no. It took me years to get there you have to realize though that every job you take begets you more jobs of that nature meaning the more you say yes to the kind of work you don't want the more of it you will be generating its tough but you can steer your career in a direction you want that requires you to turn things down.

Having said that, if at the end of a slow month Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein call up for a Donald Trump Informercial my sss is probably going out the door...

JPNola said:
That's a luxury.

And then there is that feeling which results from having turned down a job where you would have made $1600 only to sit at home on that day making nothing at all. And you start thinking about what you new gear you could have purchased with that $1600 you didn't make as a result of being picky. :D
Click to expand...
 
Dont get me wrong.. I,m not saying I dont take crap jobs.. but I wont take ANY job.. and yes it took a while to get there.. finically and mentally... a very few would be for moral reasons .. i.e. a KKK washing powder commercial.. others are just simply low rates..even though Im at home earning zero.. and I would absolutely never work 20 hrs straight or not eat for 10 hrs.. anything that endangers by health.. we actually owe it to ourselves and other DP,s not to work these type of conditions.. its going back to 19th century work practices ..
 
you would never get a lawyer, a dentist or an accountant and demand he works under the depravation of sleep and nourishment why would you expect me to do it?
 
Doug Jensen said:
I own the LWZ 15.5-45mm and it is everything it is cracked up to be. Beautiful lens.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that the LWZ 15.5-45mm is an outstanding lens. But comparing the Fuji MK's to the LWZ 15.5-45mm or even to the Zeiss 21-100mm is apples to oranges being that they are in wholly different price ranges.

A more apt comparison is comparing the MK's to the Sony 18-110mm since they are roughly the same price. Or comparison to the Sigma Cine zooms that were just released.

If one is wanting interview zooms that are manual iris, par-focal, relatively fast, and under $4000 in cost there isn't much else out there other than the MK's, the new Sigma Cine zooms, the Tokina cine zooms, and the Sony "kit" zooms. The Sigmas and the Tokinas are, unlike the MK's, just re-worked still photography zooms. The Sony zooms are their own thing altogether, and not necessarily in a good way. And they are slow.

The Sigma 50-100mm retails for $3999.00. The Fuji MK 50-135mm will reportedly retail for $3799.00. I doubt that there are many who would argue that the Sigma 50-100mm Cine is a better value than the Fuji MK 50-135mm.

The difference in optical performance and optical quality of the LWZ 15.5-45mm and the Fuji MK 18-55mm may well be significant. But is it client-obtaining or client-retaining significant? For that additional $16,000 is the LWZ increasing revenue by $16k or increasing revenue at all? Maybe it is if your work is of a nature where your clients will pay additional for higher quality lenses. Or if you have a regular client who you wouldn't have were it not for your owning a lens like the LWZ. Or if you are renting the LWZ out to other shooters. ( somehow I doubt that Doug lets other shooters use that baby. I know I wouldn't. )
 
Unfortunately I find it hard to decide between all these lenses because they are each more suited to different uses. When it comes to interview lenses though, I don't think it matters a whit if the lens is par focal or not or even if its manual iris. To me the ideal zoom for interviews is the Canon 70-200 II f2.8. Its sharp and with a speedbooster it becomes a 50-150 f2 lens. A perfect range for interviews , the flexibility to change shot size and at f2 able to deliver on the soft backgrounds that my clients like. IF I'm in a small room then I usually want an f1.4 85 or 50 and for those I have Zeiss DSLR lenses ( just got the MIlvuis 50 for wide open in tiny rooms.)

To me the parfocal zooms become important for Doc and narrative shooting. Here unfortunately speed and image stabilization are really valuable and the only short f2.8 lens with IS is the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 /(18-50 f2 with speed booster which is great for low light.) Its not parfocal but not too badly off but the damn lens radically shifts its focus point on the barrel every time to you move it plus the barrel turns the wrong way. So for anything where I want repeatable focus marks I need to give up on IS or carry yet another mid range zoom.
The Sony 18-110 sounds ideal but its an f4 which is a alot different than the f2's you can get with the Canon or Tamron . It would be great to have that range for a lot of work though esp exteriors. ( I'd like to have the Canon 24-70, the Tamron and the Sony but that sounds nuts.)

For narrative and controlled shooting the 2 Fuji's sound great, but for doc work I don't like the idea of switching between 2 lenses.

What to do........
 
Donny 123 said:
Dont get me wrong.. I,m not saying I dont take crap jobs.. but I wont take ANY job.. and yes it took a while to get there.. finically and mentally... a very few would be for moral reasons .. i.e. a KKK washing powder commercial.. others are just simply low rates..even though Im at home earning zero.. and I would absolutely never work 20 hrs straight or not eat for 10 hrs.. anything that endangers by health.. we actually owe it to ourselves and other DP,s not to work these type of conditions.. its going back to 19th century work practices ..
Click to expand...


Best thing I ever did for my career was start to say no.
 
LennyLevy said:
When it comes to interview lenses though, I don't think it matters a whit if the lens is par focal or not or even if its manual iris. To me the ideal zoom for interviews is the Canon 70-200 II f2.8.
Click to expand...

I shot an interview today, indoors, but using natural light as a key. Were I on a lens with electronic iris I would have had stepped exposure alteration every time I had to adjust the exposure with the changing light level from the partly cloudy conditions, which essentially renders that portion of the interview unusable. With a manual iris lens ( with infinitely variable iris ) you can seamlessly ride the exposure.

As to par-focal ability, when a zoom is par focal one doesn't have to re-focus every time the frame is altered from wide to tighter or from tight to wider. You can also zoom in fully to check critical focus. With a par-focal zoom you can't zoom into the subject to check focus. You instead have to perform a best guess estimate at the focal length you are at. Digital zoom / focus check function helps, but it isn't as good as being able to zoom in tight to a subject's face / eyes in order to check focus and then zooming back out to your desired frame. Those of us who came up on par-focal zooms tend to miss par-focal more than those who came up on still photography glass that isn't par-focal. ( not saying that this is the case for yourself, Lenny. ).

I agree that par-focal is less important for interviews than it is for running around type shooting. But it is still of value for sit-down interview off a tripod. The manual iris- that is very much something I often need for interviews. For interviews using natural light indoors and for interviews conducted outdoors. Even when shooting under light that is of a fixed level it is nice to be able to adjust the exposure in infinite increments rather than have it "jump" an amount determined by how well the camera's iris control and the lens adapter are playing together. Seems I often find myself in that situation where the lens adapter won't allow me to get the iris just where I want it. It's either more closed than I want it to be or more open than I want it to be. With no in-between possible.

Stepped iris is a compromise. A zoom that isn't par-focal is a compromise. Zooms that trombone are a compromise.

My goal is to eventually rid my kit of any still photography lenses. And, ideally, I would also be able to eliminate any need for lens adapters. A lens kit comprised of the Fuji MK zoom pairing + a set of EF mount "cine" ( pseudo-cinema ) primes like the CP.2's or CN-E's would accomplish both goals. No lens adapters, every lens manual iris.
 
Well JP, I did come up the old way like you with Parfocal lenses in film and video. And after reading your post I admit you're right. I haven't been shooting a lot of interviews outdoors these days but dealing with light changes it is important to be able to ride the changes on a steeples iris. I keep a variable ND filter with me for those situations but it isn't ideal as that can actually change your background because its a polarizer. Indoors I don't think the iris is much of an issue and I try to avoid shooting interior interviews where the natural light is an important source because its so variable. It is nice to be able to ride an iris in doc situations ,but I find if I'm careful I can always hide where I make the steps changes so it won't hurt a shot.

Re the Parfocal issue. I always shoot with an Odyssey right next to me with red peaking on and often punched in. I think with interviews its more commonly a problem that the subject will move during the shot so I find the monitor more valuable than being par focal.

When I had an F3 all my lenses were Nikon and the adapters all had iris overrides that were steeples. But then I switched to Canon just to be able to use IS. In retrospect though, the only lens I really use IS on is the Tamron 24-70 and that focuses in the Nikon direction. Probably i should have stuck with Nikon tho avoid the damned step iris. I think I decided producers were so used to step irises at this point that IS was more important in pleasing the client.

Hmm... Actually that Fuji 50 - 135 would be a pretty great interview lens and much better outdoors as you mentioned though I often go as long as 200mm on an interview if I have the space. I don't usually go handheld with anything that long anyway so IS doesn't matter. I would miss that extra stop the speed booster offers though. Can't have everything can you?
 
JPNola said:
I appreciate that the LWZ 15.5-45mm is an outstanding lens. But comparing the Fuji MK's to the LWZ 15.5-45mm or even to the Zeiss 21-100mm is apples to oranges being that they are in wholly different price ranges.
Click to expand...

I hope I didn't give the impression that I don't like the two new Fujinon lenses because I absolutely love them. I'm under NDA with Fujinon and have known for months that they were coming. Unfortunately, I'm not really a potential customer because I do most of my shooting with my F55 so I need PL lenses. But if my FS5 or FS7 were the only cameras I own, I'd been the first person in line to place an order for the Fujinon lenses. The focal length range of each lens is just about perfect for my type of shooting. With the exception of wildlife and sports, those two lenses would cover 95% of what I shoot. The 18-55 is wide enough for handheld run & gun and topping out at 55mm is just fine. The 50-135 would be ideal for interviews, product shots, etc. Being fully manual lenses, with no automatic crap is just icing on the cake. In my opinion, any lens that has auto-focus, auto-exposure, or stabilization built-in is pretty much guaranteed to be a poor performer for manual operation even if those features can be turned off. The performance of a fully manual lens is something folks who have only shot with modern SLR lenses cannot appreciate.

BTW, the Zeiss 21-100 caught my attention a few months ago and I thought I might get one, but ultimately, it is neither wide enough nor long enough to suit my needs. On the other hand, the pair of Fujinons is probably the closest I'll ever find to a perfect combo . . . except I'm not investing in any e-mount lenses as long as I still have my F55.
 
Really, in some respects, the fact that I'm seriously considering investing in e mount glass, make's these Fuji's game changer's already. :)
 
Not that they weren't selling FS7s before, but this is clearly going to be a classic pairing in rental and owner/operator kits.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Unfortunately, I'm not really a potential customer because I do most of my shooting with my F55 so I need PL lenses.
Click to expand...

Is it a safe bet that the next high end Sony camera / next iteration of the F55 won't be FZ-mount? I would hope that Sony goes with interchangeable mount, ala the Alexa mini. Would Sony dare go with e-mount for their high-end cameras?
 
They should not use E-mount for high end it is too weak, it is designed to fail (and reduce damage to camera internals)

The best mount is actually kinefinity with the repositioned PL
 
JPNola said:
Is it a safe bet that the next high end Sony camera / next iteration of the F55 won't be FZ-mount? I would hope that Sony goes with interchangeable mount, ala the Alexa mini. Would Sony dare go with e-mount for their high-end cameras?
Click to expand...

Doesn't really make any difference to me as long as it is ruggedly built and I can adapt it for PL. Other than that, I don't care what the native interface is.
 
I have heard and read good things about the locking E-Mount on the FS7ii but I haven't had a chance to see it for myself. The short flange distance of the E-Mount is great for adapting but I agree it needs to tough up a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top