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

[JPNola]

The fuijis? No way

Director.. punch in a bit

Operater.. I cant

But that is a common situation already since many people use trio of the Canon 16-35mm & 24-70mm & 70-200mm. You are on the 16-35mm, the Director / Field Producer wants a tighter shot, you have to switch to the 24-70mm or the 70-200mm, they understand that and deal with it. I shot that way today, in fact, for a network tv shoot. Many times throughout the day we had to perform lens swaps because the lens we were on was not long enough or not wide enough.

Personally, I am sick of stepped iris and that is what is exciting about these new Fuji zooms. Relatively affordable manual iris zooms. But with real manual focus unlike the Sony zooms and with right-way focus, unlike the vintage Nikons that also have a short iris throw. Add in no breathing, back focus adjustment, and a macro function that means you can close focus all the way to the front element? That's a godsend. Yeah, the focal range of the pair is a bit odd. But the price of the combo is a full $2000 less than the Zeiss 21-100mm...and that 21mm wide end on the Zeiss is going to leave you wishing it was an 18mm.

What other modern manual iris zooms are there in this price range? The Sonys and that's it. I'd rather have to dance between the two f/2.9 Fujis than live on the f/4 Sony 18-110mm or the f/4 Canon 18-80mm. Even though it means not having a servo.

 

[JPNola]

Lack of IS the biggest drawback for me

At the start of the 3-camera shoot I did today the DP instructed "make sure the IS is turned off on your lenses!". In some circles, IS is considered amateurish and something you never want engaged. We never had it on any of the B4 ENG lenses. We used the original "IS"- holding your breath.

But maybe times have changed and, as it is with Autofocus, what was once considered amateurish and a no-no, is now becoming professional and acceptable. To be honest there have been times when the IS on a lens was engaged and I couldn't tell any difference. I know some cam ops who hate IS because of the delay which results between operation and action. You pan and there is a brief delay before you see the pan in the image.

 

[Ben Scott]

It is a certain style where probably longer lenses than Normal handheld are used and the shoulder is found to be a bit more natural and 'breathing' than being nailed to sticks but you don't want the full Bourne shake

Personally I don't use is but probably should.

Go loose on legs. My answer to everything.

 

[Ben Scott]

At the start of the 3-camera shoot I did today the DP instructed "make sure the IS is turned off on your lenses!". In some circles, IS is considered amateurish and something you never want engaged. We never had it on any of the B4 ENG lenses. We used the original "IS"- holding your breath.

But maybe times have changed and, as it is with Autofocus, what was once considered amateurish and a no-no, is now becoming professional and acceptable. To be honest there have been times when the IS on a lens was engaged and I couldn't tell any difference. I know some cam ops who hate IS because of the delay which results between operation and action. You pan and there is a brief delay before you see the pan in the image.

I hate it. IS microjitters do my head in. If IS was a person it would be Piers Morgan. I absolutely make sure it is turned off if I am running a crew of a few camera ops and they aren't using my glass.

 

[morgan_moore]

Go loose on legs. My answer to everything.

Nah - it's all about the little slide driven from the hips

 

[morgan_moore]

JP

Yep lens swaps!

I've worked on two bigger shows - one remted the 17-130 canon zoom - the other did not - even thought I told them to. Cue trouble on the second show.

Of course primes and smaller zooms have thier place - but there are time they really are a pain. To me there is just something about being on a reporters side with a 50 thay just doesn't quite cut it. Another few mm and they would have had a winner.

 

[Ben Scott]

And you pay £30k for the convenience of a lens of that nature. Or you spend 8k on two lenses and do a 10 sec lens change on occasion.

 

[bengiles]

I hate it. IS microjitters do my head in.

Interesting - it's what I would call micro jitters that make me use IS - but only for handheld work.

The last 3 shoots I have done, I have left the tripod in the van - I'm barely using it now.

Thinking about it, most of my work is obs-doc style shooting. That often means being at a discrete distance and at the longer end of my 24-105.

In HD and 4K, I can't achieve a smooth handheld style (that I think looks acceptable) without IS, or some kind of stabilisation - and I'm also one of those that shot with hefty ENG cams in SD, when the only kind of gimbal on the market was a Schwem Gyrozoom.

Auto Focus - I'm not sure how that crept into the conversation. However, based on what I'm experiencing with an A7Rii and it's face detection AF, I suspect we'll see it creeping into all professional cameras very soon.

I do wonder if some of us are still hanging on to old orthodoxies though - pooh pooh these emerging disruptive technologies at your peril.

 

[MartinF]

I am very tempted by those Fujinons. And I own a set of Angenieux Optimo DPs. The 16-42 stays on the camera 90% of the time for verite documentary style shoots. I used a cinevised sigma 18-35 before but 35mm is just a tad to short for me. But sometimes I wish for something lighter than the Angenieuxs and something with a more modern look. While the optimo dps look lovely for skin, especially the 16-42 could be sharper wide open, have less distortion and flare less. Except for those commercial jobs where some "emotional flaring" is wanted to make up for the lack of content.
The Fujinons shave off a whole kilo therefore also eliminating the need for vlocks on the back which mostly act as a counterweight for balanced shoulder operation for me. I don't care that the lenses are made out of plastic but I wish the wide one would be 16-50 and a little bit shorter to get a more compact rig. That is the great thing about the sigma again.

So many choices these days

 

[Donny 123]

Yes well thats exactly the rub sir (Morgan).. the only way to get anything close to an all in one zoom at a decent stop is CN7 17-120.. or Cab 19-90.. but they cost alot of money.. Im sure just abut everyone on this forum would like one.. but if they cant afford it.. then its stills lenses or these newer cheaper cine zooms.. and yes it has to be two... and plastic body.. and cheap mount.. otherwise we are back to step one.. $30,000 plus zooms.. physic,s meets economics ..

 

[Donny 123]

Interesting - it's what I would call micro jitters that make me use IS - but only for handheld work.

The last 3 shoots I have done, I have left the tripod in the van - I'm barely using it now.

Thinking about it, most of my work is obs-doc style shooting. That often means being at a discrete distance and at the longer end of my 24-105.

In HD and 4K, I can't achieve a smooth handheld style (that I think looks acceptable) without IS, or some kind of stabilisation - and I'm also one of those that shot with hefty ENG cams in SD, when the only kind of gimbal on the market was a Schwem Gyrozoom.

Auto Focus - I'm not sure how that crept into the conversation. However, based on what I'm experiencing with an A7Rii and it's face detection AF, I suspect we'll see it creeping into all professional cameras very soon.

I do wonder if some of us are still hanging on to old orthodoxies though - pooh pooh these emerging disruptive technologies at your peril.

Thing is auto focus always has some means or parameters for a machine to decide whats to be in focus.. center,contrast, etc.. sure you can move it around and set it for one shot.. but what about hand held constant movement .. you can have 2 thirds of the frame full with a brick wall but want the focus to be on the other third .. or more likely you want to pull focus.. I just cant imagine working with out having control of this very basic tool.. with the possible exception of a war zone..

 

[morgan_moore]

Don
Two things

At least those dollar lenses do the job.. So I think rather than bury £4g of ones own cash on a near miss one should force the producers to rent the right thing.
The bargain version just leads to stress on set and the increased tendency to be hired with no proper kit payment. Double bummer.

And.
I'm pretty sure using my minimal kmowlege of optics that something could be made in the owner op price class - yes there would be a compromise somewhere.
My feeling is a 24-105 with a swing in speedbooster. Or a 17-55 with a swing in 1.4 converter.
Such a lens would not offer a full zoom of course br would fluidly switch from interview mode to show the scene mode

 

[Clermond]

The perfect affordable go to lens on my FS7 is Canons 24-105 with speedbooster. That range is just super versatile and I seldom need to use anything else. Until something better appears I'll settle with this lens.

It's not usable on a steady / gimbal system as you would have to rebalance it for every change of focal length. I have that too but mostly I don't use it. I still keep my pre-order in the Sony.

 

[Ben Scott]

I'm exactly the same. My main job is to tell the viewer what to focus on in the frame, so I absolutely will not cede that creative and technical remit to an algorithm.

In terms of what you will see in the future, it's kind of here already with Red and their RT Motion Latitude system whereby a thumbwheel or 'smart knob' can pull focus on electronic lenses without additional gubbins and cine lenses are being built with proper FIZ motors built in that can be activated. I believe Arri has a similar system.

Handheld with IS on is no substitute for being on sticks. Handheld is its own valid look/feel/style/technique but I never in a million years interchange them just to save time.

I'm with Ed Moore on this, from his fantastic '110 things I’ve learned in 10 years as a DP'

18 - Handheld rarely looks good if you try and add shakiness to what comes naturally
19- The reason many ADs think handheld is faster is because you stop concentrating as much on the lighting when there’s a heavy camera on your shoulder — avoid the “6pm handheld scramble”

EDIT: Just to say I know we've gone over this before and I'm not saying my way is right and your way is wrong; we just clearly have very different approaches most likely born out of vastly differing subject matter and conditions

 

[Ben Scott]

I'm pretty sure using my minimal kmowlege of optics that something could be made in the owner op price class

Thing is, the Fuji Cabrio and the Canon 17-120 ARE in the owner/op class. Just not your (or my) owner/op class. And as you say yes that's why we have rentals or we take 10 secs to change a lens.

If it was easy/possible to do this on a budget why do you think every single lens manufacturer is bringing new stuff to market that isn't that? There isn't even a stills lens out there doing it.

Angie with their focal reducing EZ concept certainly has legs but they have still had to sacrifice zoom range and the switch is a time consuming one. To be able to do it with a button press and not sacrifice image quality is a holy grail that is going to cost...

 

[Donny 123]

Don
Two things

At least those dollar lenses do the job.. So I think rather than bury £4g of ones own cash on a near miss one should force the producers to rent the right thing.
The bargain version just leads to stress on set and the increased tendency to be hired with no proper kit payment. Double bummer.

And.
I'm pretty sure using my minimal kmowlege of optics that something could be made in the owner op price class - yes there would be a compromise somewhere.
My feeling is a 24-105 with a swing in speedbooster. Or a 17-55 with a swing in 1.4 converter.
Such a lens would not offer a full zoom of course br would fluidly switch from interview mode to show the scene mode

Yes agree the dollar ones do the job.. your preaching to the choir..I robbed a bank and bought the CN7 17-120 .. for that very reason you state.. its the only way that I personally knew how to work.. coming from ENG zooms..but many people cant afford to buy it,or the Cab.. and so these Fuji zooms are for sure a step up from Stills lenses.. or fly by wire.. or F4 zooms ..

 

[morgan_moore]

Thing is, the Fuji Cabrio and the Canon 17-120 ARE in the owner/op class. Just not your (or my) owner/op class. And as you say yes that's why we have rentals or we take 10 secs to change a lens.

If it was easy/possible to do this on a budget why do you think every single lens manufacturer is bringing new stuff to market that isn't that? There isn't even a stills lens out there doing it.

Angie with their focal reducing EZ concept certainly has legs but they have still had to sacrifice zoom range and the switch is a time consuming one. To be able to do it with a button press and not sacrifice image quality is a holy grail that is going to cost...

I could finance such a lens but my long term view is that AF will kill them and they could present a poor investment. Also Im not actually sure I want to do work of the nature that requires bang bang zoom zoom - Im trying (like us all!) to bend towards the slow slow jobs that my primes serve so well.

Or for bang bang zoom zoom I might get an XC15 or go back to my EX1

Also there is I feel an industry wide risk in terms of producers hiring operator A 'has sony 18-110 for free' vs operator B' cabrio owner wanting an extra £150 a day just for glass'. If Donny has rise above that miasma great!

The 17-120 job I did the production had a deal on rental for all the kit for 4 cams/lenses and my gear was left at home earning nothing. Another risk.

Id only go if I got a signed contract that was going to cover 50% of it in one job.

--

Technically.. a 24-105 has it all.. shrink that geometry to S35, make it a bit more robust at triple the cost and you are good.

S

 

[morgan_moore]

AF?

Yep we could hold focus at 50i SD blurrovision.. but realistically 'focus tickle' ( moves from 4'8 to 4'9) will really come in once 4k is a reality on editors monitors. It will. It will.

S

 

[Ben Scott]

The 24-105 doesn't have it all though. It's slow and soft with a load of CA and a ton of variation from model to model. It's fine for a lot of web stuff but it's a long way from being top tier quality.

As for that other bit, our business practices are our own I guess, but I don't take jobs (and hopefully don't get jobs) based on price. I get jobs based on being good, and then we sort out a price.

If someone says 'but I can get Dave with his stills lens and no tripod for £200 a day cheaper' I absolutely always recommend they go with Dave. Because I am not in competition with people cheaper than me and I don't look over my shoulder. I am in competition with the people charging double my rate and I am looking forward at rising to that level.

 

[morgan_moore]

Yep this is all about positioning ultimately.

Ben has his model of producer/shooter that could ride a £3g lens but less a £20g lens, Me? I need a lens to moke some of the low jobs I should probably avoid less painful.. jobs competing against Dave but because I should not be in that sector certainly don't want to throw £15g at the sector. Im happy to be happy on set at 4-5.6 and have a bit more noise in the final product.

S