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

morgan_moore said:
The thing about these costs is the cost per year..

You matte box is probably good for 20 years, my Cstands, Miller head, even reds and dedos, whatever, are lifetime buys. The beta cams were good for a decade but a few got burned at the end (I dont really know the history)

$4k is not a lot, $4k devalued to $1k in 9 months is a lot

(not that Im suggesting this is the case with these lenses - I think the risk zone right now is LED lights)

S
Click to expand...

Unfortunately its about my 5th mattbox I think.. had to get a bigger one for CN7.. these lenses should last for at least 10 years if you handle them well.. . of course value will drop..but also tax deductible .. but thats the thing.. very cheap to buy.. you will make the cost price back in a few months.. and then its all money in the bank.. plus you can work easier and most likely what you shoot will look better.. i.e. you can ride the iris.. no breathing.. and miss less shots.. easier to get the much loved Shallow DoF.. and if it does get trashed its not the end of the world.. like a CN7 or cab would be ! In my experience owning gear has never been a mistake and has paid for my house.. just my just about warm body and renting gear over the years I would be living in a caravan .. I know the playing field has changed a bit.. but still my F5 has paid for its self many times over in 3 yrs Ive had it.. because it was so much cheaper than any other camera I have bought .. even the CN7 Im well ahead compared to renting it everyday Ive used it.. freelancer with no gear.. its a losing hand.. unless your shooting features and commercials at a massive day rate.. which is as rare as rocking horse ****..
 
Last edited:
You buy for the jobs you have and not the jobs you want. Rent for all else. If you don't have the jobs that would benefit from and pay this don't get it.

My FS7 paid for itself inside 3 months. I think this would pay for itself inside a year definitely.

Conversely my old Red never paid for itself and my Sony A7sII never paid for itself.
 
That is one of the temptations of this lens.. pure manual. (and a downer on the computerlens that is the sony)

I started work in buying glass in 1990 and most of my manual nikkors from that era are as good today - even though I bought them used 27 years ago.

In my office we have had many many failures of AF lenses, (like 8 AF 70-200s that I can think of, 5 nikon, one sigma and 2 canons - but we have much more nikon) the one that smarts the most is my 600F4 that is DOA and nikon no longer make bits for it, a big lens ruined by a couple of stripped plastic cogs.

The hasselblad H1 lenses are fuiji though.. and fall apart.. like the front element plops onto the floor apart.

S
 
Absolutely.

I totally get the yoots going 'yeah but Canon lenses and AF etc etc you're just old and not with it' and so on. I've been that person and I genuinely embrace new ways of working if they are demonstrably better than what already exists. Not easier or less work, but better.

But then I worked on productions where you don't get the opportunity to baby your gear through it. And on productions where tiny little motors would seize up. The variance in quality/sharpness etc between Canon L lens A and Canon L lens B is absurdly high. But at a certain level of production it all comes under 'good enough'. But those larger jobs inexpensive stills AF stills glass won't cut it.

But no 24-105 is on a par mechanically or optically with what this lens is capable of, and repeatedly capable of under the most trying of conditions.

And to anyone (in general) speaking about how this movie or that movie used stills glass in certain shots or DSLRs in certain scenes. Every single one of those was utterly disposable and they'd have gone through a fair few of them to find the one they want to use and have a backup stash of a fair few of them if they crash or fall out of the sky or whatever it is they are doing. It's never because of cost and value.

The only electronic lens I own is a Sigma 18-35 because it is a freak performer and I look forward to being able to justify getting the cine version.
 
Last edited:
I do that all the time. Often with a single prime.

It certainly didn't make the case for the 24-105 being a particularly nice lens or anything but the files was so compressed it's hard to make anything out.
 
Sure. I get that completely and appreciate it is so popular among low budget shooters and for small scale web stuff.

in fact i think Vice used to use them on their C300s as well a few years back.

But do you see why that lens isn't good enough quality optically or mechanically for prime time?
 
Ben Scott said:
Sure. I get that completely and appreciate it is so popular among low budget shooters and for small scale web stuff.

in fact i think Vice used to use them on their C300s as well a few years back.

But do you see why that lens isn't good enough quality optically or mechanically for prime time?
Click to expand...

Out of interest i typed in the numbers..

FF24-105 = 73 degrees to 19.5 degrees FOV
S35 18-55 = 64 degress to 23 degrees FOV

Yep the 24-105 is a dark at the tele end heap of plastic junk.. mine basically fell apart.

But still that FOV range is actually enough to make me choose it over the Fuiji for most jobs. (the other jobs Id probably go prime)
 
I'm tickled that Sigma just announced a FF 24 -70 ... still lens - which should play very well with a SB. Excited to see if it's as good as the 18-35 I already own - which it may then possibly replace (and expect to see a cine version of it too perhaps down the road).
Back on topic - I think it's impossible to know where the e mount is headed... but this is a sign that other mfg's besides Sony are paying attn. If, in a year or so, the F5 / 55 replacement and / or other popular cam models come out with an e mount... then truly these lenses will be looked back upon as GC. Having a back focus and macro is quite appealing to me... will definitely rent them at some point
 
Harry Lime said:
I feel that the biggest drawback of these new Fuji's is that they are Sony E-Mount only and it doesn't look like they can be adapted to anything else.
Click to expand...


If you are an Fs7 owner that may well be a positive and not a negative. It means that Fs7's have exclusivity on the lens. C300 owners can only watch in envy. It could result in Fs7's getting work over C300's. ( If a DP decides he or she wants to use those Fujis they will have to go with Fs7's and won't be able to go with C300's )

For me it means that my Red 50-150mm PL doesn't lose value as much as it would were the Fuji 50-135mm MK available in PL mount. I can sell the Red 50-150mm PL for roughly the purchase price of the Fuji 50-135mm and walk away with a lighter weight and more modern interview lens.

In terms of the industry, yes, the Fujis being e-mount only is a drawback. In selfish Fs7 terms, it is a plus that the Fuji's are essentially 'Fs7-only'. For someone looking to buy a Fuji MK and earn rental money from it, a drawback for sure. But for an Fs7 owner buying the lens only for use with their own personal Fs7 or Fs7's, less so.

One advantage the Fs7 has always had in the Fs7 vs C300 battle is that there is no lens that the C300 can use that the Fs7 cannot also use. But there are many lenses that the Fs7 can use but the C300 cannot. These Fuji's just add 2 more lenses to the Fs7's repetoire. The C300 still has the DPAF thing in its corner, but personally I'd rather have the camera than can use a wider array of glass but lacks DPAF than the DPAF-capable camera that is far more limited in terms of glass options.

As others have noted, in "big boys" terms, $3800 for the Fuji isn't that much money. It is less than I paid for a used Red 50-150mm PL which, unlike the Fuji MK's, is a rehoused stills zoom. Consider that a Zeiss 15-30 CZ zoom is $25,000. A Fujinon 14.5-45mm Premiere zoom $99,000. Not that these new budget Fuji's are on par with such a lens, but you get the point. All things relative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top