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

Stephen Mick said:
Second, there are a couple of killer features that I haven't seen anyone really talk about here. There's an easily-accessible back focus adjustment on the lens barrel, which is nice. But the one that really surprised me was the Macro function. There's a little Macro button at the base of the lens. Slide it over and you've got a really nice macro lens.
Click to expand...

Two features that have been on TV zooms for about forever. Hopefully the backfocus parts are made out of metal, the plastic parts on some of their TV zooms distorts when you tighten the thumbscrew and eventually works it's way to where it won't stay tight. Then it is time for the tape to lock the rings in place.

I'm starting to guess that these are just one of their TV zooms in a short flange mount and mod .8 gears attached, not that there is anything wrong with that, they make some nice TV zooms even for the lesser cameras.
 
Stephen Mick said:
FYI… I had a chance to get hands-on with the 18-55mm Fuji today at Texas Media Systems. If you care, here are my thoughts…

First, I appreciate what Fuji had in mind when they created this lens (and probably the 50-135mm), which was to bring a no-optical-compromises cinema lens set to the masses at a certain price point. Sure, you're not going to get all-metal construction in a lens at this price point, but the lens feels nice and solid to me, and it's really small and light. The Fuji rep told me that that the 50-135mm will be the same size as the 18-55, which is impressive.

Second, there are a couple of killer features that I haven't seen anyone really talk about here. There's an easily-accessible back focus adjustment on the lens barrel, which is nice. But the one that really surprised me was the Macro function. There's a little Macro button at the base of the lens. Slide it over and you've got a really nice macro lens.

Overall, I think Fuji is right on with what they're doing. If you need IS and AF and all that, these aren't for you. But I was pretty impressed with what I saw. I'm interested to see the 50-135mm when it comes out.
Click to expand...

Good to hear Stephen. I hope to be have a play later this week.
 
bengiles said:
Good stuff. Really refreshing to read opinions from someone who actually knows what he's talking about, and is recognised by his peers as such, embracing new ways of working.

Thanks for posting that, Sam.
Click to expand...

But after actually reading the article.. he doesnt seem that impressed with it.. and there are some "serious issues" and the whole thing was done as an experiment in the first place.. and not that he had actually decided it was the better way to do it.. taking your own router for the wifi..? no one else can have any wifi going.. so as long as your shooting in the middle of the jungle or a field your fine then.. I dont see this article as an endorsement of AF.. a quite interesting novelty write up.

The fact remaining the DP was not in control of the focus.. kind of a weird way to work I think personally..
 
Greg_E said:
Two features that have been on TV zooms for about forever. Hopefully the backfocus parts are made out of metal, the plastic parts on some of their TV zooms distorts when you tighten the thumbscrew and eventually works it's way to where it won't stay tight. Then it is time for the tape to lock the rings in place.

I'm starting to guess that these are just one of their TV zooms in a short flange mount and mod .8 gears attached, not that there is anything wrong with that, they make some nice TV zooms even for the lesser cameras.
Click to expand...

TV zooms? Making 2/3" tv zooms cover S35 just by making them short flange and attaching gears ?
 
icarusfilm said:
Auto focus is just as useful as auto framing and auto panning and auto exposure
Click to expand...


Manual iris.

That's the benefit of these lenses that is being overlooked with all the debate over AF. Some have argued that the Fuji MK's are at a disadvantage in lacking AF capability, but they are at a big advantage in their having manual iris. Sure, the range of a Canon 24-105mm with speed booster is great. But you're still on a zoom that isn't par-focal and stuck with stepped exposure control ( when not having electronic ND at your disposal ). I have never considered variable ND filters a viable means of obtaining infinite exposure control.

Up until recently, the options for anyone wanting a zoom under $5k that is par-focal, has manual iris, and is faster than f/4 were few. ( were there ANY such zooms available? ). That, to me, is the big deal about these Fuji MK's. Getting caught up in the lack of AF is missing the point, imo. That criticism misses the huge benefit of these zooms. The criticism of the focal ranges of the MK's is a more legit criticism, but even that criticism begs the question: Okay, what alternative is there for under $5k that has manual iris, is par-focal, and is faster than f/4? The new Sigma cine zooms and Tokina cine zooms have zoom ranges that are just as limiting as the MK's if not more limited. 18-35mm & 50-100mm for the Sigma cine zooms, 16-28mm & 50-135mm for Tokina. In that sense, in regard to the Fuji MK 18-55mm, it comes down to a choice between a 18-55mm zoom vs a 15-35mm zoom or a 16-28mm zoom. Of the 3 the Fuji MK 18-55mm is a far more usable zoom range.

If you want to get away from stepped-iris in a zoom and do it for under $5, there haven't been many options. Not in glass faster than f/4, at least. That is the niche of these Fuji's and where they come to the rescue.

Long live manual iris.

And please, for God's sake, no one start a debate regarding the viability of auto-exposure.
 
I cant stand a lens without auto exposure.. how the hell do they expect a professional camera operator to work ... and having to focus at the same time too !... come on lens makers .. lift your game.. we only have 2 hands.. and not even an auto tripod yet.. its a wonder any programs get made that look decent..
 
JP
16-28 this is a great range.. On a gimbal or as part of a two camera package. 18-55 is not a great range as a single camera set up.
People don't seem to get where these tools do or don't fit.
As for the gods of parfocal and ramp able iris - sure they are extremely nice - but when shooting sequences that will be intercut with broll non synch wides and noddies they are not super critical. In live shows of course they are super critical.
The market needs a OMB story telling lens not a middle wide live broadcast s35 zoom.
 
Who ever actually zooms in shot?

Yes one may zoom while rolling - but one one do this for two reasons - to hold soound continuity - or because the start stop on the camera is non responsive or hard to access. But the move will be covered in the edit surely?
I mainly zoom and physically move at the same time because I need to sustain a 30 degree angular move to make two cuttable shots. There is "the method" that people do or don't get.
 
morgan_moore said:
People don't seem to get where these tools do or don't fit.
Click to expand...

Not having a dig with this but it's not people, it's you. Just like the Zeiss LWZ that everyone was deriding and is now back ordered up the wazoo, these are going to be mega successful. Because everyone else can see a use for them!

And if Duclos does manage his EF/PL conversion they are going to be like gold dust

morgan_moore said:
Who ever actually zooms in shot?
Click to expand...

Bad bad people.
 
Of course I need to sit back and consider what makes watchable understable video in a post Bourne YouTube blogger world - I guess jump cut shakey cam with drifting focus-iris is ok. Coverage is redundant. It is worth considering.. Especially as stuff moves to post.
The 55mm is not long enough but cropped in post it certainly is.

So yes we all have to look at "what works" - because a lot of this modern stuff does actually work - like many "technically rejected" cameras making broadcast

Danfung Dennis was shooting awesomeness on the 5d while others were moaning about it's moiree - Mr Neistsad has a huge audience on some very sketchy cameras and we can learn from them.. Even Mr Bloom!
 
Last edited:
So Im trying to think of a takeaway from this thread..

-Certainly the new lenses are fine engineering at a great price, congratulations Fuiji.

-I don't feel these lenses are a solution for a certain type of OMB shooting. This is a shame because I think there gap in the market for filling that need. People with a bit of cash who are scared to sink that cash into a plastic fantastic from Sony and are very bored of the 24-105/booster compromises.

-I need to test-drive the Sony lens and.. revisit my 18-252 horror story.. maybe I can force myself to use it on certain corporates.. that would be free.

In terms of either lens Im not sure that £3g put into led lighting or a Movi would not move my business forward better. Reality is not my bread and butter.
 
morgan_moore said:
So Im trying to think of a takeaway from this thread..

-Certainly the new lenses are fine engineering at a great price, congratulations Fuiji.

-I don't feel they are a solution for a certain type of OMB shooting. This is a shame because I think there is a market for that. People with a bit of cash who are scared to sink that cash into a plastic fantastic from Sony.

-I need to test-drive the Sony lens and.. revisit my 18-252 horror story.. maybe I can force myself to use it on certain corporates.. that would be free.

In terms of either lens Im not sure that £3g put into led lighting or a Movi would not move my business forward better. Reality is not my bread and butter.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking an Movi M15 can shift practically whatever you throw on it and will be good for years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top