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

morgan_moore said:
Harry.. It is more difficult and more easy.. Yes there is the angle of incidence to the sensor issue and there are also the 'basic physics' of having space to work.. with a close flange you are not forced to put the element close to the chip.. but can if you want to.

And this is where one needs to study Hasselblad who were leader in wrestling high end digital capture and the inherent problems like the angle the light hit the chip making thier 'old' glass problematic. They very controversially with the Hassy H2, in 2007, or so decided that the ultimate image quality would come through a marriage of analogue and electronic technologies - leading to the infamous 'lock out' of users of Phase One digital backs (I was one!)

Simply they realised that their new 28mm lens (very wide on 645) was simpler and better if they left it as a mild analogue fisheye and took account of and corrected, that distortion, using lens metadata, in their proprietary raw 'Phocus' software

(http://www.hasselblad.com/software/phocus).
Hasselblad’s modern lens design has been optimised for digital perfection, including full automatic correction of colour aberration, distortion and light fall off. Phocus makes use of its detailed knowledge of the lens design and calculates the optical corrections for every shot at the given distance and aperture setting, providing perfect images, and an ideal basis for optimal image rendering and further processing. Hasselblad digital lens correction technology works automatically with all Hasselblad H System lenses, even with tilt/shift movements and it works with all the Carl Zeiss lenses from the classic V System, using manual settings.

One can therefore surmise that moving forward the highest performing systems may be 'closed loop' and rely on software correcting known analogue 'errors'. In fact this is entirely the case in some Sony camera/lens combos today - one can additionally surmise that Sony bought this tech from 'Blad, possibly in exchange for Hasselblad using the guts from Sony cameras in their horror story range of gentlemen's compact cameras.

All the more reason to consider, carefully, large outlays on dumb cine lenses or off brand electronic lenses.

Ps I love the FZ mount.. it is 'proper' :)
Click to expand...


Not a big fan of post capture optical correction. Panasonic and others also do this in their compacts, but that's a cost cutting measure and a means to squeeze a smaller lens into a tighter package. Also keep in mind that in theory performing something like the removal of distortion in post involves a sub pixel transformation that reduces the resolution of the image, so it's no magic bullet.

Regardless, who wants to buy a lens or set of expensive lenses that is tied to a particular camera that will be out of production in a few years? Cine lenses make still photography lenses look cheap in comparison. For those prices I expect to get glass that is properly corrected straight out of the box without any gimmicks.

Personally I would not invest in a camera system like that. I prefer my glass 'dumb' and camera agnostic with a lifespan that is determined by me.

In any case I am very glad to see the introduction of the improved E-Mount. I never thought that the spring loaded incarnation was appropriate for a camera like the FS7 or FS5.
 
Well Hasselblad are not jokers. They are after image fidelity.. and their 'cheap' lenses are made by.. Fuiji.. and possible the same as on the Alexa 65

And yes this thread is all about sqeezing small lenses into tight packages.. or maximising reach on a fixed mass/cost package. or the limits you hit when you do/dont do that.

Am I a fan of locked down computer system lenses? Not really because like all of us I dont trust them to work after a bit of dust/moisture whatever. My main motivation to not buy the Sony lens
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
Well Hasselblad are not jokers. They are after image fidelity..
Click to expand...

One unmentioned factor that seems eminently relevant to the discussion is RESOLUTION. What res was the H/B camera/back that they recommended using lens-correction-in-post for? I imagine it's several magnitudes higher than the ~9MP of DCI 4K, no? Isn't that the reason that using software-correction doesn't necessarily conflict with their undoubted devotion to (super)high-IQ?

That's not to say that you're not right on some level Sam, and I agree that lens-correction would be one of the next logical steps (alongside SteadXP's stabilisation hardware/software) in the ongoing technologisation of our workflows. It's more a question of who will it appeal to, and what level of cameras will it end up being integrated into?

jason
 
morgan_moore said:
Well Hasselblad are not jokers. They are after image fidelity.. and their 'cheap' lenses are made by.. Fuiji.. and possible the same as on the Alexa 65

And yes this thread is all about sqeezing small lenses into tight packages.. or maximising reach on a fixed mass/cost package. or the limits you hit when you do/dont do that.

Am I a fan of locked down computer system lenses? Not really because like all of us I dont trust them to work after a bit of dust/moisture whatever. My main motivation to not buy the Sony lens
Click to expand...

Hassy certainly are not jokers and I have a few of their bodies and lenses myself.

I get it why it's done when size and cost is an issue, but all of those problems can be solved right in the lens and doesn't need an electronic bandaid. I would never buy a Cooke or Zeiss cine lens that relied on post correction to fix things like distortion, chromatics, etc

And while we are on the subject, lenses that are technically 'perfect' tend to make pretty boring and sterile images. Just look at the Leica Summilux-C series. They are just about as technically perfect as they come, but produce flat, lifeless images compared so something like a Cooke s4/s5.
 
Last edited:
You both bring up valid points.,

Lens correction may not work in motion in the same way as post stabilisation cannot ever really work due to the movent recorded during the 1/48 that the shutter is open.

Harry indeed lines per inch is not the be all and end all to a nice lens - many - including me love "charcter"

But coming back to the debate of making a cheap:low mass one lens zoom for s35 - Im just suggesting that trickery might be the only way to make it happen.

Traditional optics obviously struggle to deliver any more than 18-55 at this price point. Else someone would have done it - fuiki and zeiss are not jokers either :)
 
AFAIK there are no longer any lenses manufactured for FZ so it's little more than a base for lens adapters, & it seem wise on Sony's part to adopt E-mount for any camera that's not designed purely for cinema, such as the F65.

From what I've read the locking E mount is strong enough to support a PL adapter with average weight Cine lenses, & in practice no matter how strong the mount most heavy zooms are typically supported by a bridge plate.
 
There is distortion mostly on 18 and 55 when looking at straight lines or a grid barely noticeable between 22-40mm with 32mm being the sweet spot again only when looking at straight lines.
 
The distortion is the only imperfection i have noticed so far otherwise it's stellar and like i said if you hover between 22-40 it's very hard to spot
 
icarusfilm said:
There is distortion mostly on 18 and 55 when looking at straight lines or a grid barely noticeable between 22-40mm with 32mm being the sweet spot again only when looking at straight lines.
Click to expand...

I read that the distortion can be greatly reduced by spending over twice as much money for the Zeiss 21-100mm. :D
 
Clermond said:
I don't know whether this review has been linked already. Apologies if so but I didn't want to go through 43 pages
https://www.cinema5d.com/fujinon-mk18-55mm-technical-review-e-mount-cine-zoom-lab/

I felt irritated by the distortion of my new Sony 18-110 but I think the Fuji 18-55 isn't even better (maybe a little worse)
Click to expand...


So the FS7 doesn't correct for distortion when shooting 4K then? How about in 1080p? Strange. I wasn't expecting much distortion at all from the 18-110mm. What are your other thoughts on the lens? Do you like the optics?
 
The correction would use the 4k real estate and processing power so that is why it doesnt correct 4k.

Resolve of course will.

S
 
Icarus- What prime lenses do you think might match well with the Fuji MK's?

And on a related note, anyone have any thoughts as to why the SLR Magic APO HyperPrime CINE's get so little love? The website EOSHD called the SLR magic CINE prime "the best performing cinema lens for the money you can get." and said it stacks up well against the Cooke Mini S, even beating it in some aspects such as CA.

Is it that the lens isn't sexy and SLR Magic doesn't have the provenance of Cooke or Zeiss? Few are likely to be impressed when you pull out an SLR Magic cinema prime? The fact that there are only 3 lenses and not a complete set?


http://www.eoshd.com/2015/01/slr-magic-vs-cooke/
 
JPNola said:
I read that the distortion can be greatly reduced by spending over twice as much money for the Zeiss 21-100mm. :D
Click to expand...

the magic trick of Zeiss is avoiding the real wide side :)
3mm makes a huge difference but unfortunately you will miss them when you are shooting
 
BarryLichtner said:
So the FS7 doesn't correct for distortion when shooting 4K then? How about in 1080p? Strange. I wasn't expecting much distortion at all from the 18-110mm. What are your other thoughts on the lens? Do you like the optics?
Click to expand...

as Sam wrote it would need too much processing power for mens correction and also for the viewfinder LUT

My second impression at the second day: the distortion won't be an issue for the shots I do.
18 to 16mm of my 16-70z is a quite noticeable difference

2017-03-09_18vs16.jpg


The bokeh is quite okay, roll off too

2017-03-09_18-110_bokeh.jpg


2017-03-09_rolloff.jpg


Fokus, zoom, aperture are very very smooth. It's sharp.
I think it hits my for corporate, documentation, quick interviews at 90%

I had to order extended arms for the Ronin
 
How does the Zeiss 16-70mm compare to the Sony 18-105mm? Is it difficult to find focus as with the Sony 18-110?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top