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

JPNola said:
How does the Zeiss 16-70mm compare to the Sony 18-105mm? Is it difficult to find focus as with the Sony 18-110?
Click to expand...

I have no experience with the 18-105. The 16-70 was a less-than-ideal-solution. Focus by wire, real pita. Nevertheless optical result was more than okay. It is small and works great on the Ronin. But you won't impress clients with it.
 
The Fuji seems to play nice with my Zeiss Otus I dug this up:

http://plsn.com/on-the-move/5604-arri-zeiss-and-fujinon-announce-partnership.html

JPNola said:
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/
Click to expand...
 
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...

This isn't directed at you, it just brings up something that I often think when I see people say similar things about a LOT of lenses... Why in the world would I buy a lens if I can't use it at it's extremes? THOSE are the focal lengths you are using the most. Perfect example would be my Canon 16-35. I'm either at 16 OR 35 most of the time, that's why you're buying it.
 
Run&Gun said:
This isn't directed at you, it just brings up something that I often think when I see people say similar things about a LOT of lenses... Why in the world would I buy a lens if I can't use it at it's extremes? THOSE are the focal lengths you are using the most. Perfect example would be my Canon 16-35. I'm either at 16 OR 35 most of the time, that's why you're buying it.
Click to expand...

You can use its at the extremes we are talking about very slight distortion that you will only notice when looking at a grid straight on in most real life situations you will never notice anything.
 
Run&Gun said:
Why in the world would I buy a lens if I can't use it at it's extremes?
Click to expand...

It is all compromises.. or not in the case of the $20k lenses with huge elements that weigh 4kg. The makers deliver what they feel is the best balance of performance and cost/mass.

You are very free to buy glass that is not compromised.
 
Run&Gun said:
This isn't directed at you, it just brings up something that I often think when I see people say similar things about a LOT of lenses... Why in the world would I buy a lens if I can't use it at it's extremes? THOSE are the focal lengths you are using the most. Perfect example would be my Canon 16-35. I'm either at 16 OR 35 most of the time, that's why you're buying it.
Click to expand...


also by the way the 16-35 canon also has distortion all zoom Lenses do to a certain point.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/435-canon_1635_28_5d?start=1
 
icarusfilm said:
also by the way the 16-35 canon also has distortion all zoom Lenses do to a certain point.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/435-canon_1635_28_5d?start=1
Click to expand...

I know. I was just saying that most of the time, especially with these shorter zooms, we're working it at the extreme ends, but you read reviews and blogs, etc. and it's almost always the same, the lens is "flawed" at the ends, but "it clears up" closer to the middle or it's "soft" wide open, but stop down to 5.6 and it is fine... Again, nothing directed at anyone, we're all in the same boat, just more or less an observation.
 
It's just good to know where weak spots are in every lens if you are shooting a cityscape you automatically zoom a little in to 22mm but otherwise it is very very sharp at all focal lengths even wide open and has all the proper mechanics. I can pretty much guarantee that after An hour of having the Fuji on your camera you will hurl your canon 16-35 right out of the window.
 
JPNola said:
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/
Click to expand...

There were some guys over at reduser who were supposed to test the SLR Magic lenses together with Celere and som other brands. From what I could figure out it seems they liked the SLR Magic lenses, but I didn't find any results nor a review. They said it would be available soon, but when soon is I can't answer. :)

I've seen people complaining about that there are only three lenses available so far, so I guess it might be the main reason. AFAIK SLR Magic haven't made proper cine lenses before, perhaps this makes people reluctant?
 
NorBro said:
SLR Magic MFT cine lenses are pretty popular.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that, but I'm not sure if the typical PL-mount customer considers that to be some sort of proof for a good cine lens.
I think a lot of people want to be certain that the lens will come in 18mm and at least 100mm versions before investing in these lenses. They're not expensive at all compared to the competition, but still they're not for free. If they were half the price, a lot more people would probably be willing to take the risk. I'm convinced that they're worth their price as it is, as long as there's a complete set available.
 
Thanks for posting the pics. That 2mm difference is pretty big from 16mm to 18mm, but if you really need wide, then might as well throw on a wide lens and get exactly what you're after.

Just to clarify, there's no possible way of achieving lens correction in 4K on the FS7? Some small Sony zooms are so badly distorted that it wouldn't be worth the time to fix in Resolve, imho.
 
icarusfilm said:
You can use its at the extremes we are talking about very slight distortion that you will only notice when looking at a grid straight on in most real life situations you will never notice anything.
Click to expand...


Now you've gone and skeered a bunch of people, Ick.

I'm guessing that the distortion is not something that most people, that most clients, would even notice. These aren't $80k cinema zooms. The $32,000 Canon 17-120mm has loss of sharpness/angular distortion when at or near the wide end. And the Zeiss 21-100mm is heralded for its "low-distortion". Not for its absence of distortion.

C'mon, boys. We are talking about the MK as an upgrade from Canon L zooms. It's a $3800 zoom lens. A "budget" zoom lens. And before you cough at my characterizing of a $3800 lens as being "budget", consider that it costs $1400 less than an ARRI FF-4 follow focus. The Fuji MK's are roughly 1/10th the price of the original Cabrio. There's gonna be some distortion. But you aren't going to be using these to shoot a $300,000 music video or a $12 million feature film.
 
JPNola said:
Now you've gone and skeered a bunch of people, Ick.

I'm guessing that the distortion is not something that most people, that most clients, would even notice. These aren't $80k cinema zooms. The $32,000 Canon 17-120mm has loss of sharpness/angular distortion when at or near the wide end. And the Zeiss 21-100mm is heralded for its "low-distortion". Not for its absence of distortion.

C'mon, boys. We are talking about the MK as an upgrade from Canon L zooms. It's a $3800 zoom lens. A "budget" zoom lens. And before you cough at my characterizing of a $3800 lens as being "budget", consider that it costs $1400 less than an ARRI FF-4 follow focus. The Fuji MK's are roughly 1/10th the price of the original Cabrio. There's gonna be some distortion. But you aren't going to be using these to shoot a $300,000 music video or a $12 million feature film.
Click to expand...

What he said
 
BarryLichtner said:
Just to clarify, there's no possible way of achieving lens correction in 4K on the FS7? Some small Sony zooms are so badly distorted that it wouldn't be worth the time to fix in Resolve, imho.
Click to expand...

You can get electronic lens correction in 4K on the FS7, just not with LUT support. Can always add a EVF, or Monitor, that provides it's own LUT support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top