FS7: How about this sony 18-110 lens

Len

Of course charts matter, real world shots of bricks, fine weave cloth, eyelashes, tree branches come to bite you if you have a sketchy camera/lens that fails on a chart.

What I meant was I have sharp primes that kill it on charts.. I would want this lens for its physical conveniences not because it topped the charts :)

S
 
LennyLevy said:
I'm really not sure what you mean when you call a lens Soulless based on couple of youtube samples. I'm sure there are differences but my guess is you are mainly looking at Production differences.
Click to expand...

There's actually quite a lot of samples from the 18-110 out there now which shows the characterless nature of the lens. It doesn't do anything for me.

Charts will probably show that the lens is quite a good performer probably very sharp corner to corner and with little vignetting but the video samples show it adds nothing to the image. I've seen that look many times with the 18-200 and the 16-70 which is another negative for the 18-110 because even at a higher level it doesn't knock the cheaper two lenses into a cocked hat.

I can easily pick out the clips shot Sony lens vs the dirt cheap Nikkor primes, the Nikkors render a much more pleasing image to my eye. I'm sure the modern Sony would destroy the old Nikkors on the charts but there's something taken away by highly optimised optical blenders like the 18-110.

As always YMMV. We all have different needs and tastes and it is at least a positive there is actually quite a good range of choice in the low cost cine lens space now.
 
The thing about this lens (to me) is that to some extent auto everything or at least remote control may be of huge value.

It opens the ability to mount the camera in stage rigging at a show or suchlike.
 
I've tried some of my E-lenses on FS7 but I just found the auto functions to be useless. AF is painfully slow and unprecise. AE is as always not doing what I like it to do.
 
Yep the remote funtionality is more interesting that auto.

But this https://vimeo.com/209460077 in the studio may buy AF and was near impossible with manual

I think it is shots like that that canonAF is shining brighter than an A/C

Also I can get an FS5 which might have better AF.
 
I think the AF on Sony's mirrorless line are superior to the FS line.

I'd never trust the AF on the FS7.
 
Nirv said:
There's actually quite a lot of samples from the 18-110 out there now which shows the characterless nature of the lens. It doesn't do anything for me.

I can easily pick out the clips shot Sony lens vs the dirt cheap Nikkor primes, the Nikkors render a much more pleasing image to my eye. I'm sure the modern Sony would destroy the old Nikkors on the charts but there's something taken away by highly optimised optical blenders like the 18-110.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see those tests if you can link to them, Or for that matter any clips that to your taste demonstrate character vs lack of same in lenses.
Not facetious at all here want to add to my own understanding.
 
just been playing with the cheap 18-110, I think F4 is maybe the lack of character.. did some shots then popped on a 35/2.5 (boosterd) and well it came to life
 
Yeah it feels like a "coverage" lens. The bad thing is f4 wont work well for interiors or night in those "coverage" situations. I would still get it if I was doing those kind of jobs but almost never need that range so I have the shi**y 18-105 as a back-up. With a belt FF it works ok. Otherwise a 24-70 is more range than I typically need. A bit interested in the new sigma 24-70, wonder how it distorts at 24 and how it plays with the booster.
 
Sam, I hope you were being facetious about f2.5 having more character than f4. Did you actually learn anything rom the test you put on the other thread- how can you compare one underexposed lens to another that's properly exposed? Actually I thought the darker shots had more character. A "moodier" lens if you will. Good for Noir!
 
Len the lenses that had 'character' where the primes we tested none of the zooms we tested had 'character' and I think that is just a wide Tstop..

character_2.6.1.jpg
 
If the wider T stop is all you mean by character then you're just talking about soft backgrounds not lens character at all - exactly why I like long lenses and wide stops for interviews. But I prefer them with lenses that are also sharp which is why I dumped my f1.4 AIS lenses long ago since they lost sharpness after f2. Maybe even sooner. Just got a Milvus f1.4 50mm so I could actually shoot there and not lose anything.

So once again - somebody show me lenses that do and don't have character on similar or the same shots.
 
icarusfilm said:
Im kind of not getting this test
Click to expand...

It is not really relevant to this thread because it is the cheap sony.

Just a dirty test..

-angle of view, (sony wins)
-zoom range (sony wins)
-light transmission (nikon wins)
response of manual focus (nikon wins but not demonstrated)
IS - sony wins
Cost, nikkor is 1/5 of the cost (if you own a booster)
 
LennyLevy said:
If the wider T stop is all you mean by character then you're just talking about soft backgrounds not lens character at all
Click to expand...

I made no claims about character. The director on the test we did went for wide prime look over the zooms - Im just saying wide iris equates to character in the mind of some (directors) .

aka there is no character there is only wide iris :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top