see-mann
Active member
What do you mean with "cheap sony"? There is only one 18-110 form Sony as far as i know and that's the new one (?)
FS7: How about this sony 18-110 lens
- Thread starter Publimix
- Start date
see-mann
Active member
Yes, i would say so, tooI 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
Beside that, I quite understand the term character in connection with lenses - for example i always have the impression my old Nikkors show "different colors" compared to my new, "clean" e-mount Sony lenses... it's just a feeling, to prove it, i should do some tests... with same setting, same T-stop, same focal length.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Thats the cheap Fs5 kit lense, not what this thread is all about.
broughtonfilm
Well-known member
Everyone knows that. Any other revelations?
Nirv
Carbonite Member
I am open to the possibility that I have a preference for crap lenses and that the flaws in the 30+ year old AIS lenses chimes with a subconscious preference.
I don't seem to be unduly bothered by vignetting or even chromatic aberration within reason and find the searing sharpness of a lot of modern lenses just too clinical. Even with the AIS lenses I have them damped with diffusers.
You know what the AIS lenses look like and you know what the Milvus look like and you prefer the Milvus. I'm the oddball that prefers the AIS which might explain things.
Im shooting a project now using the zeiss standard primes (T2.1). Its the series developed before the highspeeds (superspeeds). I really like these lenses, something about the sharpness thats just right for the FS7.
Nirv
Carbonite Member
When I started shooting 4k with the FS7 I noticed an awful lot of moire when I used my modern Nikkor lenses and by swapping to the AIS lenses the moire was gone although there was no perceivable drop in image sharpness, maybe a fraction less contrasty.
The moire was only a problem in 4k when switching to HD recording the FS7 was obviously filtering these frequencies out during the downsize process so the difference between modern glass and old was not so apparent in HD.
If you can show the finished project please post a link when you can. Very interested to see those lenses in action.
The project is a longer one but hopefully I can show some tests between the zeiss 16mm, boosted tamron 24-70@24 and maybe the sony 18-105, maybe the nikon 24 1.4 aswell. My observations this far is in line with yours, moire and overly sharp things that look not like detail but like pixels dissapear with these older lenses.
Nirv,
I'm wondering what kind of monitor you were looking at the moire on as that can definitely affect things. What were the subjects of your image?
I haven't really seen much moire but I have seen axial CA from some extremely sharp lenses on the wider apertures and that can be disturbing. The worst for me was from the 35mm f1.4 Zeiss which could make a piece of bubble wrap look like a nightmare of green and magenta. There is much less of that on expensive Cine lenses and I understand the Otus cleans that up as well.
I think the Nikon AIS's look great except when some of them are wide open. My old 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 simply lost it below f2 and if that doesn't bother you you just don't have a good monitor. Above f2 they look great though. In fact there is a test somewhere on the web comparing Cooke's, Lomo's, Zeiss master primes etc and Nikon's and the Nikon's hold up fine though they have some disturbing flares. To be honest I thought they had "character".
However complaining about Moire to me is not the same as saying a lens has no character - it sounds more like a fault for you on that camera.
I still have Nikkor AIS 50 f1.8, 24mm f2 and 105mm f1.8. The 105 is worthless below f2.2 or so and flares very badly even from a bright window in the background. I'll compare to my Zeiss and see if I find any character difference when I get a chance. The 24 still looks very good and is still fast for a 24, though now I have a Sigma 18-35 that's just a knockout lens.
I'm wondering what kind of monitor you were looking at the moire on as that can definitely affect things. What were the subjects of your image?
I haven't really seen much moire but I have seen axial CA from some extremely sharp lenses on the wider apertures and that can be disturbing. The worst for me was from the 35mm f1.4 Zeiss which could make a piece of bubble wrap look like a nightmare of green and magenta. There is much less of that on expensive Cine lenses and I understand the Otus cleans that up as well.
I think the Nikon AIS's look great except when some of them are wide open. My old 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 simply lost it below f2 and if that doesn't bother you you just don't have a good monitor. Above f2 they look great though. In fact there is a test somewhere on the web comparing Cooke's, Lomo's, Zeiss master primes etc and Nikon's and the Nikon's hold up fine though they have some disturbing flares. To be honest I thought they had "character".
However complaining about Moire to me is not the same as saying a lens has no character - it sounds more like a fault for you on that camera.
I still have Nikkor AIS 50 f1.8, 24mm f2 and 105mm f1.8. The 105 is worthless below f2.2 or so and flares very badly even from a bright window in the background. I'll compare to my Zeiss and see if I find any character difference when I get a chance. The 24 still looks very good and is still fast for a 24, though now I have a Sigma 18-35 that's just a knockout lens.
Last edited:
Fs5 fujinon 18-55
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=92Fw9WHFUbw
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=92Fw9WHFUbw
Nirv
Carbonite Member
Replies like this are always an indescribable pleasure to read.
icarusfilm
Veteran
What's with this whole complete washed out look these days?
QUOTE=klfi;1986691221]Fs5 fujinon 18-55
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=92Fw9WHFUbw[/QUOTE]
QUOTE=klfi;1986691221]Fs5 fujinon 18-55
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=92Fw9WHFUbw[/QUOTE]
Liam Hall
Veteran
I've been staying out of this thread as f4 lenses are not my thing, but wow that video! Colours are totally out of whack, it's like they went out of their way to make it look terrible. Wow...
icarusfilm
Veteran
maybe its that whole low-con organic character with imperfection infused look i don't care for?
"Quote Originally Posted by LennyLevy View Post
Nirv,
I'm wondering what kind of monitor you were looking at the moire on as that can definitely affect things. What were the subjects of your image?
However complaining about Moire to me is not the same as saying a lens has no character - it sounds more like a fault for you on that camera."
Hmm, Don't have any idea what bothered you here. Seems like a reasonable question.
Nirv,
I'm wondering what kind of monitor you were looking at the moire on as that can definitely affect things. What were the subjects of your image?
However complaining about Moire to me is not the same as saying a lens has no character - it sounds more like a fault for you on that camera."
Hmm, Don't have any idea what bothered you here. Seems like a reasonable question.
Nirv
Carbonite Member
[/QUOTE]
Despite the producers forgetting the golden rule of colour grading, at least have the temerity to make the image look better than when it came out of the camera, the Fuji lens looks to have a bit more about it than the Sony 18-110.
Did anyone else notice those horrific aliased edges when the model opens the lace curtains. I haven't seen that since my FS100 days.
She has a strange diet that lass....