FS7: How about this sony 18-110 lens
- Thread starter Publimix
- Start date
Thanks, for the feedback on the par focal quality and the focus - too bad - though I hope to test one myself soon. That's a big deal.
Between the Sigma and the Sony they look almost identical to me. Did you have the same reaction? You would have seen these before compression to the web. What's you overall feeling about the 18-110?
Between the Sigma and the Sony they look almost identical to me. Did you have the same reaction? You would have seen these before compression to the web. What's you overall feeling about the 18-110?
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Yep we know it is not true parfocal. I can see strange stuff during the zoom. no worries to me.
I would not tend to include a zoom in my edit I would want to, however..
'bash in to check focus on a wide - the eng classic before rolling!'
not have to refocus if I pushed in maybe during a question in an interview.
Lenny,
Sony/Sigma compare: ... habe a look al 18mm. Whith bouth lenses i tried to manual nail focus the yellow flowers. Far back where you can see the people and the houses you will notice that 18-35 is sharper.
I notice this more clearly bevor compession on a Sony 24" Trimaster and NEC 322 UHD.
Overall there is not such very big difference which allow you to say "18-110 no go".
Lets not talk about "boring" or "look" or "peoples personal tast".
As i very often shoot Children outdoors in a run and gun situation and ski-sports, it is necessary to have quick akzess to the "help" funktions of the lense (IS, AF, range 18-100). As you know children an athlets move very quickly. How will you follow those quick moves without helpers - otherwise you will loose scenes. Impossible at a range 35-110mm. No still lense can handle this situations better than the 18-110.
For overall as a outdoor lense in those situation i would not go back to a still lense.
Indoor is very different becouse of onyl F-4. Than you better use Sigma 18-35 or the others (Speedbooster, Tamron, Canons, Primes or whatever).
I a lot thougt about the alternative new Fujinons. For MY situation in that kind of shootingstuff the 18-110 winns.
Feel free to ask
klfi
Sony/Sigma compare: ... habe a look al 18mm. Whith bouth lenses i tried to manual nail focus the yellow flowers. Far back where you can see the people and the houses you will notice that 18-35 is sharper.
I notice this more clearly bevor compession on a Sony 24" Trimaster and NEC 322 UHD.
Overall there is not such very big difference which allow you to say "18-110 no go".
Lets not talk about "boring" or "look" or "peoples personal tast".
As i very often shoot Children outdoors in a run and gun situation and ski-sports, it is necessary to have quick akzess to the "help" funktions of the lense (IS, AF, range 18-100). As you know children an athlets move very quickly. How will you follow those quick moves without helpers - otherwise you will loose scenes. Impossible at a range 35-110mm. No still lense can handle this situations better than the 18-110.
For overall as a outdoor lense in those situation i would not go back to a still lense.
Indoor is very different becouse of onyl F-4. Than you better use Sigma 18-35 or the others (Speedbooster, Tamron, Canons, Primes or whatever).
I a lot thougt about the alternative new Fujinons. For MY situation in that kind of shootingstuff the 18-110 winns.
Feel free to ask
klfi
Liam Hall
Veteran
There's more to it than that, though a fast lens certainly helps, which is why F4 is a no go zone for me.
This Sony lens is squarely aimed at people who need quick and easy coverage, but not necessarily the greatest image. It looks good value for what it is. It is the Toyota Prius of the lens world.
Clermond
Veteran
I totally agree Klaus!
It's a very versatile lens and a great tool for my jobs at a very good price for the value.
It's little bit funny how different the individual rating of lenses are: at the one side a high appraisal
of lenses with smooth not oversharpened image and a vintage cinematic look. At the other side as well
high rating of maximum sharpness of newer lenses.
It's amusing that both ratings are from the same people.
*off to make some money with my Prius :laugh:
It's a very versatile lens and a great tool for my jobs at a very good price for the value.
It's little bit funny how different the individual rating of lenses are: at the one side a high appraisal
of lenses with smooth not oversharpened image and a vintage cinematic look. At the other side as well
high rating of maximum sharpness of newer lenses.
It's amusing that both ratings are from the same people.
*off to make some money with my Prius :laugh:
Hi Liam, you came up with nr 24, it gets better and better :laugh:
*24 It is the Toyota Prius of the lens world
As in Canon Ferrari metaphor and the Mercedes Zeiss comparison.
Good:
- price
- range
- zoom speed
bad
- not parfocal (or electronic)
- F4
- slow AF, fly-by wire (On the FS7, on A6500 it is fast)
*24 It is the Toyota Prius of the lens world
As in Canon Ferrari metaphor and the Mercedes Zeiss comparison.
Good:
- price
- range
- zoom speed
bad
- not parfocal (or electronic)
- F4
- slow AF, fly-by wire (On the FS7, on A6500 it is fast)
Last edited:
jasonbrooks
Well-known member
Hey Kifi, did you delete the video from YouTube? I'd be interested to check it out if possible. Can you re-upload please? (Writing that, I now feel like the douchebag clients I'm so often cursing... ;-). -jason
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
Found this today.
jasonbrooks
Well-known member
Thanks Klaus!
Very interesting watching for me. It's interesting to see the potential strengths and (more obvious) weaknesses of the AF functionality of this paired with the FS5. Looks to me like it could be pretty handy for a small proportion of what I shoot (walk and talks where framing and stability distract from consistent focus-riding), but is still a long way from replacing MF in most situations.
Thanks again,
jason
Kifi, I think you misdiagnosed the focus issue in that shot of the green flowers . I think you actually focused on different spots with both lenses. In the Sony shot the near grass is still quite sharp while its softer on the Sigma. That implies that while you thought you were nailing the yellow flowers on both lenses you were actually focused a little further out on the Sigma , hence the background was sharper. Easy to do at 18mm.
I was confused by your statement in the first place, because it wouldn't make sense to compare sharpness on an out of focus area anyway. Those backgrounds should not have looked that different at the same F stop and focus point no matter how different the lenses were. Best comparison would have been to focus both lenses on the distant shot with lots of detail and an easier to nail infinity.
Also do you mind if I ask what test you did to decide it was not Parfocal? You would have to do that in manual focus only not AF by simply zooming in on a something ( preferably that background with lots of detail again), then pulling out to wide and back in again . The zoom could motor but the focus would have to be manual.
There is a bad looking test on the Martin Lisius post video that Island posted that appears to be not par focal but he doesn't say whether he focused manually and more importantly he is shooting through a window which could throw sharpness to hell.
Lenny
I recently rented this lens for two jobs with my FS7, and afterward decided to purchase it for my own kit. I'll do my best to provide an unbiased "working man's" opinion on this lens.
For context, I work as a documentary shooter, with the occasional TV and corporate gigs. I've been using the Canon 24-105 as my go-to documentary lens for ages, and as useful as that lens is, I've never really loved it. It always felt like a compromise, and is never the lens I wish it were. I've filled in the gaps with nice fast primes, and more specialized zooms, but I've been longing for a real workhorse lens that covers me for a large swath of situations.
The 18-110 comes up strong in a few key areas for me:
1. It has a constant aperture! Unlike the dubious Canon 24-105 that is more like a f/4-f/5.6, or the variable aperture Zeiss 21-100 that folks are excited about, the Sony is actually consistent throughout the range. That alone makes it an attractive and highly practical option for Doc and TV work.
2. It's a servo! When shoulder mounted, I can zoom with the hand grip, and focus with my left hand. This provides me with a worthy fast acting setup, and prevents me from fumbling back and forth between the zoom and focus rings. The manual zoom is snappy and precise, and if you really wanted to, you could incorporate crash zooms for creative effect.
3. The range is ideal. It's wide enough and tight enough for the vast majority of situations. With the FS7's 2k center crop, the lens can reach to 220mm, which is wonderfully useful. I'll keep an ultra wide and telephoto Canon in my kit, but I'd feel comfortable only shooting with this lens on a typical doc style production.
4. Ergonomics are great. There's a bit of a comfort curve to getting used to this lens, but by my 3rd day of shooting I felt like I knew the lens via muscle memory, and could appreciate its ergonomics. Focus ring is right where it should be, and when shoulder mounted, I felt like I didn't have to jam my hands into odd positions to utilize the features of this lens.
While shoulder mounted, I can keep my left middle finger on the focus ring, and my thumb on the aperture ring, and easily keep up with changing light conditions by adjusting aperture and focus simultaneously, without having to look.
5. It's compact and lightweight. I travel a lot, so this is an important quality to me.
Overall it's a highly useful lens that doesn't get in the way of the shot.
The downsides of this lens:
1. Lots of moving parts. Will the internal electronics still work after 3-5 years of heavy use? Hard to say. I'd have much preferred a fully mechanical lens (the aperture and focus won't change unless powered by the camera) so for now I'm considering this a red flag.
Points of contention:
1. Some people are complaining that it's an f/4 lens. To me, that's like complaining the acceleration of a pickup truck is too slow. This is a workhorse lens, not a race car. For formal interviews and specialized scenarios, I'll continue using my T/1.5 primes (of which there are no shortages on the market), but for day-to-day doc work this lens is hard to beat.
Bottom line:
If you shoot documentary, TV, or even mid-level commercial work on a Sony camera, or you regularly work in run and gun situations, then this lens is very close to being a no-brainer. It's a wonderful piece of kit. In my work at least, getting the shot quickly and reliably is much more important than whether or not a lens has a "soul," and for that reason this lens is going to be my new go-to.
If you're looking for a step up from your Canon EF zooms, this lens is worth your consideration.
If you're a high end commercial or narrative shooter, or you've regularly got budget to hire a 1st AC, then a zoom like this is probably not on your radar anyway. The new Fuji's and Zeiss zooms, as well as the countless number of beautiful primes available are going to be a better bet for those applications.
For context, I work as a documentary shooter, with the occasional TV and corporate gigs. I've been using the Canon 24-105 as my go-to documentary lens for ages, and as useful as that lens is, I've never really loved it. It always felt like a compromise, and is never the lens I wish it were. I've filled in the gaps with nice fast primes, and more specialized zooms, but I've been longing for a real workhorse lens that covers me for a large swath of situations.
The 18-110 comes up strong in a few key areas for me:
1. It has a constant aperture! Unlike the dubious Canon 24-105 that is more like a f/4-f/5.6, or the variable aperture Zeiss 21-100 that folks are excited about, the Sony is actually consistent throughout the range. That alone makes it an attractive and highly practical option for Doc and TV work.
2. It's a servo! When shoulder mounted, I can zoom with the hand grip, and focus with my left hand. This provides me with a worthy fast acting setup, and prevents me from fumbling back and forth between the zoom and focus rings. The manual zoom is snappy and precise, and if you really wanted to, you could incorporate crash zooms for creative effect.
3. The range is ideal. It's wide enough and tight enough for the vast majority of situations. With the FS7's 2k center crop, the lens can reach to 220mm, which is wonderfully useful. I'll keep an ultra wide and telephoto Canon in my kit, but I'd feel comfortable only shooting with this lens on a typical doc style production.
4. Ergonomics are great. There's a bit of a comfort curve to getting used to this lens, but by my 3rd day of shooting I felt like I knew the lens via muscle memory, and could appreciate its ergonomics. Focus ring is right where it should be, and when shoulder mounted, I felt like I didn't have to jam my hands into odd positions to utilize the features of this lens.
While shoulder mounted, I can keep my left middle finger on the focus ring, and my thumb on the aperture ring, and easily keep up with changing light conditions by adjusting aperture and focus simultaneously, without having to look.
5. It's compact and lightweight. I travel a lot, so this is an important quality to me.
Overall it's a highly useful lens that doesn't get in the way of the shot.
The downsides of this lens:
1. Lots of moving parts. Will the internal electronics still work after 3-5 years of heavy use? Hard to say. I'd have much preferred a fully mechanical lens (the aperture and focus won't change unless powered by the camera) so for now I'm considering this a red flag.
Points of contention:
1. Some people are complaining that it's an f/4 lens. To me, that's like complaining the acceleration of a pickup truck is too slow. This is a workhorse lens, not a race car. For formal interviews and specialized scenarios, I'll continue using my T/1.5 primes (of which there are no shortages on the market), but for day-to-day doc work this lens is hard to beat.
Bottom line:
If you shoot documentary, TV, or even mid-level commercial work on a Sony camera, or you regularly work in run and gun situations, then this lens is very close to being a no-brainer. It's a wonderful piece of kit. In my work at least, getting the shot quickly and reliably is much more important than whether or not a lens has a "soul," and for that reason this lens is going to be my new go-to.
If you're looking for a step up from your Canon EF zooms, this lens is worth your consideration.
If you're a high end commercial or narrative shooter, or you've regularly got budget to hire a 1st AC, then a zoom like this is probably not on your radar anyway. The new Fuji's and Zeiss zooms, as well as the countless number of beautiful primes available are going to be a better bet for those applications.
Liam Hall
Veteran
Great write up, and even better username. I agree it's a workhorse lens and whilst not sexy, it's a no brainer for many. I personally, don't like to drive a pick-up and while I'd like to drive a sports car I actually need a van. A Mercedes van, of course...
icarusfilm
Veteran
Where is my Maserati station wagon?
Lenny, thanks Lenny for yr comments.
sharpness....Sony/Sigma 18mm. As it was a very quick test i may had happen, that at 18 mm my focusnail on the flowers were not perfect. When i saw both shots on my monitoe, Sigma gave me a overall more shar and "clear" impression.
parfocal....i only used manual. Following yr recommendation will check agin.
Thanks,klfi
sharpness....Sony/Sigma 18mm. As it was a very quick test i may had happen, that at 18 mm my focusnail on the flowers were not perfect. When i saw both shots on my monitoe, Sigma gave me a overall more shar and "clear" impression.
parfocal....i only used manual. Following yr recommendation will check agin.
Thanks,klfi
Dipstik,
Thanks for the review, but you left out a couple a important questions that circle about this lens.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on:
1. - Is it par focal ?
2- Does the manual focusing feel fly by wire or is it pretty natural and solid?
3- How sharp is the lens?
Thank
Lenny
Thanks for the review, but you left out a couple a important questions that circle about this lens.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on:
1. - Is it par focal ?
2- Does the manual focusing feel fly by wire or is it pretty natural and solid?
3- How sharp is the lens?
Thank
Lenny
Clermond
Veteran
Lenny, I don't think that these questions still circle. They have been answered by everybody who used the lens already. It is parfocal. Manual focus is natural and solid. It is sharp. I think there were 5 user feedbacks but dozens of comments like: f4 is no-go, it has no soul, it's like a truck. it's like a Prius. etc etc.. it has become quite boring.
Last edited:
Clermond,
I thought some of those issues were clarified also but then we get this review from Klaus who posted those nice images in the garden :
QUOTE=klfi;1986691867]
The lense is in my opinion NOT parfocal.....in practise i can "feel" that electronic support[/QUOTE]
Re sharpness- there is no direct comparison with a known sharp lens except for Klaus 18-35 who thoughts Sigma 18-35 was sharper though I'm dubious about his conclusion.
Others here have complained it's only slightly sharper than the 18-200 though I'm not sure any of those people have actually had their hands-on the lens.
So its not entirely clear to me yet.
I thought some of those issues were clarified also but then we get this review from Klaus who posted those nice images in the garden :
QUOTE=klfi;1986691867]
The lense is in my opinion NOT parfocal.....in practise i can "feel" that electronic support[/QUOTE]
Re sharpness- there is no direct comparison with a known sharp lens except for Klaus 18-35 who thoughts Sigma 18-35 was sharper though I'm dubious about his conclusion.
Others here have complained it's only slightly sharper than the 18-200 though I'm not sure any of those people have actually had their hands-on the lens.
So its not entirely clear to me yet.