FS7: How about this sony 18-110 lens

Basspig, why bother taking a heavy and expensive camera to shoot that kind of stuff? I saw in the other thread that in 2 years of owning FS7 you've shot only 40 hours with it. I'm mentioning it because with a smaller, lighter and simpler camera such as one of the mirrorless or even compact Sonys, you'd use it more and get better results.
 
Liam Hall said:
I'm not being nasty. You are the one name calling. I just gave you my professional opinion on the footage you offered up to evaluate the lens. Can you please point out where I have been denigrating?
Click to expand...

Liam, a professional opinion it may have been, but it was imo a harsh and most unkind one. My immediate reaction to your post was that you were really letting him have it and slagging him big time.

Consider your characterizations of his video- technically below par, artistically below par, unnatural colors, and bad-looking.

When all he was doing was submitting an example of something shot with the lens. It is only expected that he would take the harsh criticism personally.

I probably shouldn't have waded into this. But there it is. I did.
 
JPNola said:
My immediate reaction to your post was that you were really letting him have it and slagging him big time.
Click to expand...

I'm sure I could have chosen my words better, but my intention wasn't to be harsh. Of course, I knew basspig wouldn't be delighted with what I wrote, but I don't think my comments were unfair or unwarranted.

I could have gone through a number of his assertions that are inaccurate or misleading; the codec, bit depth, high frequency detail, colour rendition, use of polar filter etc, but chose to be short and to the point. A bit blunt, yes, but not a personal attack, unlike his replies. No need to shoot the messenger here.
 
JPNola said:
Liam, a professional opinion it may have been, but it was imo a harsh and most unkind one. My immediate reaction to your post was that you were really letting him have it and slagging him big time. Consider your characterizations of his video- technically below par, artistically below par, unnatural colors, and bad-looking. When all he was doing was submitting an example of something shot with the lens. It is only expected that he would take the harsh criticism personally. I probably shouldn't have waded into this. But there it is. I did.
Click to expand...

I second this thought JP, that was also my immediate reaction when I read Liam's first post. I do understand your side of things Liam, and on one level you do clearly have a right to express your opinion on someone's work. However, given that this is thread about lens usage and examples, I do think that Mark wasn't necessarily inviting critiques on an artistic or technical level, but rather sharing his own personal experience with the lens. I think we're a mature enough community here on these boards to recognise that we all use our cameras in vastly different ways, and for different reasons - completely ignoring the personal 'metadata' implicitly attached to any shared work could be seen as intentionally rude.

As JP said, I'm not trying to start a war here, and can understand that you didn't mean to cause offence with your post. My point is only that I can understand why it did, and I think you probably could as well.

Back to the lens!

jason
 
jasonbrooks said:
Back to the lens!

jason
Click to expand...

Yes, back to the lens!

As far as the optical quality of the lens, what is the alternative in a sub $5K par focal servo zoom? There isn't an alternative save for the 18-105mm that this lens is based upon. And this lens is inarguably better than the lens from which it was derived. Of course we want to make sure the optical quality isn't garbage. But critique beyond that- critique of the CA and color rendition- operates as if there is an alternative. When there isn't one.

The Sony 18-110mm occupies an "only option" place. Unless, that is, you are going to shell out over $25k for the Canon 17-120mm.


And Liam- it's all good. Just keep in mind what a Producer once joked with me- "DP's showing you their work is like your kid showing you their drawings."
 
That hour meter is up to 50 now. :) At any rate, I mainly switch on the cameras when I'm on a paid job. I took this excursion because it was a chance to get out and get some springtime air and at the same time, put a new lens through its paces. I also figured it would be a good test of the battery life and seeing how my arm and shoulder hold up over an hour-plus of hauling the camera rig around, in preparation for filming the Memorial Day parade next month, in which I always end up walking over a mile from the parking area to the parade area. This hike tells me I can do it.

I wish I had more paid work, but the orchestras are in hard times and where I live, it's mostly farmers. Cell phone cameras and cheap cameras have all but destroyed the low end of the market, and the high end, which I cater to, is rarified. I have a very small devoted group of clients who are repeat clients, but they might have a gig worth recording once every 3 years. I was very honored to work with the Boston Symphony a few years back. That was the high point of my career.

When I take my exploratory trip to Japan, I won't take the FS7 due to airline restrictions. I may enquire whether I can rent an FS7 and lens in Japan, or, if not, may opt for something like a DJI Osmo, if it can be fitted with better audio devices. A third option would be a DSLR like the A7s, but again, with some improved audio pickup. A dead last option is to use my Samsung Galaxy Note 5 to document my stay in Japan. But I will be mainly focused on making business contacts there and exploring options for transplanting my other business there as I expatriate from the US. The smaller and less obtrusive the camera I bring, the better.
 
JPNola -

What Im debating in my head (and I bet many others) is would I pick this or a speedboosted 24-105 (there is a new canon mk2 and the sigma aswell). If you find a parfocal-ish copy. Im mostly not doing stuff so extreme that I cannot live without zoom-motor and parfocality though.

I would say the pros for a 24-105:
gives a "decent look"
can be speedboosted or not giving 17-105 in usuable range with a switch.
Smaller and lighter?
Cheaper
You dont buy inte the lonely place of the E-mount system

The single most important factor for me on that list how the lens looks. Also the hardest one to get to grips with.
 
I tried another 24-105 at a camera store the other day. Wildly un par focal . I don't understand how some copies could be good and some way off.
 
I think if you absolutely cannot live without a zoom with that kind of range then the 18-110 is your best bet for that price range . Clients that require speed flexibility etc. are mostly not that picky when it comes to "the image" (also beggars can't be choosers) - its Dark? Pump up the ISO, DOF at T4 at 80mm will have to do etc. If you are doing events, news reality or anything thankless like it just take it for what it is - its still overall better than a 24-105 for focus pulls, clean zooms range etc.
10-15 Years ago it would have been my go to lens but my client base improved over the years and so I don't need it it doesn't mean you don't.
 
I would have loved this lens when I actually bought my fs7 in 2015. That's for sure. I ended up selling the 28-135 it shipped with and going for the 24-105 speed booster route (17-75). I've been saying it's my most used least favorite lens ever since. It's great, but it also sucks.

I think at this point I'd just rent the 18-110 for super run and gun jobs, but had it been available when I was in finance all the things mode - I would have picked it up without thinking twice.
 
Exactly I would have killed for that lens in 2015 because zoom wise there was nothing on the horizon besides the 30K+ 6-8 pounders, and I also worked with a 24-105 with SB as a the least of all evils solution when I absolutely had to hating it mostly. the fuji 18-55 is such a massive improvement I can safely say I will never buy a photo zoom again. I wish it was 15-20mm longer and I wish the upcoming 50-135 was a 30-90 ish lens (i find zooms that don't have a 35ish mm pretty useless)

Wes. said:
I would have loved this lens when I actually bought my fs7 in 2015. That's for sure. I ended up selling the 28-135 it shipped with and going for the 24-105 speed booster route (17-75). I've been saying it's my most used least favorite lens ever since. It's great, but it also sucks.

I think at this point I'd just rent the 18-110 for super run and gun jobs, but had it been available when I was in finance all the things mode - I would have picked it up without thinking twice.
Click to expand...
 
If you find the 24-105 useful than use it. I had an accident on a shooting last year and my 16-70z was damaged and I needed a quick replacement. I bought the speedbooster because I already owned the 24-105 from my Canon still photo equipment. The 16-70z was far from ergonomic but I could use it on a Ronin. The ergonomics of the 24-105 are a nightmare and I don't understand how anybody can consider it as something else than a stop-gap. The huge tube extension when zooming is a no-go and makes the lens unusable on a gimbal or steadycam or with a mate box.
I don't understand why the 18-110 gets a negative feedback for the "plastic feeling" and the 24-105 is so popular
 
<I have just edited this comment after spending more time with the lens.>

This lens seems to be getting a bad rap. It is a lovely lens...it is sharp , it has nice bokeh, it doesn't add too much weight to my FS5 and in fact is much lighter than I thought it would be. I can hand hold the lens and camera easier than I figured. The manual zoom and the parfocal focus are terrific. Now that I have gotten used to the power zoom, it is on a par with the EX1R, in fact is better because it can do a creep zoom with no issues. No it doesn't have a ramp like more expensive lenses and it doesn't have a fast speed, but that is no huge issue because I can just put it in manual. The stabilization seems to work OK and I did try out the autofocus. I wondered if it would be any different than the Sony kit lens (18-105). I found it to be identical. Still relatively slow, but usable/ I tried both lenses and found the reaction time to be the same. I was surprised at that. Not the I use that feature. I can manually focus a lot faster than the autofocus can especially on this real lens with a real mechanical focus ring, but I occasionally make use of it and for those times, it is there. I like all the meta data that show up on my viewfinder as I manually adjust focus and zoom. It may be mechanically driven, but there are electronic connections. That is neat. This lens is a keeper for the kind of work that I do.

So I have been exploring the Fuji 18-55 in comparison. I have read all of the reviews, which are glowing and the footage looks nice, but really, for more money than the Sony 18-110, you get less: less focal reach, no connections with the e-mount other than mechanical, and no motorized zoom, though some reviewers seem to think that Fuji will add one as an option, I have seen no indication of that. It appears to be a nice lens, but seems over-priced in comparison with the Sony. My two cents.
 

Attachments

  • Clip0005_04195912.jpg
    Clip0005_04195912.jpg
    21.4 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
The thing about the 24-105 is that is is free with a 5d2 (which we did all buy!) , or basically was.
Click to expand...

that was in 2007 probably :) Mine broke with Err01 last week. I seems that any of the internal ribbon wires is damaged after 10yrs of photo zooming. I sent it for repair and ordered the version II. I like it but it was not for free. And it will not meet the FS7. :cheesy:
 
morgan_moore said:
The thing about the 24-105 is that is is free with a 5d2 (which we did all buy!) , or basically was.

Going to another plastic lens may or may not appeal.
Click to expand...

Well, if by free you mean it came in the same box as the 5d2 if you paid about another $800-$1000, mine came with a "free" one, too. Lol.

I will say, I used that lens more than I ever thought I would, shooting stills.
 
I use Canons 24-105 often=weekly on both FS7 and C100. It´s a dirt cheap lens with a good range especially since I got it used several years ago. But I'm seriously considering purchasing Sonys 18-110 next year if I can justify it.
 
Im looking into switching from nikon to ef mount on fs7. I like the new "cine" adapters from metabones. The sigma 24-105 seems like a good option. Gonna try out it vs the canon mk2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top