Lens Compensation

Joshua Milligan

Joshua Milligan

Well-known member
Have any of you tried out the Lens Compensation features on the FX or A7 line?

In the past, I had a bad experience with Lens Comp on my A7RIII where my pics seemed off and I ended up figuring out that Lens Compensation was turned on by default. I turned all of it off and it fixed my issue.

This past week, however, I was on a shoot for a corporate client who hired me to shoot shots of a community and then send in the raw video files to their internal editor. The editor specifically requested I didn’t shoot in log, so I had to shoot with a baked in look. I chose S-Cinetone (which turned out great btw), but noticed that my widest lens (16-35 2.8 GM) was vignetting some.

Since there wasn’t going to be much coloring done in post, I wanted to do my best to get things right in camera. As such, l turned on Shading Compensation for the vignette and it definitely got rid of it. I filmed like that for the entire day and when reviewing my files after the shoot, I noticed it actually looked really good.

This now has me wondering if the various Lens Compensation options are useful and safe to use today. I’ve always kept them off after my experience in the past, but this looked really good. I haven’t tested Chromatic Aberration Comp or Distortion Comp yet, but I did want to ask if anyone here has and if so, what your experience has been.

Have any of you tried the various Lens Comp options? If so, what are your thoughts on using them?

Thanks!
 
I haven't run side-by-side comparisons, but I was already sold on these in-camera corrections before I bought into Sony based on using them with other people's set-ups.

I'm sure there are downsides (increased noise in the corners from vignetting correction, a small hit to detail from distortion correction, cropping your image slightly with breathing correction)

but I think that the reality is that if any of those flaws is going to bother you then you're better off using lens compensation (assuming that switching to an amazing optimized cine lens is off the table)

Certainly when it comes to distortion correction - I hate distortion on wide-angles and i haven't heard of a wide or midrange photo zoom lens that isn’t distorted on the wide end

my work generally lives on the web. Maybe I'd feel differently if it were being projected on huge screens. I'm also always cropping out the extreme corners due to shooting 16x9

But chromatic aberration correction absolutely breathed new life into samyang lenses. I have their cine lenses in ef mount and they're basically unusable wide open (except the 50 and maybe the 85). Now I have the 35 and 85 fe samyang 1.4, and while they're still (pleasantly) soft wide open, the color is clean now and I can use them at 1.4 with confidence

the only type of lens compensation i haven't tried and therefore can't personally recommend is the breathing correction on my a7iv, but the tests I've seen are impressive. (None of my currently used lenses breathe enough to bother me except the 24 gm and my sigma 24-70 @24)
 
Last edited:
Joshua Milligan said:
This now has me wondering if the various Lens Compensation options are useful and safe to use today.

Have any of you tried the various Lens Comp options? If so, what are your thoughts on using them?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Without a shade of doubt, any small disadvantages introduced by having Comp on as opposed to off are well and truly offset when compared to the field curvature, vignetting, shading and CA issues that can occur with lens comp turned off. As Hasselblad, who was one of the first to use electronic lens correction stated:

"Image quality is refined with integral use of Digital Lens Correction which perfects the raw image by digitally removing any colour aberration, vignetting and distortion. The resulting raw images have perfect pixel definition optimal for image rendering"'
https://cdn.hasselblad.com/04e9d0f7-abdf-434d-8b5b-364c69af21ec_x-h-system-lenses_v2_28feb2017_a.pdf

For example, I'm finding the slight image crop using 'focus breathing correction' on the A7iv far outweighs the 'creep zooming' effect while changing focus on many of Sony's prime G Master lenses. Generally, I've found no downside to using Sony's lens corrections. The only exception to this is Sony's own notification that's included with their S35 18-110 'Cine' zoom where they say the distortion comp MUST be turned off when using that lens with the FS7. But when using this lens on Sony crop bodies or APSC crop on the A7iv it needs to be turned ON.

Chris Young
 
Hmm I've never tried Len Comp. I just assumed it was mainly for stills, but works fine on video also? Is it only for Raw ?
 
Like Abe says. Don't know about breathing comp in RAW as RAW video mode is not available on the A7iv. But it does work with S-LOG 2 and 3 with all the listed compatible Sony lenses. It really does bring focus throws and refocusing very close to the performance of higher-end 'real' cine glass. Focus creeping has always been a pet hate of mine having had experience with good cine lenses that don't exhibit breathing. Currently, I believe it's only the FX6 with v2.0 software and the A7iv that have the breathing comp capability. I feel pretty sure it's something they will introduce in later firmware for other models as it is highly desirable for motion picture work as opposed to stills... fingers are crossed that it is delivered for other models!

Chris Young

List of Breathing Compensation Compatible Sony Lenses

Sony FE 14mm F1.8 GM

Sony 20mm F1.8G

Sony FE 24mm F1.4 GM

Sony FE 35mm F1.4 GM

Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM

Sony FE 85mm F1.4 GM

Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF GM OSSo

Sony FE 135mm F1.8 GM

Sony 12-24mm F2.8 GM

Sony FE 12-24mm F4 G

Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM

Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM

Sony FE 24-105mm F4 G OSS

Sony FE PZ 28-135mm F4 G OSS

Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS

Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II

Update March 22, 2022: Sony FE PZ 16-35mm F4 Lens is announced, and is compatible with the Lens Breathing Compensation feature.

Sony FE PZ 16-35mm F4 G
 
I love my FX6 V2.0 & PZ OSS 28-135 with the Compensation on. Sure the 28-135 is "old" but produces great looking video that is nice and stable + covers a really useful range (would like it to be just a touch wider) . If I could wave my magic wand, I'd wish Sony would give a PZ OSS version of my 16-35 and 100-400 (with 2x TC) and I'd be all good. That said the 28-135 is on the FX6 90% of the time.
 
Thanks for the conversation fellas. So are you guys using all of the compensations, including Distortion, Shading, and Chromatic Aberration Comps?

Also, I do agree that Breathing Compensation is pretty cool, especially since I often use the 24 1.4, 35 1.4 and 50 1.2 GMs which are all three known for breathing, but I'm not crazy about the amount of crop the camera takes in order to use it. Therefore I only turn on Breathing Compensation when I'm filming something that I know I will see breathing on. That's not usually the case as I don't often see the breathing on my lenses since I'm not typically doing any sort of big focus pulls. Therefore I leave Breathing Comp off most of the time.
 
Last edited:
yes, I use distortion, shading, and CA. on the fx3/a7siii/a7iv. I'm trying to think of occasions where I would intentionally turn them off but I don't think there is one
 
jmone said:
I love my FX6 V2.0 & PZ OSS 28-135 with the Compensation on. Sure the 28-135 is "old" but produces great looking video that is nice and stable + covers a really useful range (would like it to be just a touch wider) . If I could wave my magic wand, I'd wish Sony would give a PZ OSS version of my 16-35 and 100-400 (with 2x TC) and I'd be all good. That said the 28-135 is on the FX6 90% of the time.
Click to expand...

Agreed on the 28-135. It might have a few years on it but since the introduction of the FF cameras that lens is now finding much more popularity. I've had one for a while. Never really liked it on the FS7 as the kit lens but on the A7, FX3, and the FX6 it's a very useful lens. Value for money and performance there really isn't much out there to compete with it. Yet still, there are quite a few who turn their noses up when it's mentioned. In most cases when questioned I find their opinions are often based on hearsay, not experience.

Re the lens being a bit wider. I don't need it as I have other lenses to cover the wider end but I tested one of these out a couple of years back with a view to using it on the 28-135 on the FS7 and was quite impressed with it. Not cheap but if you must have a wider end this adapter made specifically for the 28-135 converts it to a 22.4-108mm lens. It mentions Fujinon in the link which is incorrect as it should say, Schneider.

Chris Young

https://www.newsshooter.com/2016/06...-95-wide-angle-adapter-for-the-sony-28-135mm/
 
That adapter is pretty cool. I definitely could have seen myself grabbing one when I owned the 28-135.

I agree that the 28-135 is a useful lens. I used one on the FX6 and loved the range. I ended up selling it though because it made the FX6 feel very unbalanced. I could have simply added a V-lock battery to the back to balance it back up, but then I would be making the camera bigger and heavier which kind of defeats the whole reason I got the FX6 over the FX9. So I ended up selling it and stuck to a 24-70 2.8 GM for run & gun work. I also have the Tamron 35-150 2.0-2.8 which also isn't super well balanced, but it feels better than the 28-135 and is a pretty sweet lens for run & gun work, especially with the much lower f/stop.
 
Any other comments on the Tamron 35-150, Josh? It's intriguing and I've eyed it but ultimately felt like I may not use it as much as I want because it can't go to 24 and it can't go to 1.4 or 1.2. It seems like a great range, IQ, and aperture for sticking on one lens. But if I can switch between lenses, I'm not sure it would get as much play. And it's on the heavy side, right?
 
It’s definitely not the lightest lens I own, but it feels better to me than the 28-135 did. It’s built like a tank which I like and the manual focus ring is programmable to whatever focus throw you want. I’ve set mine to 180° linear and it’s great to work with like that which is obviously a major plus for video.

I prefer the image quality out of the newer generation GM lenses as I feel Sony is absolutely crushing it right now. My GM primes as well as the 70-200 2.8 GM II are all on another planet compared to most lenses I’ve tried including this one. That being said, it does produce a really pleasing image, much more so than the 28-135 or 24-105.

I bought this lens for one purpose and that was to be used on my FX6 when shooting events, docs, or other run & gun projects where changing lenses becomes an issue. I personally don’t mind that its widest range is 35mm, but I know that’s a problem for some. For me it’s not a big deal.

To have a full frame lens that has that kind of range with that low of an f/stop, and for it to have essentially no breathing and to have a linear and programmable manual focus ring with a solid IQ and AF, that’s pretty unbeatable right now.
 
I have both the 28-135 and the 18-110. The problem with the 28-135 is its simply softer - and I've tried a few, its not a one off thing. I may be reluctantly concluding its better to just shoot S35 with 18-110 than 6K with the 28-135.

Will lens compensation work with the new Sigma E Mt primes?
 
LennyLevy said:
I have both the 28-135 and the 18-110. The problem with the 28-135 is its simply softer - and I've tried a few, its not a one off thing. I may be reluctantly concluding its better to just shoot S35 with 18-110 than 6K with the 28-135.

Will lens compensation work with the new Sigma E Mt primes?
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with the S35/18-110 comment. My 18-110 is sharper than my 28-135. Not by much but it is. Any advantage of the higher 6k or 7k on the A7iv with the 28-135 seems to be offset by the sharper 18-110 used in 4k crop. And to be one hundred per cent honest I really can't see any real difference on a 50" screen. With the A7iv I find it virtually impossible to discern between the FF 7K downsample as opposed to the 4.6k downsample of the APSC/S35 capture. Well, that has been my observation so far with the two lens examples I have. Added to this the 18-110 offers you a 6.1 x zoom as opposed to the 4.8 x of the 28-135. Also in favour of the 18-110 is the much quicker servo zoom and the fact that the zoom is one hundred per cent mechanically connected so manual true crash zoom re-frames are possible. Also if rigging is used the 18-110 has the correct cine 0.8mm gear rings for zoom and follow focus units as part of its design unlike the 28-135,

Regarding the Sigma lenses, no I don't think they have or will receive focus breathing compensation but in my limited experience with them, they really haven't exhibited any nasty behaviour or CA so whether they do talk to Sony Comp circuits or not I don't know. The Tamrons definitely do work with Sony's Comp circuits. But that is understandable seeing that Sony have a substantial investment in Tamron and part of that deal involves Sony licensing AF and lens Comp IP to Tamron. All the new Tamrons seem to exhibit absolutely minimum breathing which is quite impressive seeing as they aren't 'compatible' with Sony's new Breathing Compensation circuits. They also fully work with the lens compensation circuits on the Sonys I tried them with. Even the now-aging FS7 workhorse.

Chris Young

Tamron 18-300 Breathing Test.

 
Last edited:
I believe that distortion, vignetting, and CA correction work with my Sigma 24-70 in E mount. I'd have to double-check, but I'm 95% sure of it. (If they don't work, they won't be available in the menu.) And thus I assume that it will work on their primes as well.

Re:breathing correction, I think that Chris is right. It will probably never be available on Sigmas. It's not even available on all the Sonys. Of course, it's technically feasible, but I doubt they will implement it
 
Speaking of glass, I preordered today Sony's new 24-70 2.8 GM II. It's a pricey little lens, but it looks solid.

I've always been a huge 24-70 2.8 fan. I've owned them in Sony A-mount, Sony E-mount, Canon EF-mount and even the M43 version of a 24-70. They are my go-to lenses for run & gun work, especially when wanting to get handheld shots. I like the size, weight and speed of a 24-70 2.8 for handheld work much more than I do Sony's 18-110, 28-135 or even the Tamron 35-150 I own. As such they are the most used lenses in my kit.

When I quit adapting Canon glass to my Sony bodies and switched from the 24-70 2.8 L II to the Sony 24-70 2.8 GM, I immediately noticed the IQ difference. I was so used to Canon's version that I could physically see the softness and lack of character from the flares that the Sony version had. It was so noticeable to me that I thought something was wrong with my camera, but it was simply the glass.

Today, Sony's newer 24-70 2.8 GM II looks to have solved those issues. I saw one example of a side by side comparison of a portrait of a girl and the version 1 GM looked exactly like mine, soft and boring. The newer one was way sharper and looked like my old Canon L II did. Between that, the linear manual focusing ring (finally), the external aperture ring, the better flares, the much faster AF motors (great for tracking in video), and the dramatically smaller size and weight, I think Sony has a real winner on their hands.

I just wish they would've given it image stabilization. I feel like that would've really put this lens over the top for us FX6/FX9 owners. I don't understand why more companies don't do this. But, I guess you can't have everything.
 
Joshua Milligan said:
.

I just wish they would've given it image stabilization. I feel like that would've really put this lens over the top for us FX6/FX9 owners. I don't understand why more companies don't do this. But, I guess you can't have everything.
Click to expand...

They probably didn't put it in for the sake of weight and cost. This lens has substantial weight reduction from the former version! That matters a lot to photographers, who are also happy enough relying on IBIS. This is a photo-first lens segment, unfortunately. There are way more photographers buying these lenses than fx6/fx9 owners.

The lens looks great. But I'm not budgeted to upgrade from my sigma 24-70, which is a fine lens :(

Personally, I'm excited about the GM 85 1.2 which is supposed to come out soon. Probably an instabuy for me. And hopefully they'll follow with a 35 GM 1.2 in the next year or two, which I would also like. And I'd be interested in something like a 200-400 f/4 with weight under 2 lbs, but I'm not aware of a lens design like that available in any format. The super telephoto zooms that are available seem too big and heavy for how I'd like to use them, except for the very slow offerings that Canon has out now
 
Thanks Chris, My Sigma 85 and 105 AF E-mt are CA free but bteh 50mm which is still an older designs does have some when wide open. Only advantage of the 28-135 is its a bit longer in S35 mode.
 
Hey Josh, do you have long-term use thoughts about the Sony GM 135? I'm looking at it now, and there are a surprising number of used copies available. It looks like a great lens (and is also available for about 2/3 of the new price on account of the glut of used copies), but I sort of wonder why so many people are unloading it. Maybe they replaced it with the 70-200 GM II?

Also, just got the GM 35. Beautiful lens. But the breathing is pretty pronounced as you had indicated. Probably breathes more than the 24. (The 50, by contrast, breathes relatively little.) I wonder if they could have reduced the breathing by increasing the size. I like how small the 35 and 24 are, but they're definitely breathers.

Another random note - there's a rumor that Tamron may release a 150-400mm f/2.8-5.6. I wonder if that lens could weigh in around 2 lbs, which is more or less the upper limit of what I like to fly on a gimbal. Could be cool...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top