FS7: Looking for a Better Quality 18-105mm Zoom

There are many, many considerations to take when designing a lens. You can design nearly anything but you'll always bump into one of two ceilings - cost, or size.

The reality is that the actual resolution of many of the 1080P B4 cameras is not so wildly different from many "4K" cameras. After all, assuming the "4K" camera is a straight 4096 x 2160 chip, with a 1:1 input to output photosites to pixels, that's a roughly 8MP sensor.

1080P B4 cameras had three chips, each being 1920x1080 and that gives you roughly 6MP - so you're looking at a 2MP difference. I'm not going to say they're "better" but the difference between good 1080P and average "4K" is not night and day. Single chip sensors have muddied things a lot.

The joy of a 2/3" chip of course is that you can have a 15x zoom lens which goes wide, tight, will do macro, has a built-in doubler, weighs around 2Kg and has a motorised handgrip plus a nice focus ring for $20,000. Oh and it'll be T2. Physics prevents that on a S35 sized chip.

I have not used the Angenieux lenses but I would wager the later ones would probably hold up pretty well. The main issue you have with some of the older lenses is coverage for shooting RED and it's weird formats, or vignetting due to the angle of light out of the back of the lens.
 
JMtheDP said:
The joy of a 2/3" chip of course is that you can have a 15x zoom lens which goes wide, tight, will do macro, has a built-in doubler, weighs around 2Kg and has a motorised handgrip plus a nice focus ring for $20,000. Oh and it'll be T2 . Physics prevents that on a S35 sized chip
Click to expand...

Really chip size means nothing, the only thing here is T2, if you build the same lens with same budget, mass, size etc it might end up at 5.6 (for S35) but the DOF would be as thin as the 2/3 at T2 and low light performance would be equal too.

So actually it is all possible but no manufac. has deemed a profit in making a $20k 5.6 S35 lens

Canon have zoned in on the T3.5 version and it is availabe to rent or buy today.

The critical factor is the front element size - big will let lots of light in and render narrow DOF - currently many 2/3 cams have bigger front elements than photo zooms, they can therefore produce thinner DOF!

S
 
Last edited:
Did Sony not introduce a big zoom range lens for the FZ mount, but it was hideously slow? Like 6.7 or something?
 
I've been staying out of this one but I am one of the reviewers who did note that lens selection for the FS7 can be challenging.

The Sony FZ zoom did ramp to about 6.3 but at shorter focal lengths did work well for those F3 users who purchased it. I wasn't terribly impressed because it didn't really do what I personally needed to do and I recall that I didn't review it very highly.

Sony knows that they need E mount zooms which are cine-style (like the 28-135)-- and by that I mean manual declicked iris, adequate manual focus, parfocal, etc that are wider and faster. It will happen.

In the interim, we are faced with all of the options mentioned above.

Now, there is news on the apater front. The Aputure DEC is an EF to E mount with a wireless remote. A number of us saw it at NAB. The question is what non-Canon lenses will work with it. Here is the link to the product on the B&H page

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=aputure+dec-e&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ps

Kipon is also producing an EF to E adapter as well as their version of a SpeedBooster. Their speedbooster is selling for $408 on Adorama's site although I know that Abel Cine will also be carrying it. Neither the Aputure nor the Kipons are in stock at this writing. The Kipon seems better constructed than the Metabones, which IMHO is rather poorly constructed.

I personally await center cut in firmware 3.0 at which point I'll acquire some Super16 glass.

I've also been testing the Sony 18-105 and don't find the image all that bad for 1080. Turn on the distortion control in the menu and it improves. Manual focus and manual zoom are a problem. But for run-and-gun 1080 you might be able to make it work. It gets a so-so in my ratings but not a no-go. I'll return my review lens to Sony but most likely will not buy one.

I'm simply thinking that a Speedbooster (Kipon because it is less expensive) plus a Canon 24-105 is a low-cost compromise solution. Just need to watch out for flare on the Canon. I also have a Tokina 11-16 and a Tamron 17-50. For anything that demands the quality, I'll borrow or rent PL glass. My camera was used for a music video shoot (I didn't shoot it-- just provided camera) and DP paired it with the Canon 30-105 PL zoom.

Ned Soltz
 
I would suggest to reconsider the RED zoom, either the 18-50 or 17-50. They were still zooms rehoused and tailored for 4k RED camera. I owned the 18-50 and although the build is not as good as the 17-50, it got all you need, mechanical manual focus aperture, focus, zoom. The lens is also sharp, short and parfocal.

I had done a lot of researching and reading about it and there are a few other rehoused still zooms for cinema, but they are not cheap.

TLS Nikon 24-70

Panavision had rehoused the same lens for Rodney Charters for 24, as can be read here.
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/feb04/cover/

Century / Schneider Optics 28-70/F2.8 based on Minolta 28-70/2.8
 
The RED 18-50 certainly represents good "bang for buck" in the PL world. It isn't perfect, but it is very cheap - I see examples going for $2,500 or thereabouts on occasion
 
Do you find the Sigma 24-105mm F/4 OIS (+ SB it's an F2.8) sharp enough for your needs? Here are some 4K samples showing sharp it can be (there's slight sharpening in post to show how it can achieve in 4K)

(Imgur & DVX are downscaling and destroying the files so forget those and download the originals here off my Google Drive:

https://drive.google.com/folderview...thNnNEVWd2OHBBN2FrejJmekE5X2pIRVE&usp=sharing

(The sigma ART lenses are known for sharpness, it has less distortion, flare and CA than the Canon 24-105mm F/4 and slightly better IS and the Canon gets a bit darker while zooming for some reason - You can also get the Nikon 24-120mm F/4, a photographic sharp lens, if you need more reach but will lose a slight bit of IQ vs the Sigma and the focus turns the wrong way on Nikons)

Now does anybody know a good company for quality cine rehousing such a photographic zoom and SB mount? But in fact, if you can compromise and work with lens it'll only cost 1500$, It has very accurate zoom and focus rings, smooth and long relatively, then if you like it, rehouse, don't like it, sell without much loss.

I think this is the best option for a general fast s35 4K camera.
 
Last edited:
I sold my Red 18-50 zoom and now deeply regret it. Of course, it now sells for a little less than I got for it so I could always buy a new one.

Sigma 24-105 is far superior to Canon 24-105. The question is only one of its compatibility with either the Aputure or the Kipon adapters.
 
I bought a sigma 24-105 and immediately returned it . It's wildly unparfocal, meaning even the slightest change in the zoom throws the focus way off - just not usable for cinema .
The Tamron 24-70 is pretty nice , ESP w speed booster . It's very sharp , has IS , and though not parfocal it's not too bad . At f2.8 becomes an f2 and if your shooting cine EI at1000 ISO the speed is a godsend on a doc .
The Nikons IS won't work on e mt if that's important to you . Some guys hate that and some guys love it.
 
Its certainly very nice. Unfortunately getting perfectly parfocal lenses is pretty tough with the FS7. First is the problem of DSLR lenses which are often just not parfocal to begin with, especially the more recent ones with IS. Secondly even if you put real PL glass on them , there is no back focus adjustment on the FS7 and that means its a crap shoot whether the lenses will be precise. I don't believe the PL adapters out there have adjustments do they? They should if you want to use a zoom. I used Nikons on my F3 that were fairly good but I chose to get IS lenses this time. With the Nikons though I had to adjust my F3 back focus until I found the sweet spot. Then they all worked. The only adapter I know if with back focus adjustment is speed booster.

So that leaves you with the quandary of whether "par focal enough" means anything at all. I prefer a lens that's relatively par focal - meaning I can get away with slight adjustments in the zoom and when zooming more radically only have to make minor adjustments on the focus. I haven't really tried to work with a lens that was way off though and maybe its no worse than a lens that's only a little off. I just find it unnerving .
The Sigma conceivably could be a good choice if the focus quality was something you could live with.
 
Is that sample image from the Sigma 24-105mm a crop of a small area from a larger image, or is that the full frame, scaled down? Such a shot does not bring out the CA problems in a lens, nor can I judge sharpness from such a small image with so much electronic sharpening applied in post. It looks video-like, not film-like to me.


I considered the RED lenses a few days ago, but when I saw the sharpness specs, I realized they were only suitable for HD productions and marginal for 4K at 100lpmm, center / 60lpmm, edges. I like the look of 120lpmm resolution in 4K. It does resolve to the pixel very nicely without much post sharpening. Post sharpening enhances sensor noise, and when you're trying to achive 14 stops of range, noise is a constant factor to be minimized.


A fair portion of my 4K shooting is for demonstration material to sell $100K+ price range high end 4K cinema projectors for a friend of mine who sells home theaters to the likes of Donald Trump et al. The images have to look perfect as the market is very picky about the quality of the projectors and screens.

Alternate use will be more standard stuff like orchestra and recital shoots, plus whatever contract work falls into my hands.

The 28-135 Sony G lens is the model of what I want in a slightly wider lens. Parfocal-ness is a huge help, especially because it makes focus predictable. That lens feels right, and I feel that I can nail the focus on command, at will, with no hunting. True, it's a bit slow, and the focal lengths are limited (3.5X as compared with 20X for an ENG lens) but the image quality is beyond reproach--even *I* can't find any defect to complain about in terms of the pictures that it makes.
It's strong points are the geared rotational controls that have a wide range of operation and fine control ability and hard stops with numbers. I find it pretty darned accurate. I can nail focus by just dialing in the numbers. Can't do that with SLR lenses like the 18-105, with it's unpredictable, short rotation focus that's velocity sensitive.
But the 18-105 exists at $595. Quality is poor and control is even worse. But Sony could make this lens bigger, with cine style controls and better glass for less than 10X the price, I'll bet.


 
To be honest there comes a point when one really needs to make decisions about a lens based on how it looks for the type of production you are involved in rather than reading a spec sheet. Plenty of large movies and big documentaries shot on red lenses over the years.

For most image makers / storytellers the rendition is far more important than the outright resolution.
 
basspig said:
A fair portion of my 4K shooting is for demonstration material to sell $100K+ price range high end 4K cinema projectors for a friend of mine who sells home theaters to the likes of Donald Trump et al. The images have to look perfect as the market is very picky about the quality of the projectors and screens.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I am being ignorant of your situation but if you are shooting "reference quality" 4K material, surely that should be shot on something like an F65 or a DRAGON? To my mind those are the only two cameras capable of producing something approaching a "reference quality" 4K picture. Obviously I don't think that you want to be shooting a recital on an F65 with Master Primes, but if your friend is selling that kind of equipment and your footage helps make these sales, the cost of a day or two renting some serious high end gear would surely be worth it?
 
basspig said:
Is that sample image from the Sigma 24-105mm a crop of a small area from a larger image, or is that the full frame, scaled down? Such a shot does not bring out the CA problems in a lens, nor can I judge sharpness from such a small image with so much electronic sharpening applied in post.
Click to expand...

Small? They are 4K images the size you'll shoot. Just trying to help you. The sharpness of the Sigma 24-105mm is more than enough to resolve 8 megapixels, it's sharp and usable on 36mp (8K) FF sensors, it's as sharp as any cinema lens sub 5K and higher, still glass of high quality is sharp as hell for cinema applications, and CA is not a problem with the lens at all. That + a SB + a rehouse is the closest you'll get to your required lens under 5K$.

What you require is only available in the Canon 17-120mm T/2.9 CN-E 31.500$ lens. There is no wider version of the Sony 24-135mm F/4 sorry. Make a compromise, you will have to, pick the one that least bothers you, or wait for Sony to make one. Good luck.
 
Ibrahim, Are you using the Sigma? If so how do you like it and do the focus issues bother you?
I do think the new Sigma lenses are often terrific. I had the 50-150 on my F3 and it was my favorite lens - sharp, parfocal, and less CA than I had seen in any still lens.
 
Lenilenapi said:
Ibrahim, Are you using the Sigma? If so how do you like it and do the focus issues bother you?
I do think the new Sigma lenses are often terrific. I had the 50-150 on my F3 and it was my favorite lens - sharp, parfocal, and less CA than I had seen in any still lens.
Click to expand...
The Sigma 18-35 and 50-150 are my two favorite lenses for motion shooting.
Both of them are really nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top