alaskacameradude
Veteran
With those kinds of budgets, I'd be looking at the Cabrio 19-90. But let me
guess. Your friend who is selling 100k cinema projectors doesn't 'have the
budget'.
FS7: Looking for a Better Quality 18-105mm Zoom
- Thread starter basspig
- Start date
With those kinds of budgets, I'd be looking at the Cabrio 19-90. But let me
guess. Your friend who is selling 100k cinema projectors doesn't 'have the
budget'.
basspig
Veteran
The whitepaper is interesting, but it doesn't relate any new information that was not known in the last decade.
Unless some of these new Sony G lenses resolve less than 35lpmm, then it's not telling the whole story. While I'm sure the RED lenses are sharp (I can only speak for what I see on Blu-ray produced material that was shot on RED) there are still differences in apparent detail that are not hard to spot when switching lenses. If you aren't seeing the difference, you aren't looking close enough, or at the kind of material that brings out the differences. Shooting tele closeups of flowers looks pretty much the same on various lenses, but a wide shot of treetops separates the dud lenses from the really sharp ones.
One has to realize that on lower resolution glass, the falloff in frequency response (the MTF or modulation transfer function) happens at a lower spacial frequency than the cutoff (as defined at 10% and 90% white levels) reaches into the lower spacial frequencies and is noted as an increase in 'softness' of the image. It's not as if the lens is sharp to it's resolution limit and then the response drops at an infinite slope. No, it's a curve that reaches well into the middle spacial frequencies, and that's why I can tell which lens is on the camera when viewing the footage. That's not to say that the RED lenses are out of the question. I think that for now, I'll settle for a bunch of decent prime lenses.
Shooting reference footage.. the lens is the second most important thing here. If the lens is no good, the footage is no good. The most important factor is the shooter--he must know how his camera responds to light and how to get the most out of it. That's why I spend so much time testing, measuring and seeking understanding of WHY certain attributes are as they are and how they can be tweaked. I've only had the FS7 for a week, but 5-10% of the footage I've shot is of damned amazing quality. At least as good as some of those 4K demos out there. There may be cameras with two more F-stops of range, but bear in mind that cinema projectors only have 2000 contrast ratio and are capable of 7-10 F-stops of range at the very best.
But what good is a sharp lens if the focus mechanism is too twitchy to allow proper focus in the field? That's why the RED lenses might have an advantage. I find it near impossible to nail focus on that SELP18105 lens from Sony. Even if the optics were decent, I'd still be getting out of focus images with it because the sensitivity of the controls are too high and the repeatability is zero.
Unless some of these new Sony G lenses resolve less than 35lpmm, then it's not telling the whole story. While I'm sure the RED lenses are sharp (I can only speak for what I see on Blu-ray produced material that was shot on RED) there are still differences in apparent detail that are not hard to spot when switching lenses. If you aren't seeing the difference, you aren't looking close enough, or at the kind of material that brings out the differences. Shooting tele closeups of flowers looks pretty much the same on various lenses, but a wide shot of treetops separates the dud lenses from the really sharp ones.
One has to realize that on lower resolution glass, the falloff in frequency response (the MTF or modulation transfer function) happens at a lower spacial frequency than the cutoff (as defined at 10% and 90% white levels) reaches into the lower spacial frequencies and is noted as an increase in 'softness' of the image. It's not as if the lens is sharp to it's resolution limit and then the response drops at an infinite slope. No, it's a curve that reaches well into the middle spacial frequencies, and that's why I can tell which lens is on the camera when viewing the footage. That's not to say that the RED lenses are out of the question. I think that for now, I'll settle for a bunch of decent prime lenses.
Shooting reference footage.. the lens is the second most important thing here. If the lens is no good, the footage is no good. The most important factor is the shooter--he must know how his camera responds to light and how to get the most out of it. That's why I spend so much time testing, measuring and seeking understanding of WHY certain attributes are as they are and how they can be tweaked. I've only had the FS7 for a week, but 5-10% of the footage I've shot is of damned amazing quality. At least as good as some of those 4K demos out there. There may be cameras with two more F-stops of range, but bear in mind that cinema projectors only have 2000 contrast ratio and are capable of 7-10 F-stops of range at the very best.
But what good is a sharp lens if the focus mechanism is too twitchy to allow proper focus in the field? That's why the RED lenses might have an advantage. I find it near impossible to nail focus on that SELP18105 lens from Sony. Even if the optics were decent, I'd still be getting out of focus images with it because the sensitivity of the controls are too high and the repeatability is zero.
Ben Scott
Veteran
So just to clarify, you are helping sell $100k 4k home cinema systems and you're using an FS7 and were looking at Sony G lenses to give you what you need?
I would genuinely love to see the results you've got thus far that are as you say, at the quality of those 4K demos which were no doubt shot on Epics or F65s and with Master Primes.
I have a lot of joy with this camera. And a lot of joy with the glass I use. But nothing comes close to those sort of higher-end combos.
I would genuinely love to see the results you've got thus far that are as you say, at the quality of those 4K demos which were no doubt shot on Epics or F65s and with Master Primes.
I have a lot of joy with this camera. And a lot of joy with the glass I use. But nothing comes close to those sort of higher-end combos.
If I were shooting for a $100K demo with its associated budget, I would shoot F65, maybe Varicam Raw to Codex, Epic, Dragon or certainly no lower than F55. This is not the targeted use for the FS7. When Sony called the camera Cine Verite, it had in mind that this would be a camera for documentary, indie, lower-end commercial or B/C camera to the CineAlta cameras. This takes into consideration everything from the robustness of internal processing to the E-mount lens system. A +1 to Ben Scott. I love this camera and its images for what it does but I have no reasonable expectation that it will do what it is not intended to do.
My lens selection will either be purchase or rental depending upon the scenario. I await, as I said, the center cut option to use Super16 glass as well as awaiting new glass from Sony which will answer the questions of FOV and speed.
I think this thread has gone about as far as it can go.
Ned Soltz
My lens selection will either be purchase or rental depending upon the scenario. I await, as I said, the center cut option to use Super16 glass as well as awaiting new glass from Sony which will answer the questions of FOV and speed.
I think this thread has gone about as far as it can go.
Ned Soltz
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
One though on the zooms at $25k.
You kind of get to a point, either in fiction or actuality where you are better spending the money elsewhere.. like another FS7 and a bloke to haul it.
Actuality he just shoots the wides from 30 degrees round from you, maybe on a 16-35 while you work with a 35-135 (this cuts better than jump cut crash ins)
Fiction. He just hands you the second camera.
I am kind of formalising this with my B chap who I am equipping with a GH4 and 12mm. His rig, is easier to focus and wont collect sound so is much smaller simpler and cheaper.
S
You kind of get to a point, either in fiction or actuality where you are better spending the money elsewhere.. like another FS7 and a bloke to haul it.
Actuality he just shoots the wides from 30 degrees round from you, maybe on a 16-35 while you work with a 35-135 (this cuts better than jump cut crash ins)
Fiction. He just hands you the second camera.
I am kind of formalising this with my B chap who I am equipping with a GH4 and 12mm. His rig, is easier to focus and wont collect sound so is much smaller simpler and cheaper.
S
Ben Scott
Veteran
I've never met a narrative-shooting DoP who thought budget would be better spent elsewhere than glass, with the possible exception of the enticement of a technocrane or hiring the combined power of the sun in HMIs.
Most factual/lifestyle shooters aren't anywhere near as fussed about glass except for the more recent breed of doc shooter that comes from a narrative instead of factual background.
Most factual/lifestyle shooters aren't anywhere near as fussed about glass except for the more recent breed of doc shooter that comes from a narrative instead of factual background.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Indeed, two cameras one prepping the next prime is probably a serious consideration compared to a single $25k zoom lens that is actually pretty slow, not very long, not very wide heavy to operate and not that cool in any way shape or form!
Ben Scott
Veteran
I bet. B4 mount guys tend to be in the first group I mentioned above as B4 was usually ENG/Reality/Lifestyle and suddenly S35mm or 35mm Full Frame sensor sizes are the order of the day for a hell of a lot of programming - and so they just want something that works for them like their old systems did.
JMtheDP
Veteran
My most painful recent experience was a chap wanting to buy an F5/F55 for wildlife stuff. He was previously using the older Varicam. So painful trying to get this guy a S16 lens that did what his B4 lens did, and I couldn't really explain in the Sony building why it was such a bad idea - one "2K" chip will look miles worse than 3 1080P ones! He could have waited a few more months and bought the new Varicam and he was the ideal market for that camera.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
There is a conundrum.. it seems like 2/3 is off the curve?
If there was a 2/3 3 chip, true 1080 after you crop out the boom, Slog, cam for £7g with 150FPS Id be very very interested.
Is there?
If there was a 2/3 3 chip, true 1080 after you crop out the boom, Slog, cam for £7g with 150FPS Id be very very interested.
Is there?
Ebrahim Saadawi
Carbonite Member
I think it s perfectly fine the OP is shooting on an FS7 for a high-end production like that, it's a high-end camera and image quality doesn't really get much better than that nowadays. Technology is wonderful.
Anyhow, from the OP comments and analysis of MFT chart center sloping curves and high frequency sharpness, you seem like someone who really, really ''need'' the best resolution performance out there and wouldn't settle for something ''sharp'' dot.
To disappoint you, there is no such lens as a perfectly sharp and optically flawless general purpose wide to telephoto zoom that will meet your obviously very serious sharpness demands, except for maybe a 31.500$ Canon 17-120mm T/2.95 CN-E.
Need that specifically nichely high resolving power, you'll have to go with primes, sorry.
The first post seemed like a normal question about a wide to tele constant zoom that works well and sharp enough for 4K to use as a doc/reality/event lens, but then it turns out you're asking about something very different.
If you're producing reference 4K footage why not add a 55mm Otus to your kit, the best optical lerformer of all lenses ever made and would really give ''reference'' images when coupled with an fs7. The images I've seen out of this thing in 4K are just undescribable, and even at 36mp FF, sharp edge to edge! It has a perfect focus ring and and a very robust body and name for resake value, won't lose much. I'd use it or rent it if I was concerned with getting the best sharpness out there of 4K as you seem to be and live with the limitation of it being a prime. I shot a film on a 50mm, just harder but works.
-The one asking about the Sigma 24-105mm, I am using the lens and very much liking it. I've always been a user of the Canon 24-105mm and a big fan, until a sad day it broke down from a tripod falling with the extended barrel of the lens hitting the ground.
The Sigma, is just a better version of that lens. Although some reviews and general vibe would initially suggest the Sigma ART is MILES ahead of the 24-105 L, it's not. It's an adequate bit better at everything. So anyone who used a 24-105mm L will get how it is.
The most prominent is better build quality and meterial feeling, and the smooth operation of the rings and barrels, it's just better ergonomically. Optically, it's a bit sharper than the 24-105mm L, but not hugely, not something that can't be fixed with tiny post sharpening and the difference nearly vanishes. The difference however is in the flare amount, the 24-105/ L always flared, this one not, and the L always has purple lines CA especially on the outer edges, this not. Also Stabilization is a bit smoother for video. Never noticed or bothered by parfocal issues. I don't zoom during takes.
I love it in short. But I won't be keeping it because I am not shooting FF and I can't use a SB (not gone mirrorless) so it's only useful for those who shoot mirrorless FF or s35 + SB (fs7), and for the time when Canon/nikon make a good FF video shooting camera. It's a frustrating range on s35 without SB, same problem OP is having so I can relate to it. Just which it could go to 17mm even if it will be a 4-5.6 or bigger or 500-1000$ more expensive or something. My 399$ Canon 18-135mm IS is being used more! Now only if it was a constant F2.8/4 it would be our lens.
There must be a design limitation that's keeping all designers from building that lens wer're talking about and when someome does it it comes in the size of the Canon 17-120mm zoom and Arri 18-80mm. Not really usable for most applications under tripod cinema.
Anyhow, from the OP comments and analysis of MFT chart center sloping curves and high frequency sharpness, you seem like someone who really, really ''need'' the best resolution performance out there and wouldn't settle for something ''sharp'' dot.
To disappoint you, there is no such lens as a perfectly sharp and optically flawless general purpose wide to telephoto zoom that will meet your obviously very serious sharpness demands, except for maybe a 31.500$ Canon 17-120mm T/2.95 CN-E.
Need that specifically nichely high resolving power, you'll have to go with primes, sorry.
The first post seemed like a normal question about a wide to tele constant zoom that works well and sharp enough for 4K to use as a doc/reality/event lens, but then it turns out you're asking about something very different.
If you're producing reference 4K footage why not add a 55mm Otus to your kit, the best optical lerformer of all lenses ever made and would really give ''reference'' images when coupled with an fs7. The images I've seen out of this thing in 4K are just undescribable, and even at 36mp FF, sharp edge to edge! It has a perfect focus ring and and a very robust body and name for resake value, won't lose much. I'd use it or rent it if I was concerned with getting the best sharpness out there of 4K as you seem to be and live with the limitation of it being a prime. I shot a film on a 50mm, just harder but works.
-The one asking about the Sigma 24-105mm, I am using the lens and very much liking it. I've always been a user of the Canon 24-105mm and a big fan, until a sad day it broke down from a tripod falling with the extended barrel of the lens hitting the ground.
The Sigma, is just a better version of that lens. Although some reviews and general vibe would initially suggest the Sigma ART is MILES ahead of the 24-105 L, it's not. It's an adequate bit better at everything. So anyone who used a 24-105mm L will get how it is.
The most prominent is better build quality and meterial feeling, and the smooth operation of the rings and barrels, it's just better ergonomically. Optically, it's a bit sharper than the 24-105mm L, but not hugely, not something that can't be fixed with tiny post sharpening and the difference nearly vanishes. The difference however is in the flare amount, the 24-105/ L always flared, this one not, and the L always has purple lines CA especially on the outer edges, this not. Also Stabilization is a bit smoother for video. Never noticed or bothered by parfocal issues. I don't zoom during takes.
I love it in short. But I won't be keeping it because I am not shooting FF and I can't use a SB (not gone mirrorless) so it's only useful for those who shoot mirrorless FF or s35 + SB (fs7), and for the time when Canon/nikon make a good FF video shooting camera. It's a frustrating range on s35 without SB, same problem OP is having so I can relate to it. Just which it could go to 17mm even if it will be a 4-5.6 or bigger or 500-1000$ more expensive or something. My 399$ Canon 18-135mm IS is being used more! Now only if it was a constant F2.8/4 it would be our lens.
There must be a design limitation that's keeping all designers from building that lens wer're talking about and when someome does it it comes in the size of the Canon 17-120mm zoom and Arri 18-80mm. Not really usable for most applications under tripod cinema.
basspig
Veteran
In roughly chronological order:
The FS7 is indeed capable of reference quality images, if you put good glass in front of it.
I failed the qualification for rental of gear in that price range, so it's owner/operator all the way.. besides, over the months it takes me to accumulate really nice footage, I'd be into more than my past sixty years of earnings in rental charges!
I am looking at a RED 18-50.. however, it's rather soft at T3.1, better at T11. But the range is what I need and the price is almost reasonable for a used lens.
For the 28-135 range, I'm served well by the Sony kit lens. A few have done online frame grabs from this lens and from primes of each of the focal lengths that are within the range of the kit lens and in most cases, the two are indistinguishable. For me, it is like a prime with variable focal length. All I need is a wider angle at the wide end. Hence, a second lens that equals it in quality and operation. The RED may do okay if I use generous amounts of sharpening in post, but I wish to avoid that because it increases sensor noise.
I took my rig up to the falls last night (had to wait till the renenuoors left, else I'd be stuck paying $30 to get in) and started shooting the falls after 7:15 til about 8:20. It was full overcast and it started to rain as I was driving home. The early part of the shoot was with the F4 lens. I had plenty of light. As it got darker, the wooded part of the trail that follows the falls was pretty dark. I needed a wide angle for the trail trek, and switched to the 12mm prime F2.0 and suddenly, it was mid-day again (at least it looked that way). The process of changing lenses proved most challenging without a table to set the camera on. But it worked.
The FS7 is indeed capable of reference quality images, if you put good glass in front of it.
I failed the qualification for rental of gear in that price range, so it's owner/operator all the way.. besides, over the months it takes me to accumulate really nice footage, I'd be into more than my past sixty years of earnings in rental charges!
I am looking at a RED 18-50.. however, it's rather soft at T3.1, better at T11. But the range is what I need and the price is almost reasonable for a used lens.
For the 28-135 range, I'm served well by the Sony kit lens. A few have done online frame grabs from this lens and from primes of each of the focal lengths that are within the range of the kit lens and in most cases, the two are indistinguishable. For me, it is like a prime with variable focal length. All I need is a wider angle at the wide end. Hence, a second lens that equals it in quality and operation. The RED may do okay if I use generous amounts of sharpening in post, but I wish to avoid that because it increases sensor noise.
I took my rig up to the falls last night (had to wait till the renenuoors left, else I'd be stuck paying $30 to get in) and started shooting the falls after 7:15 til about 8:20. It was full overcast and it started to rain as I was driving home. The early part of the shoot was with the F4 lens. I had plenty of light. As it got darker, the wooded part of the trail that follows the falls was pretty dark. I needed a wide angle for the trail trek, and switched to the 12mm prime F2.0 and suddenly, it was mid-day again (at least it looked that way). The process of changing lenses proved most challenging without a table to set the camera on. But it worked.
JMtheDP
Veteran
I'm not aware of your exact setup, but a shoulder strap for the camera and a belt-bag for lenses might help. If you've only got one or two lenses, shouldn't be any trickier than changing the lens on a hefty DSLR.
basspig
Veteran
With the Shogun mounted on the hotshoe, it's rather awkward to use with a strap. Interestingly, the FS7 didn't come with one, if I remember what's in the box. A DSLR can be held against one's body, as it hangs from the strap, for lens changes. That's easy, but managing the same with the FS7 and a Shogun perched on the rear hot shoe, far less easy.
So now I'm pondering the RED 18-50 vs the 17-50. They seem to be the only 'decent' lenses for that focal range.
If I go that route, it will probably be the Metabones PL adapter, not the cheaper one, which is said to short out the electronics in the FS7's lens mount.
So now I'm pondering the RED 18-50 vs the 17-50. They seem to be the only 'decent' lenses for that focal range.
If I go that route, it will probably be the Metabones PL adapter, not the cheaper one, which is said to short out the electronics in the FS7's lens mount.
JMtheDP
Veteran
Ebrahim Saadawi;1986553451There must be a design limitation that's keeping all designers from building that lens wer're talking about and when someome does it it comes in the size of the Canon 17-120mm zoom and Arri 18-80mm. Not really usable for most applications under tripod cinema.[/QUOTE said:
basspig
Veteran
Are you referring to this lens? https://vimeo.com/97695003
It looks like a nice, easy to control lens, but does it have visible aberrations in high contrast lighting situations? The F1.8 is VERY attractive though! And it fills much of the gap range. Could be a possible contender.
I just had a seller of a rather beat up looking RED 17-50 refuse to sell to me when he realized I was critical about lens quality. He might be hiding a problem, so I decided it was better to be patient and look at more options.
I can't find this lens for sale anywhere but REDUser. Who sells it?