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

I can't really just the quality from a low resolution internet image that's been scaled down, but what I see here doesn't show any obvious flaws. All lenses are less sharp at wide open apertures. Many reach their sharpest acuity between f5.6 and f11. I noticed that with my two primes. Acceptable at f2 and T2.2, but impressive at F 5.6/T 5.6. If I'm careful not to provoke flares and other anomalies, they look even better. When I take possession of each new lens, I shoot the same reference shot through trees, to create the 'worst case' shot. That has been effective at exposing lens flaws.
 
while you can check a 1080p version by clicking on the link and 'view all sizes' it was more to show that while not razor sharp, it can be serviceable, even in scenes with a fair bit of contrast, which that was prior to a grade.

For the record I sold mine (along with all my Samyang/Rokinon glass) and got a Contax Zeiss 25mm f2.8 which I far preferred, even if it was a bit 'quirky'.

Of that range I most recently had a Samyang 14mm t3.1 cine up until a month ago and I hated it and offloaded.

If you've ever used the Zeiss ZE/ZF 15mm f2.8 you'll see how good a great stills wide angle can be on S35mm sensors. No CA. No crazy distortion. Captured a very 'fat' image across the histogram.

The Beast of Rainham Marsh film shoot - Red R3D stills by Ben Scott, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
That frame certainly looks fine to me. I've noticed that some of my CA-plagued 4K frames look acceptable when scaled down to 1080, so it may not be an exhaustive evaluation of the lens.
 
Quality on the Rokinons are all over the map, so you can't make a generalization. As I recall the 14mm was pretty lousy and the 24mm was not very great either. The 85 is good and the 50 has been reviewed as better than the Zeiss ZF 1.4. The 35 as I recall was competitive. I compared the 35 50 & 85 head to head agains the Zeiss ZF. CA was not better on the Rockinons though it wasn't horribly different - never was better though. They decidedly were more prone to flare, and I found the 85 Zeiss to be noticeably sharper. The Zeiss 35mm f1.4 has terrible CA but the f2 is better. I may yet get a Rockinon cine 50mm f1.5 and perhaps a 35mm also. For the other wide's I like the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 so far.

I always look at these lenses wide open though as I tend to use my zooms when I don't need a fast lens because the zooms are pretty good.
The new Rockinon super wide's have gotten fabulous reviews though so it sounds like they are consistently upping there game - as are Sigma , Tamron and Tokina . The Sigma 50-150 is the most free of CA of any lens I've tried. Great piece of glass though I elected t go Canon 70-200 and use speed booster for the 50-150 range - then I have an F2.
 
I'm well covered for long range glass, but need a quality wide angle zoom.
It is interesting that the Rokinon quality varies over the rage of focal lengths.
I'm pleased with my 12mm and my 16mm primes. I may switch my 12mm for the cine version, which is much larger and has real clickless geared controls.
I looked at a cine-converted version of the Sigma for about $3500. Then I went to DPReview and looked at the technical measurements and sample images from the lens it was based upon. Didn't like what I saw. Either they got a bad sample, or the lens is prone to CA.
If I force a lot of light into the Rokinon, I get a subtle orange flare. Not really CA, but more like flare. It doesn't look bad as CA to me, and the image is still sharp, so it doesn't bother me.
I think I'll wait and see what Sony comes up with. They set the bar ridiculously high with the 28-135 cine lens. I doubt they will come close to that level of quality for double the price on any new wide angle they release, if the physics make it that difficult.
I recall how sharp my stock Fujinon seemed (looks like CA crap to me now that I'm getting used to the 28-135) and how disappointed I was when I got the $4000 Fujinon 8XS 4mm wide angle zoom. It was very soft (barely adequate for 720P) and the CA was horrendous. I sent it in to Fujinon to be repaired, but they said everything was in spec. I was flabbergasted that they could say the lens was fine when it had red/blue fringes on everything that was not dead center. It ruined my symphony shots, with all the musicians in their black and white tuxes. They weren't wearing blue and red borders on their lapels, but the video sure made it look that way!
 
I have no direct experience of it but that Fuji from the pictures alone does not look like a lens to be considered seriously for anything high-end. I can only imagine the market for dedicated EX3 lenses was pretty small.

Fuji certainly know how to put together a good lens, their Aluras are wonderful and the Premier cinema zooms are utterly out-of-this-world... but they have the price and size to match.
 
The hunt for a decent wide does not seem that complex. But it will be $1000 and not part of a zoom.

I use a 18mm/4 prime nikkor, vintage

S
 
I am pretty sure speed was one of the OP's requirements too.

Personally I find any "serious" prime slower than T2.8 has to be doing something very special to justify itself.
 
I guess I got my 18 before the booster was invented

Now a 20 or 24 with booster would probably be better.. or at least worth testing, I dont really trust my booster yet.

I shot one job with 24/booster and 50, nice light combo.

I also have a nikkor 14, but it is a bit of a lump and not famous for being CA free.

Back to the concept of covering 18-105 I long ago concluded that an 18 plus a midrange was a good option, esp as I shoot more CU and MCU and fewer wides, adding up to less lens changes in a day.

S
 
On a day to day basis I try to work with primes as much as possible and zoom with my feet, but for everything else 28-85 and normal mount plus speedbooster to give 2 different ranges.
 
I have to say the change in exposure is very gradual along the length of the zoom- certainly the very odd occasion I need to crash zoom I don't touch ND or exposure controls to compensate. I believe keeping it f4 keeps it f4 but if totally honest I wouldn't pay TOO much attention to the numbers written on the side because with real world results it isn't an issue.

Likewise the super cheap Contax Zeiss 50mm f1.7 which is far sharper than either the Contax or the ZE/ZF Zeiss 50 f1.4, is really about a 1.5.
 
I've been asking for examples of pincushion distortion on the Sony 18-105/f4, so I thought I should go and shoot some.

So - a quick and dirty test outside the office today, shot on the FS7. Most shots between f16 - f21.

1080 (with and without compensation) and 4K (no compensation available) scaled down to 1080 in Post.

The pincushion distortion starts to rear it's ugly head on vertical lines beyond around 70mm.

https://vimeo.com/132112387
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top