Midrange Zooms for the Sony FX6

Joshua Milligan

Joshua Milligan

Well-known member
What midrange zooms are you guys using for run & gun work on your FX6? I have some great primes that I use for my creative work, but for run & gun projects (events, corporate, docs, etc.) I like to use zooms. Right now my go-to zooms are the 16-35 GM, 24-70 GM and 70-200 GM. I also have ordered the Tamron 35-150 2.0-2.8 to try out as well as the 70-200 2.8 version II to replace my older version.

When I'm running and gunning, I really like to use a 24-70 2.8. I've always loved that range with that aperture. It's reasonably fast, reasonably light and covers a great range for getting in the action and getting shots. The problem I have with it is that it lacks any sort of image stabilization, and because the FX6 is a pretty lightweight camera, I sometimes feel like my image bounces around a little too much. If I use my Easyrig Minimax it's not so much of a problem, but if I'm just grabbing my camera out of the bag and shooting, I feel like it's just a bit too much.

I know people are using Catalyst Browse and the FX6's gyro sensor data like it's their lifeblood, but I personally think that's a pretty crappy way to work. I don't want to depend on post stabilizing software to "fix" my work every single time I shoot a run & gun project. Not to mention the fact that sometimes I am shooting as a freelancer for other companies and I can't hand them footage and tell them that they need to download CB and stabilize everything first. That just doesn't make sense. As such I'm wanting to get things as good as I can in the field.

I owned a Sony 28-135, but I just sold it last week because I didn't like the way it balanced on the FX6. The 18-110 I used to own balanced great on my FS7II, but the 28-135 on the FX6 just felt awkward. If I was using sticks the entire time it wouldn't be a big deal, but for handheld work it just felt uncomfortable. I know I could have added something like a V-Mount battery to the back to balance the camera better, but that defeats the whole point of me buying the FX6 in the first place which is that it's a much lighter camera to work with than my older FS7II or an FX9.

I'm torn right now between buying a Sony 24-105 for this type of work or just keeping my 24-70 and learning how to shoot more stabile footage handheld. The 24-70 is a great lens and I love the 2.8 speed, but the 24-105's range and OSS is really great. I thought the 24-105 would pair well with the Tamron 35-150 2.0-2.8 that I've got coming in this week for run & gun work. The 24-105 for handheld shots and the 35-150 for coverage shots on sticks or quick interviews seems like a pretty slick combo.

What are your thoughts? Do any of you run a 24-70 GM or comparable lens on your FX6 for this type of work, or did you go with the 24-105 or even the 28-135? Let's chat about it.
 
Last edited:
I have the 24-105 and think it's a fantastic lens for the price. In my totally unscientific opinion, based on nothing more than my memory of using the 28-135 for about a year on my FS5, the 24-105 has equal—if not superior—image quality. It's not parfocal, it lacks an aperture ring, and manual focus isn't as nice, but the AF is great, the range is decent, and the image looks excellent for the type of work you're describing.

As you note, OSS is really a must with the FX6, unless you're willing to deal with Catalyst or rig the camera up into a proper shoulder/handheld system.
 
drboffa said:
In my totally unscientific opinion, based on nothing more than my memory of using the 28-135 for about a year on my FS5, the 24-105 has equal—if not superior—image quality.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with this. I tried out the 24-105 a couple years back and was pretty shocked at how sharp it was. It definitely seemed sharper to me than my 28-135. Like you said it's missing all of the video features that the 28-135 has, but it's got a sharp image with little vignetting or other issues and is really small and light compared to the 28-135.

My only hesitation is that I really like the speed of the 24-70 2.8. It seems that when I'm shooting indoors with the FX6's base ISO of 800, f/4 is just a touch underexposed whereas f/2.8 is often on the money. You could jump the FX6 up to the second base ISO of 12,800 and turn on the ND to get away with f/4, but that seems to introduce noise. Your other option is to jump out of Cine EI mode and into Custom mode where you can go to a more reasonable ISO like 1,600, but that's requiring you to jump into a whole different mode and you lose the ability to monitor with LUTs.

The best solution is for Sony to release a 24-70 2.8 version II that has IS which isn't unreasonable considering they are rumored to be coming out with a new 24-70 and also considering that Canon's new 24-70 2.8 RF mount has IS. Perhaps Sony will do that. Then again maybe they won't. Who knows?
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately (for those of us who are FX6 owners) there are a lot of great, mid-tier lenses coming out in E mount that lack OSS...
 
Are you married to using an E-mount lens?

Also, there was a rumor that Sony would launch a new zoom (presumably a cine zoom) alongside the Venice 2. That didn't happen, but the Venice 2 rumor was accurate, so there's a chance that a new zoom will launch by year's end. If it's a high-quality midrange zoom, then I'm guessing it will be north of $5K. Maybe it will be a telephoto zoom anyway. But it might be worth seeing what it is. I doubt that the sony 24-70 v2 will have OSS
 
I'll second the 24-105. Excellent reach and nice and sharp. The Sony 70-200 F4 also has a place in my bag. I also have a Tamron 28-75 which I use often on my A7SIII, but for my FX6 no IS is a problem. I also agree with OP about Catalyst Browse. I have zero desire to start messing with odd shutter speeds to compensate for the motion blur issues it introduces in the footage. And then there's the extra time processing all of the footage...
 
EDIT: it seems that my 1-year old posted the following arrow. This was not meant as a reply. I will delete this post shortly

:Drogar-Mark-04(DBG)
 
Last edited:
If you're not in need of AF then an older tamron 24-70 f2.8 Canon EF mount with a metabones adapter was the only 24-70 with stabilization. Its a decently sharp lens but i wish they had made a version for E mt with AF as well. I assume there's some technical reason . Only thing I don't like is it focuses in the nikon direction. I mainly use the Sony 24-105 f4.
 
Last edited:
I'm really hoping that the updated 24-70 2.8 from Sony has OSS but I'm not very optimistic. It does seem strange to me that the GM lenses are such a mixed bag for video use - declickable aperture but severe focus breathing and lack of optical stabilisation. I thought the 'premium' photography segment was increasingly skewed towards video?

The Sony cine lenses are too heavy for my uses and I've got no interest in servo.
 
Andy9 said:
It does seem strange to me that the GM lenses are such a mixed bag for video use - declickable aperture but severe focus breathing and lack of optical stabilisation. I thought the 'premium' photography segment was increasingly skewed towards video?
Click to expand...

I feel like any GM or stills lenses are oriented for use on mirrorless cameras. Declickable aperture is a nice feature, but they can add it without compromising the product for photographers.

I'm not sure the premium photography segment is increasingly skewed towards video. I mean, I don't know. But basically none of the photographers I meet shoot video or have an interest in diving into it.

I think that the stills lenses and GM lenses and the mirrorless line in general is designed to be compact and lightweight, mostly for the benefit of photographers. And I feel like the bad focus breathing is partly a result of that. (Although now they have that interesting feature on the a7iv to electronically crop and counteract focus breathing, though I don't know how well it works.) Electronic breathing correction is a continuation of the trend of leaning heavily on in-camera and software-based corrections (distortion, vignetting, chromatic aberration), which helps keep the cost and size of the lenses down but is probably much less useful and desirable in a premium video production context.

And, of course, the lenses are relying on the IBIS of mirrorless cameras for stabilization. I think that the FX6 is sort of in a no-man's land in terms of glass and somewhat mismatched with GM lenses. And, as you said, mismatched with the weight of Sony cine lenses. If you don't need AF and you'd consider using adapters, you're open to a much wider array of offerings.
 
ahalpert said:
... I think that the stills lenses and GM lenses and the mirrorless line in general is designed to be compact and lightweight, mostly for the benefit of photographers. And I feel like the bad focus breathing is partly a result of that. (Although now they have that interesting feature on the a7iv to electronically crop and counteract focus breathing, though I don't know how well it works.) ...
Click to expand...

Off the various YouTroopers videos, it looks pretty awesome but works only with Sony glass. (which is a slap on the face of Sony partners rather than Sony customers)

Of course, we'd know more about any gotchas once the camera starts shipping.
 
anything would look better than the twitchy freak show I get from my 24mm GM. Such bad breathing. But basically all my other lenses seem good enough to me. Maybe I had one problematic shot from my sigma 24-70 at 24 with a very quick rack from 1' to 5'
 
Alvise Tedesco said:
Any new lens recommended, one year later?
Click to expand...

I switched from the 24-70 GM to the 24-70 GM II and I really like it. It’s smaller, lighter, much sharper, produces prettier images, has a de-clicked external aperture ring and the manual focus is linear. It also doesn’t breathe much and has the fast 2.8 aperture. The only issue is once again the lack of image stabilization. For that I’m just continuing to work on my handheld technique so that my shots are smoother. It’s tough, but I’m getting there.
 
Joshua Milligan said:
I switched from the 24-70 GM to the 24-70 GM II and I really like it. It’s smaller, lighter, much sharper, produces prettier images, has a de-clicked external aperture ring and the manual focus is linear. It also doesn’t breathe much and has the fast 2.8 aperture. The only issue is once again the lack of image stabilization. For that I’m just continuing to work on my handheld technique so that my shots are smoother. It’s tough, but I’m getting there.
Click to expand...

I wonder if Sony will ever make a line of lenses
(or even just a couple) that have stabilization.
I know that most Alpha hybrid/stills cameras
have IBIS but for us FX6 users it sure would
be welcome. In the meantime, my solution
has been to buy an Easyrig.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top