FS7: new rumours of a wider sony lens for fs7

IronFilm said:
Even if that means it delivered a slightly less than FHD image, I'd still prefer that over nothing at all.
Click to expand...

If I remember right, the FS100 has around 3.3 megapixels on it's sensor.
The FS700 on the other hand......has about 11.6 megapixels. That's a big
difference. Just not sure that the FS 100 could correct enough for an HD image.
Even the FS700, with it's extra pixels can't correct enough for the lens to be
distortion free in 4K from what I've heard. I wonder if the 28-135 would work
on the FS100? I've heard it is much more 'distortion free' than the 18-105.
Also, I wonder if any of the new 'cinema line' zoom lenses that Sony is
rumored to be working on, might work on the FS100?
 
basspig said:
This looks about right, but oooh the price!
Click to expand...

ROI, my friend. It's not what it costs, it's what it earns that matters.
A good lens will hold its value if you take care of it and you'll get most of your $ back when it comes time to sell. Consider the difference a "rental" cost.
In the case of the Duclos 11-16mm, it cost me $3500 a couple of years ago (maybe 3 years), but I could sell it in a heartbeat for $2500 or more. So to have that lens for 2 or 3 years for $1000 is a pretty good deal in my book. And if I keep it another 5 years, it will still be worth the same if I sell it. Now divide that lost $1000 over 5-8 years (or more) and the investment in the lens starts to look pretty good.

I believe it is a waste of time to constantly be chasing down the cheapest lenses, lights, tripod, microphones, etc. that will just barely be good enough to meet your current needs. Invest in quality products and they will serve you well for many years and make your job a pleasure rather than a hassle. Besides, you gotta spend money to make money. :-)
 
Last edited:
Doug Jensen said:
I believe it is a waste of time to constantly be chasing down the cheapest lenses, lights, tripod, microphones, etc. that will just barely be good enough to meet your current needs. Invest in quality products and they will serve you well for many years and make your job a pleasure rather than a hassle. Besides, you gotta spend money to make money. :-)
Click to expand...
My same approach. I've realised that in this industry you cannot really save money - price is extremely correlated with quality. You can buy cheap but sooner or later it will fall apart or you will fall apart (from frustration of using it). I remember using 20 years old massive fluid head (cannot remember brand), all scratched and cover in dirt and dust that was so smooth that I couldn't believe. You pay for what you get.
 
alaskacameradude said:
If I remember right, the FS100 has around 3.3 megapixels on it's sensor.
The FS700 on the other hand......has about 11.6 megapixels. That's a big
difference. Just not sure that the FS 100 could correct enough for an HD image.
Even the FS700, with it's extra pixels can't correct enough for the lens to be
distortion free in 4K from what I've heard. I wonder if the 28-135 would work
on the FS100? I've heard it is much more 'distortion free' than the 18-105.
Also, I wonder if any of the new 'cinema line' zoom lenses that Sony is
rumored to be working on, might work on the FS100?
Click to expand...

The 28-135mm however costs waaaaay more than the FS100 would cost on the second hand market!!

And it lacks the 18mm wide.

And it doesn't need to correct well enough for 4K, as the FS100 doesn't do 4K. You'd think 3.3megapixals is enough of an extra overhead from FHD (merely two megapixels).
 
For the wide end, I went with the Tokina Cinema 16-28 T3 lens & use it with & without EF speed booster. Manual iris, wide & sharp... but large. Now looking for new matte box that doesn't vignette at 16mm. :embarasse
 
IronFilm said:
The 28-135mm however costs waaaaay more than the FS100 would cost on the second hand market!!

And it lacks the 18mm wide.

And it doesn't need to correct well enough for 4K, as the FS100 doesn't do 4K. You'd think 3.3megapixals is enough of an extra overhead from FHD (merely two megapixels).
Click to expand...

Maybe my last post was poorly stated. What I was trying to say was that even
though the FS700 and F7 have 'extra overhead' from 4k (11.6 megapixels
instead of merely 8 megapixels which is what 4k is).....they still can't correct
for the 18-105 in 4k mode. At least this is what I've heard (I'm still a low budget
FS700 user who shoots AVCHD only so I haven't tested this.)
Even though there are extra pixels beyond 4k on the FS7 and FS700. It seems that
you need 'a lot' of extra pixels to correct for the distortion. I was correlating
that to the FS100 and assuming since it has 3.3 megapixels.....that that wouldnt
be enough extra for FHD if 11.6 wasn't enough extra for 4k. I hope that makes
sense.
 
Doug Jensen said:
ROI, my friend. It's not what it costs, it's what it earns that matters.
A good lens will hold its value if you take care of it and you'll get most of your $ back when it comes time to sell. Consider the difference a "rental" cost.
In the case of the Duclos 11-16mm, it cost me $3500 a couple of years ago (maybe 3 years), but I could sell it in a heartbeat for $2500 or more. So to have that lens for 2 or 3 years for $1000 is a pretty good deal in my book. And if I keep it another 5 years, it will still be worth the same if I sell it. Now divide that lost $1000 over 5-8 years (or more) and the investment in the lens starts to look pretty good.

I believe it is a waste of time to constantly be chasing down the cheapest lenses, lights, tripod, microphones, etc. that will just barely be good enough to meet your current needs. Invest in quality products and they will serve you well for many years and make your job a pleasure rather than a hassle. Besides, you gotta spend money to make money. :-)
Click to expand...


While I agree 100% with that assessment, I am limited by the credit limits of my credit cards. Pulling off the FS7 purchase involved some financial slight of hand and 3 credit cards. To buy such a lens as this one, I would have to sell my house! But oh what a section 179 deduction that lens would make over the next five years. :) Realistically speaking, although that would be the perfect lens, I have to either stick with primes, or wait to see what magical breakthrough Sony comes up with based on this rumor. The Duclos is not out of the question, should time pass with no suitable lens announcement from Sony, but something of the quality and build of the 28-135, in a 16-85 would be worth paying about $4500 for.
 
I agree $ 4500 for a 16-85 ( or 18-100 which is my suspicion ) would be a sweet spot for price. I cant see them getting it on the market much cheaper than that and higher would limit sales. The 28-135 despite its lack of wide angle and fly by wire weirdness is pretty amazing value when you compare it to a 30-105 canon cine lens, although that lens is 2.8 it's also ten times the price. I was on a job recently and someone commented that they should have made the sony lens faster than f4 but that extra stop would have increased the price considerably. However the comment about paying for quality is also true, I've cut corners in the past on radio mikes and tripod heads and then had to go out and buy the gear I should have bought in the first place. Sometimes cheaper gear is more expensive in the long run. With an all round zoom though I just can't afford 30k for a 19-90 cabrio or the canon 17-120 so an affordable wide zoom would definitely go on my credit card when it comes out.
 
Last edited:
alaskacameradude said:
Maybe my last post was poorly stated. What I was trying to say was that even
though the FS700 and F7 have 'extra overhead' from 4k (11.6 megapixels
instead of merely 8 megapixels which is what 4k is).....they still can't correct
for the 18-105 in 4k mode. At least this is what I've heard (I'm still a low budget
FS700 user who shoots AVCHD only so I haven't tested this.)
Even though there are extra pixels beyond 4k on the FS7 and FS700. It seems that
you need 'a lot' of extra pixels to correct for the distortion. I was correlating
that to the FS100 and assuming since it has 3.3 megapixels.....that that wouldnt
be enough extra for FHD if 11.6 wasn't enough extra for 4k. I hope that makes
sense.
Click to expand...

I very strongly doubt the number of pixels used to crop in is aggressively high, otherwise I'd experience a noticeable change in FoV when switching between raw stils and JPEG
 
IronFilm said:
I very strongly doubt the number of pixels used to crop in is aggressively high, otherwise I'd experience a noticeable change in FoV when switching between raw stils and JPEG
Click to expand...

I really don't know what they do with the extra pixels to get rid of the distortion. But I don't think they 'crop in' on any of
the cameras. There is no change in field of view that I can see between having the 'lens correction' on or off.
You can test that with the FS7. You can also use it on the VG20 to take RAW stills (uncorrected with distortion
that needs to be corrected out in Lightroom) or JPEG stills which look just great as is. There is no change in the FOV,
so 'crop in' does not appear to be how they are 'fixing' this.
 
ryaninoz said:
I agree $ 4500 for a 16-85 ( or 18-100 which is my suspicion ) would be a sweet spot for price
Click to expand...

$4500 would be too high if the performance only matches the 28-135mm's. If Sony significantly speeds up the servo, or makes the lens a stop faster, then that price may be reasonable.
 
Given that the 28-135 is $2500, that would seem logical, however, I think it's orders of magnitude more difficult to build a wider lens and keep the weight within sensible range. Wider also invites distortions, CA and other image fidelity problems. I think they could match the quality in a lens priced at $4500.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top