Opinions wanted: Sony 18-105 PZ or Canon 24-105 for run and gun?

K

kaidumo

Active member
I have a bunch of Nikkor primes and a EF to E mount metabones speedbooster that I've been using for my FS700, but I've found that there have been many times that I've wanted a good zoom.

The Sony 18-105 strikes me as appealing due to the power zoom, but the cons are the lens distortion (if I get a 7Q down the road that will be annoying) and it is incompatible with my b-cam: a Canon T2i.

A Canon 24-105 has stellar reviews, would work on both my cameras, but has a smaller range and lacks power zoom.

Any thoughts on one vs. the other would be greatly appreciated!
 
1. power zoom is slow. Like really slow. It's usable for slow creeps/zoom, but if you expect fast zooming to capture stuff on the fly, forget it. Better to leave the zoom to manual mode and turn the lens yourself.

2. I won both these lenses and I do not find any more distortion from one to the other. They are both sharp. They both produce colours accurately. The biggest advantage to the Canon is the constant aperture. With a speedster, you get 2.8.

3. I end up reaching for the 18-200 more times because it has more range, IS works quite well and it's lighter. Having said that, I have rarely used the 18-200 above 140-ish.

4. Biggest problem with the PZ lens is the manual control is digital So turning the focus isn't linear. It ramps based on the speed you turn the control with. I find it impossible to do focus tracking and even 2 mark racks.

For your use I would recommend the Canon, but I would still say the PZ is a fine lens as well.
 
I have the Sony. Here are my thoughts.

The Canon has the advantage that you can slap it on a speedbooster and it basically
functions as a 17-70 F2.8 (I'm talking Super 35 FOV here, please no full frame users telling me that I'm
incorrect, as the FS700 is NOT a FF camera). Also the Canon doesn't have that annoying 'focus by wire'
problem as the Sony does.

On the other hand. the Sony has a nice range. It also has some neat 'integration' with the FS700 as it is
an Emount lens. The face detection autofocus works pretty nicely. You can 'tap' the LCD screen where
you want to focus, and it works great. You can set a 'focus transition' between two points, complete with
user selectable speed of the 'rack focus'. You get image stabilization, regular autofocus, auto iris, power
zoom. It's actually a neat little lens that is also very light, and doesn't extend at all when you zoom with it.

The image distortion is just gone with the latest firmware update. Some people are upset because they know
the lens itself is sending a distorted image to the camera. As for myself, I could care less if they used
Black Magic© as long as the image looks good.....and it does. Early reports were that the 'distortion compensation'
would only work in normal frame rates, and not in high frame rates or at 4K. However, I have verified, the distortion
is NOT present at HFR in the FS700. I imagine it probably is present at 4K out to the Odyssey but do not have one
so I can't verify. As an aside, Alistair Chapman has said that the new FS5 will correct for the distortion in 4K, so
as processors in these cameras improve, expect more lenses like this one. If you would like more info, and some of
my thoughts on this lens, you can take a look at my blog entry about it, complete with test video and so on.
http://www.alaskacameradude.blogspot.com/2015/04/sony-18-105the-baby-sea-monster.html
 
seanmc said:
1. power zoom is slow. Like really slow. It's usable for slow creeps/zoom, but if you expect fast zooming to capture stuff on the fly, forget it. Better to leave the zoom to manual mode and turn the lens yourself.

2. I won both these lenses and I do not find any more distortion from one to the other. They are both sharp. They both produce colours accurately. The biggest advantage to the Canon is the constant aperture. With a speedster, you get 2.8.

3. I end up reaching for the 18-200 more times because it has more range, IS works quite well and it's lighter. Having said that, I have rarely used the 18-200 above 140-ish.

4. Biggest problem with the PZ lens is the manual control is digital So turning the focus isn't linear. It ramps based on the speed you turn the control with. I find it impossible to do focus tracking and even 2 mark racks.

For your use I would recommend the Canon, but I would still say the PZ is a fine lens as well.
Click to expand...

I think you may be talking about the 18-200. The 18-105 has constant aperture. And the power zoom is MUCH
faster than the one on the 18-200.
 
Thanks for the detailed responses, everyone! I think I may go for the Sony, and down the road if I really need a zoom for my DSLR I'll get the Canon as well.
 
Well, sorry to say it. You are wrong. If you put a FF lens on a S35 sensor, you can´t use the whole specter of the lens, so ad crop factor. When you stick a meatiness in-between, you can more or less remove the crop factor. So a 24-105 becomes a 33-145ish on a S35 sensor. With the adapter it goes back to 24-105 - NOT 17-70. A speedbooster is not magic.
 
alaskacameradude said:
I have the Sony. Here are my thoughts.

The Canon has the advantage that you can slap it on a speedbooster and it basically
functions as a 17-70 F2.8 (I'm talking Super 35 FOV here, please no full frame users telling me that I'm
incorrect, as the FS700 is NOT a FF camera). Also the Canon doesn't have that annoying 'focus by wire'
problem as the Sony does.

On the other hand. the Sony has a nice range. It also has some neat 'integration' with the FS700 as it is
an Emount lens. The face detection autofocus works pretty nicely. You can 'tap' the LCD screen where
you want to focus, and it works great. You can set a 'focus transition' between two points, complete with
user selectable speed of the 'rack focus'. You get image stabilization, regular autofocus, auto iris, power
zoom. It's actually a neat little lens that is also very light, and doesn't extend at all when you zoom with it.

The image distortion is just gone with the latest firmware update. Some people are upset because they know
the lens itself is sending a distorted image to the camera. As for myself, I could care less if they used
Black Magic© as long as the image looks good.....and it does. Early reports were that the 'distortion compensation'
would only work in normal frame rates, and not in high frame rates or at 4K. However, I have verified, the distortion
is NOT present at HFR in the FS700. I imagine it probably is present at 4K out to the Odyssey but do not have one
so I can't verify. As an aside, Alistair Chapman has said that the new FS5 will correct for the distortion in 4K, so
as processors in these cameras improve, expect more lenses like this one. If you would like more info, and some of
my thoughts on this lens, you can take a look at my blog entry about it, complete with test video and so on.
http://www.alaskacameradude.blogspot.com/2015/04/sony-18-105the-baby-sea-monster.html
Click to expand...

Well, sorry to say it. You are wrong. If you put a FF lens on a S35 sensor, you can´t use the whole specter of the lens, so ad crop factor. When you stick a metabones in-between, you can more or less remove the crop factor. So a 24-105 becomes a 33-145ish on a S35 sensor. With the adapter it goes back to 24-105 - NOT 17-70. A speedbooster is not magic.
 
nareik said:
Well, sorry to say it. You are wrong. If you put a FF lens on a S35 sensor, you can´t use the whole specter of the lens, so ad crop factor. When you stick a metabones in-between, you can more or less remove the crop factor. So a 24-105 becomes a 33-145ish on a S35 sensor. With the adapter it goes back to 24-105 - NOT 17-70. A speedbooster is not magic.
Click to expand...
Man you had to go and do it...putting your full frame FOV in here. :happy: I am NOT
wrong. A 24-105 NEVER, EVER, EVER 'becomes' a 33-145ish on a S35 sensor.
It stays a 24-105. It's pretty easy to prove. Put a 24-105 canon on a FS700
at 24mm and shoot a scene. Now put a 24 prime on and take the same shot....hmmm
same field of view. Put a 33 prime (in reality you'd probably have to go 35mm) on.
Hmmmm, different field of view, so that 24 didn't become a 33 after all.
24mm is 24mm. The FOV is different from FF to Super 35 because of the
smaller sensor, but every 24mm lens looks like a 24mm lens on Super 35, none
of them 'become' a 33mm.

But, now take a Canon 17-55 with a normal Metabones smart
adapter (non speed booster). Set it to 17mm and shoot a scene. Switch
to the Canon 24-105 on a speedbooster at its widest (24mm) setting.
It will be basically the same FOV as the Canon 17-55 set to 17mm on
the smart adapter. This is because the Full Frame FOV at 24mm is roughly
equal to a Super 35 FOV of 17mm.
And the speedbooster is a 'focal reducer'. I have done it myself,
and it's as true as the day is long. Your issue is that you are talking in Full
Frame field of view and I am talking Super 35 FOV. A speedbooster is
'not magic' is true. But it DOES make a full frame lens wider and faster
on a Super 35 camera. That Full Frame FOV of 24-105? Yeah it's pretty much
exactly a Super 35mm FOV of 17-70. Truth.
 
Last edited:
The Canon 24-105 (on speed booster) has been my go to lens for so long the red stripe has fallen off. It's on my cam 75% of the time. When the firmware came out that allowed the Sony 18-105 to work on the 700 without distortion I bought it and tried it out for a couple months. There are a lot of good things about it--small and light, doesn't extend, servo zoom, cheap--but the electronic focus was a killer for me. It just threw off my ability to manual focus quickly. So I stuck with the 24-105, it's been the most useful everyday lens I've had on my 700. I've also owned a Nikon 24-70 2.8 and a Canon 24-70 4.0, and tried a Tamron 24-70 2.8, but I like the 24-105 the best. It has its quirks, but I've yet to find something better for my purposes.
 
alaskacameradude said:
Man you had to go and do it...putting your full frame FOV in here. :happy: I am NOT
wrong. A 24-105 NEVER, EVER, EVER 'becomes' a 33-145ish on a S35 sensor.
It stays a 24-105. It's pretty easy to prove. Put a 24-105 canon on a FS700
at 24mm and shoot a scene. Now put a 24 prime on and take the same shot....hmmm
same field of view. Put a 33 prime (in reality you'd probably have to go 35mm) on.
Hmmmm, different field of view, so that 24 didn't become a 33 after all.
24mm is 24mm. The FOV is different from FF to Super 35 because of the
smaller sensor, but every 24mm lens looks like a 24mm lens on Super 35, none
of them 'become' a 33mm.

But, now take a Canon 17-55 with a normal Metabones smart
adapter (non speed booster). Set it to 17mm and shoot a scene. Switch
to the Canon 24-105 on a speedbooster at its widest (24mm) setting.
It will be basically the same FOV as the Canon 17-55 set to 17mm on
the smart adapter. This is because the Full Frame FOV at 24mm is roughly
equal to a Super 35 FOV of 17mm.
And the speedbooster is a 'focal reducer'. I have done it myself,
and it's as true as the day is long. Your issue is that you are talking in Full
Frame field of view and I am talking Super 35 FOV. A speedbooster is
'not magic' is true. But it DOES make a full frame lens wider and faster
on a Super 35 camera. That Full Frame FOV of 24-105? Yeah it's pretty much
exactly a Super 35mm FOV of 17-70. Truth.
Click to expand...

The Canon 17-55 you are using for your example is an EF-S lens, not an EF lens. It's image circle is designed for APS-C crops sensors. (1.6) EF lenses have an image circle to cover a 35mm, or full frame sensor.

Focal length is focal length. It doesn't change regardless of the camera. You Feild Of View changes based on the sensor size.

The speedboosters are magic because they give you the same FOV you'd have on a 35mm sensor. This is the same change EF-S lenses are designed to do, which is why your testing is flawed and giving you the wrong impression.
 
When someone tells me not to do something, I have to do it.

Focal length is focal length. A 50 is a 50 is a 50. We all get this. Using adapters don´t change the amount of glass in the optics, and thus not your perspective.

But if you stick a 24mm (FF) lens on a S35 sensor you get the 24mm perspective, but not the 24 FOV, right? You get a cropped version. And if you then stick the Metabones on there, you (Still) get the 24mm perspective, but then you get the full 24mm FOV. And therefore a FF lens with a metabones adapter on a S35 sensor gives you...FF FOV. Or am I completely wrong? I will test the way you said when I return from my current travels-

Anyway...to stick to the subject and not wander further off. The Canon 24-105 is a great lens, and imo better then the Sony. I have both, and I never use the Sony.

alaskacameradude said:
Man you had to go and do it...putting your full frame FOV in here. :happy: I am NOT
wrong. A 24-105 NEVER, EVER, EVER 'becomes' a 33-145ish on a S35 sensor.
It stays a 24-105. It's pretty easy to prove. Put a 24-105 canon on a FS700
at 24mm and shoot a scene. Now put a 24 prime on and take the same shot....hmmm
same field of view. Put a 33 prime (in reality you'd probably have to go 35mm) on.
Hmmmm, different field of view, so that 24 didn't become a 33 after all.
24mm is 24mm. The FOV is different from FF to Super 35 because of the
smaller sensor, but every 24mm lens looks like a 24mm lens on Super 35, none
of them 'become' a 33mm.

But, now take a Canon 17-55 with a normal Metabones smart
adapter (non speed booster). Set it to 17mm and shoot a scene. Switch
to the Canon 24-105 on a speedbooster at its widest (24mm) setting.
It will be basically the same FOV as the Canon 17-55 set to 17mm on
the smart adapter. This is because the Full Frame FOV at 24mm is roughly
equal to a Super 35 FOV of 17mm.
And the speedbooster is a 'focal reducer'. I have done it myself,
and it's as true as the day is long. Your issue is that you are talking in Full
Frame field of view and I am talking Super 35 FOV. A speedbooster is
'not magic' is true. But it DOES make a full frame lens wider and faster
on a Super 35 camera. That Full Frame FOV of 24-105? Yeah it's pretty much
exactly a Super 35mm FOV of 17-70. Truth.
Click to expand...
 
I use the 24-105mm with SpeedBooster on the FS7 & it covers a useful range of focal lengths. For documentary work where I'm restricted to a couple zooms I pair it with Sony's 28-135mm f/4.

Many complain about the wide-end, & close focusing, of the 28-135mm but I just shot a dual-camera broadcast commercial in a documentary style & used this lens at least 75% of the time.
 
Bern Caughey said:
I use the 24-105mm with SpeedBooster on the FS7 & it covers a useful range of focal lengths. For documentary work where I'm restricted to a couple zooms I pair it with Sony's 28-135mm f/4.

Many complain about the wide-end, & close focusing, of the 28-135mm but I just shot a dual-camera broadcast commercial in a documentary style & used this lens at least 75% of the time.
Click to expand...

So would you recommend the Sony 28-135? I've been tempted, but it's expensive so I'm on the fence...
 
seanmc said:
The Canon 17-55 you are using for your example is an EF-S lens, not an EF lens. It's image circle is designed for APS-C crops sensors. (1.6) EF lenses have an image circle to cover a 35mm, or full frame sensor.

Focal length is focal length. It doesn't change regardless of the camera. You Feild Of View changes based on the sensor size.

The speedboosters are magic because they give you the same FOV you'd have on a 35mm sensor. This is the same change EF-S lenses are designed to do, which is why your testing is flawed and giving you the wrong impression.
Click to expand...

My testing is NOT flawed! The 17-55mm lens is not a FF lens but I'm not
talking in FF terms! That 17-55mm lens doesn't 'become' a 24-70 lens
when you put it on a Super 35 cam and if you were talking FF FOV, thats
what you would say it did! There are 'equivalent' FOVs between different
cameras. It's like...say feet and meters. We are using two different standards
of measurement. You say two things are 50 meters apart. I say they are
150 feet apart. 50 meters = 150 feet. In the same way 24-105 Full Frame field
of view = 17-70 Super 35 field of view.
 
nareik said:
When someone tells me not to do something, I have to do it.

Focal length is focal length. A 50 is a 50 is a 50. We all get this. Using adapters don´t change the amount of glass in the optics, and thus not your perspective.

But if you stick a 24mm (FF) lens on a S35 sensor you get the 24mm perspective, but not the 24 FOV, right? You get a cropped version. And if you then stick the Metabones on there, you (Still) get the 24mm perspective, but then you get the full 24mm FOV. And therefore a FF lens with a metabones adapter on a S35 sensor gives you...FF FOV. Or am I completely wrong? I will test the way you said when I return from my current travels-

Anyway...to stick to the subject and not wander further off. The Canon 24-105 is a great lens, and imo better then the Sony. I have both, and I never use the Sony.
Click to expand...

When you put a 24 on a Super 35, you get the FOV of a 24, any 24 looks
pretty much the same on a FS700, it doesn't matter if it's a lens made for
APSC or FF, it will look the same on the FS700. If you use a 24mm lens on
a FS700, it doesn't 'become ' a 33mm just because it has the FOV of a 33mm on
a Full Frame camera.

As I said above, we are measuring this with a different scale. You are
using meters, I am using feet. You say something is 50 meters long,
I say it is 150 feet long. 50 meters = 150 feet. A full frame field
of view of 24-105 is roughly equal to a Super 35 field of view of 17-70.
Test it yourself.
 
seanmc said:
So would you recommend the Sony 28-135? I've been tempted, but it's expensive so I'm on the fence...
Click to expand...

I like the 28-135/4, but it's not for everyone, so suggest taking it for a spin.

It's range, & parfocal-ishness, are great assets, however servo-zoom is slow, & while manual is quicker it's not instantaneous, making it easy to overshoot the desired focal length. 95mm filters are a bit oddball too & I've had to Special Order the Firecrests.

That said: for a Cine-esque lens it's a bargain.
 
Then how can someone be wrong and others right? I did not realize that this was a matter of opinions and reference point. For me the logical reference is the FF sensor. Everything else is relative to this.

Facts are facts, and I am not very interested in discussing opinions on this subject any further. I see that this has been discussed in other topics to the point of boredom.

I still cannot see how a 24mm on a cropped sensor with a speedbooster ´becomes´17mm, but if it works for you, great!. I´m finished. All I can say is, the canon is better then the sony 18200.

Good luck with your 17-75mm. I´ll enjoy my 24-105 (for three weeks in southeast asia).
-
I can also second that the 28-135/4 is a great lens. Easier to work with then the canon. As we all know, it is not wide enough for some situations. But in my opinion people are obsessed with wide angle lenses, and use them too much.

alaskacameradude said:
When you put a 24 on a Super 35, you get the FOV of a 24, any 24 looks
pretty much the same on a FS700, it doesn't matter if it's a lens made for
APSC or FF, it will look the same on the FS700. If you use a 24mm lens on
a FS700, it doesn't 'become ' a 33mm just because it has the FOV of a 33mm on
a Full Frame camera.

As I said above, we are measuring this with a different scale. You are
using meters, I am using feet. You say something is 50 meters long,
I say it is 150 feet long. 50 meters = 150 feet. A full frame field
of view of 24-105 is roughly equal to a Super 35 field of view of 17-70.
Test it yourself.
Click to expand...
 
nareik said:
Then how can someone be wrong and others right? I did not realize that this was a matter of opinions and reference point. For me the logical reference is the FF sensor. Everything else is relative to this.

Facts are facts, and I am not very interested in discussing opinions on this subject any further. I see that this has been discussed in other topics to the point of boredom.

I still cannot see how a 24mm on a cropped sensor with a speedbooster ´becomes´17mm, but if it works for you, great!. I´m finished. All I can say is, the canon is better then the sony 18200.

Good luck with your 17-75mm. I´ll enjoy my 24-105 (for three weeks in southeast asia).
-
I can also second that the 28-135/4 is a great lens. Easier to work with then the canon. As we all know, it is not wide enough for some situations. But in my opinion people are obsessed with wide angle lenses, and use them too much.
Click to expand...

I actually never said anyone was wrong....I said please FF shooters don't start
telling me I'm wrong because you are using your FF frame of reference. It took
about two posts for a FF shooter to jump in and say "you are wrong....it 'becomes'
a 33-145." This is what I was trying to avoid, because it always leads to confusion,
but I wasn't the one who stated telling people they were wrong, I just continued to
assert that in Super 35 terms, I was right....which is a fact. If only posters would have
just heeded my call to not confuse things....I made it very plain I was speaking in
Super 35 frame of reference (and not Full Frame) but some Full Frame shooter
always has to jump in and to tell me I'm wrong....when really he is not taking the
time to see what I just wrote.

Im a cinematographer. I did NOT start shooting with a 5D. The FF is NOT necessarily
the logical frame of reference for most cinematographers. When I was working as a
AC, I was not told to "give me a lens that gives the same FOV as a 50mm would on
a Full Frame camera." Because cinematographers tend to 'think' in Super 35 terms.
So my DOP would just ask me to put a 35mm on the camera. He didn't care necessarily
if it was a Full Frame lens or APSC lens (in actuality he wanted a cinema version of
one of these but that's another story) because they all look the same...35mm FOV
on a Super 35 cam. No 'crop factors' or 'Full Frame equivalents' were ever discussed on
sets, and I find that they are most common among still photogs who see the Full Frame
camera as the natural frame of reference. Actually I know some even higher end pro
photographers who see an even bigger sensor as the 'frame of reference' and refer to Full
Frame as 'cropped'

Facts are facts, and a 24-105 on Full Frame, gives roughly the same field of view
that 17-70 does on a Super 35 camera.....that is a FACT.

And um, one more thing. This thread was never about comparing the 24-105 to
the Sony 18-200. It was the Sony 18-105. Just sayin......
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top