FX6: Recommedation On Which Lens Next - FS5 MkII and FX6

R

Rob Neidig

Member
Hi! I'm looking for thoughts on which should be the next lens I buy. Anybody wanna play? Thanks!

Just prior to COVID I was "semi-retired", taking the occasional freelance gig. After COVID that turned into "mostly retired"... until the last year. Starting in about May I was receiving calls from old clients, requests from new clients and former colleagues. I had been using my Sony FS5 MkII with its kit lens, the 18-105mm, built for APS-C. I recently bought a Sony FS 24-70 GM G Master lens that has given the FS5 new life! I now want to add to my lens collection and I have my own ideas about what should come next but I would appreciate your input to help me make the right decision. If business continues like it has, I plan on buying an FX6 this year, so any lens would need to be full frame so it will work on the FX6. Brands other than Sony might work but I have been down the "it's just as good as brand-x for way less money" route and so I want to stick to Sony G Master lenses or equivalent.

My work is mostly corporate and training, so lots of interviews and b-roll around offices, hospitals, factories, etc. I haven't been doing a lot of run 'n' gun but you never know.

LENSES I CURRENTLY OWN:

Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 OSS kit lens
Sony FS 24-70mm F2.8 GM
Tamron 70-300mm F4.5

LENSES I'M CONSIDERING:

Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM
Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS
(somewhere down the line for run 'n' gun) Sony FE PZ 28-135mm F4

So what do you think? Wide angle first, or the 70-200? Or some other possibility I've missed? Thanks for your input, I really appreciate it!

Bonus - one of the types of jobs that's come back strong is shooting video depositions. It's not creative work but helps pay the bills! If I'm able to buy an FX6, the FS5 MkII with 18-105mm will continue to be a great combo for the depo work!

Rob
 
Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM - A good lens but quite old now. I'd consider the newer PZ 16-35 f/4
Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS - The mark ii is lighter and spectacular. Haven't used the first version
Sony FE PZ 28-135mm F4 - I'd also look at the 24-105 f/4. Much lighter (if that matters), more useful focal length, at least for me. Obviously no power zoom.

I really like the Sony 35mm 1.8. For interviews it would be a useful widish-medium on super 35 and an equally useful wide on full frame. Not expensive. Sharp and clean. Dreadful manual focus, this is very much an AF lens.
 
I bought the little Sigma 56mm F/1.4 and I love it for interviews both on my A7III and my FS5 mkII. Nice for interviews.
 
Thanks for your input, everybody. I answered my own question when I got the chance to buy a used Sigma 14-24mm DG DN Art lens for a great price. So I'm set for a little while.
 
Just a heads up the 28-135 is a lousy lens no matter what you hear on this forum. I've looked at lots of them . Its not very sharp. The 18-110 will be sharper even in S35 over the 28-135 at 6K also better focusing mechanism. Only advantage to the 28-135 is if you need the reach and will be shooting S35 with it . personally I like the smaller lenses for run & gun and the 28-135/18-110 are only good for events where seamless zooming is required. Both 70-200 and 16-35 are great lenses, The 70-200 is great for interviews and 2.8 is much more usefull than 4.5 on your Tamron. That looks like the hole in your setup IMHO.
 
Rob Neidig said:
Thanks for your input, everybody. I answered my own question when I got the chance to buy a used Sigma 14-24mm DG DN Art lens for a great price. So I'm set for a little while.
Click to expand...

I'm interested in hearing if you think auto-focus performs as well with the Sigma as with Sony lenses. What is your experience? Do you have any Sony lenses to compare it to?
 
For the FX6, the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 has practically not left the camera body since I got it. If you're using the camera's autofocus, it's just a no-brainer. The most useful lens I've paired with Sony autofocus cameras to date.

That lens plus a 16-35mm (packed for the fairly rare moments where 35mm just isn't wide enough) has you covered for just about anything.

That said, given you already have a 24-70mm f/2.8, I feel like a 70-200mm f/2.8 is probably the most useful addition in this case.
 
Last edited:
Doug Jensen said:
I'm interested in hearing if you think auto-focus performs as well with the Sigma as with Sony lenses. What is your experience? Do you have any Sony lenses to compare it to?
Click to expand...

I have a Sigma 24-70 FE and the autofocus performs well. As well as Sony's best? In terms of keeping up with a fast object or always tracking the object I want? Probably not. I haven't done a head to head shoutout...

I like to read Dustin Abbott's lens reviews as he is pretty honest, comprehensive, and consistent.

He reviewed the Sigma 50 1.4 DG DN ART exactly a year ago and it sounds like it has better autofocus than previous Sigma releases:

Sigma 50mm F1.4 DN Autofocus

It’s always exciting to see a lensmaker take a leap forward, and Sigma has done that this year with their new AF system. The new HLA (High-response Linear Actuator) focus motor is a definite improvement over the stepping motors Sigma has used in the past on their mirrorless lenses. Here’s how Sigma describes the focus system, “A linear motor is a linear actuator that controls electromagnetic forces and can be driven freely, enabling high-speed AF. It can move the heavy focus group while ensuring the lens remains quiet, but the weight is relatively heavier.” That final phrase can be a little difficult, but essentially they are making the distinction that while typical stepping motors are smaller and lighter, the linear focus motor here is more powerful and has the necessary torque for rapid focus changes even with the heavy glass elements in a large aperture lens like this. And you can definitely feel the speed, as there is little hesitation when making focus changes and instead focus is essentially where you need it be near instantaneously...

Video focus pulls are smooth and fast, with no hesitation, pulsing, or settling. I also saw smooth, confident focus transitions when I put my hand in front of the lens and then allowed focus to transition back to my eyes. The only negative on the video front is that A) there is a significant amount of focus breathing and B) the Sigma is not compatible with Sony’s “breathing compensation” correction found in their newest cameras (so far this is only available with Sony branded lenses).
Click to expand...
https://dustinabbott.net/2023/02/sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-dn-art-review-a2023/
 
ahalpert said:
I like to read Dustin Abbott's lens reviews as he is pretty honest, comprehensive, and consistent.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Abbott's review seems completely about still photography. AF performance for stills has nearly zero relevance for video.
I would love to put that 50mm Sigma up against my 50mm Sony (or any other lenses) in controlled testing to see if they perform the same. I don't even have a gut feeling about it, let alone any actual experience with those off-brand lenses.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Abbott's review seems completely about still photography. AF performance for stills has nearly zero relevance for video.
I would love to put that 50mm Sigma up against my 50mm Sony (or any other lenses) in controlled testing to see if they perform the same. I don't even have a gut feeling about it, let alone any actual experience with those off-brand lenses.
Click to expand...

There is a section where he discusses performance in video. And I have found that many of the observations from still photography performance have implications for performance in video.

But basically there's nothing magical about being a Sony lens. Some Sony lenses are outperformed by 3rd party lenses. As Sony has improved their offerings and updated their older models, that ceases to be true. But not all Sony lenses have better autofocus than all 3rd-party lenses.
 
ahalpert said:
But not all Sony lenses have better autofocus than all 3rd-party lenses.
Click to expand...

Only fool would think ALL Sony lenses would perform better than other brands. But I would love to find out for myself what auto-focus differences there are with the current crop of lenses from all various manufacturers. I still like to believe that having a lens and camera made by the same company is usually going to be the best combo, but I haven't tested it, so I don't make any claims.
 
ahalpert said:
There is a section where he discusses performance in video.
Click to expand...

So, I just read that part of the article, and it confirms, once again, that we have yet another still photographer with no real professional video experience, and who doesn't understand what constitutes good auto-focus for video. Here's the quote:

"Video focus pulls are smooth and fast, with no hesitation, pulsing, or settling. I also saw smooth, confident focus transitions when I put my hand in front of the lens and then allowed focus to transition back to my eyes. The only negative on the video front is that A) there is a significant amount of focus breathing and B) the Sigma is not compatible with Sony’s “breathing compensation” correction found in their newest cameras (so far this is only available with Sony branded lenses)."

Wow, it focused from his hand to his eyes automatically! Nobody gives a rats ass about focus pulls using auto-focus. Useless information -- while he totally ignores what matters to us. What matters for video is the camera/lenses ability to smoothly and reliably track a moving subject anywhere it goes in the frame. Such as a person running towards the camera; wildlife moving randonly; motor sports; an interview subject that won't sit still at f/1.8; etc. The camera must be able to lock-on and track the movement smoothly with no mistakes or missed frames. AF focus must be able to do that or it isn't good enough for video. And if it can handle those scenarios, then nothing else matters. Case closed.

I'm not saying the lens he's reviewing isn't good for video, I'm just saying he does not offer any credible information one way or the other because he's a still photographer with a still photographer's mindset.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Only fool would think ALL Sony lenses would perform better than other brands. But I would love to find out for myself what auto-focus differences there are with the current crop of lenses from all various manufacturers. I still like to believe that having a lens and camera made by the same company is usually going to be the best combo, but I haven't tested it, so I don't make any claims.
Click to expand...

here's a video with a side by side video AF comparison of 4 50mm's: https://youtu.be/4Rv8_5NOkC0?si=qELGL_WWZ8qr_VXv

It doesn't test every type of focus behavior or scenario, but in the limited testing demonstrated you can see that the lenses perform similarly.
 
Doug Jensen said:
]

Wow, it focused from his hand to his eyes automatically! Nobody gives a rats ass about focus pulls using auto-focus. Useless information -- while he totally ignores what matters to us. What matters for video is the camera/lenses ability to smoothly and reliably track a moving subject anywhere it goes in the frame. Such as a person running towards the camera; wildlife moving randonly; motor sports; an interview subject that won't sit still at f/1.8; etc. The camera must be able to lock-on and track the movement smoothly with no mistakes or missed frames. AF focus must be able to do that or it isn't good enough for video. And if it can handle those scenarios, then nothing else matters. Case closed.
.
Click to expand...

He typically shoots his videos with the lens he's reviewing and will comment on how well it tracks him. But generally I find that the stills performance heralds video performance in the regards you mention. He takes rapid framerate captures of subjects running towards camera and you can see if and how often it misses focus. And that tells you if it will buzz when tracking a subject at that speed in video or if it's prone to switching to the wrong subject. He tests eye AF and sees how consistent it is under adverse conditions.

I just did a tour of YouTube looking for relevant material to this topic. Youtubers suck. They may even be getting worse. It's hard to find people conducting relevant tests.
 
ahalpert said:
But generally I find that the stills performance heralds video performance in the regards you mention..
Click to expand...

You're completely wrong. They are totally different on professional cameras. Stills needs rapid focus changes that stop moving just as the shutter snaps. Whatever happens just before or after the shot is taken does not matter because no image was captured between snaps. Good stills cameras even have predictive AF that tells the camera to focus where the subject will be when the shutter is open, not where it is when the shutter button is pressed. Video, on the other hand, requires constant, smooooth, focus changes that look organic. And whether you're shooting at 24, 30, 120, 240 fps -- every single frame needs to be sharp.

You ever shoot wildlife or telephoto sports with a good SLR? If so, you'd quickly see why video and stills are different.

Further more, stills cameras have had great auto-focus for 15-20 years, but it is only in the last 3-4 years that a few video cameras now have auto-focus that is good enough for professional use in some situations. And being good at one thing doesn't mean it's safe to assume it will good at the other.

Someone that knows how to shoot pro videos has to be the tester, or else the info isn't credible.
 
Doug Jensen said:
You're completely wrong. They are totally different on professional cameras. Stills needs rapid focus changes that stop moving just as the shutter snaps. Whatever happens just before or after the shot is taken does not matter because no image was captured between snaps. Good stills cameras even have predictive AF that tells the camera to focus where the subject will be when the shutter is open, not where it is when the shutter button is pressed. Video, on the other hand, requires constant, smooooth, focus changes that look organic. And whether you're shooting at 24, 30, 120, 240 fps -- every single frame needs to be sharp.

You ever shoot wildlife or telephoto sports with a good SLR? If so, you'd quickly see why video and stills are different.

Further more, stills cameras have had great auto-focus for 15-20 years, but it is only in the last 3-4 years that a few video cameras now have auto-focus that is good enough for professional use in some situations. And being good at one thing doesn't mean it's safe to assume it will good at the other.

Someone that knows how to shoot pro videos has to be the tester, or else the info isn't credible.
Click to expand...

Sure, but I don't find Sony performance generally differs between stills and video mode. On Canon cameras, I think there's a setting that lets focus gently settle into its final position. (I wish Sony offered this.) But when you're shooting either stills or video on a Sony mirrorless camera with PDAF, the behavior is the same. The camera doesn't care what it's shooting. And while you can't typically observe as many fps from a stills sequence as from a video, you're seeing the same thing.
 
I could see what you're saying with regard to single-shot AF. But when you're using C-AF, I believe the camera behaves the same way regardless of what it's recording.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top