FS7: recommended stabilized long lens for fs7 ?

P

Publimix

Veteran
I use old Nikkor Telelenses for filming birds. Now I am looking for a 400mm telelens.
Found some old Nikkors on eBay for reasonably money, but these long lenses do not have image stabilization.
My tripod is good but not rocksolid and even then the underground isn't either (No rocks in the Netherlands).

Anyone using long lenses that are stabilized?

Please share your experience.
 
I have a Canon 100-400 MkI. Nice and sharp. If I was buying new, I'd get the MkII version, as it zooms internally, rather than the MkI trombone-style.

100-400 © Matobo Ltd 2015 40.jpg
 
I have used my Canon 100-400 L IS connected with Metabones V4 successfully with FS700, FS7 and FS5 the IS is not as good as the Sony native lenses but it works, focus is a bit hard best done manually. Your best bet for IS is a Sony E-mount native lens IMHO.
 
I use a Canon 200-400 f/4 with built-in 1.4x extender (allowing 4K up to 560mm) on my F55 for wildlife and I would never use IS stabilization even if I could. At telephoto focal lengths the stabilization actually interferes with movement and gives the video a rubber band kind of feel as the camera can't quite figure out what is intended motion and what is not. I have seen it on my FS7 and FS5 even when using the 18-105 kit lens and it is ugly. If you feel you need stabilization I would suggest that your tripod system is not up to the task. Here's some stuff I shot a couple of months ago with the F55. A lot of this was shot with center crop turned on so the equivalent focal length was up to 1120mm and it is pretty steady.

https://vimeo.com/145927938
 
Hi Doug, that lens is a bit out of my budget at this moment. If you don't use IS you should suggest I can go for the old prime lens? Like Nikkor 400mm 5.6. Since I always need ND f5.6 isn't a real problem.

The tripod isn't the problem, the ground is. (Filming on unstable ground, heavy traffic and jelly-like underground.)
 
I wasn't suggesting that you invest in that Canon 200-400 lens, I was saying that perhaps a better tripod is needed and I still believe that. I was using that lens to point out that even at 1120mm stabilization isn't needed. The lens itself doesn't really matter whether it is a Nikon, a Canon or whatever. It comes down to a matter of technique to deal with less than ideal ground conditions. Good solid nature cinematography has been around for decades -- a lot longer than IS lenses have been around, right? So how have people done it? I really think that the unwanted rubber-band side-effects of telephoto stabilization outweigh whatever small benefits it may provide in some isolated shaky ground conditions. Get a better tripod and choose your setup more carefully. That's just my suggestion for whatever it is worth.
 
I'd suggest one doesn't write-off IS completely.

Yes, it can get confused and look floaty and shite sometimes. But it can also get you out of jail free occasionally, if you're a solo op, on light legs and with a lightweight camera. That pic of me above with a 100-400 on a basic FS7 and Miller solo legs was taken at 10,000 feet in the Himalayas and took us two days to get there. A heavy Ronford Baker or similar would have been lush - but not possible with the constraints we had. I just have to shoot within the limitations that IS imposes.

Also, I think worth noting - hefty legs and head are only part of a solution. If the camera/lens system is too light, it won't have the damping effect and inertia that we enjoyed on older film and tape camera systems. So it can sit on a big expensive behemoth of a tripod system and still shake like a $hitting dog, simply because it's light, with a wobbly lens mount etc.

I'm not getting rid of my 100-400 in a hurry. It's still a useful part of my lens arsenal and I definitely value the IS whenever I use it. It's one of life's compromises for me.
 
I have to say every single time I have used IS on a lens it has ruined my shots. Maybe my type of shooting is suited to it.
 
Ok now I know a bit more about the pro's and cons about IS. (I wonder if this IS talk triggers the NSA searching machines, as in Holland it stands for Islamitic State, so expect some investigators at your door:cheesy: )
Another concern one is the lack of e-mount long lenses with SI. The Sigma and the Tamron both have alpha mount but not e-mount as far as I can see. I don't really want to buy a lens and have to buy a sony alpha to sony e-mount adapter too.

So probably the outcome will be another old Nikkor.
 
Personally I think it is worth checking the 18-250 sony lens.

It is horrible but super cheap, small and light - I think the IS is quite good.

I use this in conjunction with my 50-300 nikkor manual which is a 'proper' lens

S
 
Hi Morgan,
I use the 50-300, it it is almost glued to my camera. So another Nikkor in the 400-600 range would be OK.
 
The manual one? Nice lens IMO.

A proper stabilised telephoto? Dunno - I have a nikkor 400.2.8 but never tried the stabilisation with video. There are now nikkor adapters hitting the market that may work the IS.

S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top