FS7: Run & Gun - All in One Lens

Joshua Milligan

Joshua Milligan

Well-known member
Hey friends. So I do all sorts of video work, but my main line of work in run & gun wildlife docs. These consist of filming people, landscapes and, of course, wildlife. I just finished a shoot like this in Alaska a few weeks ago and I used my FS7 with the Canon 28-300 L. I love the images it produces, but its weighs over 3.5 lbs. Plus, since it is so heavy, I have to use an Arri rig with rails to support it. Since we are backpacking in the middle of nowhere and have to hike a lot for the shoots, filming with this combo was painful. I cannot do that again. Not only was it painful, but the crop factor of the FS7 on the wide end of that lens kept me from getting wide shots.

Since these shoots are so run & gun with my FS7, there's not a lot of time to change lenses. I use other lenses when I film at camp but when we are in the field filming with the FS7, I have to be able to go wide to film people and then zoom right into the animals that they are pointing at. This means my lens has to be an all in one lens.

The only real lens I can find that can accomplish this is the Tamron 16-300mm 3.5-6.3. It weighs about the same as my 16-35 2.8L II and is really small. This means that I don't have to have a rig either to support it. This immediately would cut down the weight tremendously, but I don't know much about it other than playing with it at the store. IS on it seems great, but I couldn't get a feel for the quality of the images in the store. Has anyone ever shot with this lens? It's an APS-C lens and has a full frame brother which is the 28-300 3.5-6.3 Tamron. The 28-300 costs nearly $900 and the 16-300 costs around $550, so I'm under the impression that they are at least of decent quality. I'd rather get the 16-300 because it is equivalent to 25.5-450mm which is a huge range.

Other than that lens, does anyone have any other ideas as to what lens I could get to get me this kind of range? Thanks!
 
That is the 100.000 dollar question.

Some expensive and not so expensive alternatives to dream of:

50-1000.jpg
Canon 50-1000 !!! mm 70.000 dollar


Fujinon ZK 12x25 25-300mm (36.000 euro):

0007151_25-300mm-cabrio-t35-385-zk12x25.jpg

canon_9785b001_cn7x17_kas_s_cine_servo_1396442796000_1043629.jpg canon 17-120 26.000 dollar

or

Or Nikkor 4.5 50-300 (400 euro Ebay)

Nikkor50300mmf45EDadorama2.JPG
 
Last edited:
Joshua Milligan said:
Hey friends. So I do all sorts of video work, but my main line of work in run & gun wildlife docs. These consist of filming people, landscapes and, of course, wildlife. I just finished a shoot like this in Alaska a few weeks ago and I used my FS7 with the Canon 28-300 L. I love the images it produces, but its weighs over 3.5 lbs. Plus, since it is so heavy, I have to use an Arri rig with rails to support it. Since we are backpacking in the middle of nowhere and have to hike a lot for the shoots, filming with this combo was painful. I cannot do that again. Not only was it painful, but the crop factor of the FS7 on the wide end of that lens kept me from getting wide shots.

Since these shoots are so run & gun with my FS7, there's not a lot of time to change lenses. I use other lenses when I film at camp but when we are in the field filming with the FS7, I have to be able to go wide to film people and then zoom right into the animals that they are pointing at. This means my lens has to be an all in one lens.

The only real lens I can find that can accomplish this is the Tamron 16-300mm 3.5-6.3. It weighs about the same as my 16-35 2.8L II and is really small. This means that I don't have to have a rig either to support it. This immediately would cut down the weight tremendously, but I don't know much about it other than playing with it at the store. IS on it seems great, but I couldn't get a feel for the quality of the images in the store. Has anyone ever shot with this lens? It's an APS-C lens and has a full frame brother which is the 28-300 3.5-6.3 Tamron. The 28-300 costs nearly $900 and the 16-300 costs around $550, so I'm under the impression that they are at least of decent quality. I'd rather get the 16-300 because it is equivalent to 25.5-450mm which is a huge range.

Other than that lens, does anyone have any other ideas as to what lens I could get to get me this kind of range? Thanks!
Click to expand...

I'm a huge fan of the 28-300, and find it to be a very convenient all-around lens (although I agree that it's heavier than ideal, for sure). Are you using a Metabones non-SB? If not then I fear that you won't find another lens with the same tele reach that goes wider than a 28mm, and if so - then get the Speedbooster!

I looked into the 28-300 Tamron, and shot several test shots at various focal lengths. The IQ is clearly lower than the canon 28-300, in all the ways you'd expect (CA, distortion, sharpness, contrast, bokeh), BUT it IS a helluva lot lighter, you're right!

I think you need to ask yourself which is the priority for you (or perhaps more importantly, your client)... IQ, or your continuing ability to do these hiking shoots for the same money (i.e. without an assistant to carry lenses and help you swap primes more quickly when needed). If it's the IQ, then you ask for more money to keep using the Canon L-series 28-300, book an assistant, and buy a couple of nice primes to boot. If it's your continuing ability to deliver on the same budget, then sell the Canon-L, buy the Tamron, and enjoy your nearly half-weight rig!

Sorry if this seems dismissively simple, but I'm afraid there are certain laws of physics and manufacturing technologies at play here, and there's a reason why that Fuji 25-300 that Publimix mentioned weighs in at 10kg (that's 19.6lbs)!!! It DOES look nice though ... ;-) Do NOT hope vainly to find something that looks great, and weighs next-to-nothing, period.

BTW, not sure if you've seen this already, but here's a typically comprehensive review of the Tamron 16-300 you mentioned on DPreview.com: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/tamron-16-300mm-f-3-5-6-3-di-ii-vc-pzd-macro

Happy hunting,

jason
 
P.S. I just looked back over that DPreview I linked, and noticed that: "Sony version will not have image stabilisation, and will be called '16-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II PZD Macro'"...

Not sure if that affects your choice, but if you're shooting run and gun at circa 300mm, I think it probably should! :-) That would leave you with the Tamron 28-300 + Metabones SB, which is more expensive, but still much smaller & lighter than the Canon-L (and inferior in all the ways I mentioned).

Hmmmmmm...

jason
 
I remember trying a Tamron 16-300 about a year and 1/2 ago because Alister Chapman recommended it for uses similar to what you described. I was looking at it as an alternative to the Sony 18-200 PZ because it had better (not fly-by-wire) focusing. I never did get to check IQ though because I had trouble getting the Ef version's iris to work with metabones ( at least that's what I remember .) I liked it just for size and ease of use though. We are a few firmware updates ahead on the metabones now though so it might work better. My guess is the EF version will retain IS.
My advice though would be to do what I did. Just buy it with month approval from B&H or Adorama and check it out. It was certainly small and convenient. You could also check out the 18-200 PZ in the same manner. I suspect though that other posters are right - none of these cheap all purpose zooms will give you fabulous IQ . The question will be what's good enough for your needs. Post here with your results though.
 
Last edited:
I just don't think the FS7 plus a dodgy Superzoom is the best fit for general videography.

Unless you've got a shed load of money and you can afford a par focal cinema zoom you are simply better off with a small sensor video camera package which will have a similar focal range if not longer, probably a fixed aperture, great video tuned IS etc etc.

I know this is the wrong area of the forum to suggest such a thing as whenever I say this I usually get down voted.
 
Nirv said:
I just don't think the FS7 plus a dodgy Superzoom is the best fit for general videography.

Unless you've got a shed load of money and you can afford a par focal cinema zoom you are simply better off with a small sensor video camera package which will have a similar focal range if not longer, probably a fixed aperture, great video tuned IS etc etc.

I know this is the wrong area of the forum to suggest such a thing as whenever I say this I usually get down voted.
Click to expand...

You've got my (up)vote. People want a huge zoom range, and run n gun flexibility, and be able to focus super fast? All these larger sensor cams seem the complete opposite of that, nonetheless client demands rule, and I guess if they like the shallower DOF look, you are stuck with using the less user-friendly setup. I was working at the NCAA Final Four earlier this year and I believe someone was running around one of the games shooting players with an FS5. Seems crazy to me but whatever.
 
Hate to say this, but perhaps you would be better served with an additional 2/3" or 1/2" camera just for these situations. They're plentiful and cheap on the used market. So are the lenses....
 
JCummings said:
Hate to say this, but perhaps you would be better served with an additional 2/3" or 1/2" camera just for these situations. They're plentiful and cheap on the used market. So are the lenses....
Click to expand...

Maybe you are right but this camera with its E-mount is marketed as a device that can handle thousands of different lenses.

I hope it is a matter of time before decent lenses will appear.
 
It can handle thousands of lenses.

But the lens you want hasn't been invented and the closest lenses to it are 10s of thousands of dollars/pounds.

So you either work around it or use a tool more suited.
 
Ben Scott said:
It can handle thousands of lenses.

But the lens you want hasn't been invented and the closest lenses to it are 10s of thousands of dollars/pounds.

So you either work around it or use a tool more suited.
Click to expand...


+1
There's a ton of people buying the wrong camera for what they need to shoot. They fall victim to the buzz of big sensors, s-log, etc. and fail to consider other tools that might be more suited to the way they have to work. Affordable lenses that fit the focal length ranges and f-stops these people dream of will never happen because they simply cannot be manufactured at cost they want to pay. BTW, I'm dreaming for the day when I can get a Ferrari for unbder $10K. Surely it can be done!
 
Last edited:
I prefer euro's these days (until the next bank-crisis.) :-)

It is not me who wants this allround lens, the OP wants it. I would be happy with a good 4K 18-105 mm zoom. And I am more than happy with my old manual focus lenses.

Testing a Tamron 150-600 mm now, nice lens but nothing works right. No IS, no AF, sloppy iris control. Now I am waiting for the next (metabones) adapter which is half the price of the lens. So there are a lot of lenses to choose from, but it is a gamble to find the right adapter/lens combination too.
 
Why would you ever need AF or IS on a 150-600mm lens anyway? I can't imagine a pro needing either of those things on a lens of that focal length.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Why would you ever need AF or IS on a 150-600mm lens anyway? I can't imagine a pro needing either of those things on a lens of that focal length.
Click to expand...

Iris control would be nice. Even a real pro can't do without I'd think.

I wasn't saying I need IS and AF. I used this combi as an example because it is the only electronic lens I have (only for a month), it could have been any other combi. I only expect things to work as advertised.
 
I must be missing something because I don't understand why you are complaining publicly that a lens doesn't do things that you then say you wouldn't use anyway.
 
Oddly this conversation has made me interested in the idea of the Canon 28-300 with a speedbooster. Aside from the size and weight ( serious considerations of course) it might be a better alternative to the 18-200 I currently have. Does anyone know if it is parfocal or at least somewhat parfocal ( by that I mean it doesn't go wildly out of focus when you change the zoom.)
Also if you set the iris at 5.6 will it remain at that f stop throughout the zoom range?
 
Last edited:
Doug Jensen said:
I must be missing something because I don't understand why you are complaining publicly that a lens doesn't do things that you then say you wouldn't use anyway.
Click to expand...

Ha Ha. Then I'll try it again :-) Though I get the feeling you misinterpret my posts on purpose. What was it called here? Straw man argument?

What I want to say is this lens/adapter combi doesn't do anything as advertised. No more no less.

To use the same strawmans technique: your answer for the initial question: 'which FS7 Run and gun lens' would be "buy another camera"

:Drogar-Happy(DBG):
 
Lenilenapi said:
Oddly this conversation has made me interested in the idea of the Canon 28-300 with a speedbooster. ?
Click to expand...

Yeah, if some one is really willing to settle for a single one-size-fits-all lens that can cover a wide range of focal lengths, yet be a master at nothing, that Canon has to be at the top of the list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top