Other: Sony 28-135 vs 18-110

Joshua Milligan

Joshua Milligan

Well-known member
I know there are some "reviews" out there on the 28-135, but I want to hear from real world shooters who actually have used it for paid work.

I have the 18-110 and have used it a lot on my FS7II over the past few years and I really like it. It's one of my most used lenses. The focal range, the manual focus, the ability to do crash zooms, the lack of breathing, it's all fantastic.

Since I recently picked up a Sony FX6 and am selling my FS7II, I know that keeping my 18-110 doesn't make a lot of sense. It would only work on the FX6 in HD in Super35 mode or in full frame mode with Clear Image Zoom which isn't perfect and takes away from a lot of the autofocusing options which are so good on this camera. As such, getting the 28-135 since it's a full frame lens makes a lot of sense.

My fear, however, is that the 28-135 won't be great to work with. I've never personally used this lens, therefore I have no personal experiences with it. But from what I've read it seems that this lens can't do crash zooms because you can't de-clutch the servo like you can on the 18-110, the focus is also somehow servo powered where it doesn't feel mechanical like the 18-110 does, and that the overall build quality and optics aren't up to the standards of the 18-110 (hence the cheaper price).

What I'm wanting to hear are real world experiences from those of you who own or have worked with this lens. Is it really all that bad, or does it work pretty well? Have any of you tried it out on the FX9 or the FX6? And if so, what were your thoughts?

Thanks guys. I appreciate your insight!
 
It's really all that bad, but it does work pretty well :). I think you should just rent it to see how much it irks you.

You can do quick zooms but not crash zooms. The autofocus is also not as snappy and responsive as any of my newer stills lenses (sigma 24-70, tamron 70-180, samyang 35/85). I've used it on the A7SIII.

My impression of the build quality and optics is not that great, although the sharpness is fine and distortion compensation in-camera can help out the wide end.

So, I'd say it gets the job done. You have range, you have servo zoom. I still think it's a good lens for coverage (although I really wouldn't mind if it widened to 24mm). I just think they should come out with a mark 2 version. But on the plus side, you can buy it used for a song.
 
When you take the tripod collar off, is there screw hole under where the collar was for you to thread a lens support into like there is on the 18-110, or do you absolutely have to have the lens collar on for a screw in lens support?
 
I used the 28-135 for about a year on my Fs5 (borrowed from a friend) and while it has its shortcomings I think its unbeatable for the price (and is way more tempting now, with the FX6 or FX9).

For all its flaws—including no crash zoom ability, not great manual focusing, and a bit shorter and slower than is ideal—you still get a parfocal lens with good range and servo control. I was able to get some nice, slow zooms with it, and the optical quality always seemed good to me. The slow max aperture is also less of an issue with the FX series.

I'm currently using the much lighter and cheaper 24-105 on my FX6, but the 28-135 is tempting. Unfortunately I think prices for used ones are starting to reflect the increased demand in light of the FX cameras...
 
drboffa said:
I used the 28-135 for about a year on my Fs5 (borrowed from a friend) and while it has its shortcomings I think its unbeatable for the price (and is way more tempting now, with the FX6 or FX9).

For all its flaws—including no crash zoom ability, not great manual focusing, and a bit shorter and slower than is ideal—you still get a parfocal lens with good range and servo control. I was able to get some nice, slow zooms with it, and the optical quality always seemed good to me. The slow max aperture is also less of an issue with the FX series.

I'm currently using the much lighter and cheaper 24-105 on my FX6, but the 28-135 is tempting. Unfortunately I think prices for used ones are starting to reflect the increased demand in light of the FX cameras...
Click to expand...

I originally owned a Canon 18-80 and then moved to the Sony 18-110 and loved both of them. They both worked really well and the image quality on both I thought was fantastic. The Canon had a prettier image to my eye than the 18-110 Sony, but the Sony still looked great and had a more useful range.

The thought of going from lenses like that to a 24-105 seems crazy, but I must admit that I like the thought of the small & compact setup I'd have with the FX6 and Sony's 24-105 lens. Talk about a tiny yet effective little combo!

That being said, I do like having lenses with a more useable manual focus and control over the IRIS on the lens, not to mention lenses that don't breathe a lot and that are (even if digitally) parfocal. So I may have to give the 28-135 a shot. I just hope that the image quality is there and that the manual focus is reliable. That and I hope the focus can track when needed. It certainly should as the 18-110 can do all of those things!
 
I've the FX6 and the 28-135. There is no screw mount on the lens once the collar is removed. I've been running the 28-135 without any lens support and it is fine on the FX6 body.

While I think the lens works well, I'm no professional so here is a (500MB) 10 Sec clip in original MXF (shot in HLG, UHD, 50fps, 360 Shutter) that may give you an idea of how it looks. Happy to provide other test sample if it helps (and you let me know what settings you want me to use).

https://behome.dyndns.info/index.php/s/XtwR8ZWXqwe5jSR

Note: This is coming from my server in Australia so it will be slow to download for you Northern Hemi users!
 
Joshua Milligan said:
Is it really all that bad, or does it work pretty well? Have any of you tried it out on the FX9 or the FX6? And if so, what were your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I have both. I've had the 28 for a long time...bought it when it came out for use with the FS700. However as we all know, didn't pair well with 700 or the 7 so i picked up the 18 when it came out and the 28 for the most part sat in a case for a number of years. I now have the 9 and brought it back to life. I'm in the midst of shooting a doc so i used it a lot last year, mostly run and gun, mostly exterior. I don't use it for interviews so i can't speak on that. I have however used autofocus with is quite a bit...and it works, very well.

It's the same size, roughly the same weight and has most if not all the features of the 18. I keep them both in one case and at a glance the only way i can tell them apart is the 18 has the gear teeth and the 28 doesn't. The rocker response seems a little better than it did on the 700 or the 7 and yes, no crash zooms.

It's a $2600 power zoom, so its all relative. Is it all that bad...no. Is it a great lens...i wouldn't go that far. Is it a serviceable run and gun lens on the 9 yes. It works...at least for me, but its not perfect...but it's not $30k either.
 
It's worth noting that you can do a quick zoom with the 28-135. I haven't timed it - maybe a second or so to clear the whole range? So, not a true crash. But you're not always stuck at a crawl either. Although there is a weird tiny delay between starting and stopping the move because it zooms by wire
 
Have you noticed any difference3 in resolution between the 28-135 and 18-110. My impression was that the glass on the 18-110 was just sharper but other people have told me its the same. Is your
28-135 parfocal? That's another common problem with both lenses.
 
I don't own the 28-135. I do own the 18-110. I have used the 28-135 on many occasions. Visually I find both of them almost identical in sharpness, breathing, calorimetry contrast etc. My impression is the AF on the 18-110 is a little snappier. The biggest difference is that the 18-110 is mechanically linked when you go to manual zoom and you can crash in/out with it. If you do that very quickly with the 18-110's zoom the AF has a bit of a struggle keeping up during the movement but lands pretty well in focus with its electronically assisted 'parfocal' performance when you stop. You just can't do that with 28-135 as it is not mechanically linked when you select manual zoom. It still has to drive through the electronic servo. Like when the 18-110 is off the camera you can zoom its optics. Not so with the 28-135. The BIGGEST weakness of both lenses is that they have incredibly weak rear flange mounts. The 28-135 has a bad reputation if handled a bit heavily of snapping the rear flange off. The horror is when you look inside all that holds the whole lens to the flange are some very thin plastic posts with thread holes at the end of them to screw the flange onto. Absolutely nothing like a B4 lens in build quality. Those things used to take a daily battering when I shot news. I couldn't see either of these two E-Mount lenses serving more than a few weeks in that environment. Take the 28-135 lens back to Sony and they tell you it's unserviceable and there are no parts available to repair them. Bye, bye lens. I have heard the 18-110 can suffer the same sad end though I haven't seen a flange broken off on the 18-110. Hearsay says that the 18-110 flange posts are thicker and stronger though cannot confirm that. Put it this way. I'm spooked enough that I will not run either lens without a screw in support. Either with rails or a Genustech GAP: Genus Adaptor Plate if used on the FS7. On the A7's it's a little different as I use the lens support foot for tripod mounting and the camera just hangs off the back. Finally, the 28-135 lens cap is a real horrible afterthought. Bottom line if treated carefully both lenses offer a hell of a lot of capability and functionality for the price ranges the two of them sit in. One weird instance comes to mind. On one job with the 28-135 on an FS7 I could focus at full zoom but there was no way it would hold focus when zoomed back. Either with the servo or pseudo manual zoom. Could not get it to remain in focus. Tried going back and forth between man and AF, no luck. Turned the camera off and back on again and normal service was resumed. Was never able to pin down the cause of that one-off weird behavior. Only ever had it happen that one time.

Chris Young

A comparison between the two lenses of zoom speeds using their servos on an FS7.
 
I'd say the only times I want to use the 28-135 is when I need a servo zoom for let's say live streaming in a studio environment. For run and gun I stick with my Tamron 28-75. The 28-135 doesn't have a pretty look to it, it's more of a ENG look, but the range and smooth servo features makes it a good lens to have at hand. Getting a used one used to be cheap but I guess price went up when the FX9 and FX6 came.

Anyway don't expect it to do wonders for your footage. It's more of a good lens to have in case of.
 
I have the Sony 24-70 GM and I love it. I just don’t get great handheld shots with it on my FX6 since there isn’t IBIS in the camera and the camera is so light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top