Other: Sony 28-135 vs 18-110

Chris, Thanks for that explanation of your experience with 28-135 and 18-110. I've had an 18-110 for years with my FS7 but now with the FX9 there isn't really much need for an APS-C lens. So far though, although I understand the functional differences in the zoom and focus mechanisms, I've remained skeptical mainly because I've only seen 3 but none of them have been parfocal. Now I've had a lot of experience with the 18-110's and Sony has a terrible track record of adjusting these lenses correctly so they hold focus from tele to wide when in manual. Of course it should hold focus when its in AF but the test for parfocal is whether it does it in MF.. They will work perfectly when adjusted properly but its a crapshoot when you buy one and even Sony repair has a bad record of setting them up correctly without it taking a few trips back and forth. Unfortunately most people don't seem to understand what parfocall means anymore so there are hundreds of misadjusted sony zooms out there.

I recently borrowed a 28-135 from a friend who always complained that it was soft. I need to test it compared to my 18-110 but immediately saw that it is way out of the correct parfocal adjustment. its possible the lens isn't soft but he's just been screwed by zooming in , focusing and then pulling back to a no longer in focus wide picture. Its hard to tell even on a monitor sometimes .

I'm wondering what people's experience has been as to whether these tend to be softer than 18-110s and thanks for your input that they are equal optically. i'll test this one next week . But what has been your experience as to whether they are often set correctly or even capable of being parfocal? I figure if they had so much trouble with the 18-110's it might be even worse with the earlier 28-135's.

Actually I'm wondering whether Sony would honor the fact that my friends was never correct and agree to do the adjustment for free. They did that for a friend of mine but her lens was only a few months out of warranty, not years. Otherwise I think its a $600 or more fee for the lens to recalibrated. I';m reluctant to buy a used one for that reason.

Would love to hear from others about 28-135 - parfocal or not? Sharp as the 18-110?

Lenny
 
Last edited:
I've never done any side by side test with those two lenses. However, i'm currently shooting the exact same content with the 28 as i did w the 18 over the last four years or so. I can honestly say i have not noticed any drop in image quality, softness etc from one lens to the other and the 28 has given me no reason to rummage through past footage for comparison purposes. In terms of "parfocal" I would say mine is "parfocal(ish)" I don't even think Sony will admit that its a truly parfocal lens. So when i crash in and set focus then pull wide...i'm i tack sharp end to end? I don't know...but my peaking seems to think its close enough. I can also honestly say when i'm using the 28 (outside of it not being quite as responsive w the rocker) i forget i'm using it and not the 18...from an operational stand point it feels the same to me...or i don't let the slight differences bother me as i normally have bigger issues to worry about.

What i can say about both lenses is i've never had any mounting problems or failures and i've never used rails or support on the 700, 7 or 9. And i don't mean to offend anyone, but i'm not doing corporate work in an office building or a plant etc. I'm out in the elements beating on these things for long periods of time, four seasons, and often in extreme conditions: excessive heat, sub freezing, wind, rain, sleet, snow, hail, dust...and the ONLY piece(s) of equipment that have not failed are the lenses...and they have taken some abuse.

So...not trying to be the fan boy but for power zooms in the $2500-$4000 range, if there is a better option out there i'd love to know about it.
 
Thanks thirdyearish, Another vote for the lens being sharp enough.
Re Parfocal. I understand they are not technically parfocal as they use an electronic system rather than a purely optical system as we have been used to with lenses for years. However they should effectively function the same.

However the adjustment of those lenses from Sony is awful and irresponsible. They can be wildly off and obvious as my friends lens , or sometimes its iffy and you need to dig in it a bit more. Its hard to see focus at f4 when the lens is wide. To test it properly set iris at f4 and focus on something at least 6-10' away. The trick is to use the x4 and x8 magnification in the EVF to really be accurate and i always use colored peaking.. Then zoom in focus and pull out. If the best focus when you are wide is the same as the telephoto you are fine, but i've seen as many that were bad as good. I seem to have become the guy to send your lens to in the Bay area to check this and had arguments with Sony repair people who didn't know what they were doing ( they always relented though).. Ar this point I've seen 5 bad ones - brand new and 2 that came back from Sony repair worse than they went in.

Sadly I doubt they'd fix my friends without charging though they should.
 
Been using it for a year .. I dont use support with the fx9 locking E mount .. but the fx6 maybe its a benefit .. as others say.. it is what it is .. I mean there is alot of nit picking going on for a $2,500 FF servo zoom with a 28-135 range and more if you count s35 crop .. mine seems par focal .. if anything its too sharp .. its a cheap work horse lens .. and its absolutely the only game in town .. the manual focusing is fine ,you need to get used to it as with any lens .. an advantage of the fx9 I guess is you can just buy the camera and shoot everything s35 with s35 zooms .. and V3 even B4 ENG zooms .. ( the fx6 too but only in HD ..).. the fx9 servo is quicker than the fs7, but you can use manual zoom to quickly change frame size..(which needs to crash zoom all the time ).. the only way to tell is to rent it for a month and use it .. your only other alternatives as stills zooms or very expensive FF cine zooms .. or the new Sony $5k zooms .. the 16-35 is out but who knows when the others come along .. presuming the next is 24-70 .. that could be a very good all purpose full manual / auto lens for a decent price ..
 
Donny 123 said:
. I mean there is alot of nit picking going on for a $2,500 FF servo zoom with a 28-135 range
Click to expand...

This is true, but if the lens were unusably crappy or if one needs to do crash zooms, then you'll need to look at alternatives. There are no full-frame e-mount alternatives that I know of. I think the only alternatives are EF or PL mount and you won't be getting AF, IS, or a built-in servo.

Nevertheless, if the 28-135 couldn't cut the mustard, you'd have to look elsewhere and deal with an adapter and accessory motor

For me, the 28-135 is good enough. But I think the nitpicking is justified
 
ahalpert said:
This is true, but if the lens were unusably crappy or if one needs to do crash zooms, then you'll need to look at alternatives. There are no full-frame e-mount alternatives that I know of. I think the only alternatives are EF or PL mount and you won't be getting AF, IS, or a built-in servo.

Nevertheless, if the 28-135 couldn't cut the mustard, you'd have to look elsewhere and deal with an adapter and accessory motor

For me, the 28-135 is good enough. But I think the nitpicking is justified
Click to expand...

Agreed, I mean it does obviously cut the mustard and is usable , it depends how finely and at what price you want your mustard cut, I guess :) the obvious alternative but less range would have to be the new Cine zooms Sony are kindly making , with still relatively a very cheap price tag .. I'd love the "middle" one of the 3 to be a 24 to 110 mm but seems they are destined to be re housed stills .. even so the 24-70 ,with s35 crop could be a good all rounder ..
 
Donny 123 said:
Agreed, I mean it does obviously cut the mustard and is usable , it depends how finely and at what price you want your mustard cut, I guess :) the obvious alternative but less range would have to be the new Cine zooms Sony are kindly making , with still relatively a very cheap price tag .. I'd love the "middle" one of the 3 to be a 24 to 110 mm but seems they are destined to be re housed stills .. even so the 24-70 ,with s35 crop could be a good all rounder ..
Click to expand...

The sony cine 16-35 is $5.5k, so 2.2x the cost of the 28-135. So maybe their cine 24-70 will be about $5k? Still a good price, considering the dearth of alternatives...

The full-frame zoom department is relatively sparse. Here are the offerings at b&h: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...:full-frame,fct_zooms-primes_4696:zoom-lenses

The 28-135 is the cheapest at $2.5k

Then you've got the Tokina 16-28 for about $4k.

Then the Sigma 24-35 for $5k.

Sony 16-35 for $5.5k.

Then it jumps up to the $14k Angenieux S35 lenses with FF adapters that become a 22-60mm and a 45-135mm equivalent (5 lbs for the 22-60)
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1292122-REG/angenieux_ez_2_pack_ez_2_15_40mm_cinema_lens.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1292121-REG/angenieux_ez_1_pack_ez_1_30_90mm_cinema_lens.html

Zeiss has a 28-80 or a 70-200 for $22k. (5.5 lbs for the 28-80)
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/895004-REG/zeiss_2008_992_28_80mm_t2_9_compact_zoom.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/857787-REG/Zeiss_1984_159_70_200mm_T2_9_Compact_Zoom.html

Then Zeiss compact zoom 15-30 for $26k.

I guess Musashi has a 40.6-332mm for $38k? No details there but it's on the list.

Then Fujinon Premista 19-45, 28-100, 80-250 for $44k each. (8.4 lbs for the 28-100)

Arri 24-75 and 45-135 for $50k each. 16-32 for $70k. 65-300 for $75k.

Then finally the Angenieux Optimo Ultra 12x with FF rear optics lens that comes out to 36-435mm and weighs 28 lbs for $110k
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...ieux_ou12xfp_optimo_ultra_12x_full.html/specs

And this list is literally EVERY full-fame cine zoom in the B&H inventory

So, the 28-135 is really a sweet spot for a FF ENG lens in terms of cost and range. The next cheapest option is $14k and doesn't have the range (22-60 or 45-135). I'd rather have the Zeiss 28-80 for the range and that's $22k. Plus servo

And it's all moot for me because personally I wouldn't want to spend more than $5-10k on such a lens because I don't need an ENG type lens that badly. And I wouldn't spend more than $6k considering that the 28-135 is available. Unless I had clients paying regularly for it
 
Last edited:
ahalpert said:
The sony cine 16-35 is $5.5k, so 2.2x the cost of the 28-135. So maybe their cine 24-70 will be about $5k? Still a good price, considering the dearth of alternatives...

The full-frame zoom department is relatively sparse. Here are the offerings at b&h: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...:full-frame,fct_zooms-primes_4696:zoom-lenses

Yes sir , your preaching to the choir .. I have the 28-135 and think its a fine lens for the price and range .. the only other one that would tempt me would be the 24-70 Sony Cine zoom at around $5k ..but so far Im happy enough with the 28-135 with fast primes for interviews ..
Click to expand...
 
It would be nice if they just came out with a 28-135 II with the functionality of the 18-110. I use the 18-110 with a J4 zoom motor and it is a great subtle tool for live events, but the J4 won't work with that crazy zoom on the 28-135. However full frame on the FX9 is a better picture so I'm forced to make a trade off. Can't decide yet if its worth to even buy a 28-135 since I
already have a 24-105.
 
Last edited:
One thing I've noticed with the 28-135 on the FX6 is that with Clear Image Zoom enabled, there is a pause at the 135mm point when zooming in/out and that the zoom speed is different between the 28-135 and the Clear Image Zoom 1.0 to 1.5 range = I've not been able to get a smooth continuous zoom from wide to tele (or vice versa) when you include the Clear Image additional reach.
 
LennyLevy said:
Are you trying to Zoom both the lens and clear image zoom at the same time smoothly?
Click to expand...

I think he means enabling the setting that commences clear image zoom after the lens zooms to the limit of its telephoto end. same thing is doable on the a7siii and it has that little pause at the end of the optical zoom and then a different speed of zoom once clear image zoom starts. it would be amazing if sony programmed it to continuously zoom smoothly and at constant speed, but I doubt it will happen.
 
As ahalpert suggested. Using the Zoom rocker (top or side handle) to go from full wide to full tele when Clear Image is Enabled (so 28 --> through 135 --> then 1.0 to 1.5 Clear Image Zoom, or the equivalent of 28 --> 202.5), you get a pause at 135 as it switches to clear image zoom then a different zoom speed. Not that I use it much but the effect looks weird.

I noticed this when doing a side by side test of the 28-135 and the FE 24-240 Kit Lens after seeing a couple of posts that while it is hated in the Photo world, it is not to bad for Video. Anyway, here is a side by side comparison of the two lens going from full wide to full tele (incl Clear Image Zoom). You will have to download it as I encoded it at 80Mb/s to better see how they both looked.
https://behome.dyndns.info/index.php/s/k3t4TbFHqTine25 - 500MB file.

Edit - I was just comparing the Zoom Range. Gain, Iris, ND was all auto.
 
And if you're interested in the 24-240, don't forget about the tamron 28-200. The range is smaller but apparently the optics are head and shoulders above the 24-240
 
Just looking for a simple travel lens with OSS. That cheap Sony covers a nice wide 24mm to a reasonable tele 360mm (with Clear Image Zoom) in a small light package with OSS. I came from a Canon XF with a 15x Zoom (25.5 to 382.5 equivalent) so the range is familiar to me.... though this whole manual zooming thing will take some getting used to :)

I do wish there were more FE PZ OSS Lens to chose from - as the 28-135 is (currently) it.
 
LennyLevy said:
The trick is to use the x4 and x8 magnification in the EVF to really be accurate and i always use colored peaking.. Then zoom in focus and pull out. If the best focus when you are wide is the same as the telephoto you are fine, but i've seen as many that were bad as good.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I'll have some time at the end of the week to have a closer look...and maybe even do some side by sides with the lenses. It will also be a good exercise because i just swapped out the diopters in the loupes of all the cameras. My right eye is not what it used to be and if all goes well with the diopters, i won't need to run with peaking on full time. It'll feel like ten years ago!
 
Did you put corrective lenses in place of your diopters? I just to do that with film cameras because of astigmatism and it was quite an operation because it increased fogging . Then I had to put a little flexible tube in the eyecup and suck out the condensation. Looked odd, but it does work - "suck don't blow". Nowadays i just shoot video with my glasses on. Easier than removing them everytime I put my face to the camera. Hopefully you'll be lucky and the lens will be properly adjusted,
 
I can't shoot, especially on my shoulder, with glasses on so i went the diopter route plus it was easy and inexpensive.

I got a set of 52mm diopters 1 thru 4. I put the 4 on the Fx9, 3 on the Fs7 and 2 on the Fs700...so far so good. Prior to the new diopters I had the focus ring on the loupe buried to the left on all three camera...and it wasn't enough. Now on the 9, the focus ring is about halfway...so i have a lot of wiggle room if the eye gets worse...and i'm sure it will over time. Near the same on the 7, its at about 3/4...so i have some play there as well. 700 i don't use that much anymore...but if i do, i got some help there as well.
 
I think I have a 3 or 4 on the FS7 and haven't gotten around to the FX9 yet. But I use them with my glasses. I'm surprised you have trouble shooting with glasses since I do it all the time. But I have astigmatism, a diopter wouldn't help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top