Sony A7SIII = $3500, 10-bit 4K120p internal, 16-bit 4K60p RAW out

puredrifting said:
I dont have experience with those specific lenses but in general, you're going to want Sigma over Tamron. Tamron used to be considered a "mud" brand. While they have
imnproved a bit, Sigma has shot to the top, often more desirable than OEM brand lenses with their ART lineup. That feat is kind of incredible for a third party lens brand.
Click to expand...

Sigma's ARTs were hot 2014-2017...it's been a while now and others make a lot of great glass.

Mentioned this the other month, but Roger from LensRentals who's highly respected for his glass knowledge thinks the Tamron 35mm 1.4 is currently the best 35mm lens in the world. That includes being put up against Canon's 35mm II!!

Sharpness, quality, bokeh, colors, contrast, coatings...these are all things you don't have to be concerned with as much with a lot of the more expensive options from everyone these days.

It's only pristine AF support that's a thought.
 
puredrifting said:
Just change lenses and shoot with a pair of real zooms or better yet, a 3-4 lens set of primes.
Click to expand...

Shooting weddings is simple. Get out of car, strap a camera to each hip. Grab 2 tripods, monopod, lens bag, audio recorder, cables, find bathroom, scarf down sandwich or peanut butter crackers, you may not eat again. Meet wedding planner. Put one camera with long lens on tripod and another with fast lens on your hip. Wedding party has pulled up, get shots of that. From daylight into the dressing rooms, shots of the groom's party getting dressed, shots of liquor and toasts, and the shoes. The bridal party is getting ready, need shots of that, mother in law wants shots of the reading of a letter, and exchange of gifts. The bride wants shots of the wedding dress, the photographer has carried it outside. Put on ND so you can shoot it cinematically, wide aperture and shallow DOP. Run back inside, she's already opened the letter. No time to remove ND, roll footage. 10 minutes to go. Audio recorder needs plugged into the house pa. Get a mic on the officiant. Where is he? Fv3k it. No time to waste, get footage rolling on the tripod cam, recompose, focus. Guests are pouring in, tripod angle now blocked, reposition, refocus. Officiant and groom already walking up the aisle. Wrong lens, roll footage anyway, no ND. Switch lens quickly before the wedding party march. No time to put on monopod, you'll have to handhold for the entire ceremony, arms aching already. Waiting on the bride, she's taking forever. Be ready, any second now. What's taking so long? Swing around to get groom's reaction shot. Bridesmaids have moved into FOV, pick up and move. Front row people creeping into shot. Reposition. Get on knee, keep out of shots of photog and 2nd video. Put first camera on 2nd tripod, move to 2nd camera and recompose, check focus, go back to first camera, take off tripod to hand hold, Only 4 more hours of this, the rain hasn't begun, 2nd camera is baking in the sun. Being picky about superzooms? Variable ND? I don't think so. BTW, I don't own one, but I can appreciate how it would simplify things greatly. When every shot counts, imperfect shots are better than getting no shot.
 
Tom Roper said:
...Being picky about superzooms? Variable ND? I don't think so....When every shot counts, imperfect shots are better than getting no shot.
Click to expand...

Yes. This is why the below professional photographers/videographers are all using zooms. Not one is using primes. These are all professionals who are well aware of the image tradeoffs and they all probably own a bunch of primes and may use them for narrative work. But you don't see them using any here:

Emma McQuiston photographs the Marquess of Bath Ceawlin Thynn: https://joema.smugmug.com/Photography/Emma-McQuiston-Fashion-Shoot/n-znwr5f/i-3Nzvgdg/A

Director Robert Rodriguez shoots a music video: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-8Wg2Z6c/0/X2/i-8Wg2Z6c-X2.jpg

DP/Director Philip Bloom shoots material on a George Lucas movie: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-rch2Bpj/0/O/i-rch2Bpj.jpg

ABC News shoots three-camera interview in front of White House: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-XDdmw7D/0/X2/i-XDdmw7D-X2.jpg

ABC photographers shoot news conference: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-FNc4Snk/0/XL/i-FNc4Snk-XL.jpg

Tishan Baldeo photographers shoot a wedding: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-db7Rmg9/0/X2/i-db7Rmg9-X2.jpg

Pro photographers shoot NHRA drag racing event: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-BXbbRMx/0/X3/i-BXbbRMx-X3.jpg

Shooting Super Bowl commercial: https://joema.smugmug.com/Photography/DSLRs-shoot-Arnold-Golds-Gym/n-jzcNXR/

CNN Moneyline multi-camera shoot: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tQ6Wj4s/0/X2/i-tQ6Wj4s-X2.jpg
 
Wasn't Pure talking about super zooms? And not just zooms in general? thought he also mentioned "real zooms".
 
James0b57 said:
Wasn't Pure talking about super zooms? And not just zooms in general? thought he also mentioned "real zooms".
Click to expand...

The statement was "all zooms are a physical and engineering compromise" (which I agree with) but that includes consumer-level super zooms and pro-level zooms. My doc team has several nice prime cinema lenses. I love the smooth linear focus throw of a cinema prime. However when attached to a big rigged-up Ursa camera on a heavy tripod for an event (not narrative) shoot, "zoom with your feet" doesn't work that well. I fully agree about avoiding consumer-level super zoom lenses where possible. But high-quality pro zoom lenses (while themselves having compromises vs a prime) simply must be used in many situations. As Tom said, it's the difference between getting the shot vs not getting it.
 
puredrifting said:
Not to sound repetitive but super zooms SUCK! Study a little about optical engineering you will see that all zooms are a physical and engineering compromise, that's why primes are better, just less convenient.
From an optical engineering background, each lens design is a study in compromise, to achieve a price point, a build standpoint, an image degradation standpoint. The more elements in a lens, the worse the
performance, that's why a $100 50mm prime is sharper than a $2k zoom at 50mm. Super zooms have terrible pincushion distortion on the wide end and dim, CA filled images on the long end.

For someone as engaged with creating the best possible image as you, I can't imagine that you will ever be satisfied with any super zoom. I've owned a few Nikons, a few Canons and I always sell them off
because they just suck. And most aren't cheap either. Just change lenses and shoot with a pair of real zooms or better yet, a 3-4 lens set of primes. Other than a select few, I am trying to stop using zooms
because even the better quality ones just don't compare to even my cheap primes in sharpness and in speed and size/weight.
Click to expand...

Yes, obviously superzooms are a compromise and usually have more distortion and CA and are less sharp, not to mention much slower. ("The more you ask of a lens, the less it will do for you.") But I would offer a few rebuttals:

1. Here are some photos taken with the 28-200. They dont blind me with their ugliness - https://www.flickr.com/photos/transcontinenta/albums/72157714658876623/

2. Angenieux makes superzooms. Clockwork Orange had shots with the S16 12-240 and an optical adapter. The optical formula was later engineered for S35 as a 24-480

3. I actually think that zooms have gotten so good that the biggest difference between them and primes is the speed. There are no f/1.4 zooms that I know of.

4. The real issue is that if you're shooting event coverage or documentary or even just fast-paced b-roll, you may not have time to swing lenses. Especially if you're on a gimbal. I have canon L 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 plus a bunch of other zooms and prime lenses in EF mount, including a full set of Rokinon cine DS which are quite pretty stopped down to f/2.8. I still reach for my 18-270 when I need to move with utmost speed and I will be in a bright environment.

5. I considered just getting a sigma 24-70 f/2.8 for sony. But I really wanted a bokeh monster for shallow DOF options. If I have to shoot a prime lens on gimbal, I usually go with a 50mm. I can basically get mediums, CUs and wides (by panning) with that. If I have a 50 1.4, I'd almost rather use that than a 24-70 most of the time for this purpose. If I really need to go to 24mm, I might be in a situation where I need to zoom in suddenly as well. (Or if I have time, i can use an EF wide angle prime and focus majually.) Even if I buy more e-mount lenses later, the 28-200 would still have its place. And right now it would give me an AF wide angle, telephoto, and superzoom capability. But most of the time, when I can get by on a prime, I'd just be on the 50mm. A strategy I am toying with now anyway. I dont want to replace all my EF lenses. Especially right now!

PS I love lens debates
 
Last edited:
I've seen Sony FS5 kits sold with the 18-105 f/4 PZ lens. That is not a terrible lens at that price point ($650), but is it really a good choice for a $4,500 camera? OTOH the only other Sony option for an E-mount S35 power zoom lens is the 18-110 f/4 which costs almost as much as the FS5 body. So there is a good argument to not reflexively use a zoom lens (esp. a super zoom) without considering other options. My team also has a DVX-200 which is obviously a fixed-lens camcorder. It is good for certain things. If using primes was the "end all and be all", no professional news orgs would be using cameras with fixed zoom lenses.
 
With weddings, you're shooting documentary style but your footage is culled for the highlight reel. Cinematic style is still important, hence why we don't shoot with camcorders which would be so much simpler. But there is so much stuff to haul around, and you get separated from it. If someone rips off my GH5 from the tripod while I'm shooting beauty shots inside the dressing room, that's one thing. If it was an Alexa LF with cinema prime, that would be a significant loss.
 
joema said:
The statement was "all zooms are a physical and engineering compromise" (which I agree with) but that includes consumer-level super zooms and pro-level zooms. My doc team has several nice prime cinema lenses. I love the smooth linear focus throw of a cinema prime. However when attached to a big rigged-up Ursa camera on a heavy tripod for an event (not narrative) shoot, "zoom with your feet" doesn't work that well. I fully agree about avoiding consumer-level super zoom lenses where possible. But high-quality pro zoom lenses (while themselves having compromises vs a prime) simply must be used in many situations. As Tom said, it's the difference between getting the shot vs not getting it.
Click to expand...
He'll be able to clear it up, but as far as I could read, he was referring to how super zooms suck, and better to use a real zoom, if one is concerned about image quality. And then in his personal case, he is even trying to get away from zooms in favour of primes, which have even better image quality.... but that means he still uses and recognizes the practical use of zooms.
 
Last edited:
John Brawley said:
What the hell is a super zoom ?

JB
Click to expand...

Generally any zoom lens with over an 8X, 10X or greater zoom ratio. Any optical designer/lens engineer will tell you that trying to make one lens into a successful wide angle, normal length and fairly long telephoto,
the image quality, sharpness, microcontrast and CA are going to suffer. I've owned three of them and they did all suck, I didn't keep any of them for more than a month. Name brand, not super cheap, Nikon and Canons.

The Angenieux Optimo 24-290, at $107,000.00, is obviously in a whole other class. Super zoom is a term from the stills world that's been around quite a while, but it's not used in cinematography circles much.
Super zooms are obviously the worst offender but even in the tests I've done with my "good" zooms, like the EF 24-105mm f/4.0 IS II and the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, the $129.00 EF 50mm f/1.8 STM looks as sharp
or sharper even though it costs almost nothing. All one needs to do is examine an element cutaway to divine that the more elements the light must past through, the more complex the design with the various aspeheric and
multi-coated elements, the more critical assembly and transport protection becomes, but all zooms are much more complex than primes, which makes them inherently more biased toward engineering/assembly execution.
Basically, we all know about copy to copy variance. Just by the laws of probability alone (there are other factors obviously), a zoom lens has more of a chance of optical imperfections than a prime, all other construction variables
being the same as far as labor, clean room standards, basic material composition.

Of course I use zooms, I shoot documentaries, it's just too difficult to try to handle a lot of my shoots with primes, but some I do (mainly interviews and controlled, planned b-roll) with primes but mostly I use my zooms. If you
compare three lenses by the same manufacturer that all cost $2k, a super fast 35mm f/1.4 or 1.2 prime, a typical 24-70 f/2.8 short range zoom, and a 24-200mm f/3.5-5.6, which do you think stands the best chance at optical
excellence, all construction and assemble factors being equal? It's largely a design issue. Lenses that try to replace 3-4 other lenses in a single design are destined to be a compromise in all of them, just by the laws of physics and
how light and light gathering behave.

The other practical aspect is a lot of people buy super zooms because they "don't want to change lenses". Is it possible that users who are in that position are using the wrong tool, an interchangeable lens camera?
Something like a fixed lens, servo zoom video camera would often serve their needs better, unless they are trying to do that pointless hybrid thing of shooting stills and video in the same shoot? I've tried doing that
for years, it never works for me.

If I am shooting stills, I need multiple flashes, light controls and a workflow that is the opposite of video shooting. Video/digital cinema lighting is completely different than stills lighting.
I've tried switching back and forth and I am always dissatisfied by the results, lighting, workflow, etc. I have clients ask for it at times and I either tell them we are splitting the day into video, then stills or that I can recommend
a good stills photographer and I will shoot the video portion and the stills person can shoot the stills. The mirrorless hybrid thing is somewhat of a myth for me, unless it's separate. But trying to cover both at the same time?
Nightmare.
 
James0b57 said:
He'll be able to clear it up, but as far as I could read, he was referring to how super zooms suck, and better to use a real zoom, if one is concerned about image quality. And then in his personal case, he is even trying to get away from zooms in favour of primes, which have even better image quality.... but that means he still uses and recognizes the practical use of zooms.
Click to expand...

Of course. I'm not saying all zooms are bad, there are some great ones and for a lot of shooting, you just kind of need zooms, documentaries, events, news. And I am mostly talking about stills lenses. I think high quality cine zooms are a different conversation.
 
Right...

One of my first jobs was working in a retail camera store. I was there when 28-200’s got introduced in the 90’s.....Never heard them called super zooms though...learn something new...

I’m not against Zooms...it depends what you’re doing. I shot what became a very popular TV series In Australia using Optimo short and long zooms...Comedy seems to be something that lends itself to zooms...But I do think there are more parameters other than sharpness that talk to the look of a lens. Sharpness is but one.

Below I’ve got a screen shot of false colour from the 16-42 on a white wall. The corners are a couple of stops DARKER than the middle. You don’t tend to get that on a prime. The Bokeh tends to look better. And the geometry or 3D drawing of primes tends to be nicer, especially at closer focussing distances...Plus smaller builds..

https://www.flickr.com/gp/johnbrawley/773QG5

Bonus point for anyone who knows who the guy is in the dark top second from the right
https://www.flickr.com/gp/johnbrawley/10sLkU

And this lens
https://www.flickr.com/gp/johnbrawley/4A0395

Looks like this

https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnbrawley/shares/C517Gz

Not very flat of field...

JB
 
FWIW, almost all lenses are darker in the corners when fully wide open (even the best-of-the-best may have the slightest hint of vignetting), and become the brightest across once they are half a stop or a stop down. (A few stops sounds excessive.)
 
It's kind of funny, on the consumer stills side, anything over 7x-8x is called/considered a "super zoom" and generally kind of looked down on, because they usually ramp a lot(probably 2 stops or more) and aren't considered the highest quality, optically speaking(although I've heard good things about the new Canon RF "sz"). And in the TV world, "super zooms" are SoP and most won't even consider(buying/using) a normal/long lens below 22x today and our w/a's are at least 13x. Even in the 90's, we had 18x-22x lenses for our ENG cameras. Trying to remember when they broke the 100x plain with boxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top