Sony FE 4/PZ 16-35mm Hands-on with A7IV Cinematic FITNESS VIDEO - Powerzoom

[ahalpert]

I met a man designs cameras for satelites. They have an obsession to minimise moving parts that can get shaken about, and have more mass (1g = $100000 for the ticket or something stupid)

Maybe because they fly 17k mph and benefit less from friction to reduce camera shake caused by the shutter etc? I'm not sure satellites are an exact parallel to grounded camerapeople

And it is a strong design philosophy.. Ive always felf IS lenses go wonk after a couple of years of knocking about on the car floor with some sandy damp wetsuits and an angle grinder.

That sounds like your problem right there! Jk. I mean, i know that people need to shoot in all sorts of adverse conditions. (Reminds me a little of how Doug said that one of the reasons he likes likes shoot wide open is because it conceals dirt on the sensor. I think there's some validity to that point, but you could also just keep your sensor clean. )

I try to treat my gear well but also don't expect it to last more than 5-10 years, either because it dies or because I upgrade. Can you service the IS component? If so, it doesn't seem like a huge issue

I could see them moving in a direction where both shake and also lens aberations a dealt with in post. It makes for cheap reliable lens.

Agreed, but it's basically happening via in-camera processing, including e-IBIS. Breathing correction, distortion correction, vignetting correction, CA correction, all in-camera before recording. At least on some cameras. For better or for worse

The higher the FPS the less the shake streaks. And in sony mind its probbably all about 60fps super sharp vision (tha makes me wretch) but then the 24fps ''cine' crowd dont want IS either. Its just the 24p wedding guys who want a certain look without the budget for a puller and a pee wee.

Have they said they envision a 60p future? I haven't heard that. And there's a big group of people besides wedding shooters and feature filmmakers who shoot at 24fps and enjoy the benefits of IS (or IBIS)

 

[morgan_moore]

My colleagu who has two boys and a falling down house by the sea is Mr Lenswreck and the IS lenses seem to go first.
hes not a bad snapper though http://framedogs.com/portfolio/play/

Personally im a bit more down with lowpro cases for my lenses and dont really od IS anyway.

But we all come from manual nikkors and are used to no problem if your sanwhiches and lens are in the same bag* modern lenses are clearly weak and plastic. In terms of lifespan I bought my first nikkor when 18 and still use them unless they have been stolen or dropped.. I think I had four insurance claims in 25 years

--

A 60p future..its very japanese to think more frames more res more shiney bits is more good.

So Sony could be pushed that way over time. - when you go into a dealer the cams are always set to 50/60

it is 'technically' 'better' after all







*i foooooking hate bag makers who dont give you a seperated pouch four your water and sandwhich.

 

[Doug Jensen]

I think it fits a specific purpose, such as top-handle r&g. I see a lot of people doing that, although it's not my cup of tea.

Not my cup of tea either. I absolutely must have the ability to punch in for a nice head and shoulders close-up during R&G without having to move right up into the subject's face. I hate the "modern" style where everything is always wide or wider and shot from a gimble. Whatever happened to nice close ups from 10-20' away that have shallow DoF and keep the shooter on the sidelines rather in everyone's face. A lost art. Also, I have no use for any f/4 lens unless it is a telephoto.

 

[morgan_moore]

f4 with a ff sensor will give a pretty thin DOF (same as a 2/3 1.8 lens?)

cameras good to 8000iso dont need t2

and f4 is small and cheap

Again Sony dont see why you would want skinny DOF so this lens is, to a japanese designer very good.

---

After getting my f4 'trinity' for my (s35) C200 Im now looking to add a stigma 18-35 1.8 as I feel the need for some skinny DOF.. so Im less in the F4 camp than I thought... but Im still over the moon with my 15-85 5.6 joker lens for grabbing content.

 

[ahalpert]

Not my cup of tea either. I absolutely must have the ability to punch in for a nice head and shoulders close-up during R&G without having to move right up into the subject's face. I hate the "modern" style where everything is always wide or wider and shot from a gimble. Whatever happened to nice close ups from 10-20' away that have shallow DoF and keep the shooter on the sidelines rather in everyone's face. A lost art. Also, I have no use for any f/4 lens unless it is a telephoto.

I think a 16-35 makes sense for passes of b-roll. Maybe not true r&g. Like we're going to do a take where she steps out of the car and walks up the stairs handheld/gimbal w/16-35. Then you swing a telephoto and take a CU of getting out of the car and a CU tracking her hand on the railing

I was shooting BTS of a press event on Monday. I had 3 sony alpha cameras on gimbals on and off stands with a trinity of zooms (12-24 f/4, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-180 f/2.8). The limited range of the zooms will give you faster, better, lighter optics for the price. (You can get something as good or better with longer range, but it will be very expensive and very heavy. And not have autofocus.) There's the Sony 28-135, but that's still heavier than what I was using and not my favorite lens, plus doesn't reach to 12 or 180 or open to 2.8. I just switched cameras to change lenses. It makes lens changes much faster on gimbal

So...I Wouldnt compare a lens like the 16-35 PZ to a proper ENG lens you're using. I would compare it to somebody using photo lenses. If I were in the market for a 16-35, I would probably lean towards PZ although of course there are other concerns

 

[Doug Jensen]

Yeah, if someone doesn't mind jacking up the ISO to compensate for a slow lens, or doesn't care about controlling DoF, or doesn't mind the extreme limitations of a 2x zoom, or doesn't mind carrying multiple cameras, or doesn't mind stopping to change lenses frequently, or doesn't mind missing a shot here and there, then there are many camera/lens combinations that will work just fine. But it sounds like my needs and expectations are different from those people.

 

[ahalpert]

Yeah, if someone doesn't mind jacking up the ISO to compensate for a slow lens, or doesn't care about controlling DoF, or doesn't mind the extreme limitations of a 2x zoom, or doesn't mind carrying multiple cameras, or doesn't mind stopping to change lenses frequently, or doesn't mind missing a shot here and there, then there are many camera/lens combinations that will work just fine. But it sounds like my needs and expectations are different from those people.

I don't see a broadcast zoom at b&h for 1/3" or 1/2" or 2/3" cameras that goes as wide as the 112.6" FOV of 12mm full-frame. Many go as long as 180mm-equivalent or longer, but often they get into the neighborhood of f/2.8 when they do, so you're looking at way more DOF in that format, and absolutely zero competition for light-gathering. I can frequently use primes with this configuration of cameras, anyway.

This type of shoot was not about catching moments as they pass. More about capturing exciting and elegant shot concepts of an ongoing process. Nobody cares if I catch something if it's not beautiful. They want fluid camera movement and a variety of camera positions not easily obtained with a larger camera. (12' up on a stand or armed out over the crowd or wedged in front of the artwork getting POV of people pointing at it, etc.) The only must-catch moment needed the camera at 8' height with dolly-like movement. They don't want the handheld look. And, of course, with multiple cameras you can rig simultaneous coverage. Horses for courses.

Of course, there are f/2.8 16-35's, and faster wide and ultra-wide primes. The primary benefits of this PZ 16-35 are probably size and simplicity

It looks like 2/3" format is about 4 stops behind full-frame? Is that right? So f/4 full-frame would look like an f/1 in 2/3"?

 

[jmone]

I think Sony is dropping the ball on producing lenses tailored for the FX line. Everything they put out (except for telephotos) seems to assume that if you want stabilization, you'll be relying on IBIS

From what I've seen (Catalyst and Resolve), trying to "add" stabilisation in post is not great. Some frames end up looking weird with a smeared effect. I'd much rather shoot stable footage up front than try to "rescue" it in post later. As an FX6 user, I ideally want both OSS and PZ. The only zens that has both is the 28-135 which is on the FX6 most of the time.

Note: I also have the Zeiss 16-35 for indoors (and it is fine), the 100-400 (plus 2x) but this really needs a tripod at long focal lengths and even the 24-240 (which most seem to hate but I think is a perfectly fine super zoom for video). All these have OSS but none are PZ. Even the very expensive C 16-35 does not have OSS. Bizarre.

 

[jmone]

... are there any 3rd party servo zoom motors that work (intelligently) with the FX6's rockers (and Clear Image Zoom)?

 

[Andy9]

From what I've seen (Catalyst and Resolve), trying to "add" stabilisation in post is not great. Some frames end up looking weird with a smeared effect. I'd much rather shoot stable footage up front than try to "rescue" it in post later. As an FX6 user, I ideally want both OSS and PZ. The only zens that has both is the 28-135 which is on the FX6 most of the time.

Note: I also have the Zeiss 16-35 for indoors (and it is fine), the 100-400 (plus 2x) but this really needs a tripod at long focal lengths and even the 24-240 (which most seem to hate but I think is a perfectly fine super zoom for video). All these have OSS but none are PZ. Even the very expensive C 16-35 does not have OSS. Bizarre.

Agreed that stabilisation in post is almost worthless in its current form. If you don't care about the smearing / non-standard shutter speed then you're probably not going to bother with the hassle of post stabilisation anyway.

OSS on the other hand - I wonder if it's used more often than it's talked about. Has anyone here ever been watching a doc, recognised OSS and felt like the camerawork would have been better without it? Or is the negativity more from a shooter's perspective - that it makes the camera feel sluggish and unresponsive?

I also wonder if OSS has the potential to be better in some kind of video-specific form rather than being tuned for maximum smoothness. Maybe a mild setting that only removes micro jitters would be useful. As if we've added 10 pounds to the camera.

 

[morgan_moore]

Yeah, if someone doesn't mind jacking up the ISO to compensate for a slow lens,

al things being equal.. a ff sensor is less noisy so the iSO can be jacked up and the image will still be as clean as a smaller chip cam at lower ISO

(actualy it not less noisy it needs less magnification, so you cant see the noise as much.. for examle a ffsensor projected on 30in might be a magnification of 1000 while 2/3 projected on 30in might need a magnificatino of 4000, so the noise is 4X bigger)

ff vs 2/3 have different 'happy numbers' for exampe 8000 is probably happy on a ff sensor as is f4, these are both unhappy numbers on smaller chip cameras.

My happy numbers developed in the 1990s like '800 is enough iso thanks' need revisiting or Im not using the full toolset of a modern camera or may use more lights than required.

Im naturally disapointed that this lens is not 2.8 (like the 16-35s from 2010) - but in 2022 that probably doesnt matter

 

[jmone]

In fairness to Sony, there is a "modern" T3.1 (2.8f) 16-35 PZ option..... you just need to cough up a liver. Still no OSS, but if you hate the F4 offering, there is a faster option.

 

[Doug Jensen]

I don't see a broadcast zoom at b&h for 1/3" or 1/2" or 2/3" cameras that goes as wide as the 112.6" FOV of 12mm full-frame.

You're damn right. Almost nobody in mainstream broadcast television production would want anything to do with a lens that wide. I think Canon has a 4.3mm and Fujjinon has a 4.5mm (18mm FF equivalent), and even those are very rare and would only be chosen under unusual circumstances. Fujinon has a beautiful 18x5.5mm (22mm FF equivalent) that is pretty much the widest ENG lens that any maninstream production would consider using. If I could justify a second 2/3" lens, I would own that lens. But anything wider than 5.5mm is going to have too much distortion on pans. Try one and see for yourself. I see them being used occassionally on TV and the look is awful and completely un-cinematic. Even top-rated reality shows, such as Survivor and Amazing Race, don't use those extreme 4.3 and 4.5 WA lenses. I would be really surpised if you could name any mainstream broadcast productions that routinely use FF lenses wider than 16mm or 2/3" lenses wider than 5mm. So the reason you can't find a 2/3" lens to match the field of view of your 12mm FF is because nobody wants them so nobody builds them. I understand that you have chosen to use super wide quasi-fisheye lenses for your own productions, and you say you have good reasons for doing so, but that's not mainstream.

BTW, the advantage of a 2/3" WA zoom lens, compared to a 2x FF lens, is that the operator still has a 13x or 18x zoom range to choose from at the touch of the servo control. That kind of flexibility is priceless.

 

[ahalpert]

Probably everyone in this thread has shot at 16mm. I don't regularly use my 12-24mm, but when I do I find it invaluable, especially for shooting vertical video. (And it's definitely not quasi-fisheye.)

Of course a 13x zoom range lens has tremendous flexibility. But there are trade-offs. And if you want to shoot on a full-frame camera, I don't think such a lens is currently available besides an Angenieux 12x for $110k.

Most of the time I shoot on primes, most often on a 50mm.

 

[ahalpert]

As an FX6 user, I ideally want both OSS and PZ. The only zens that has both is the 28-135 which is on the FX6 most of the time.

Maybe they gave the 28-135 OSS because it goes long, but I think it had more to do with the fact that Sony cameras weren't using IBIS yet.

Now Sony is releasing a high-end 16-35 cine lens for users, as mentioned, who might not want OSS anyway. And they have cheap little lenses like this PZ 16-35 that assume you'll use IBIS. Nothing for an FX6 user who wants OSS

 

[Doug Jensen]

Probably everyone in this thread has shot at 16mm. I don't regularly use my 12-24mm, but when I do I find it invaluable, especially for shooting vertical video. (And it's definitely not quasi-fisheye.)

Vertical video? Uh, that's not exactly mainstream broadcast, is it? All kinds of crazy **** gets use all the time in various productions, that's why I made a point to qualify my comments as being about broadcast, as you mentioned in your own post. I still challenge you to identify any mainstream broadcast show that regularly makes use of lenses in the 12mm FF range. Maybe for a lock down shot on boblsed run or somehing of that nature, but certainly not for anything where the camera is in motion. It just isn't done. That's why there are no 2/3" lenses that offer than kind of field of view. Nobody wants them so nobody makes them.

As for that focal length being quasi-fisheye, we'll have to disagree on that one. I think 10mm is generally considered a fisheye, so 12mm can definitely qualify as a quasi-fisheye. Heck, in my opinion 12mm is a fisheye, but just in the interest of finding common ground, I will call it a quasi-fisheye. Can you meet me halfway?

Obviously, all my comments are for landscape orientted video. I have nothing to say about portrait aspect ratios because I don't work in that world. Thank god.

 

[ahalpert]

This 12-24mm is rectilinear, not fisheye. You could also have a 12mm fisheye. But this one is not. The widest rectilinear full-frame lens currently available is a 9mm. I also use it in landscape-oriented video, but it definitely becomes something of an effect lens, or architectural. Mostly I use it for getting wide shots at close-range. There is heavy perspective distortion, but not if you're in the base position. There's a fair amount of barrel distortion at 12mm, but not as bad as one might think. And you can correct it in-camera.

But I mean, again - this thread was about a 16-35. Who here hasn't used a 16-35 at 16? And who said we were only talking about broadcast?

If you're going to poo-poo the 16-35 PZ because there are faster zooms with larger zoom ratios available, you also need to consider price/size/weight/format and how wide those other zooms can go. if you can afford to change lenses, you can benefit from its other attributes

 

[Doug Jensen]

Good points, even if I don't completely agree with your viewpoint. Obviously there are lot of options available today so we can each choose the tools and techniques that work best for us. So If a 2x f/4 zoom meets the needs of someone, they've got it.