FS7: The Sony 18-110mm cine zoom

The test I saw showed it to be parfocal, telecentric, & free of breathing. At $3500 I don't care if those features are achieved mechanically, or electronically.

Doubt I'll drop $10k on a T4 Zeiss, but I might do 1/2 that for a T4.4 Canon, or 1/3 for the f/4 Sony. Might even go for the fast zooms from Angenieux, or perhaps Sigma.

Clouding my decision is the fact that vendors such as Adorama, & especially VER, are renting gear at ridiculously low prices, & the Producers are using this to put the screws to owners. I'm also concerned that tech is changing & all mechanical PL lenses may not be the safe investment they once were.

What I've decided to do in the short term is pickup a PL adapter, & have the Producers rent the truly gorgeous glass.
 
Last edited:
nsoltz said:
They didn't have a lens at Sony Park Ridge when I was there this week.
Click to expand...

Ned,

Saw a disturbing review of the 28-135mm at B&H.

"Like others, I take serious issue with the quality of the mount. It easily broke off. Sony does not repair this. They also charge $135 to tell you they won't repair it. At least other manufacturers modify their standard mounts for these heavier setups. I'm beyond angry with Sony".

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082051-REG/sony_selp28135g_e_pz_28_135mm_f_4.html

Be great if your contacts at Sony could confirm if it's true, & if so will the 18-110mm have the same issue.

Thanks,
Bern
 
Bern Caughey said:
Ned,

Saw a disturbing review of the 28-135mm at B&H.

"Like others, I take serious issue with the quality of the mount. It easily broke off. Sony does not repair this. They also charge $135 to tell you they won't repair it. At least other manufacturers modify their standard mounts for these heavier setups. I'm beyond angry with Sony".

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082051-REG/sony_selp28135g_e_pz_28_135mm_f_4.html

Be great if your contacts at Sony could confirm if it's true, & if so will the 18-110mm have the same issue.

Thanks,
Bern
Click to expand...

I own two 28-135mm Sony lenses. Never heard of such a problem. The E-mount is not as robust as PL, but any lens mount is going to require competent operators. Also, not sure if by mount the reviewer is refering to the lens mount to camera, or the tripod mount.
 
Lenilenapi said:
Just read the news shooter hands on and it says it stays par focal with the help of the auto focus mechanism. Well that sounds pretty strange to me so I'll have to find out what that means. After all who cares if your par focal if you're on auto focus? Does it somehow make use of that to stay parfopcal when you're in manual...? Beats me. That would be helpful.
Click to expand...

First, my understanding is that all E-mount lenses are fly by wire driven, even those with manual distance collars. When you engage the manual distance collar, you're instructing the lens focus motor to move to an absolute position that corresponds with focus at a set distance.

In a purely mechanical zoom lens, the distances between different pieces of glass determines the focal length, and the focal point. To maintain a consistent focal point as the focal length changes requires greater design considerations and tighter tolerances, driving up cost of manufacture.

E-mount zoom lenses can cleverly account for this, without the same design considerations. Essentially, as you zoom in or out, it refers to a mapped set of values to determine the absolute motor encoder position that corresponds to your desired focal point for the current focal length.

Even when using the manual focus mode it can do this, because the manual collar is still fly by wire.
 
As others have said, to get a S35 lens of this zoom range at a wider aperture would have resulted in a heavier and more expensive lens. A wider aperture means a wide inlet for light. As you widen aperture, you need larger and therefore heavier pieces of glass to put in front of it.

So many major Hollywood films are shot at T4 and T5.6. It baffles me that no-one is happy with f4 on modern high sensitivity digital sensors. I think fewer people are bothering to budget for lighting, and then they blame the gear makers for what are ultimately laws of physics.
 
Viddovation said:
So many major Hollywood films are shot at T4 and T5.6.
Click to expand...


Yes, but they light in order to get to that stop when shooting interiors. Often spending 1 or 2 hours lighting the room. Locations that they scouted in advance and for which they planned the lighting in advance. Sometimes elaborate lighting setups that involve spreader bars / a pipe grid being temporarily installed in the ceiling of the room. Setups that have 15 crew members working on them intensively and still take over an hour to execute.

T4...T5.6...not the look you get at wider aperture. Even though they have the lights available to shoot at a f/8 or f/16, they generally light to a f/2.8. They want the photographic properties of a 2.8. Generally speaking, they light the room for the stop they want on the tights. And that is usually a wide aperture. In the "sweet spot" of the lens.


____________


As to the 18-105mm being par focal, the brain of the lens sometimes freaks out when you perform a snap zoom. The faster the speed of the snap zoom the more likely it will have a problem keeping up. At times the entire image goes soft. As if you went into macro.

I don't see the Sony 18-110mm winning over anyone who isn't a fan of electronic lenses. They can dress it up with an iris, better focus action, and a more robust housing but it's still what it is. It's still a buzzy electronic lens and not an organic lens.
 
Last edited:
Viddovation said:
First, my understanding is that all E-mount lenses are fly by wire driven, even those with manual distance collars. When you engage the manual distance collar, you're instructing the lens focus motor to move to an absolute position that corresponds with focus at a set distance.... E-mount zoom lenses can cleverly account for this, without the same design considerations. Essentially, as you zoom in or out, it refers to a mapped set of values to determine the absolute motor encoder position that corresponds to your desired focal point for the current focal length.
Even when using the manual focus mode it can do this, because the manual collar is still fly by wire.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that explanation. I actually find that kind of reassuring. The main question for me will be how good a job will they do with mimicking the feel of a manual lens. The 18-105 I found pretty horrible. On the other hand I don't find my 18-200 that bad and the little I've played with the 28-135 it seemed way better than the 18-105.

Its a question of what the alternatives are. I can't afford a Cabrio, Zeiss or any of the big boy lenses and won't get any ROI on them. The 24-70 has little reach and isn't par focal and both 24-105's have all kinds of issues. $3500 for a decently sharp doc lens, with IS, that will stay in focus with a range from 18-110 at f4 is a huge bargain compared to what any Fuji or Canon lens cost in B4 days.

I await more user reviews with my fingers crossed.

Lenny Levy
 
JPNola said:
____________


As to the 18-105mm being par focal, the brain of the lens sometimes freaks out when you perform a snap zoom. The faster the speed of the snap zoom the more likely it will have a problem keeping up. At times the entire image goes soft. As if you went into macro.

I don't see the Sony 18-110mm winning over anyone who isn't a fan of electronic lenses. They can dress it up with an iris, better focus action, and a more robust housing but it's still what it is. It's still a buzzy electronic lens and not an organic lens.
Click to expand...


Sounds like it wouldn't play nice with a wireless FF too if the internal motors are constantly fighting the torque of a preston or something it is going to burn out pretty quick if the mototrs are also providing damping and pretend hard stops.
 
Last edited:
At CVP in the UK the Sony is £3.5k and the Zeiss is £7k. In the US the Sony is $3.5k and the Zeiss $9.9k. All pretax numbers so Sony clearly think UK users are gumps that'll happily be gouged.

If I were to break out of DSLR lens zone and 'invest' in a decent cine zoom it's a no brainer to go with the Zeiss. A factor of 2x is nothing when you consider the lifetime of usage of the lens.

How effective is the OSS in the Sony? Is it steady shot or active steady shot? If it's the former it's not that effective. What is the T stop of the Sony lens? 4.4 or higher?

The Zeiss look by far the better option and definitely gives an expensive lens look to the image.
 
Maybe things are changing.. Im often asked these days specifically what lens or lenses I have.. where as the camera is just C300 /Fs7 or similar.. sort of reminds me of the digibeta to HD times.. many productions suddenly started asking be about my lens or I would actually notice the director having a sneaky look ..(under instruction Im sure.. they never did before).. as alot of people were using SD zooms from there digibetas, and prod co were getting wise to it..

Maybe the same thing is happening and its well worth getting the expensive lens or at least one that look s spiffy..
 
I get asked that all the time by certain clients. Often I first get asked, what lenses and which codec can I shoot before being asked which camera. Others are more interested in new fangled ways to put movement in the shot. Others more interested in general mobility, particularly for small unit, lots of travel type gigs. It's a lot of bases to cover these days, long gone are the days when I could jump on a plane with a bag of kit and Rifa light shoved down my trousers:-)
 
If anyone had a specific lens requirement I would hire TBH, I have more pressing needs than a single lens.

The producers asking for specific lenses are likely those engaged in productions for channels who are charging a premium for pixels no body can see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top