FS7: The Sony 18-110mm cine zoom

Someone with lots of money needs to do a "Under $10k shootout" with all of these new cinema zooms. I love the idea of the Sony but I know the PZ zooms can look a tad bit clinical and flat from what I have extensively tested already. This 18-110 also has seven aperture blades, when most of the other lenses have 9 or 11.

I would like to see the following lenses tested against each other at S35:

Sony 18-110 PZ
Zeiss 21-100 LWZ
Canon 18-80 CN-E
Sigma 18-35 / 50-100 Cinema Lens Combo
Angenieux S35 EZ Lenses

Maybe if I win the lottery or something, I will conduct something like this!
 
Agree. Maybe this is a perfect test for one of the rental places in the states. But may need to wait some time till all these are actually out in the market.
 
BarryLichtner said:
Just saw the upcoming 18-110mm S35 version of Sony's 28-135mm cine lens at sonyalpharumors.com.

The one thing they forgot to change for the S35 format is the aperture, though. Why is it still f/4? I really don't want to complain because for some people this will be the perfect overall lens, but for exposing S-Log3 in typical low-light environments, I think f/2.8 is the minimum requirement for the current FS S35 sensors. Not to mention, f/4 chokes off your control over DoF a little soon.

Just how f/4 is the magic number for FF long zooms, f/2.8 is no different on S35...
Click to expand...

Me thinks it's about size and money. Size does matter and I'm guessing once you jump down to a 2.8 you have to increase the size of the actual lens and it's elements, thereby increasing price as well.
All my Nikon's are 2.8 so Sony needs to keep up. And I'm betting it's a FlyByWire as well.
 
The front filter diameter of the 18-110mm is the same as the 28-135mm- a 95mm filter size. I assume that means that the front diameter of each lens is the same.

Does that mean that the Schneider wide angle adapter made for the 28-125mm will also fit the 18-110mm?


If so that would make the 18-110mm into a 14.4-88mm. A far better range for Run & Gun. Although, speaking from experience, wide angle adapters can be a pain in the rear. No filter threads and they can be flare monsters. Maybe a use of a matte box would solve both issues.

If a wide angle adapter can make a lens like the Sony 18-110mm into a 14.4-88mm, why can't the engineers simply design a widening element into the front of the lens?? They could offer both an 18-110mm and a 15-88mm. Same lens "guts" but the wider version having the added element making it wider.
 
So who has preordered this lens? Anyone preorder the Canon 18-80mm? I forget if the Zeiss is preorder-able.

I was planning on getting the 18-110mm Sony cine lens, even though I was hoping for f/2.8-- but when I found out it was going to be a $1,000 above what I was expecting (even if that's still a great deal for what it is), I've since put the lens on the back burner.

Even if these lenses aren't perfect, they're options we didn't have a few months ago. I think the Canon 18-80mm might ship before the Sony, if I remember correctly.
 
In a way you could say that Canon is partly responsible for the $3500 price of the Sony 18-110mm. Had the Canon 18-80mm been priced at $3500, Sony would have priced their 18-110mm well under that. Likely somewhere around $2500. Sony is determined to chop Canon off at the knees in this market segment and is doing quite well at that.

A C300 mark II with the Canon 18-80mm will run you around $19,000.

A Fs7 with the Sony 18-110mm will run you around $12,000. ( $14,000 with the extension unit ).

For less money you get a zoom with a longer range than the Canon zoom and a camera with more features than the Canon camera. You save $5-7K that can be put towards camera support, lights, audio, etc. And you get a camera that is better suited to being shoulder mounted.

Sony has the hot hand.
 
Hmm... Hadn't considered the Canon 18-80 but that would give the Sony a run for its money. Depends on Optical quality and how well the Sony fly by wire stuff works. Both have IS so that's a big deal for me. Don't care much about AF at least not on the FS7 though its probably much better on the A7sII. $1750 difference.
 
If the Canon covered the same range as the Sony (18-110mm instead of 18-80mm), I'd definitely pay the extra two grand for the Canon. The footage I've seen from the Canon lens looks impressive. It's not faking anything manual and it is optically parfocal (to he best of my knowledge). The Sony uses an electronic system to maintain focus while zooming according to an interview Newsshooter did with Sony at IBC-- though that may not matter much. *shrug*
 
Only just seen the Canon lens. I'd take that in a heartbeat over the Sony one if I was forced to have one or the other.
 
AFAIK the Canon is not pure mechanical - it has to have a clutch system for AF to happen - expect it to feel like a canon 70-200 , which is not too bad.
 
Just been checking the sony lens at online CVP - it is £3.5g (+VAT which I get back)

I dunno what I think. It is cool, but Im also not convinced it wont fall apart/get scratched (some prosumer glass seems to have really sensitive coatings) - the price seems just a little high for 'prosumer' build

I deffo want to physically try it before placing an order

S
 
I think that's what it comes down to for me.

Everything about it (and it's older sibling) screams of various things that can go wrong. Electronics and motors and moving parts built down to a price.

It's not a lens to throw about and get into the middle of action with and know will come out the other side unscathed.

My zooms, when I use them, are about 40 years old, have excellent Zeiss optics and old Superspeed coatings with great characteristics and all mechanical and for a 28-85 and 80-200 have a combined price of about £600. They've been up rainy Welsh mountains shooting supercars. They've been through the spray of the ocean and the monsoon storms in Cambodia. They've hung out the back of cars doing tracking shots of classic Porsches on a race track. They've been in the studio doing high key commercial stuff and they've been on both crappy events gigs and swankier corporates. And when they finally give up the ghost (about 5 years into owning them now) I'll replace them with the same.

Plenty of compromises to be made in that they are pushpull designs so no mattebox or follow focus but they're just brilliant for what they are.

If I had £3,500 to spend on glass I think there's a hell of a lot of better decisions one could make than this 18-110, unless it will be your sole lens and will cover absolutely everything you might ever need to do with your E mount camera - like if you did in-house comms stuff or AGM or just corporate seminar/events filming.
 
I spend my money on Davinci Resolve and keep using the cheap 18-105 Sony lens. Apart from the distortion it is a perfect lens. I keep 3000 dollar in my pocket and bought the full version of Davinci. (with distortion compensation).
 
I would certainly want to try it side to side with the 18-105.

As for replacing my 28-85+booster combo (which is what it would do)

Well I think I need to evaluate the fact that the 28-85..
-isnt quite wide enough
-wont focus close enough for a tight head

Which actually makes a lot of difference when one is actually standing there doing a shoot

Do the clients who 'need' the lens pay the money to justify it?

Also what is the influence on solo shooting kit size, it is quite a lump and I still feel I would need with my at least my 10-24, my 50 and a longer prime or zoom (ive been using the 180 2.8 recently over the 50-300 to save mass)

S
 
One thing that is strange.. the foot no longer rotates on a collar.. I cant see how one could actually get the lens on and off the camera/rods combo!

S
 
morgan_moore said:
AFAIK the Canon is not pure mechanical - it has to have a clutch system for AF to happen - expect it to feel like a canon 70-200 , which is not too bad.
Click to expand...

Good point. The 70-200 can actually go slightly out of focus the moment you change the direction of the focus ring. In fact I've noticed this with all zooms that have AF including I'm afraid the Nikon 80-200. Unfortunately I can't afford the alternatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top