FX6: The Sony ILME-FX6V Owners Club

Andy9 said:
Is the 28-135 noticeably better than the 24-105 f/4 if you don't need a servo?
Click to expand...

The 28-135 is *sort of* parfocal, which is really nice (although people's experiences vary).

Manual focusing on the 28-135 is much, much nicer. Internal zoom is also nice, although not a deal breaker for me.

As for optical quality, I think the 24-105 is pretty great for the price. I can't say if it's better than the 28-135 since I've never used the latter on my FX6. But I've been very happy with the 24-105 as a general, all-purpose lens so far, and I don't have any complaints about the optical quality.
 
I have had both lenses. The 28-135 is way above the 24-105 in operation but optically both do fine. The 28-135 is the lens I use most of the time on my FX6. It makes for a very nice package and so easy to use.
 
Any suggestions for a backpack for the FX6 + 28-135 Lens? I've got the Peak Design 20L Everyday Backpack but it is just too small and awkward for this setup.
Thanks
Nathan
 
drboffa said:
The 28-135 is *sort of* parfocal, which is really nice (although people's experiences vary).
.
Click to expand...
people's experience varies only because Sony does a notoriously bad job of setting those lenses up both before purchase and even after repairs. If your's isn't parfocal ( and my experience is close to 50% are not ) i9t should be sent to Sony for correction and don't take their crap when they tell you its OK. Take photos in the viewfinder using image magnification and red peaking to validate.
 
LennyLevy said:
people's experience varies only because Sony does a notoriously bad job of setting those lenses up both before purchase and even after repairs. If your's isn't parfocal ( and my experience is close to 50% are not ) i9t should be sent to Sony for correction and don't take their crap when they tell you its OK. Take photos in the viewfinder using image magnification and red peaking to validate.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. The lens I was using (it wasn't my copy—I was just borrowing it) seemed like it was parfocal, at least most of the time I was using it. But I'd heard that it varied from copy to copy.

It is a very tempting lens now that I'm no longer using a S35 camera as my main camera.
 
Hi all, I've put my first video with the FX6 here. Actually, it's my first video with an editing tool ever
https://youtu.be/iiTvGNVU3Qo
It's the aircraft museum in Paris, 2 days after reopening after COVID lockout.
I'm sorry, it's boring and not artistic at all. I just wanted to mention that the SW stabilization of DaVinci Resolve in camera lock mode is absolutely incredible (all was made without tripod and without gimbal).
As well as the performance of the FX6 in low light :)
 
LennyLevy said:
No i never shoot 2K . I've been comparing in UHD S35 and even putting the 28-135 in FF. Well one of the 3 was screwed up but the other 2 seem fine. maybe I just need to try another. Have you directly compared the 18-110 to the 28-135 - same shot same settings at f4 . I'll post some stills.
Click to expand...

No Cant say I have .. Im just saying that the 28-135 is well known to be overly sharp if anything .. so to have 3 be "soft" seems like aq camera setting maybe .. there is an old news shooter .com article showing how sharp the thing is ..
 
Must admit, comparing my experience to user reviews is an exercise in cognitive dissonance. Wish i could actually one of those that people say are super sharp. I don't understand how there could be that much difference between them.
 
I think the 28-135 is sharp, I just don't think it's that pretty. Neither the general rendering nor the OOF rendering. I don't have the 24-105 to compare, but my 28-135 is trounced by my sigma art 24-70 and tamron 70-180 in the prettiness department at matching apertures. Let alone versus a prime. But it's hardly a surprise considering the demands of making a longer-range zoom
 
Last edited:
I just have to zoom in a little bit more than usual to get it looking pretty and yes wider shots doesn't have the best out of focus blur. But neither does the Sony 24-105.
 
Ben Scott said:
I'm thinking of getting the Tamron 28-75. Anyone used it on the FX6?
Click to expand...

I have the two Tamrons on either side of this—the 17-28 and 70-300—and while they're great optically I really feel the lack of OSS, especially on the longer lens. Gyro stabilization in Catalyst is just not here yet, in terms of ease of use in a post workflow. But if you can live without OSS the Tamrons are a great deal. They're very light, which is a mixed bag—i.e., they feel a little cheap, and don't help counter the weight of the camera+battery super well.

Do you already have the 24-105? If not you might consider that. You lose a stop of light but gain OSS and some reach. I think it's a fantastic general purpose lens for the price.
 
drboffa said:
I have the two Tamrons on either side of this—the 17-28 and 70-300—and while they're great optically I really feel the lack of OSS, especially on the longer lens. Gyro stabilization in Catalyst is just not here yet, in terms of ease of use in a post workflow. But if you can live without OSS the Tamrons are a great deal. They're very light, which is a mixed bag—i.e., they feel a little cheap, and don't help counter the weight of the camera+battery super well.

Do you already have the 24-105? If not you might consider that. You lose a stop of light but gain OSS and some reach. I think it's a fantastic general purpose lens for the price.
Click to expand...


I don't have any modern lenses at all. Need a single modern lens to cover when my preferred choice for most things is not appropriate. Don't care about OSS and could do with that extra stop that the 28-75 gives and figured it's a decent price compared to the Sigma 24-70. My other thought is to get the Batis 40mm and 85mm primes at some point. I much prefer to zoom with my feet to be honest.

I had considered a 24-105, whether it be Sony or Sigma, but I have the Canon FD 35-105 which while manual is nice and contrasty and half a stop faster.
 
I have both the 17-28 and 28-75. They are good lenses and the only thing missing is IS. Catalyst works but the lack of batch stabilizing is a serious miss.
 
Cheers chaps. Don't suppose anyone has any clips they could share?

Does AF work well at 120fps? Never used it. Would like to test it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top