What about the Sony PLs?

Douglas Villalba

Douglas Villalba

Well-known member
A lot has been said about the camera and it looks like I'll be getting mine in a couple of weeks. However I am still debating if I should get the kit with lenses?
If the lenses where interchangeable with other cameras and I could sell them later if don't like them.
I have heard that they are very good (for the price at least) and they have electronic chromatic correction with the camera.
I don't own any PLs at the moment, but I will be using on my project the Tokina 11-16mm a prime in the range of 20-25mm, the kit lenses and If need anything longer I'll use a Nikon 80-200mm f2.8
What do you guys that have the camera think is a better choice? The kit or just the camera?
 
I'm glad I bought the kit lenses. I agree that they are quite good for the price. I've been happy with the picture, and I looked at them on a projector with a lens tech last week and he was impressed with their sharpness and lack of distortion. Mechanically, they feel cheap and plastic, but have worked just fine so far. I much prefer using a lens that at least pretends to be a cine lens over one designed for stills use. I bought a pair of used RED zooms also, and together they're making a decent set.


Since you're going with still glass though, I wonder if it would be a pain for you to have to switch the Nikon adapter out every time you want to change to the PL lenses. If you're using a matte box and follow focus, it'll probably mean a drastic change with those as you go back and forth also. If I was planning on using still lenses primarily, I think I would stick with that route.
 
Most of what I'll be doing falls into the 35-85mm. Not worth it for me on this shoot to spend more. I will use the 11-16mm for a couple of steadycam & crane shots on one scene.
What are the Red zooms that you have? My other choice was to just get a used 18-85mm used Red for the same price as the primes Sony kit.
 
Just my perspective, and of course there is no right or wrong it all depends on what you want in the end.

Size: The Sony PL's are MASSIVE and I have no idea why they made them that huge. I'm convinced there is some crazy microprocessor embedded inside and at around Christmas time Sony will reveal some firmware that will enable night vision or x-ray vision they've been keeping a secret all this time.

Cost: $6k for only three lenses that you won't have other glass to closely match it does not make sense for me. For the extra money you can end up with a full set of Nikon primes F2 or better, and instead of a limited range Tokina like the 11-16 or 20-35 I would rather consider the Tokina 16-50mm F2.8 or even 28-80 F2.8 for any run'n gun type situations. All that will cost you only $3k in glass and chances are you already own some.

Pros: I suppose when the Sony PL Zooms come out, it would then make sense if you were going to buy one to have matching glass to the Sony fixed primes. So that might be the only other way I'd lean to getting the Sony fixed primes now.

I also agree with Kirk regarding switching between lens types, not so much becaus of the mount but more because I would not want to mix quality or series of glass, but that is just me.

P.S. The MTF Nikon G adapters seem to be backordered in many places so if you're getting your F3 in a few weeks I would order your MTF adapter while you can still get it.
 
I like the image quality and mechanics of modern PL lenses. I have a set of Nikons including the 35 and 50mm f1.4s, but I want to use PLs on the F3. Sony has an 11-16mm coming and also an 18 to like 220mm. I am sure that they will come out in the 20s and 100s range to complete a set.
I would really need a 21mm prime to have a most usable set of primes. I think it has a lot to do esthetics and rentability more than anything else.
 
I bought a used RED 18-50 and 50-150 set based on Nate Weaver's recommendation on this forum, and I've been very happy with them. Like the Sony lenses, they are definitely a compromise: the mechanics are not great and they breathe badly, but there isn't anything in a PL zoom even close in the price range. They match just fine with the Sony primes, and have the same 114mm front so I don't have to change rings on my matte box when changing lenses. I use the primes when I can because they're faster and don't breathe, but the two zooms have allowed me to pull off jobs I couldn't do with the Sony lenses alone.

The Sony lenses are really big, and have been laughed at by several ACs who saw them for the first time, but they aren't heavy, and the 114mm front fits right into the bellows ring on my O-Box.

The RED 18-85 weighs almost ten pounds and has a 142mm front diameter. I ruled it out for myself because I wanted to stay small and light.
 
I have the Zeiss ZF prime set and two NIKON zooms, 17-55, 80-200. And for the price of three lens I have 17mm to 200mm covered. Granted you have to polish you focus skills a little more, but image quality is superb. Yes the Sonys are nice but resale maybe not as good. Plus build quality is lacking on the inside. Lots of plastic, screws in plastic etc. I can cater to two types of clients as well, rent the nice PL's for larger shoots and use my stills for the smaller gigs but make them look large with my lens range.Shot all last week with stills and next will be a PL Revolution lens, that's why this camera rocks!
 
Last edited:
I opted not to buy the Sony primes. For basic purposes, I'm assembling a hodge-podge of lenses for basic shooting where the quality isn't as exacting as higher end shoots. For higher end, I'll rent good glass. Or in renting my camera, some renters might want my glass; others might ust want camera with MTF adapter and still others might just want to rent an extra body to use with glass they already have. Having said that, so far I've collected a Red 18-50 (it is a mechanically-excellent sample and the image is what it is), Sigma 50-150 Nikon (I wanted a Red or DigiOptical 50-150 but couldn't find one used), Lomo 37-140 in PL mount (love it love it... really vintage look). JD's strategy works for me.

Ned Soltz
 
Kirk Miller said:
I bought a used RED 18-50 and 50-150 set based on Nate Weaver's recommendation on this forum, and I've been very happy with them. Like the Sony lenses, they are definitely a compromise: the mechanics are not great and they breathe badly, but there isn't anything in a PL zoom even close in the price range. They match just fine with the Sony primes, and have the same 114mm front so I don't have to change rings on my matte box when changing lenses. I use the primes when I can because they're faster and don't breathe, but the two zooms have allowed me to pull off jobs I couldn't do with the Sony lenses alone.

The Sony lenses are really big, and have been laughed at by several ACs who saw them for the first time, but they aren't heavy, and the 114mm front fits right into the bellows ring on my O-Box.

The RED 18-85 weighs almost ten pounds and has a 142mm front diameter. I ruled it out for myself because I wanted to stay small and light.
Click to expand...

So to confirm, no backfocus issues switching between Sony or RED PL's?
 
This topic has been covered fairly extensively in the past. In a few short posts most of it has been covered off. Nate's view, which I respect, in short is don't fool around with the Nikon's go with PL Mount lenses. The 18-50 is probably going to see the most use, if you go with the previously mentioned Red Zoom lenses.

I went with the 3 Sony PLs and a set of Nikon f2.8 Parfocal zooms, the 17-35 and the 28-70. I also got the Tokina 11-16 and a Sigma 70-300. The PL's enforce more discipline when shooting and you get much smoother focus pulls. The 28-70 however sees more time on the camera than all my other lenses. If you plan to do a lot of narrative style shooting the 11-16 is really a specialty lens, so I would live with the Tokina before investing 5 or more grand on a PL 11-16 lens and see if your money could be better spent elsewhere. The Nikon 17-35 lens is a thing of beauty. If you like to shoot wide you should get this lens.

The 17-55 Nikon lens previously mentioned is a good lens as well but it does suffer from falloff around the edges when the aperture is opened up and the lens is not what one would consider parfocal. The range is great but it comes with compromise. The 17-35 and the 28-70 are among Nikon's best lenses. Read up on them and you will see.

Would I do things differently, if I were to purchase again? I do regret not having the Red 18-50 PL but I think I made the right decision in terms of getting a full range of lenses given the budget I had at the time. I would like to add the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 to my kit but I live largely between 17 and 85 with an occasional need for a 100 to 130mm lens.

I seriously contemplated the Red 18-85 lens but the weight of it would require me to get another tripod and I knew that it would have limited use as I often move from tripod to Steadicam or handheld. I also contemplated getting cinevized Zeiss ZF.2 lenses instead of the Sony PLs. Like you suggested, one could sell the Sony PLs fairly easily should you want to upgrade to a set of Zeiss CP.2s or what have you.

The decision is not easy and there is no simple answer as it depends really on how much money you have and what your other purchasing priorities are. A camera and lenses is only a small part of my kit and the rest of it gets factored into the decision making process.

And the suggestion about grabbing the PL to Nikon adapter first is a sound one as the waiting time can be long. I ordered mine 2 months before I had my camera. I went straight to MTF to purchase it directly from Mike Tapa.
 
Last edited:
One more thing, I would absolutely NOT assume that Sony will develop other prime lenses to flesh out their 3 PL primes. They are NOT on the roadmap and just because you think it is the right thing to do, does not mean Sony will do it. I would take it as nothing more than wishful thinking... I too, lie in hope that Sony will develop the lenses but I did not make my decision to buy their 3 PLs based on a wing and a prayer about them developing others that are not on the roadmap.
 
Trust me, I am not waiting for Sony or anyone else. I buy equipment that is available when I need it.
The project that I am getting the camera for can be filmed entirely with the Sonys. I also own a full set of Nikon Primes and zooms if I wanted to use them.
 
The Sony primes are optically awesome, but I am thinking of selling mine since I have other lenses that make these duplicates. Anyone looking?
 
There are some PL cameras that the Sony PL lenses will not fit. Positive Lock is a specific standard by Arri and they don't fit it, which in my mind means they aren't really PL at all.
 
The way I understand and it, the Sony PL's ONLY fit the F3, which is why all other PL lenses require the industry standard PL adapter that also came with the camera. Correct?
 
the PL adapter came installed on the camera, which is what the Sony PL mount Lenses lock into, so I assume they should fit on most PL mount cameras, but as Duke points out, that might not be the case.
 
If they only made an 18mm or 20mm and something around 100 to 135mm it would be an interesting set. As it is the set plays to middle ground. Probably safe by Sony but I think two more lenses would complete the set.
 
Sony PL lenses should fit into any PL mount camera. They could not name it PL mount if it weren't PL mount. I've used the Sony lenses on the F3, and I've also used my PL primes on the F3, as well as many zooms, including two Red zooms, 18-50 and 50-150. They all fit just as they should.


And anyone who invests in a three lens set must either do very repetitive work for a living or is handicapping themselves heavily. Sony needs to add more primes to the set. They owe it to the people who bought the first three... despite however disappointing those were. The Sony PL's are an expensive way for someone to take the training wheels off and have a first go at using something like professional PL lenses.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top