FS7: What is wrong with the sony 18-200 mm 3,5-6,3 lens (except it is 3,5-6,3?)

P

Publimix

Veteran
Sony 18200 PZ A powerzoom 18-200 mm, not a new lens but still on the market. On photoblogs this lens is widely praised. Stabilisation, great zoom range, sharp, real manual focus, autofocus etc. Best performance at f8 .Only the apperture is not constant. Is this lens OK or do I miss something or do we have to wait for the f4 / f2,8 version? Can't find posts about this lens for video, on the fs700 it was/is? a kit lens. Is it OK? Or is this the example of: "if it seems to good to be true, is is probably not."


Peter Bosman publisher, author, former cheese professional, now some sort of independent producer and temporary multi-poster at dvxuser
 
Last edited:
If you are worried about the image quality more than the flexibility of having such a large zoom range then I might suggest the 16-70 F4. It's light, has all the auto stabilisation and focus of the 18200 but has a better manual focus and a much sharper image which is free from distortion.

Pair the 16-70 with your 70-200 unless you absolutely need the power zoom and 18-200 range. I think the 18200 is a bit beneath the FS7 TBH.

Oh, and you won't get an F4 or F2.8 in that range due to the small problem of physics.
 
Publimix said:
. Best performance at f8 ."
Click to expand...

What more do you need to know than that?
It is a consumer lens, and not a very good one at that. You can get shallower DoF at that f-stop and probably better overall image quality from an EX1. I agree with Nirv, it is completely beneath the FS7.
 
nothing wrong if your intent is to get an image and never have to change lenses....but pretty much any other lens will give you a "better" image...meaning sharper, better contrast, less distortion.....older "analog" glass has disadvantages when it comes to optical performance but many of these flaws are by many considered character....modern big range zooms just look digital and not very good to me....
 
OK, i'll continue my search for the holy grail of lenses. (Under 3.000 euro. One lens that rules all other lenses).
 
Paul schefz said:
nothing wrong if your intent is to get an image and never have to change lenses....but pretty much any other lens will give you a "better" image...meaning sharper, better contrast, less distortion.....older "analog" glass has disadvantages when it comes to optical performance but many of these flaws are by many considered character....modern big range zooms just look digital and not very good to me....
Click to expand...

Right, in the age of digital we can't choose film stocks to give different looks so to a certain extent we can choose lenses to give us a different look. I've got some reasonable modern lenses that are ideal for "corporate" look and I've got some nice AIS zooms that have something about them and I've got some crud like the Nikkor 43-86 that is so bad it's good.

The Sony 18200 is a relatively poor performer and is completely characterless. I think it was OK on an FS100 but the FS7 is a serious bit of kit that deserves good quality glass. You actually feel your investment is worth it for an FS7 that why I'm going to buy a good set of primes in due course as I've been blown away by the camera.
 
Yeah, but I just found some nice German test-sites. Without much opinions but filled with facts. They do test lenses very thoroughly, it is nice to be raised in a country were most of us speak 3 or more languages (more or less) so I can read most of it. These tests are great, and done scientific. Germans may have no humour, testing they can.

When I find this unicorn I will make a picture with my old phone. The photo I took that made the most impression (and money) was photographed with an out-of-date film, an obscure lens and in low light. But it was one of the last photo's of the El-AL boeing going down in Amsterdam. So the best lens is the lens....

This lens searching thing is a phase I'm going through, once done, just use them and never look back.
 
Last edited:
Publimix said:
This lens searching thing is a phase I'm going through, once done, just use them and never look back.
Click to expand...

No you won't, you'll get a twitch every time you walk past a junk shop or car boot sale and go and see if you can pick up a rarity. It's an addiction.

You'll be searching for rangefinder glass in no time.
 
Nirv said:
If you are worried about the image quality more than the flexibility of having such a large zoom range then I might suggest the 16-70 F4. It's light, has all the auto stabilisation and focus of the 18200 but has a better manual focus and a much sharper image which is free from distortion.
Click to expand...

I remember the 16-70 having rather strong barrel distortion at 16 (not that the 18200 doesn't at 18). And the 18-200's active OSS is better than the 16-70's OSS. The active OSS is most impressive thing about this lens, which is otherwise uniformly mediocre.
 
aly324 said:
I remember the 16-70 having rather strong barrel distortion at 16 (not that the 18200 doesn't at 18). And the 18-200's active OSS is better than the 16-70's OSS. The active OSS is most impressive thing about this lens, which is otherwise uniformly mediocre.
Click to expand...

I have the 1670 on the FS7 right now and I'm not seeing strong barrel distortion of course there is some but much less than the 18200 at 18. You are right about the OSS not being active on the 1670 but I'm not sure that's much of a negative.

I picked it up secondhand at about half price and think it's a great little lens for the money. But as I peel back the layers of the FS7 and begin to understand how far I can take this camera I might have to have a serious talk with my partners about investing in some serious glass.
 
Nirv said:
I have the 1670 on the FS7 right now and I'm not seeing strong barrel distortion of course there is some but much less than the 18200 at 18. You are right about the OSS not being active on the 1670 but I'm not sure that's much of a negative.

I picked it up secondhand at about half price and think it's a great little lens for the money. But as I peel back the layers of the FS7 and begin to understand how far I can take this camera I might have to have a serious talk with my partners about investing in some serious glass.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that the 16-70 (like the 18-105) has pretty severe distortion. HOWEVER the FS7 corrects for the distortion
so the image actually looks great. Basically the camera is correcting for the lens flaws in it's 'software'. That is one
way I am guessing that Sony is able to build some of the lenses they are building and yet keep them more affordable.
If it really matters you could go into the FS7 and turn 'distortion compensation' off to check this and see what difference it
makes. But I wouldn't worry about it. I only care if the image looks good that comes out of the camera. I don't care if
it's the lens, software correction in the camera or (with apologies to BMD) black magic. If it looks good, that's what matters.
 
alaskacameradude said:
Pretty sure that the 16-70 (like the 18-105) has pretty severe distortion. HOWEVER the FS7 corrects for the distortion
so the image actually looks great. Basically the camera is correcting for the lens flaws in it's 'software'. That is one
way I am guessing that Sony is able to build some of the lenses they are building and yet keep them more affordable.
If it really matters you could go into the FS7 and turn 'distortion compensation' off to check this and see what difference it
makes. But I wouldn't worry about it. I only care if the image looks good that comes out of the camera. I don't care if
it's the lens, software correction in the camera or (with apologies to BMD) black magic. If it looks good, that's what matters.
Click to expand...

Distortion correction is not on. You had me worried for a moment as I bought this camera as an ex-demo and it could've been set to correct but it isn't.

There's a bit of complex distortion at 16mm which won't win you an architecture photography prize but gone by 19mm. The distortion is much less noticeable than the 18200 and nowhere near the distortion I've seen in the images of the uncorrected 18-105. I wouldn't describe the distortion it as severe to the eye, not to my eye at least.

A friend asked me to make a video of his holiday home and all I had was my FS100 and the 18200 and I can remember one room with vertical features that looked appalling as I panned the room and there's nothing like that warping.

OK, I just read some reviews which backs up my eyes, the 18200 is measured at 4.5% barrel distortion at 18mm the 16-70 is measured at 2.5% at 16mm. The 18105 is dreadful because it's all pincushion distortion all the way through the zoom range, it starts bad and ends up a disaster at 105mm.

Cheers
 
Nirv,
OK, I don't actually have the lens, I was just told by someone who does that it was
a 'software corrected' lens. If true, you may get even better performance out of it if you
turn the distortion correction 'on'. The 18-105 looks horrible when off, and actually looks
really good once the distortion correction is 'on'. I literally couldn't believe it was the same
lens. It's certainly no Sigma 50-150 F2.8 or 18-35 F1.8 (my two favorite still zoom lenses
for use on cinema cams) but it actually isn't too bad. If of course, you can live with the
'fly by wire' focus ring....that's the big downfall. I can 'sort of' get around it by using the
touch autofocus' button every time I shift focus. That button is like the new focus
ring. But if you want to do 'focus pulls' it's actually easier on the FS700 where you
can just tap the LED screen to focus on different parts of the image, as opposed to the FS7.
 
@alaskacameradude

I bought the 16-70 purely as a "kit" lens that had a reasonably good range, OSS and push auto. The focus feels more direct than the 18200 but it's a relative thing.

I had the Sigma 50-150 Mk1 until I leant it to someone who promptly dropped it, BTW you put me onto it with your review. It's a great lens and not easy to find a good secondhand Mk1. I have the Sig 18-50 which renders exactly like the old RED lens which is a bit soft but ideal if you want to be kind to someone, very flimsy though.
 
Nirv said:
@alaskacameradude

I bought the 16-70 purely as a "kit" lens that had a reasonably good range, OSS and push auto. The focus feels more direct than the 18200 but it's a relative thing.

I had the Sigma 50-150 Mk1 until I leant it to someone who promptly dropped it, BTW you put me onto it with your review. It's a great lens and not easy to find a good secondhand Mk1. I have the Sig 18-50 which renders exactly like the old RED lens which is a bit soft but ideal if you want to be kind to someone, very flimsy though.
Click to expand...

Dang, that sucks! I would be TICKED if someone broke mine....I absolutely adore the guts out of that
lens! I have been eying the Sigma 18-50 and wondering if it was as good as the 50-150. The rumor
I heard, was that the 50-150 was rehoused to make the Red 50-150 zoom and I wouldn't be surprised
cause that lens is just awesome. Makes me wonder if they were both the basis of the Red zooms?
Anyways, I am hoping that Sony will be making some 'cinema' zooms. They have that 28-135 which
is kind of being marketed as the 'kit' lens for the FS7. From what I've heard through the grapevine,
Sony is working on a 'more cinema' version of the 18-105. I'm sure it will cost more, but there will
be a lot of people that will buy it if they do a good job on it.....I'd love a real manual focus ring Sony!
Please and Thank You! Not sure why all the emount glass has that silly 'focus by wire' thing
going on? Maybe it makes it easier for them to put autofocus in? I have no clue, but it sure
is hard to pull focus with that those lenses.
 
alaskacameradude said:
Not sure why all the emount glass has that silly 'focus by wire' thing
going on? Maybe it makes it easier for them to put autofocus in?.
Click to expand...

AFAIK

'Modern lenses are a world of 'cheat' run by computers - I think it started with the EX1 lens or suchlike.

Proper engineered par focal is hard and the end result is $30k lenses.

Now take a non par focal lens, map where you would have to change the focus to to keep it par focal, write software that makes focus adjustments as you zoom and.. $3k parfocal lens.

Magic.

Apart from the focus has to be fly by wire as it is completely run by a machine.


S
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top