FS7: What is your best lens with your FS7

The F4 canon is much lighter.. and my suspicion better built than the 2.8 - which seems a bit issue riddled.

We have 2 2.8s in the office and a f4, the f4 has never been back for a service unlike both of the 2.8s

For video Id get a Canon Fd 50-300 or a stigma 50-150 (??)

Edit; overall AF glass is overpriced and crappy for video - to be avoided IMO - much better get manual old glass which has roll-royce/tank build, yes you need one 'all in zoom' and that will be a plastic fantastic, the 18-105 seems like a good candidate, but the rest, get proper glass.. it is 1/4 the price and 2Xbetter.

S
 
Last edited:
nsoltz said:
You realistically cannot zoom while rolling with the Sony zoom. Just my opinion of course and it has been discussed vigorously on the board. That includes both the 18-105 as well as the 28-135 kit lens (which I bought).

Ned Soltz
Click to expand...

Why do you say that?

Or rather, what do you mean by that?
 
My 2 cents - dump the 18-105 Sony - its a PITA to focus and hobbled in many ways on the FS7 - can't use image correction inn 4K or with LUTs unless your record them. Get a Sony 18-200 as an all purpose exterior run & gun lens. iris is 3.5-6.3 but its more functional than the 18-200. Consider switching the 24-70 to the canon 24-105 for a run & gun interior lens though if you can live with the limited zoom the Tamron is better glass. An 85 and a 50 f1.4 Rokinon or one of the Zeiss versions is invaluable for interviews in small spaces.

Consider the fabulous Sigma 18-35 f1.8 - cheap and tack sharp as good as a prime and fast. dump the 35mm 1.8 prime.
Get both metabones adapters speed booster and MkVI

That's pretty much what I have.
 
JPNola said:
Why do you say that?

Or rather, what do you mean by that?
Click to expand...

The 18-105 only has a motorized zoom rocker on lens or utilizes the FS7 zoom rocker. The 28-135 can theoretically do a manual zoom, but it is still fly by wire and even if servo zoom is disengaged, there is still the feel of fighting a motorized zoom. In both cases, you cannot do a snap zoom with rocker (or manually with the 28-135). I much prefer to treat these zooms as variable primes. Now I shouldn't complain too much because if I really wanted an ENG-style zoom, f/2.8 and parfocal I could always spend $38K on a Cabrio 19-90. Big difference. I suppose, then, what I am trying to say is not to have elevated expactations of zooming capabilities with these inexpensive E mount lenses. For the money, they deliver great optics and at least for me are the proper owner-operator pairing with FS7. I can always rent the big boys and girls when needed.

Ned Soltz
 
I tried a friends 28-135 last night and tho I don't like the range I found its manual focus much better than Sony 18-105 and even thought the power zoom wasn't too bad .
 
Lenilenapi said:
I tried a friends 28-135 last night and tho I don't like the range I found its manual focus much better than Sony 18-105 and even thought the power zoom wasn't too bad .
Click to expand...

If Sony ever made a 'Pro' version of the 18-105 it would fly off the shelves. Right now I'm debating getting a Nikon 17-55 (will miss IS) or Canon/Sigma 24-105 w speed booster which comes close to the cost of the 28-135 anyway and I would have to deal with the flaky adapter and dials for aperture instead of an iris. Lots of solutions just nothing that really makes it an easy choice.
 
I just rented the 28-135 and used it on a shoot and will buy one next week. With all its limitations there is nothing in any price comparable. Controllable focus is all this is about. The range Is actually usefull and with center scan in the next upgrade will eliminate the need for a 70-200.
 
One thing that is irritating with the 18-105 which I finally pinpointed is that when zooming the record button is inactive. Not sure if anyone pointed that out but man it drives me nuts.
 
Starting your lens collection from scratch for FS7, Sony or EF mount?

Starting your lens collection from scratch for FS7, Sony or EF mount?

This is all interesting. As we only have m43 cameras and lenses, I am starting with no existing collection of lenses compatible with Super35, but I do have enough experience to understand the issues with focus by wire (Panasonic Lumix) versus mechanical manual lenses (in our case, SLR Magic). The FS7 is a big step up from the GH3, and I hope to use it for years to come, and build our kit around it.

If you had to build your lens collection for documentary and event coverage from scratch for the FS7, would you buy Sony or other brand E-mount / A-mount lenses to avoid adapter issues, or would you buy Canon EF (or third party EF) lenses and adapt them? If you would shun Sony, would your main reason be that you hate the focus-by-wire controls of the Sony lenses so much? What other reasons?

An example would be the Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 G OSS (A-mount) for $3K, plus the $350 LA-EA4 A-to-E adapter. Would you get that, or the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II ($2100, plus $650 for the Speedbooster)? If cost were out of the equation, what would you choose? Please tell me why.

Or, in the wide zoom category, we have these two specimens that have received a lot of acclaim, on this forum and elsewhere:

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8, Canon EF mount (Cost: $1300. Has IS and keeps the IS with the Speedbooster, according to Lenilenapi).
With the Canon EF mount version and SB ULTRA: FF equivalent FOV is 17mm – 49.7mm, f/2.

This compares favorably with the:

Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art lens (Cost: $800; no IS).
With EF version in SB ULTRA: ~ 12.75mm-25mm f/1.2.

If you buy one of these lenses, would it be in Sony Alpha mount or in Canon EF mount – and why?

Is the only trade-off about keeping AF (which I believe is retained by using the Sony A-mount version and the LA-EA4 adapter)? That, versus the versatility made available by using the Canon EF mount with the Speedbooster ULTRA (or using the non-Speedbooster MkIV or Commlite)? If losing AF is the only downside of going with an EF mount on these lenses, one might prefer the versatility of having a choice of FOV and an extra stop of brightness and go with the EF version. Or, maybe one of these lenses (e.g. the Tamron 24-70) is better for run 'n' gun and the AF would help an operator get closer to critical focus faster, so as not to miss a shot.

So, which of these two wide zooms to get? The Sigma is brighter, wider, and less expensive, and is the “3 primes in one,” but it has no IS. The Tamron EF can become pretty wide (17-50) with the SB ULTRA, and it has IS, which is pretty important for handheld work, but it’s $500 more. I haven't yet crunched the numbers to see if I could get both -- maybe the Tamron in Sony Alpha version to keep both IS + AF for indoor RNG use, and the Sigma for interviews and b-roll.

Please let me know if I’m missing something here. I’m revising my proposed lens package and would appreciate the feedback.

Also: Yes, I am planning to buy from a “box store,” if that’s what B&H and Adorama are. The prices are hard to beat and they take purchase orders. I have received some guidance from a working corporate videographer/lighting instructor, and I’m hoping to hear back from a couple of DPs with whom I’ve worked. My supervisor thinks I already have spent too much time researching lenses, but I forgive him. I really am, sadly, too busy to drive to LA to Samys or AbelCine and hope to be paired with a wonderful salesperson. I like the idea of getting advice from working camera people who have no stake in selling me on the thing they get the most commission from. That’s one of the great things about this forum, too.

Thanks, as always, for your perspectives.

S.
 
icarusfilm said:
I just rented the 28-135 and used it on a shoot and will buy one next week. With all its limitations there is nothing in any price comparable. Controllable focus is all this is about. The range Is actually usefull and with center scan in the next upgrade will eliminate the need for a 70-200.
Click to expand...

You're saying shooting in HD on a 56-270mm f8 will replace shooting 4k on a 70-200 f2.8? Not so sure about that... :P
 
Why do you say f/8? Center scan does not affect the f-stop.

Anyway, I think the problem most people have with the 28-135 is that it is not wide enough. Center scan sure isn't going to fix that.
 
Screenstoryteller said:
Or, in the wide zoom category, we have these two specimens that have received a lot of acclaim, on this forum and elsewhere:

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8, Canon EF mount (Cost: $1300. Has IS and keeps the IS with the Speedbooster, according to Lenilenapi).
With the Canon EF mount version and SB ULTRA: FF equivalent FOV is 17mm – 49.7mm, f/2.

This compares favorably with the:

Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art lens (Cost: $800; no IS).
With EF version in SB ULTRA: ~ 12.75mm-25mm f/1.2.

If you buy one of these lenses, would it be in Sony Alpha mount or in Canon EF mount – and why?
Click to expand...

I would always buy lenses in EF mount because it is a bigger market, easier to buy used at low prices and easy to sell used for not much less than you bought it, plus it is an extremely common mount that is used on RED, Amira, Canon, etc cameras so you can usually use them on any other camera you or another shooter you're working with may be shooing on. Also, EF mount lenses can be adapted to pretty much any camera and can be used with speedboosters on E and M43 mount cameras.

Don't expect the 18-35 to work without vignetting on the Speedbooster. It's definitely better on the ultra than the non-ultra SB, but on either the vignetting is unusable unless you crop in post from about 24-35mm and may also depend on your aperture. It's a great lens and still works ok on a speedbooster with some soft vignetting as a ~16-24mm f1.2.

Frankly, for event and doc, I find longer zoom range pretty necessary. I always also carry a 28-300mm VC lens with speedbooster, though the ramping aperture and somewhat lower image performance can be a little annoying but sometimes it's worth it to not have to change lenses. A great middle ground is the Sigma 24-105 OS ART lens which performs great and operates as a 17-75 f2.8 on a speedbooster which is a very handy range and that lens looks great much like the 18-35.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Why do you say f/8? Center scan does not affect the f-stop.

Anyway, I think the problem most people have with the 28-135 is that it is not wide enough. Center scan sure isn't going to fix that.
Click to expand...

Right, technically it does not, but in terms of DOF and to some degree sensitivity it will feel almost identical to shooting in HD on a 56-270mm f8, because that is the 35mm equivalent to a 28-135mm f4 on 16mm, which is what center crop crops your imaging area to.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Sensitivity and/or light transmission does not change with center scan.
Click to expand...

Well it depends how you measure sensitivity, and right lens transmission does not change, but clearly there is an effect if you are using the same lens and only using a quarter of the photons hitting the sensor since 75% of the sensor is no longer used in center crop mode. Perhaps the sensitivity of a photosite does not change but far fewer photosites are used to create the picture, so noise will appear bigger and more prominent. Clearly there is a noise/DR penalty from using an effectively smaller sensor but people do tend to have varying views on how much. The sensitivity penalty will be at least as bad as the penalty you see when shooting HFR.
 
nyvz said:
Well it depends how you measure sensitivity, and right lens transmission does not change, but clearly there is an effect if you are using the same lens and only using a quarter of the photons hitting the sensor since 75% of the sensor is no longer used in center crop mode. Perhaps the sensitivity of a photosite does not change but far fewer photosites are used to create the picture, so noise will appear bigger and more prominent. Clearly there is a noise/DR penalty from using an effectively smaller sensor but people do tend to have varying views on how much. The sensitivity penalty will be at least as bad as the penalty you see when shooting HFR.
Click to expand...

The photo sites are not additive, they are distributed. HFR is affected if/when there is binning or skipping. Center scan doesn't do those.

DR shouldn't be affected. Noise might be, but probably won't be noticable in most situations. It will still have the same number of pixels used as 2k or HD.
 
What I am saying is that 28-135 is a much more usable range than 70-200 which in Doc situations is extremely limiting and disables you completely if something unexpected happens and you need to go wide quickly. The ability to quickly "extend" using center scan eliminates the reason for having the 200. For the most part I will continue to service clients that are finishing in 1080p, I use UHD mostly for interviews, establishing shots etc. to use the resolution for reframing cropping etc. I don't have a single client that is asking for full blown 4K maybe in the future but not for now. So with center crop in 1080 you basically get a 28-270 f4.


nyvz said:
You're saying shooting in HD on a 56-270mm f8 will replace shooting 4k on a 70-200 f2.8? Not so sure about that... :P
Click to expand...
 
nyvz said:
Well it depends how you measure sensitivity, and right lens transmission does not change, but clearly there is an effect if you are using the same lens and only using a quarter of the photons hitting the sensor since 75% of the sensor is no longer used in center crop mode. Perhaps the sensitivity of a photosite does not change but far fewer photosites are used to create the picture, so noise will appear bigger and more prominent. Clearly there is a noise/DR penalty from using an effectively smaller sensor but people do tend to have varying views on how much. The sensitivity penalty will be at least as bad as the penalty you see when shooting HFR.
Click to expand...

If you use the same f-stop whether center scan is active or not, then the sensitivety is the same. I've had an F55 for two years and frequently use center scan so I am familiar with how it works already. The f/4 lens remains an f/4 lens and the ISO is the same. This is not open to interpretation.
 
That center crop scan will be truly useful mostly for HFR - Sony will be able to sell FS7 as a camera that can get same clean hfr as C300II (is it coincidence that firmware will come close to the time when C300II will be released?) so Canon will have no advantages in that type of shooting. Unless you're shooting ONLY in HD I see it pointless otherwise. You can zoom in with two simple clicks in post (while still having ability to reframe or stabilise).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top