FS7: What is your best lens with your FS7

Just jumping in with my favorite telephotos:

I have a love for the new Sigma 120-300 2.8 Sport. Also the Canon 300 2.8 II is an incredible lens if you don't mind paying twice as much and it being a prime. The last lens that is pretty awesome and felixble is the newish Canon 200-400 f4 with built in 1.4 teleconverter.
 
morgan_moore said:
There were also canons at that time manual focus, FD, I remember the market crashing as the canon stills boys switched to the new EF mount. A chum used to do the surfing with a manual 800-5.6 canon he got for a song.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up on the Canons. These look like they are worth investigating further. I had written off Canon lenses because of the lack of direct iris control but they lenses seem to have rings.
 
Canon FD lenses are manual with iris rings nice focus et al.

They only have one let down for motion filming.. they wont go on a Canon! (C300 etc)

There also may not be a Speedbooster.

For a Sony shooter who does not want to focus 'the Nikon way' they seem ideal.
 
You may very well be correct. As a Nikon shooter since high school I'll admit I am ignorant about the Canon lens options. Worth a closer look.
 
I was too.. but my mate had a T90, and then I was at College with Mr Chung who subjected us all to the wonderment of his Canon kit at length.
 
morgan_moore said:
A 2/3 cam with a nikkor 80-200 would be the way though. Seriously if you need to cover a distant event it is usally more practical to take a camera like the EX1 rather than lug a 600/4

S
Click to expand...

Does the FS7 have centre crop mode yet? Centre crop on my F5 with a Nikon 70-200mm and 1.4x extender (if needed) gets some seriously long lens shots.
 
morgan_moore said:
Canon FD lenses are manual with iris rings nice focus et al.

They only have one let down for motion filming.. they wont go on a Canon! (C300 etc)

There also may not be a Speedbooster.

For a Sony shooter who does not want to focus 'the Nikon way' they seem ideal.
Click to expand...

Why do you say that? I've had a FD 135mm and used via a passive FD-EF mount adaptor many times, though with a C-100, not a C-300, though I don't see how that could make a difference...

-jason
 
Aloha, alohype... In my efforts to answer this question -- whether one is sacrificing significant sharpness by choosing an EF mount + adapter (Speedbooster or non) -- I came across a discussion of the Rokinon primes at Matthew Duclos' blog. See also the readers' comments for more info. In short, Matthew seems to think that choosing EF mount instead of native MFT or E mount is good for the two reasons already expressed here, that is, 1) allows use of Speedbooster for additional focal length (wider) and extra stop of light, and 2) future proofing, in case you move to a camera that's not E mount or MFT and want to be able to use your full lens collection.

The link to this discussion is here ... I think posting a link is OK here, from what I've observed:

https://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/are-rokinon-primes-right-for-you/

If you find any other info on this matter, including example clips showing flares from light sources that are in the shot, please post them. Duclos doesn't seem at all concerned, but, although he is a lensman, I don't know how much he actually shoots.

Be well,
S.
 
jasonbrooks said:
Why do you say that? I've had a FD 135mm and used via a passive FD-EF mount adaptor many times, though with a C-100, not a C-300, though I don't see how that could make a difference...

-jason
Click to expand...

forgive me I may be in complete error - I thought fd and ef had similar ffd so all adapters had to have an optical element to convert .. And that those element did in the main do pretty horrid things. I can see that a 135 might work without an optical element though ?
 
Revised Lens Kit for FS7

Revised Lens Kit for FS7

Having read all of your input with great interest, as well as input from other sources, I have a revised "wish list" of lenses. I have yet to get the .EDU discounted quote on this, but, based on list prices, I'm over budget by $2K.

Again, I'm in a "strike while the iron is hot" situation: next year, budget may well be tight. I look forward to Sony coming out with their own fab cinema primes and zooms, and fixing that bloody iris wheel, but, until then, here's what I'm thinking (and will buy in the next month):

Sony FS7 camera body
One BP-U60 battery (in addition to the ..30 that comes with the cam)
Two Lexar 64gb cards

Tamron SP 70-200 f/2.8, EF mount
Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8, EF mount
Sigma 18-35mm, f/1.8, EF mount
Sony 18-105mm f/4 power zoom

Rokinon 85mm T1.5 Cine DS, EF mount
Rokinon 50mm T1.5 Cine DS, EF mount

Metabones Speed booster
Metabones Mark IV adapter (free promotion through June 30)

B+W UV Haze MRC 010M filters (3x 72mm, 2x77mm, 1x82mm)

That's it for camera and lenses, and I still have to shoehorn it into my allotted budget, from a combination of discounts and (maybe) being allowed to go over a small amount.

If I could, the first thing I would add would be another battery and the bigger media card; the first lens I'd add to the collection would probably be a prime in 35mm. Then, maybe a very long telephoto (300-500mm) zoom for sports coverage.

Camera support is another effort altogether....

My self-critiques of this list are mostly:

1) All these lenses receive high praise from video shooters, including on this board -- but will they match when cut together?
2) I'm going to get confused by the direction of turn of the Tamron vs. the Sigma, Sony, and Rokinon barrels.
3) I need more storage and probably another battery
4) If I had to cut one lens, it would probably be the Sigma 18-35 (the Tamron 24-70 w/ Speedbooster has comparable focal length range)...but the Sigma seems like a nice, bright, sharp lens that covers the wider prime range of 18-20-24-35, so it pains me to pull it from the list just yet.​

Comments, advice, admonishments?

S.
 
My suggestion would be to get at least another battery right away even if you have to sacrifice a lens. Losing battery power on a job will cost you a client and for good reason. Likewise a larger card though you can do the math on that and rent another when needed. I suggest also buying a 2 unit battery charter.

I came up with a trick for the focus direction which helps a bit. I put 2 pieces of velcro on my viewfinder in plain sight , on the left and right sides- This was sticky velcro with black hard side facing out. Then found a piece of red velcro with opposite fuzzy and hard side on the same cloth ( mine from Rip Tie ) I wrote NEAR in black marker on the Red Velcro and switch it to remind me which to turn the lens . Otherwise I always got confused. Really helps. Best of course is a reversible follow focus and I recommend the one from Shoot 35 in britain. Great unit at a great price.

Get your lenses from a place you can return to like B*H or Adorama. You may not like that 18-105 .
 
I would second what Lenilenapi said and add another battery to your list.
Don't try to save on nameless brand 3rd party batteries, get SWIT or Hawkwoods, both make good quality replacement Batteries, but they are never as good as the generic sony ones.

As for the media card, it really depends on how much you expect to shoot. I shot football games regularly on HD422 Mpeg Codec and a 90mins game barely fills a 64GB card and its good enough.

What about dropping the speedbooster and either 85mm or the 70-200mm to get the sigma 18-35mm and a macro lens?

The sigma 18-35/1.8 gives beautiful shallow DoF images and its a great handheld lens too, it can close focus to 28cm and easy to get beautiful looking shot easily. I find it fiddlely to change from metabone speedbooster to Mark IV adapter in the field than changing lens, it involve too many steps for me as a one man band.

The 18-35 and 24-70 will give you good general coverage.
 
If I had to go bare bones - I would dump the 24-70 and the 18-105 and get a Canon 24-105 - not perfect but bare bones it will cover your butt and you won't get complaints. Keep the speed booster which saves your butt in low light & gives you an 18-70 when needed. Tough decisions all around though - that Sigma is great.
 
Have been on the hunt for some primes lately. Debating between the Zeiss Milvus and the Sigma ART series and decided to try some tests using the Sigma 18-35 1.8 ART w/SB ULTRA at 2X center crop via the new 3.0 FW.

Considering that 24-35 is usable on the FS7 w/Metabones IV, I could do an interview test w/18-35 1.8 SB ULTRA set at 24mm and 1.4, the 50mm 1.4 ART and the Milvus 1.4 and report back. I'm curious to see whether it's even worth it to buy a 50mm prime, considering I can get very similar speed and FOV using the ULTRA w/a lens I already have.

Granted, if I want to shoot the interviews at 4k, that's another story!
 
I have the Sony SELP 18-105. As a full sensor lens your FOV is closer to 28-140ish. Decent enough for some applications. But it's fly by wire and almost impossible to manually wrangle. Works well when you don't have lens access like on a jib.
My "go-to" are Nikon's:17-35, 24-70, 24-120 and 70-200. All are parafocal and f2.8 straight across except for the 24-120 which is f4. The kit lens and the SELP are also f4 and mostly it's not an issue for me, especially on exteriors where I effort to slow the lens down because of the ISO base of 2000.
Love my Nikon's but if I came out of the Canon camp, I'm sure I'd like them as well.
As soon as I got my FS7 almost 18 months ago, I started scrounging for Nikon's before they got discovered.
Can't say enough about the Metabones Speed Booster other than to say you need to get the back focus calibrated on the Booster itself. Seriously!
One of the lenses I snagged was an Nikkor 28-200 which is slow at 3.5-5.6 but just perfect for run and gun and exterior interviews. Even though it's an old AF, it's parafocal and although a bit slow, since I'm always having to slow down the lens via ND's, the aperture is actually an attribute.
The thought of dropping coinage for a B4 adaptor, thus allowing legacy HD zooms is appealing but now that I have the center punch capability on my FS7, I'm not in a hurry.
The real question is, if you were on a doc, and could only have two lenses for some reason...which two would you pick.
Me? Nikon 24-70 and 28-200.
What say you?
 
Lenilenapi said:
If I had to go bare bones - I would dump the 24-70 and the 18-105 and get a Canon 24-105 - not perfect but bare bones it will cover your butt and you won't get complaints. Keep the speed booster which saves your butt in low light & gives you an 18-70 when needed. Tough decisions all around though - that Sigma is great.
Click to expand...

Get the Sigma 24-105 instead.

1. Its brighter and lets through more light.
2. Its sharper.
3. Its not becoming 1 stop darker as you zoom in.
4. Its fairly parfocal, especially when zooming out.
5. Its cheaper as its more often on discount.
6. Its focus ring is great to work with. Nice resistance in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top