FS7: Wide zoom replacement for Sony 18-105?

P

Publimix

Veteran
I have the Sony E-mount 18-105 Lens. A good lens, but not for 4K. I like the range. All my other lenses are primes and a Nikkor 50-300.

Is there an (affordable) alternative for this 18-105 lens? (without the distortion of the sony lens).

A range from 18mm to 100 or a bit more, that would be nice...
 
the Canon 24-105 on a speedbooster is ~17mm-75mm. haven't done much on that lens with 4k, but have done a whole series with that as the workhorse lens in 1080p.
 
The 18-105mm is a 6:1 zoom with a constant aperture. Those are ambitious specs mostly reserved for cine zooms, especially as the range covers wide-angle thru telephoto. When you say affordable I'll assume cine zooms are not an option.

A Canon, or Sigma, 24-105mm f/4 will give you 4:1 range, & a Nikon 24-120mm f/4 will get you 5:1. The range can be extended with a focal reducer, but requires switching back 'n forth between a standard adapter, & a Speedbooster, to do so.

By switching back 'n forth between adapter, & focal reducer, the 24-105mm covers a 6:1 range (17-105mm), & the Nikkor covers 7:1 (17-120mm).
 
Not to start a huge debate, but the FOV of a Canon 24-105 with a Speedbooster on a Super 35/APS-c sensor is still basically 24-105. Without a Speedbooster, the equivalent FOV of a 24-105 on a Super 35/APS-c would be approximately 36-158.

DSLR FOV is based on 35 mm/full frame format.
 
XcYZ said:
Not to start a huge debate, but the FOV of a Canon 24-105 with a Speedbooster on a Super 35/APS-c sensor is still basically 24-105. Without a Speedbooster, the equivalent FOV of a 24-105 on a Super 35/APS-c would be approximately 36-158.

DSLR FOV is based on 35 mm/full frame format.
Click to expand...

One thing to bear in mind is that the film standard is Super35, the DSLR full frame is a fairly new standard in video/film started just a few years ago by the Canon 5DkII. It all depends on your background...
 
I couldn't agree more. However, the FOV changes with regard to the sensor. A 50mm lens will have a different FOV on an APS-c as compared to a full frame sensor.
 
Focal Length is fixed irregardless of Format. Field of View is determined by a combination of Focal length, & Format, but Format cannot alter Focal Legth.
 
Nikon 17-55 2.8 (constant). When in HD you can jump to center crop and have it jump to a effective 34-110 2.8. This is my primary go-to zoom lens on my F5 when not using primes or rent cine PL lenses. I haven't looked in a while but finding a decent constant aperture 18-100 might be hard.
 
Last edited:
XcYZ said:
Agreed, however, the lenses being discussed are DSLR lenses which are based on full frame format DSLR sensors. That's why I use approximations and FOV equivalents. :)
Click to expand...
Well, the lenses discussed may be DSLR lenses but they are
not all 'based on full frame DSLR sensors.' For example,
the 18-105 that is being discussed is an APSC only lens.
 
And that's where it gets all sorts of confusing... Lol. E, FE. Thanks Sony. To make things even less clear, here's how Sony explains the 18-105:

The Sony E PZ 18-105mm f/4 G OSS Lens is a wide-ranging zoom lens that provides a 35mm-equivalent focal length range of 27-158mm, covering wide-angle to telephoto perspectives. A constant f/4 maximum aperture offers consistent performance throughout the zoom range and is especially beneficial when working with greater zoom magnifications in low-light conditions
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bern Caughey said:
irregardless
Click to expand...

... really?


Anyway, I've used the 24-105 on my FS7 since I bought it. I find myself never using the kit lens, and wishing I didn't buy it. I also bought a 70-200 f/4 for use with the speed booster metabones. My problem with the Canon 24-105 is the ramping Iris despite it's claim of constant f4 throughout the zoom range. You lose a definite stop at full telephoto compared to full wide. I want to try the sigma and see if it's any better.....
 
I've used the 24-105 on a Speedbooster Ultra quite a bit on my FS7 and have definitely noticed the loss of a stop at the long end too but I noticed it on my Canon bodies as well. I also try to keep from shooting wide open with it to help maintain sharpness as well. The range on the 24-105 is just far too useful to avoid using it.
 
The Sony 18-105mm is a very unique lens, there is next to nothing else with its unique mix of useful focal length range, small size, "fast" f-stop speed (for such a wide range zoom that is), and very low price.

Everything else will be a compromise on that. You can compromise and size and price and get a cinema zoom. Or you can compromise on reach, and get a Sigma 24-105mm (or the Nikkor equivalent) but this means giving up something on the wide end (or giving up reach if you use a focal reducer, though you'll give up not quite as much if you go for the Nikon 24-120mm). Or give up speed if you go for one of the super zooms like a 18-135mm

XcYZ said:
Agreed, however, the lenses being discussed are DSLR lenses which are based on full frame format DSLR sensors. That's why I use approximations and FOV equivalents. :)
Click to expand...

However many of us shoot photos exclusively on DX format. So discussion of FX FoV is a bit pointless.

Frankly I feel while the "crop factor" has some benefits as a concept, overall it has caused far more harm with confusion than it has been beneficial!! As it constantly gets misused and abused.

As said later:
Bern Caughey said:
A 50 is a 50 is a 50!

https://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/a-50-is-a-50-is-a-50/
Click to expand...

Wes. said:
My problem with the Canon 24-105 is the ramping Iris despite it's claim of constant f4 throughout the zoom range. You lose a definite stop at full telephoto compared to full wide. I want to try the sigma and see if it's any better.....
Click to expand...

It is better with the Sigma. Or use the Nikon 24-120mm.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/729948-USA/Nikon_2193_AF_S_NIKKOR_24_120mm_f_4G.html
 
Last edited:
I'm gradually liking my 18-105 more and more. I bought it for a foreign doc shoot a year ago. I now shoot all handheld stuff with it. Primes for interviews on sticks.

For me, the flexible range outweighs the cons of focus by wire, which I've got used to. And, because I shake like a $hitting dog when hand-holding the FS7 with V-Lock, the Image Stabilisation is spot-on too.

Image is good too and the barrel doesn't protrude when zooming - important if you're using filters and matte box.

I used a 24-105 for a couple of years on a Canon and it was always "meh" for me - a necessary compromise. I got rid of it after seeing terrible CA/fringing when using it with a speedbooster on the FS7.

But I find myself actually liking the 18-105. Frightfully uncool, I know.
 
bengiles said:
I'm gradually liking my 18-105 more and more. I bought it for a foreign doc shoot a year ago. I now shoot all handheld stuff with it. Primes for interviews on sticks.

For me, the flexible range outweighs the cons of focus by wire, which I've got used to. And, because I shake like a $hitting dog when hand-holding the FS7 with V-Lock, the Image Stabilisation is spot-on too.

Image is good too and the barrel doesn't protrude when zooming - important if you're using filters and matte box.

I used a 24-105 for a couple of years on a Canon and it was always "meh" for me - a necessary compromise. I got rid of it after seeing terrible CA/fringing when using it with a speedbooster on the FS7.

But I find myself actually liking the 18-105. Frightfully uncool, I know.
Click to expand...

If it makes you feel any better, I wrote the following
blog post 10 months ago or so. You are not the only frightfully
uncool one, :happy: I find it to be a very unique and useful
lens. I actually like it. There, I said it.
Sure doesn't hurt that it costs $598.

http://www.alaskacameradude.blogspot.com/2015/04/sony-18-105the-baby-sea-monster.html
 
I agree with Ben Giles, only if there was off-line lens correction-app in Resolve to correct the immense distortion.
 
Last edited:
alaskacameradude said:
If it makes you feel any better, I wrote the following
blog post 10 months ago or so. You are not the only frightfully
uncool one, :happy: I find it to be a very unique and useful
lens. I actually like it. There, I said it.
Sure doesn't hurt that it costs $598.
Click to expand...

I went just the opposite direction. I kind of liked the lens at first on the FS7 for what it was, but the more I use it now on the FS5, the less I like it. A Canon 24-105 with a speedbooster is a better choice. I got both through Amazon for less than $950 so the cost difference is not huge. That crappy focus ring on the 18-105 is a deal breaker for me.
 
If you need wide I would suggest the following. I use the GL Optics 11-16 with PL mount. This has worked out well with my FS7 and prior with F55. I have also owned the Dulcos 11-16 PL and had the same great results.

My next step up is the Red 17-50 which I also really like. Having had three of these you need to get a good one they are not all of the same quality. Version II

Sold my 18-105 and never used it on a job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top