FS7: Wide zoom replacement for Sony 18-105?

Lol - that conjures a bad visual, Ben.
The Canon 24-105 certainly is a compromise, but the IS works just fine with both of my Metabones adapters (SB & Mk IV). As others have mentioned, you definitely loose a stop on the 105 end.
While overpriced because of it's breathing, I also have the Tokina Cinema 16 -28 T3 for manual iris control. Nice image w pleasing flare (when trying for it)... but not worth the extra $...

I'm wondering if anyone has tried the Sony E 18-200 f3.5-6.3 PZ OSS model on the FS7. I'm sure another total compromise - and I've stayed completely away from focus by wire, but knowing the limits ahead of time, this would seem to cover bigger range and give you servo for certain r&g shoots. Having rented the kit lens, this one may well be my next rental experiment. Anyone have or tried it?
 
Personally I would suggest..

nikkor 28-85 manual

or to focus the right way..

contax or canon FD 28-85

no stabilisation, but IMO manual iris and proper manual focus wins over all.

(and have an 18-250 sony crappo lens for when you reall need that IS and wont need to pull focus)

S
 
not your requested 100mm but I am quite happy with the Sony 16-70z. AF works even not very fast but once it's focussed it tracks
 
I've used the Sony E 18-200 f3.5-6.3 PZ OSS for a really fast run and gun shoot where I had to also fly and needed a small kit with lots of coverage. For a daylight doco style shoot it was ok. I was shooting HD xavc and the results were acceptable, it probably reduces the fs7 to ex3 style depth of field though. Operationally it was a pain but I just set an aperture and as well as using my ND's set the shutter to auto between 50 and 150th sec ( not ideal I know ) but it allowed me to keep the lens from shutting down and looking really ugly and work fast. I still cant understand why Sony can't release a cinema style version of the 18-105 f4 lens with aperture ring, to me that's a much needed lens for all of us.

I bought the kit lens and while I like it I think I may end up going the speed booster and canon 24-105 too.
 
I just got the FS5 with kit lens, the Metabones Speedbooster Ultra (EF to E mount) and the Sigma 24-104mm. Haven't even taken the Sigma out of the box yet, but the math liiks like this I believe.

With Metabones Speedbooster Ultra the crop factor is .7, and using the Sigma 25-105mm f/4 lens I get an effective range of 17-73mm, and with Clear Image Zoom I get 17-146mm. And the lens gains a stop making it a constant f/2.8 because of the speed booster.

The 18-105 f/4 Kit zoom is effectively 27-158mm equivalent.
 
Chadfish said:
I just got the FS5 with kit lens, the Metabones Speedbooster Ultra (EF to E mount) and the Sigma 24-104mm. Haven't even taken the Sigma out of the box yet, but the math liiks like this I believe.

With Metabones Speedbooster Ultra the crop factor is .7, and using the Sigma 25-105mm f/4 lens I get an effective range of 17-73mm, and with Clear Image Zoom I get 17-146mm. And the lens gains a stop making it a constant f/2.8 because of the speed booster.

The 18-105 f/4 Kit zoom is effectively 27-158mm equivalent.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure the extra 'reach' you get out of the 'clear image' zoom...
depends on if you are in HD or 4k.
 
IronFilm said:
Why specifically that Nikon lens over any other Nikon mid length zoom?
Click to expand...

Because it is manual and has the most appropriate range for 'one lens shooting'

Personally a smooth manual focus ring is the complete number one attribute of any lens - plastic focus make me feel ill.

with a booster.. 28 is 'nearly wide enough' and 85 is 'nearly long enough' (for a walk about shoot, remove the booster for a sit down interview)

I have (for example) a nikon 24-105 AF and nikkor 17-85 nikkor they are is complete sh_it for video due to rubbish focus wheels.

Something like the 35-135 would need to be paired with a proper wide.

Ive thought (and tested) the nikkor 24-70 2.8AFD but even a year old the focus starts to hang - and they are not cheap.

--

My 'rng' kit is usually..
Stigma 10-24 (got it cheap consider a Tonka instead?.. but actually found 24 possible for an intimate PTC which would not work at 16)
Nikkor 28-85+booster
Nikkor 50 1.4 (classic!)
and 50-300manual.. (or lighter 70-200F4 AF)
Reserve lens.. 18-252. never used.

I shot an hour of beeb with that lot. 80% on the 28-85


S
 
Last edited:
IronFilm said:
Why specifically that Nikon lens over any other Nikon mid length zoom?
Click to expand...

I have that lens so I may be able to answer, the optical quality and the focusing are superb. It's also cheap.

The main downside I have with it is the close focus which is about 1m which means you can find yourself backing away from subjects just to get focus and you don't always have the room in small rooms. I moved to the 24-70 with SB and while the focusing is no match for a complete manual lens I can go wide and frame up easily and it's never off the camera. If I need longer I whip off the SD and use the novoflex.

The Sony 1670 is by far a better option than the 18105, it doesn't need lens correction and will therefore work shooting 4K on the fs7. The focus is electronic but it feels more connected than the other electronic Sony lenses I've had the misfortune to use.

I understand Hasselblad do an e mount 18200 don't get too excited it's a rebadged Sony 18200 that sells for well over double the price for those that like their shitty lenses reassuringly expensive. Now discontinued I think.
 
alaskacameradude said:
I am pretty sure the extra 'reach' you get out of the 'clear image' zoom...
depends on if you are in HD or 4k.
Click to expand...
That is true. My main point was to say that with the Metabones Speedbooster Ultra you are getting a wider shot than without. Some people were mentioning that you lose some of the wide end with the Sigma/Canon 24-105. By the way, the reason I didn't chose the Canon 24-105 is because apparently the IS is noisy. Also because the Sigma is sharper. The only advantage the Canon has is that it's weather sealed and it's a half pound lighter.
 
Chadfish said:
That is true. My main point was to say that with the Metabones Speedbooster Ultra you are getting a wider shot than without. Some people were mentioning that you lose some of the wide end with the Sigma/Canon 24-105. By the way, the reason I didn't chose the Canon 24-105 is because apparently the IS is noisy. Also because the Sigma is sharper. The only advantage the Canon has is that it's weather sealed and it's a half pound lighter.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the speedbooster is a neat piece of work for sure! I haven't used the Sigma 24-105,
but my two favorite lenses ever for cinema/motion work are the old Sigma 50-150 F2.8
and the new Sigma 18-35 F1.8. If it's anything like those two, it's a winner!
 
Wonder if Sony is ever going to offer a wider cinema-esque lens along the lines of the 28-135mm? While much maligned I'm quite fond of the 28-135mm, & would love a wider zoom with similar features, especially if Sony could make it a stop faster, & closer focusing.
 
Bern Caughey said:
... While much maligned I'm quite fond of the 28-135mm, & would love a wider zoom with similar features, especially if Sony could make it a stop faster, & closer focusing.
Click to expand...
A 20-80mm T/2.8 constant aperture would be wonderful!:love4: (But I'm not holding my breath waiting for it.)
 
Bern Caughey said:
Wonder if Sony is ever going to offer a wider cinema-esque lens along the lines of the 28-135mm? While much maligned I'm quite fond of the 28-135mm, & would love a wider zoom with similar features, especially if Sony could make it a stop faster, & closer focusing.
Click to expand...
I think as long as you don't need power zoom, you may as well go the Speedbooster rout. You get to make every lens a stop faster, and Canon has a lot of great lenses, or Sigma with a Canon mount. Sony lenses look to be quite expensive compared to superior models from other manufacturers.
 
I used the Canon 24-105 on SB and just noticed very bad flares if pointed against lightsources.
It ruined a lot of footage I did on a night doco....

Since then I use a Canon 17-55/2.8 IS and never looked back.
It's one of the most underrated lenses from Canon.
While it's not as wheather resistant as the L-lenses, the optical performance is on par with with them and better than the 24-105.
It's cheap, lightweight and has a nice focal range, lbeit could be a little longer though.

It protrudes when zoomed in, has only approx. 90 degrees focus rotation and is well known as a dust sucker.

I use it since 2 years now and like it for most of my doco work. I like the IS which helps micro jitters and especially the focal range and fast f-stop.
 
Erik Wittbusch said:
I
Since then I use a Canon 17-55/2.8 IS and never looked back.

While it's not as wheather resistant as the L-lenses, the optical performance is on par with with them and better than the 24-105.
It's cheap, lightweight and has a nice focal range, lbeit could be a little longer though.

It protrudes when zoomed in, has only approx. 90 degrees focus rotation and is well known as a dust sucker.
Click to expand...

Hi Eric what do you mean about the Canon 17-55 being a dust sucker? And what way do you attach it to the FS5. I just got the Speedbooster Ultra for EF to E mount, but I think that's designed for Full frame lenses.
 
It's a dust sucker because it's not wheather and dust resisitant but a zoom.
When you zoom in and the lens protrudes, it sucks air and sometimes also dust into the lens construction.
This does not affect image quality heavily but there might be enough dust to do so after some years in a dust environment.

And yes, it's not meant for the speedbooster, but for a regular adapter like the Metabones Smart Adapter.
 
Good to know! I'm bummed my Sigma 24-105's autofocus does not work through the Metabones. The IS is fine, but the camera does not recognize the autofocus at all. I should have read the fine print on the Metabones site! But it's not a big deal unless I'm trying to shoot myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top