F5: Zoom Lens: Parfocal, at least constant 2.8, no (bulky) adapter, image stabilisation

T

thomas diehl

Active member
I am interessted in buying an F5 but for my documentary work I need an affordable (!) zoom lens that is parfocal, has at least constant 2.8, needs no adapter like mtf or optitek (way too bulky) and has image stabilisation (shooting handheld most of the time). Any suggestions highly appreciated ... otherwise I would have to buy a C300 and a Canon ef-s17-55 f2.8 IS which I don't really want to do.
 
Optitek adapter "too bulky"????... That's a first!
Well, if you want a PL lens (no IS), you have to have a Sony adapter that is more bulkier than Optitek or MTF and the lens would be even more bulkier... So, back to still lenses? The only way you can mount IS lens on F3/F5/F55 is to mount Optitek EOS mount that is even more in size. So, Canon C300 and the IS lens would be your answer...
 
Well, any lens will need a adapter of some sort, even a PL lens will(adapter included). I use a Nikon 17-55 2.8 on my F3 with the Optitek adapter and it is anything but bulky. I cant say the lens is 100% parfocal but it's not far off. I shoot plenty of hand held w/o lens stabilization and while I wouldnt mind having it, I wouldnt base my camera choice on it. Im sure the C300 is a great camera but it's price to features compared to the F5 is pretty weak. Thats one thing I love about the F's, the ability to put almost any lens/mount on it.
 
ok, the optitiek/mtf-adapter themselves are not bulky - but the controlunits are! -or is there an alternative without those units (Birger would have been ...)?

the C300 is pretty weak featurewise - but thats not the main disadvantage for me: the footage just does not look "cinematic" to me.
but I definitely need IS and adapters with wires and batteries and wheels and anything are just not practical (for me)
 
You will need to confirm this with Jacek but I think the external controller is only for remote focus. If you just want Iris control and, I presume, IS, the basic adapter will do the trick. Not considerably more bulky than the native PL adapter and certainly will deliver you a better image and more flexibility than a C300.

Ned
 
Thanks a lot Ned! - I will check if the controller is only for remote focus/iris. If so - I am happy!
With MTF you def. need the control unit in order to control the iris.

The F5 will be better and more future proof but one should not underestimate how much more it costs to get a ready-to-shoot F5 with batteries, media and viewfinder ... about twice as much as a C300.

However - I dont like the C300 look.
 
Last edited:
thomas diehl said:
The F5 will be better and more future proof but one should not underestimate how much more it costs to get a ready-to-shoot F5 with batteries, media and viewfinder ... about twice as much as a C300.
Click to expand...

must be that new math....
 
no ...german prices ...
c300 is 11.000 euro (ok - plus cheap batteries and charger it is a bit more)
f5 plus all you need (4batteries, 3x64, vf, cardreader, charger): 21.000
new maths?
 
i guess prices there must be different. here, i don't think you'd spend another $15000 to outfit an f5.

$1k would get you a battery/charger package. allow $1500 for a vf.....
 
Last edited:
Yes, as good as the Sony EVF(3.5") looks, there are way cheaper alternatives. I already have a Zacuto EVF that I'll be using with the F5 for a while at least. Prob could find one used for $700 US. Thats a $2,500 savings.
 
If you use the Prolock for Nikon lenses there is no controler, just an aparture ring. The complete adapter is smaller than the Sony PL mount. Fit it with a Nikkor 17-55 2.8 and you are good to go. That combination sets you back less then 2000 euro's.
Sony F-5 body should be available for less then 14.000 euro's.
You can put any V-lock you want on there so look around for cheap offers. (GlobalMediaPro for instance)
As mentioned above, no need to use the expensive Sony Oled to begin with.
 
thomas diehl said:
I am interessted in buying an F5 but for my documentary work I need an affordable (!) zoom lens that is parfocal, has at least constant 2.8, needs no adapter like mtf or optitek (way too bulky) and has image stabilisation (shooting handheld most of the time). Any suggestions highly appreciated.
Click to expand...

Doesn't exist Thomas. You are asking way too much for something that isn't even close to being extant.

The Nikon 28-70 f2.8 is the cheapest fast parfocal zoom lens around that has close to a standard cinematic range of 35-85mm. Asking for one that does parfocal AND image stabilization , is light and fast AND cheap.

Angenieux sells a 4 lb parfocal zoom for around 30 grand but it doesn't do image stabilization in fact no PL lens does image stabilization so you WOULD have to use an adapter and it also assumes you would have the IS activated.

The only practical IS zoom lens for the F3 is Sony's 10 thousand dollar but it is anything but parfocal lens but you knew that.
 
thanks - the Prolock for Nikon lenses sounds interessting to me. But I guess the vf does not show aperture and focal length, does it? - it is a "passive" mount, isn't it? without IS/VR?!
 
Hi Thomas,

Yes, you are correct. Any lens that communicates to the camera be it a PL lens or a one that is designed for the F3 is going to cost in the thousands of dollars. This is why well over 95% of the F3 owners (here) have gone for Nikon lenses: There are several extremely good parfocal zooms that cost under $2,000 and are fast. Having the other characterestics, like being both parfocal and IS and communicate with the camera are just not on the table. The popular wisdom in the f2.8 parfocal zooms is to get the Tokina 11-16, the Nikon 17-35 and the Nikon 28-70. The longer lenses are more debatable. You can often pick up these lenses used in good shape for a fraction of retail cost.

You stated inexpensive as a major requirement so I won't get into the PL lenses.
 
Thank you, Andrew. It is a pitty, the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS needs bulky control units to work with the Sony-F-Cameras (at least I think so - maybe the optitek-adapter does not need the unit?!) - Eventhough I think I am quite good at handheld a def. see a difference with and w/o IS ...
 
The Red 17-50mm T/2.9 is the only 'affordable' compact PL zoom lens I can think of - with a very useful focal range as well. No image stabilisation, but it is parfocal, which may make it more versatile to work with.

Other than that, you're looking at the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 or the Canon 17-55mm with IS. I'd opt for the Nikon personally, primarily for the better build quality.
 
the nikon focusses the "wrong" direction but apart from that I would immediately buy it - if I can find a mount which supports IS/VR (without control unit).
The Red Zoom does not have IS - and is quite heavy, I think.
What is your solution? Or are you only using primes?
 
thomas diehl said:
the nikon focusses the "wrong" direction but apart from that I would immediately buy it - if I can find a mount which supports IS/VR (without control unit).
The Red Zoom does not have IS - and is quite heavy, I think.
What is your solution? Or are you only using primes?
Click to expand...

The Nikon doesn't have IS/VR, so even with a smart mount you won't get stabilisation out of it.

The Red Zoom is only 1.5kg, so pretty light for a cine-zoom (albeit not for a stills zoom).

I have a full set of CP.2 primes, and shoot primarily with those. Though I don't do much run 'n' gun style work, so I rarely need zoom lenses (or the difficulties that come with trying to focus still lenses). I do have a Nikon mount for my camera though, and sometimes use my Nikon-mount 11-16mm, 17-55mm and 80-200mm zooms - though that's mainly just when clients won't spend the extra to pay for the Zeiss glass (and consequentially their pictures don't look quite as pretty).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top