Zoom Lenses for FS100

[MattDavis]

Matt - isn't the canon style of IS not supposed to be so hot for video panning and moving? I know from a 17-55IS i have that is suffers from 'over swing' (my words) so at the end of a pan it will continue and come back. Also IS is pretty noisy too.

I am told (by Mr Bloom and a couple of others) that one needs to pump up the cash for the new Canon 80-200 2.8 with two modes of IS, the second mode being the more suitable for video. At £2k for the lens, plus £1k for the adaptor, it's going to be a bit of an investment so hence my sojourn with the non IS Tokina for now. There's always the £7k 18-200 lens for the F3, which would provide EX1 style IS.

I don't want to hand-hold a tele lens, just remove the micro-wobbles. So, if you're - say - panning to follow someone a way off in mid shot, the mere act of touching the lens or tensing before a pull focus creates jitter which the second mode deals with (I believe the first one is more for stills). The IS in the 17-55 2.8 does create a little 'overswing' or 'overshoot' but I tend to use that lens handheld where such dips are hidden in the overall look. Different lenses, different IS algorithms, I guess. But YMMV - I've been happy with the 17-55 2.8, and the noise is only an issue if your mic is close to the lens.

FWIW, I did play with the Zeiss/Sony lens range at last year's IOV event. Nicely built, but I didn't like the focus action, and they lock you into E-mount. I like the ability to swap lenses around bodies - and if I shell out £3k on that 80-200, it had better be Full Frame, fit on anything, yada yada.

 

[MattDavis]

I should be editing... but...

Another zoom for the FS100 which came with strong recommendation was the Canon 24-105 f4 with, you guessed it, IS. F4 may seem a little slow, but it's been sold to me as a 'safe interview lens' - enough shallow DoF to get rid of noisy backgrounds, not enough to require riding the focus as the subject breathes. The IS is more for handheld stuff.

Whilst sitting on the fence over an EOS lens adaptor, I've since spent that budget on a bunch of FD lenses that are decidedly non-IS, but I don't think I could face saying goodbye to them to part-fund the adaptor or this high-falutin' Canon L series stuff. That's the trouble. One becomes a lens hoarder.

 

[paulcurtis]

Thanks Matt,

I've surpassed myself with Lens hoarding so i'm really trying to cull them down!

I'm aiming for a set of fast primes (the reason for primes is speed) and day to day zooms.

I have a conorus adaptor on it's way (well back for firmware update then back) and i have an LA-EA2. I could stick with Canon, i could switch to Sony or i could go old style manual.

The only reason for Canon is to continue to use the IS really (and i have a set of Canon lenses but could sell them).
The only reason to go for Sony is the promise of one touch AF and perhaps better aperture control.

Neither of the two above options are *ideal* for MF. Especially the 17-55, for example. I haven't tried the sonys so don't know. Seeing as things being in focus is pretty important (although looking at recent films and tv shows i'm not so sure anymore) then the focusing should perhaps have priority. The idea with the sony is that a one touch AF hits the mark and the focus can be pulled from there. Perhaps. I don't think anyone knows for sure?

I have the 18200 kit lens but don't like it, ergonomically or its rendering.

I have to consider that the LA-EA adaptor cuts the light too, so that f2.8 becomes f3.2 which is pretty close to older MF lenses. Also as you say there's an obsession about shooting as wide as possible but on a practical levels that's not very useful.

I'd want to minimise barrel extension too.

There are some nice Contax Zeiss lenses. There's an N one that would be perfect for me, but it's not possible or easy to get that onto an FS. There's a nice Leica R one too, but that's at £2k region and ramps a little (although i'm not too fussed, tend to use a zoom as a variable prime)

So nothing ideal out there. I want a f2.8ish, 24-100ish, real MF ring, little or no extension, big, heavy and IS. Or a few of those checked.

Oh, and what adapter for the 80-200 Canon? £1k? Why not the conorus one if it's just powering the IS and Iris?

cheers
Paul

 

[MattDavis]

Oh, and what adapter for the 80-200 Canon? £1k? Why not the conorus one if it's just powering the IS and Iris?

The £1k one is, of course, the MTF adaptor.

I missed the first batch of Conurus adaptors, and ever since, have had a browser window in sight at all times, aimed at their online store, with a trained chicken to peck the 'refresh' button every few seconds. But now Solid Camera have 'mentioned' their adaptor and I've gone all excited over that now, and I very much doubt there will be much change from $1k over there. And what of Erik Birger and his Follow Focus for EOS?

Notwithstanding the return for a firmware update, and without wishing to threadjack, how is the Conurus/Metabones going for you? Good enough to keep with EOS glass?

 

[paulcurtis]

The £1k one is, of course, the MTF adaptor.

I missed the first batch of Conurus adaptors, and ever since, have had a browser window in sight at all times, aimed at their online store, with a trained chicken to peck the 'refresh' button every few seconds. But now Solid Camera have 'mentioned' their adaptor and I've gone all excited over that now, and I very much doubt there will be much change from $1k over there. And what of Erik Birger and his Follow Focus for EOS?

Notwithstanding the return for a firmware update, and without wishing to threadjack, how is the Conurus/Metabones going for you? Good enough to keep with EOS glass?

No idea about the Conurus one yet, i rejected the delivery as i was told, so it was returned for them to fix and send back again. I'm considering my options here as i've kind of decided that IS alone doesn't make up for small MF rings.

I don't see why the MTF one would be any better though, and does the solid camera one have AF?

It's the electronic control of focus that would make me reconsider everything, but Birger have been playing with that for literally years. I would have expected to see it commercialised if it was going to work properly.

cheers
Paul