Zoom Lenses for FS100

ShawnLam said:
@NextWaveG
I wouldn't bother with the e-mount 16mm prime if you have a 16-50mm f/2.8 because I don't thing there will be much of a difference. The rest of the primes should outperform zooms though.
Click to expand...

Was only thinking of the 16mm e-mount if I wanted to go super low profile on say a steadicam.
 
Bring this thread back,

I have to pick up a zoom lens soon that is 18-200 or there abouts, the kit lens for the FS100 keeps playing on the back of my mind, but I read some comments back that the manual focus on it was a bit iffy, and I don't intend to use the autofocus, I have the 70-210mm but would really like something a little wider, can anyone think of anything?
 
LiamR said:
Bring this thread back,

I have to pick up a zoom lens soon that is 18-200 or there abouts, the kit lens for the FS100 keeps playing on the back of my mind, but I read some comments back that the manual focus on it was a bit iffy, and I don't intend to use the autofocus, I have the 70-210mm but would really like something a little wider, can anyone think of anything?
Click to expand...

What 70-210?
 
Correct me if I'm wrong Liam I believe you use
the Canon FD 70-210 F/4.0.

On a side note if you are thinking of the 18-200
maybe take a look into the Sony 16-50 (24-70(+5) for us)
lens. Mimics a 24-70 on a full frame sensor but gives it to us
APS-C users. All at a fixed f/2.8. Need a A Mount to E Mount adapter could get
complete AF with it after firmware. The lens is somewhat clunky however
here's my posting about it in the firmware section for a more
detailed set of questions on it for those that own it.
(http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...Fix-Wishlist&p=2522183&viewfull=1#post2522183)
 
Yeah the FD 70-210.

Matt, I've got plenty of wide zooms, 14-45, 28-85, 35-70, 24-70, I really just need a do it all lens, so I don't have to make lens changes at all.

There is one thing about the Sony 18-200 that annoys me and all other 18-200s i've come across,

mostly from here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=274&N=4293344976+4261208189

none of them have a constant aperture. I would not mind paying a little more (2000-3000) for a good 18-200 at a constant aperture (3 or lower).

Most of my shots (as you've seen Matt) are all zoomed so this doesn't gel well with me.

What to do!
 
I got the 18-220 with the camera, it's a nice lens overall. Well built. I find it quite high contrast and 'clinical' but that's really a very personal preference. I think the biggest issue is that it's telescoping, move it to 200 and there are two zoom sections that pop out. It's really a stills lens and not very practical for NDs or other filters with a matte box. And it's quite slow but then i think perhaps there's a tendency to obsess about lens speeds. In reality shooting at 2.8 and wider makes for very difficult focusing and plenty of focus buzz.

cheers
paul
 
Can anyone give feedback on the Minolta 80-200 F2.8. Is it parfocal? I've been searching reviews on the lens and it is highly rated. Dyxum reviewers gave it a 4.90. I'm pairing it with the LE-EA2 Adaptor
 
Last edited:
paulcurtis said:
I got the 18-220 with the camera, it's a nice lens overall. Well built. I find it quite high contrast and 'clinical' but that's really a very personal preference. I think the biggest issue is that it's telescoping, move it to 200 and there are two zoom sections that pop out. It's really a stills lens and not very practical for NDs or other filters with a matte box. And it's quite slow but then i think perhaps there's a tendency to obsess about lens speeds. In reality shooting at 2.8 and wider makes for very difficult focusing and plenty of focus buzz.

cheers
paul
Click to expand...

I agree with Paul, I have the "kit" lens and am now as I begin to assemble my FS10 kit find the telescoping a PIA although I love the image from my Zeiss 24-70 but it too has the same issue. My existing matte box which I had hope to use in the new setup is not really practical and I think I am going to have to look at a Vocas clip on or something else.
 
I would not mind paying a little more (2000-3000) for a good 18-200 at a constant aperture (3 or lower)
Click to expand...

What you're asking for does exists (wide to telephoto zoom lens with a fast, constant aperture), but it will be far from lightweight, and you'll probably need to sell your grandma to afford it.

Lenses such as the Cooke 20-100 f3.1 (~8000$ used) and the Red 18-85 f2.9 (6000$ "Battle-Tested") will do the job, but you'll need a solid PL mount, a strong rail system and lens support. These are great tools, but quite expensive and restrictive. There are cheaper and lighter alternatives, but there will be compromise at some point. You can't go against physics laws: a wide-telephoto zoom with fast and constant aperture will ALWAYS be huge and heavy.

Alternatives may be the Tokina AT-X PRO AF 28-70mm 1:2.6-2.8 (Angenieux design, internal zooming), Nikon 35-70 f3.5 (internal zooming), or the inexpensive Canon FD 35-105 3.5 (expand when zooming, macro fonction). A friend of mine uses the Canon FD 35-105 3.5 and he likes it very much (you can have it for ~100$. For the price, it's a no brainer).
 
I got a Nikon 28-70 ed lens 2.8(manual iris and focus). great glass but super short focus pull, definitely a is monitor needed. So, still have build up for run and gun but if lens changing isn't an option still fits the bill. Did I mention that it is a couple pounds.
 
hello all
To shoot all in one, I bought a Canon K35 25-120 T2,8 macro PL. Difficult to transport heavy, excellent cine images up to T3.5.
For run and gun shots, using a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and a Nikon 80-200 f 2.8.
Depending on the time and direction primes lenses, Samyang 14 2.8, nikon 24 2.8, Canon ts-e 24L, samyang 35 1.4, Nikon 50 1.4, Samyang 85 1.4, Tokina 135 2.8 Nikon, Sigma 180 macro, Canon 100-400L.

fs100.jpg
FS-100 Canon K-35
 
Last edited:
Cekko said:
hello all
To shoot all in one, I bought a Canon K35 25-120 T2,8 macro PL. Difficult to transport heavy, excellent cine images up to T3.5.
For run and gun shots, using a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and a Nikon 80-200 f 2.8.
Depending on the time and direction primes lenses, Samyang 14 2.8, nikon 24 2.8, Canon ts-e 24L, samyang 35 1.4, Nikon 50 1.4, Samyang 85 1.4, Tokina 135 2.8 Nikon, Sigma 180 macro, Canon 100-400L.

View attachment 46966
FS-100 Canon K-35
Click to expand...

cekko-

a very nice collection of glass!

plus i really like that handle.

diy?

thanks for sharing.

be well.

rob
smalltalk productions
 
Thanks Rob.
I am fortunate enough to design accessories for cameras.
This is a first prototype for heavy camcorder.
I also requested a crane, sliders, dollly, and rig.
I made 2 videos on vimeo
 
Cekko said:
hello all
To shoot all in one, I bought a Canon K35 25-120 T2,8 macro PL. Difficult to transport heavy, excellent cine images up to T3.5.
For run and gun shots, using a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and a Nikon 80-200 f 2.8.
Depending on the time and direction primes lenses, Samyang 14 2.8, nikon 24 2.8, Canon ts-e 24L, samyang 35 1.4, Nikon 50 1.4, Samyang 85 1.4, Tokina 135 2.8 Nikon, Sigma 180 macro, Canon 100-400L.
Click to expand...

How do you find those Samyangs? They seem like a nice collection of fast primes, some very good reviews too. Any issues using them for video?

cheers
Paul
 
There are many different shops on the internet and on e-bay (for Samyang).
I have taken them in a shop ebay Italian.


Any issues using them for video?
Yes!
Would be better with the de-cliking, Not always possible to get the exact exposure.
The sammy 85 1.4 aberrations against the sun.

All, small, lightweight, economy but with high quality performance.

But I prefer the cine lenses PL for more accurate control of the Iris and focus. (Quality video very similar a foto lenses)


CEKKO
 
On a recent job, got a chance to play with a good friend's Tokina 80-200 2.8 - the push-pull version.

I've not been a fan of push-pull, but this lens really impressed - I found myself doing zoom + focus pulls just because the tension between the two forces seemed very well balanced, even and neutral.

The lens has been reported as 'soft at the edges wide open' on Full Frame cameras, with a little bit of Chromatic Aberration (magenta/green fringes), but on the FS100's crop sensor, the soft edges weren't an issue and the CR is nowhere near as bad as some lenses.

The performance is up there with the Canon 80-200 2.8s (which I'll invest in when I can get the right adaptor to power its IS). I love the footage I got from it, and the faster lens blows the Sony 18-200 out of the water so long as you can do without the IS and AF.

It's a big heavy brute, not sure if you attach the lens to the camera, or the camera to the lens.

Anyway, so impressed with it I bought a rebuilt and declicked one from Eddie the Lens Doctor. It's not going to be for everybody, the 80-200 2.8 Nikkors are legendary (if oddly focusing), but I got a tracking shot where I pulled focus and zoomed at the same time, thanks to the 'way' the lens works which syncs with my own physiology.
 
I've had a great time shooting with my 70-210mm f4 FD that now I basically only use it when shooting biking stuff, don't even go for the primes, it's fast enough for me to use, being able to focus and zoom on the one ring is majorly helpful, I've not come across a better lens yet, I think I picked it up for $70. I am not even tempted by any other lens that doesn't have the zoom and focus on the one ring, I don't know how I would manage it. Especially on a fully electronic lens. I'm now hanging out to pick up the 150-600mm f5.6L, whoa that would be fun!!
 
One day i will write up my tests, i've been round the houses with testing of primes from OM, FD, CV, CZ, Leica, EF etc,.

I think that one general observation is that on a sensor like the FS there really isn't much difference in rendering between what i've tested. The CV (voigtlander rangefinder) lenses do tend to have a different rendering style as they're so different from the SLRs. But for a given focal length and speed it's much of a muchness. All the primes breath quite a bit, so no great difference there.

So the most important factors seem to be the broad physical characteristics - the focal range, the speed, the ergonomics and the features. By features i mean things like IS and autofocus.

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 have an LA-EA2 but waiting for some lenses to test and also the firmware update. I guess the question would be what will the firmware allow for - how workable is it to nail focus and the MF from that point. I can see the use as a big time saver. I'm really looking for a 24-100 range, but faster than f4 of the canon for example, 2.8 would be good. I'm wondering hard about the sony zeiss offerings, the 16-50 is a bit of a pain because i can see lots of lens changes. The 24-70 is better but heard some no so good reports about it with MF. I may try to rent one to have a go.

But back to the point - the ergonomics is quite often overlooked especially the feeling of focusing. Not only does each lens have a different length of travel but the scales are different on each lens. They're not linear. I very rarely see people talking about that - makes a huge difference when focusing for near accuracy.

Anyway, one question - who is using the sony zeiss lenses, the 16-35 and the 24-70 and beyond. What are they like in the field for focusing?

cheers
Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top