Has anybody had a chance to try out the new Sony lenses that come in the kit with the camera?
I don't expect them to be Zeiss quality but how do they compare say to the other inexpensive choices out there, especially something like the Nikon lenses.
Obviously they have the advantage of being geared and having longer focus throws. I imagine they might also have a CAC correction connection to the camera which might hide a great many flaws.

Also I've heard the mechanics are not too good, but again how bad when compared to using still glass or say Red glass?

Lenny

Will test tomorrow and post.

They are optically very similar to the Red Pro Primes. They have very little if any breathing, little CA, and hold focus well. Mechanically they are a bit heavy, the rings are plastic, and do not have any exact markings. However they are much better than still glass in terms of pulling focus, and smooth iris changes. I say for the money they are fantastic lenses. $6k for 3 PL lenses cannot be beat.

Thanks Andy,
Not being very familiar with the Red Pro primes - what does that mean about the optical quality say compared to Zeiss compacts

They are optically very similar to the Red Pro Primes. They have very little if any breathing, little CA, and hold focus well. Mechanically they are a bit heavy, the rings are plastic, and do not have any exact markings. However they are much better than still glass in terms of pulling focus, and smooth iris changes. I say for the money they are fantastic lenses. $6k for 3 PL lenses cannot be beat.

I've not used them, but andy is right. 6k for pl glass that's aT2 is a damn good deal.

Glad I ordered mine with the glass..even if you move to something else, I think those lenses will be hot in the market. (very easy to sell!)

I think they would trickle down very nicely to the entering AF100/F3 market of owner operators.

My dealer loaned me an F3 last weekend, since mine isn't in yet, and the Sony primes were in the box. I decided to leave them there, since I had an MTF adapter and a set of Zeiss ZF2s.

The ZF2s look great to me, and they cost half as much. They're also made of metal. When you turn the focus ring on the Sony lenses, you hear plastic on plastic. Grrrrrr. The Zeiss lenses are silky smooth.

Another issue for me: the Sony primes are really, really big. Ginormous. I know that has advantages for pulling focus. And big stuff really impresses clients, sometimes. But, I think I'll get by just fine without 'em.

Another issue for me: the Sony primes are really, really big. Ginormous. I know that has advantages for pulling focus. And big stuff really impresses clients, sometimes. But, I think I'll get by just fine without 'em.

big primes are usually that way so they can all be the same size...just an FYI. So the fronts stay the same size (no bellows changes on matteboxes), and the gears all stay in the same place so you can switch lenses quickly...especially for setups with motors.

Not applicable to you, of course :-)

What do you guys think of the Duclos ZF.2 adaptations as an alternative to the Sony primes for an affordable set.
You could get a set of 28mm- 100mm for $9K (28 & 100 are f2 and the 35, 50 and 85 are f1.4)

Price is comparable to Sony's and you do have that magic word Zeiss on your gear list,

If I read the literature right maybe an Arri follow focus can gear down to slow the shorter focus barrel and can reverse the gear direction for AC's used to standard direction.

Image quality compared to Sony's or Red primes?

Lenny

Nate: Yeah, I know. Size does matter. In some ways. Some times.

The Sony lenses, despite their substantial girth, don't inspire confidence. Mechanically, they remind me of cheap DSLR kit lenses. I know that it's possible to make a great lens with plastic components, but I'm not convinced that it'll still be a great lens in a year or two. And, even though $2,000 each qualifies these as cheap PL lenses, $2000 is still $2000. In my world, that ain't chump change.

What do you guys think of the Duclos ZF.2 adaptations as an alternative to the Sony primes for an affordable set.
You could get a set of 28mm- 100mm for $9K (28 & 100 are f2 and the 35, 50 and 85 are f1.4)

Price is comparable to Sony's and you do have that magic word Zeiss on your gear list,

If I read the literature right maybe an Arri follow focus can gear down to slow the shorter focus barrel and can reverse the gear direction for AC's used to standard direction.

Image quality compared to Sony's or Red primes?

Lenny

Ive usedthe Duclos adapter ZF2's. They are VERY nice and essentialy CP2's, with less convenience.

I have been wondering how the Sony lenses would compare for weeks.
The CP2's are still not readily available, but I got a hold of a Zeiss 35mm CP2 and a Sony 35 mm that comes with the F3, both PL mount.
I went to Band Pro in Burbank,Ca. (who owned the lenses) and projected them both on a Chrosziel Lens Testing Projector MK5 in their lens testing room.
To my and the sales persons surprise the Sony 35mm looked sharper. Not only in the center, but the edges as well.
That said, the construction of the Sony lenses are not of the best quality and the Focus Witness marks are pretty much useless.
They cost $1866.00 a piece an are a T2....pretty hard to beat for the money.
The CP2's aren't available and cost $3900 each and up.
I bought the camera with the 3 lenses.

Maybe I'm getting confused, but the CP2s are full frame, so there's a crop factor, right? Are the Sonys any different?

IMHO, buy it with the lenses b/c you can't get the Sony glass any other way. If you don't like 'em, sell 'em. There should be a good secondary market. JMHO.

Maybe I'm getting confused, but the CP2s are full frame, so there's a crop factor, right? Are the Sonys any different?

Focal length doesn't change, if the Sony lenses can cover the full frame 35mm frame is another matter.

Crop factor is just a bit of mental arithmetic, so you can obtain the equivalent angle of view. It's something you stop doing once you get used to shooting with a particular sensor size or film gauge, you just automatically use the suitable focal length lens.

If Sony had done a 24, 35 and 50 I would have been much more interested but 35mm just isn't all that wide on a S35 sensor. So far I'm getting great results with my Nikon fit DSLR lenses, a mix of primes and zooms.

I'll hire in PL glass when I need it, there's plenty out there.

check out the video of the Arri Ultra Primes, Sony PLs, and Zeiss CP1
: Sony PMW-F3 Exterior Daylight Lens Comparison on Vimeo

To my eyes, I would prefer the Zeiss CP1...

An important element of this test of the three lenses is to look at the color of her jacket. The CP1 has the least accurate rendition. Knowing Ultra Primes and their almost clinical accuracy, the color shift on both the Sony lenses and CP's is significant.

This would be a HUGE issue on a fashion shoot, or product shoot, if the company signature colors arent accurate, or the dress is "army green" instead of "fern green". This is good information to know.

Great point. It looks like a white balance needed to be done before shooting with the CP's. It's funny how we like warm images, even if they are not accurate.

Coming from a guys who has cookes. The lenses known for warm images.... Interestingly enough, cooke designs the lenses to accentuate the warmth in Skin tone colors only. It leaves the blues/greens alone...

So what you would get is the warmth we like in skintones, and the accuracy everywhere else. Unless the model is wearing a skin tone Camel jacket, then it may also be "wrong".

Nah, look at the tiers and the trash bags.

I think he probably WB'd for the Ultra or kit lens and didn't rebalance.

Despite what Timur has said, that photo of the Zeiss CP1 is a really compelling argument to go Zeiss. Wow. Thanks for that David.

EDIT:

Just watched the video. Holy moley! Zeiss all the way.

I mean its not a knock against the CP's. I would use em in a heartbeat. its just a issue to be aware of.

Zeiss all the way.

Funny, I thought just the opposite -- the Ultras look beautiful to me. Suppose it's all a matter of personal preference...

I like the test, the Sony flared pretty badly in 50mm mode.

I'm a bit annoyed by the camera's propensity towards green like you see in these shots, so today with a DIT friend we set out to fix this. It's pretty simple. In Picture Profile, go to White/Offset A & White/Offset B and kick them each up to +2 or +3. If you look at AWB on a scope you can see that Sony has kicked up the Red a little bit higher than the Green and it shows as a more natural color range. In A & B the Green is dominant.

Doing the above will move your non-Presets A & B to more of that AWB setting. It does affect the overall matrix so take a look at that before you exit out to make sure you are near or at the vector boxes.

You should also try the FL-Light matrix which includes a lot of -G. I'm still playing with the Matrix, like most current Sony cameras it is too Green/Yellow IMHO. The FL-Light matrix has a quite nice look under daylight.

Still tweaking though.

Sorry but I don't buy in to the thought of any lens manufacturer deliberately adding colour shifts into their lenses. Any such shifts will only make adding filtration or getting accurate colours harder. What happens when you want to create a cool or cold look? You must add additional filtration or post correction to first eliminate the shift in the lens. Sure, one manufacturer may use different glass and that may impart a colour shift, but surely the holy grail of lens manufacture is to have a lens that does not add any colour cast or tonal shift?

I also preferred the Ultra Primes, but honestly, none stood out as image killers, or so much better I had to have it.

That brings cost into the decision. The ARRI 32mm lists for over $12K. You get THREE Sony's for half of that. Plastic or not, I would have to go with Sony.

I don't think youre supposed to buy Ultra Primes for personal use. They are a rental house Item.

I am hoping that next camera purchase is good enough to produce content of sufficient technical quality to enable theatrical release. From what I have seen on Vimeo, the F3 and Sony primes are adequate. If my story, acting, and other elements are as good as the images the F3 produces, I think the audience will very much enjoy the experience.

IMHO, I would rather invest in gear than in a rental company. I know others feel differently and don't want to get saddled with a 'horse' that is obsolete in three years. It's another discussion, but what is/has turned is the camera and recorders are becoming less expensive. It would appear that most everything else is either holding its price or going up (good lens, tripod, rail system, etc.) So, maybe that is where the investment should go and the camera is what should be rented.

Jaques a friend and I are having that same discussion right now it seems like everyone is buying the camera (the thing that becomes obsolete the quickest, except for maybe storage media) and renting the support gear. A good set of lens will last you at least a decade. What was the last time you used a digital camera that was over 5 years old? If you maintain a geared head or even a 2575 head and sticks you can use them forever. It may not be quite as high of a rental price but it's still a good investment.

However I don't know that I agree with you on camera purchase being good enough to produce content that is eligable for theatrical release. We shot a film 5 years ago on an HDV camera that got a theatrical release (only 200 or so theaters but theatrical none the less) I think trying to attain a theatrical experience is much more about the story, acting and style then it is about the technical aspects. Trying to get a cable release may be much more technical oriented.

Well how did the HDV look bolwn up? Please let us know.

Thanks!

Jacques,

I have no doubt that the F3 provides an image quality more than sufficient for any lower budget feature film, and with proper recording and postproduction sufficient for higher budget ones as well. Though when talking about the kit lenses, you might think about the concept of a 'matched set'. Obviously Sony has spent time to make sure the three kit lenses are matched, but I doubt you wiill be shooting an entire feature on just those three lenses, so at that point you're back to the question of matching other lenses to the Sonys, or whether to rent or buy a wider assortment of focal lengths. (Back when I shot low budget films, we typically couldn't afford to rent a zoom (and I didn't like the way the zooms were hard to match with the primes) so a typical inexpensive rental lens kit contained 16,24,32,50,85mm lenses, or a more expensive package would include 18,25,35,50,85,135,300mm lenses. I have no doubt that Sony will at some point add additional lenses to their kit, but I'm also sure you won't want to wait.
Of course the good news it that with a little tweaking in the color correction suite, slight coloration or contrast differences between lenses can be addressed. (This was much more difficult in traditional film timing -- Thank you Digital Post!!) The areas that are harder to address are sharpness and flares.

Purchase vs rental is always a complex question, but if you'll be using a camera a fair amount, purchase tends to be far more economical. I haven't seen a lot of posted rental rates for the F3 yet - probably because not that many rental houses are set with them yet -- the first one I saw online was $600./day. It didn't say 'package' so I'm not sure what was included. If you do the math, you'll see that at that rate, even if you only use the camera one day every two weeks, you've almost made your investment back in a year. If you spend the money to put a full package together, it would obviously be better if the camera is used one or two days a week, but you're still viable. If it's going to sit in your closet for 6 months, then rental may be the way to go.
Of course one of my reasons for buying packages is that the travel (50 miles each way) and time involved in going to a rental house, properly testing and checking out a camera package the day previous to a shoot, and then returning it the day after the shoot, makes renting items far less desirable, and more costly in terms of the value of my time, or hiring someone for returns. Plus I know my gear, and can stay on top of firmware updates and keep it in top working order.

So - if you're doing a traditional low budget feature and shooting the whole thing in a single 3-4 week window - and if that's your only need for the camera, then rentals are a great option. If you need it often and frequently, then purchase makes sense, and at that point this thread becomes far more relevant in terms of what glass you will need to complete your kit.

Best,
Dave S

I am hoping to record S-Log using an F3 in about two years time.
You're right, the story and other components MUST be EXCELLENT, but IMHO
4:2:2 high quality pro res is probably good enough for your average audience.
I hope to do better with S-log.

Others I know in the biz have shown actual producers footage shot on tiny inexpensive cameras,
but because everything else was so professional, when told it was shot on 16mm, they believed it.

Much of our biz is perception.

SInce I don't have much bread, the movie I am writing and hope to shoot is designed to take place in one room 80% if the time.
I plan to build that set on a location I either own or can hang out on for a year if necessary.
So, I want to keep the gear in place, so when my actors are available, I can spring into action.
I simply don't have the money to shoot the thing in a month.
That is a huge 'one time' expense and will be difficult in my current situation.

Here's some info on the zoom lenses that Sony are bringing out for the F3

Sony PMW-F3 Zooms and Updates Film and Digital Times: News (http://www.fdtimes.com/news/cooke/sony-pmw-f3-zooms-and-updates/)

Maybe I'm getting confused, but the CP2s are full frame, so there's a crop factor, right? Are the Sonys any different?

There is no crop factor, an 50mm lens is a 50mm lens, nothing changes.

Giuseppe,

Are you saying that the FOV on a 50mm lens doesn't change whether it's a stills lens or a proper PL cine lens when used on an S35 sensor?

-and that the crop factor only comes into play when you are comparing the FOV of different sized sensors such as S35 vs. Full Frame.

Is this right?

Thanks,
Daniel

The crop factor is just a quick calculation to give the equivalent angle of view focal length for different sized sensor usually compared to full frame 35mm. When the focal length is the same, a stills lens or a cine lens will give the same angle of view on a S35mm sensor.

Some consumer video cameras did give the full frame 35mm equivalents as lens markings, but that had nothing to do with the real focal length actaully being on used on the camera, it was just a comfort blanket for stills photographers.

I love the pCam app on iPhone / iPad. It allows you to quickly see field of view, depth of field, focal length matching for different sensor sizes and a whole bunch of other stuff. Yes, it's expensive and it doesn't really do anything that you couldn't do yourself with a pencil and paper, but I've found it indispensable. I use it on every shoot.

Everyone's complaining about the Sony-bundled lenses being plasticky, but I remember reading somewhere that the pre-production units had plastic hardware and the final production lenses had metal (aluminum or something). Any truth to this?

I have the kit lenses with F3. They are indeed very plasticky. Not sure if they are more or less plastic than the pre-production units but definitely the most plastic lenses I've ever seen.

I am not worried too much about the plasticky feeling, plastics can be very good these days. One thing I like though is the weight of those lenses. They are quite bulky but feel light. I am also actually quite impressed by the smoothness of focus and iris, they feel good.

Thierry.

Does anyone know the weight of each of the Sony PL lenses and outside diameter of the fronts lenses, in millimeters?

Does anyone know the weight of each of the Sony PL lenses and outside diameter of the fronts lenses, in millimeters?

pretty accurate postal scale. 3 pounds, 3.36 ounces. with no caps, lens only. looks to be about 105mm on the ruler.

The Vimeo camparison was fascinating, thanks for linking.

Out of interest, the Sony lenses are made for Sony by Konica Minolta, the Zeiss CP2 primes are apparently manufactured by Cosina, so no longer 'German glass'.

Extremely interesting to see the different colour rendition and contrast between them. I'm looking forward to see Cooke added into the comparison mix too.

I have heard similar information about the Sony lenses being manufactured by Konica Minolta but I have never heard it qualified by a Sony Production Manager or Marketing Rep.

To my eyes and hands those lenses have the same look and feel as Fujinon lenses. Also Sony has a very close and long standing relationship with Fujinon but this is all conjecture. Regardless, I would want to hear from a well placed Sony representative before stating where these lenses actually came from.

Actually Sony bought the Photo Imaging Unit from Konica Minolta 5 years ago.

cheers

Morton

I have heard similar information about the Sony lenses being manufactured by Konica Minolta but I have never heard it qualified by a Sony Production Manager or Marketing Rep.

To my eyes and hands those lenses have the same look and feel as Fujinon lenses. Also Sony has a very close and long standing relationship with Fujinon but this is all conjecture. Regardless, I would want to hear from a well placed Sony representative before stating where these lenses actually came from.

I highly doubt Fujinon makes those lenses.