Just mounted the Sony 18-105 on the Fs7 and I see none of the pincushioning that gave the E PZ 18-105 such thumbs down in the past.

I understand that the Fs7 corrects the 18-105 where the FS700 did not, but is the Fs7 doing this automatically? I assume that it is since, as I said above, I see no pincushioning. I just stuck the lens on the camera. Never went into the menu to change any settings.

As noted in the Newshooter review, the 18-105mm is really a nice range for run and gun on the Fs7. Even if the lens is not of the high optical quality of other E-mount and Alpha glass. It's a poor man's 19-90 Cabrio.

It would be great to have a zoom for the Fs7 in the 12-80 range, but there just isn't anything out there for less than $20k that I am aware of.

My lens dilemma now is whether to go with the Sony 16-35mm f/2.8 Alpha or a cine rehouse of the Sigma 18-35 f/2.8 for Nikon, the latter giving me a mechanical iris ring on the lens while the Sony would be potentially sluggish and / or slightly stepped electronic iris as well as fly-by-wire focus where the Sigma would be mechanical focus.

Any thoughts on the Sony 10-18mm f/4 vs the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8? There is a "Cine" version of the Tokina 11-16 in EF that has an iris ring on the lens. But I keep hearing that the Tokina 11-16 is soft and near unusable at anything but an f/11. The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 on the Fs7 using the metabones ultra adapter is an interesting thought since the result would be a 11-16mm comparable 35mm equivalent speed-boosted to f/1.8. ( the metabones adapter would essentially negate the "crop factor" of S35. The FOV would be much wider than without the adapter. Wider than it would be with a simple EF to E mount adapter. Wider than any use of the Tokina 11-16mm on an F5. )

The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 on the Fs7 using the metabones ultra adapter is an interesting thought since the result would be a 11-16mm comparable 35mm equivalent speed-boosted to f/1.8. ( the metabones adapter would essentially negate the "crop factor" of S35)

FWIW, the Tokina 11-16 is an APS-C/S35 lens, so there will probably be vignetting at wide angle if you put it over a speedbooster.

" But I keep hearing that the Tokina 11-16 is soft and near unusable at anything but an f/11."

I don't know where you've heard that. I thought it was supposed to be comparable to the other lenses. i've had no problem with it. For 18-35 the best lens out there is supposed to be the new Sigma f1.8 . i assume there is an E mount.

I plan on getting Sony 18-105 for FS7 also . How do you like the optical quality?
It has electronic correction being applied constantly by the camera - hence no pincushioning or other aberrations as I understand it. I've heard its quite good.
However the camera can't provide the correction at over 60 fps and in 4K so its strictly an HD lens.

"For 18-35 the best lens out there is supposed to be the new Sigma f1.8 . i assume there is an E mount." There is indeed an E-mount version of the Sigma 18-35mm but it doesn't have an iris ring on the lens. I was speaking of the Tokina 18-35 CINE EF. I left out the "Cine" part. The Cinema version of the Tokina 11-16mm is produced in EF or Micro Four Thirds mount, but not E-mount. The Cinema version, the one with an actual iris ring on the lens, sells for a pricey $1899.

Do you think the Tokina cinema 11-16mm EF would vignette with ANY EF to E-mount adapter or only with the metabones?

"I plan on getting Sony 18-105 for FS7 also . How do you like the optical quality? "

I have not examined the optical quality yet other than giving the lens a go on the camera. No pixel peeping as of yet.

I gotta admit, I really dislike the focusing on the Sony lenses. I've been riding focus for over 20 years on all sorts of zooms and I struggle greatly on the Sony glass. It's obviously designed for auto focusing. There just isn't any linear quality to the focus action and, like the zoom, it often lags behind what you want it to do. It's so "bad" that I'd almost rather shoot in auto-focus, something that I've considered anathema to being a professional videographer. FYI- I don't like focusing on Canon EF glass either. But at this early stage of experience with the Sony glass I'd have to say I prefer focusing on Canon EF lenses. Ultimately, they all suck. If you think I am being harsh go to a rental house and use a broadcast tv "ENG" zoom or the Cabrio for a few minutes and you will see what I mean.

It is a bit disheartening to purchase a just released camera and not have any glass for it under $20k that I feel is up to the task. That isn't a knock against the Fs7. It's a knock against the manner in which the entire DSLR video / S35 thing has unfolded with still photography lenses being used for video. As far as usability, I'd rather shoot on an EX3 than shoot on an F5 or Fs7 that is mated to still photography glass... be it Canon EF, Nikon FZ, or Sony Alpha / Sony E mount. At least on the EX3 I have control of focus, zoom, and iris that is close to the controls on a broadcast tv zoom. Even if the Fs7's iris control issue is cured with a software update, I just don't like iris control that isn't performed on the lens...that isn't performed by "feel" and physical movement that becomes muscle memory. Simply put, I don't like fly-by-wire.

I am hoping the Sony FE PZ 28-135mm f/4 G OSS is something like the lens on the EX3. If it is I can live with that until I make the leap into big-league zooms, either the 19-90 Cabrio or the Canon Cine-Servo 17-120mm.

On a different note, I just noticed that Canon makes a zoom lens that is a 1500mm when using it's 1.5x extender. On an s35 camera that would be the 35mm comparable equivalent of a 2085mm lens. Crazy.

I feel your pain . Been using an F3 for 4 years now so I'm used to it, but DSLR glass is a pain in the butt .
I have a friend who is also an old film guy and he has an FS700 with an 18-200 that he loves because of the range. He uses "push auto" instead of manual focus most of the time and swears by it. Seems like you still need to do manual adjustments though .
I'll find out soon as I just ordered an 18-200 and 18-105 for an FS7 that arrives next week . I've been using Nikon glass with the F3 and at least I have manual iris ( even with G lenses the adapters offer a manual iris.
However no one makes a nikon adapter that passes power to the lens so you cannot get Image stabilization which I want for some of my glass . Not excited about steppy iris though. I can't afford "real glass" unfortunately and the 28 - 135 should be an 18-105 to be useful. Maybe someday.

I did the same thing with the 18-105 and didn’t notice any distortion either. I then went into the FS7 and turned “distortion comp” to AUTO in the LENS menu. I even did a quick toggle to see if it made any difference and I didn’t see any. Not sure what to make of it, but I like the lens a lot even tho it’s only been 2 days and only tests so far.

My main target for this lens (and quite honestly, the FS7 itself) is to fly on a Ronin. This lens should be just about perfect. Small and lightweight, constant aperture and doesn’t snorkel when zooming. It’s also internally stabilized, so any bumps the Ronin doesn’t eliminate should be addressed by the lens.

There is extreme vignetting on my Tokina 11-16 (Nikon mount) on the wide end, but 16 looks fine via the Metabones speedbooster Ultra and will be plenty wide and useful anyway.

All of my Nikon lenses that I use on my F5 with an optitek prolock look great on the FS7 thru the Metabones.

Side note - the FS7 fits and balances just fine on the Ronin with the cable for the VF/Monitor being more than long enough to strip off of the camera and put it on the Ronin cross bar. That' really handy. I thought I might need the arm extension, but so far I don't think so. A few other issues to deal with, but nothing huge.

Ithe 28 - 135 should be an 18-105 to be useful. Maybe someday.

What if the engineers could somehow shrink the s35 sensor to, say, around 2/3" size. Then all these lenses would have a much wider field of view and we could even use all the wonderful B4 mount broadcast zooms. Zooms with rocker control on the lens and lens doublers! Zooms with macro that focuses all the way to the front element of the lens. Zooms with a huge range that are a f/ 1.8. Imagine that! And clients / audiences would be more than happy with the images being produced!!


;-p

the 11-16 will not vignette with an ordinary EF or Nikon > E mount adapter. Only with speed booster because that is made for full frame lenses and 11-16 is made for APS C.

There are already adapters to blow up B4 lenses to 35mm APS-C size image which you can use on an F5 or FS7.

Great point on the 11-16, Leonard. Thank you.

As far as I know, the 18-105 is only beeing electronically corrected
up to 1080p/60 but not on UHD and 4k.

Can anybody confirm this. Maybe with a still?

THX

the 11-16 will not vignette with an ordinary EF or Nikon > E mount adapter. Only with speed booster because that is made for full frame lenses and 11-16 is made for APS C.

There are already adapters to blow up B4 lenses to 35mm APS-C size image which you can use on an F5 or FS7.

________________

So a possible zoom lens package that features zooms with manual iris on the lens, and only zooms with manual iris on the lens, would be:

Tokina 11-16mm CINE EF ( using simple EF to E-mount adapter )-

http://www.dailycameranews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Tokina-Cinema-AT-X-11-16mm-T3.0.jpg

G.L. Optics rehouse of the Sigma 18-35mm ( using PL to E-mount adapter )-

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0277/0473/products/gl_optics_18-35_300_3_grande.png?v=1386842023

Sony FE 28-135mm E-mount-

http://img.xatakafoto.com/2014/09/650_1000_sel28135g_d.jpg


____________________

All have focus, zoom, and iris rings on the lens. All have focus that turns the "right way", same as broadcast zooms & Canon lenses.

The 3 zooms would provide coverage from 11mm to 135mm ( or a 35mm comparable equivalent of roughly 15mm-188mm. No exposure control on lens adapter needed. No exposure control via camera electronics needed. Everything done manually, old school. The EF adapter and PL adapter could just be left on the corresponding lenses.

There would be a "hole" in the kit from 16mm to 18mm, unless you went all out and added the Tokina 16-28mm Cine PL.

As far as I know, the 18-105 is only beeing electronically corrected
up to 1080p/60 but not on UHD and 4k.

Can anybody confirm this. Maybe with a still?

THX

FYI:

Hi,

tried this myself. This lens is not usable in 4k/UHD due to the
missing distortion compensation it really needs.
I mean, it is of course usable, but the distortion at the medium/long end
of the zoom ranger is really bad and therefore not usable.
If you out on the electronic distortion compensation in the FS7, the image
is really nice but only works up to HD/60p...

I just got my FS7 yesterday and am limited in how much I can play with it as I also just had a hernia operation .
So far I've been pretty impressed with the 18-105. though. I went into it knowing the limitations and just looking for a versatile run & gun lens with IS and a decent range. I do wish the push auto focus didn't bounce around so much though and just hit its mark cleanly - is that adjustable? It would be ok if it was slower.

I was pleasantly surprised to discover that I was able to get a reasonably smooth gentle power zoom using the rocker arm on the handle after I set the level to 2. That might turn out to be very valuable. I also bought the older style (non SELP) 18-200 without a power zoom but I might order the SELP to see if I can get a decent power zoom with that as well.
My goal with those lenses is to do some of the work that I used an EX-1 for previously. The F3 was terrible for run & gun and the lenses I could afford were limited in range.

Leonard- I am finding the Sony 18-105mm damn near impossible to focus manually. The focus throw is incredibly short and the action of the electronic focus is not always smooth or dependable.

It is possible to use the lens and possible to attain focus, but the lens is making me a worse camera operator. I am imaging an editor seeing my work and thinking I just really suck at finding focus.

You move the focus ring a fraction and the lens goes from infinity to 10ft. And everything is made worse by the lack of focus end stop. This lens just wasn't designed for manual focusing.

How is the zoom speed on the 18-105? I tried the 18-200 on the FS7 and it was painfully slow, even set to 8 in the zoom menu.
News Shooter reviewed the FS7 and stated that the 18-105 can be used in some 4K modes, but they didn't say which ones.

Leonard- I am finding the Sony 18-105mm damn near impossible to focus manually. The focus throw is incredibly short and the action of the electronic focus is not always smooth or dependable.

It is possible to use the lens and possible to attain focus, but the lens is making me a worse camera operator. I am imaging an editor seeing my work and thinking I just really suck at finding focus.

You move the focus ring a fraction and the lens goes from infinity to 10ft. And everything is made worse by the lack of focus end stop. This lens just wasn't designed for manual focusing.

Hmm…. I haven't noticed that but as I mentioned, i'm recovering from an operation and its just sitting on a tripod in my living room. It seems fine in that environment and push auto seems to work well though it bounces around so much that's useless during a shot . I probably haven't even tried to go to infinity though because its out the window. I'll look more tomorrow. You have the PZ version right ?

"How is the zoom speed on the 18-105?"

Considerably faster than the 18-200. Just going by feel about 2.5 x faster. The 18-105 if used with a Varizoom VZ-Rock controller seems even quicker again by about another third. I find its speed range quite usable for most work. Far more so than that glacially slow 18-200 SELP that also has the stop / start stutters at each end of its zoom travel. Something the 18-105 doesn't suffer from thankfully.

For the money and for what it does the 18-105 is pretty good value really. Sure it has its shortcomings, I don't exactly love its fly-by-wire feel but what other constant aperture F4 parfocal lens are you going to buy for that sort of money? Check it out.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

Christopher,
Thanks for the info.
I bought the older 18-200 non SELP that isn't a power zoom but after using the PZ 18-105 was thinking of ordering the SELP powered 18-200 to see if I could get the same kind of power zoom moves.
However it sounds like you are saying not to bother . Correct?

When you say the 18-105 is faster by a third with the Varizoom controller is that compared with the rocker arm on an FS7?

Have you compared the Libec remote to the Varizoom? I use a Libec with my EX-1 and its not half bad.

Lenny

Sorry Leonard.

I should have made myself clearer. I haven't tried any of these items on the FS7. All comments relate to these lenses being used on an FS700. In the case of the Varizoom relative to the zoom demand on the FS700 handle then yes it does seem quicker end to end using the Varizoom with the 18-105. Re the 18-200 SELP then yes it is almost identical to its brother the non servo version.

I had the 'silver bullet' 18-200 but needed a servo lens so took the punt and went for the SELP version. It is slower than the 18-105 but it is still totally usable. I find it a good lens for corporate talking heads on podiums; concerts etc where I need the extra length but still want servo capability but not necessarily needing a fast one. I won't get rid of it that's for sure.

I know of the Libec controller but have no experience with it. I like the Varizoom because of its wide zoom rocker. I find its width one of the main things that allows for smoother take offs and landings.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

Thanks Christopher,
Can you get a smooth takeoff and landing with SELP 18-200? I am able to with PZ 18-105.
My guess is there won't be much difference between the rocker arm on the FS700 and the FS7.

Hi Leonard ~

As I mentioned in an earlier post the 18-200, both models, have this odd momentary 'jink' as they take off from either full magnification or full wide. It's been discussed on this forum in the past if you search back through the old posts.

During this take off 'jink' these lenses go fractionally soft for a fraction of a second. I avoid this by making sure the lens is never zoomed in or out to 100% either end. Using the zoom percentage display in the viewfinder I can make sure I don't go above 95% to 97% of max zoom. If I stick to this pattern of use then yes with the Varizoom I can get a smooth take off and landing.

This jink is nowhere as noticeable at full wide due to the much greater depth of field on the wide end. Not a nice feature of these lenses but I still find the lens gets a fair bit of use in spite of its quirks. Put it this way I would rather have it than not.

I guess it's performance on the S7 would be similar as it appears to be the lens that is limited in speed. Most likely so that it can keep up with the auto focus when you use it.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

Sadly found I can't pull focus as I shoot with my Sony lenses either (50 and 35 1.8's) on the fs100 or fs700, its the speed change that gets me, a tiny turn can be 20 foot or 2 inches. Was really hoping the fs7 firmware would/could alter the fly by wire focus characteristics but must be built into the less.



Leonard- I am finding the Sony 18-105mm damn near impossible to focus manually. The focus throw is incredibly short and the action of the electronic focus is not always smooth or dependable.

It is possible to use the lens and possible to attain focus, but the lens is making me a worse camera operator. I am imaging an editor seeing my work and thinking I just really suck at finding focus.

You move the focus ring a fraction and the lens goes from infinity to 10ft. And everything is made worse by the lack of focus end stop. This lens just wasn't designed for manual focusing.

I didn't think it was just me. I am pretty confident in my focus pulling ability. Like I said, it's damn near impossible to pull focus in a usable manner with these Sony e-mount lenses. I suspect it's the same with the A-mount, "Alpha" lenses.

The case will likely be different with the yet to be released Sony FE 28-135 f/4. Looks as if that lens will be more like the kit zoom for the Ex3. I could pull focus reasonably on that lens. Maddening that all of the reviews of the Sony FE 28-135mm fail to mention whether or not the lens has focus end stop.

I found that the 80-104mm E-mount did not yield the same "S35-look" shallow depth of field that you can get with the Canon EF glass. Do you think the reason for that is the E-mount glass is made for S35 while the Canon EF glass is made for FF? Or is it more that the Sony 18-105mm is an f/4 lens while the Canon's I have experience with are f/2.8 zooms?

I was going to wait for the Sony FE 28-135 to be released but as a result of the difficulty in riding focus on the Sony 18-105mm I purchased a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM II.

I really hated to spend $2K on a lens that doesn't have focus end stop, doesn't have an iris ring, has such short focus throw, and isn't truly par focal. But that's the nature of things these days. Forced compromise.

I will throw a party the day that I no longer have to use zooms intended for still photography. You are all invited, of course.

[QUOTE=
I found that the 80-104mm E-mount did not yield the same "S35-look" shallow depth of field that you can get with the Canon EF glass. Do you think the reason for that is the E-mount glass is made for S35 while the Canon EF glass is made for FF? Or is it more that the Sony 18-105mm is an f/4 lens while the Canon's I have experience with are f/2.8 zooms?
[/QUOTE]

I would suggest that it's a factor of the f/4 vs. f/2.8 as you pointed out.

I didn't think it was just me. I am pretty confident in my focus pulling ability. Like I said, it's damn near impossible to pull focus in a usable manner with these Sony e-mount lenses. I suspect it's the same with the A-mount, "Alpha" lenses.

The case will likely be different with the yet to be released Sony FE 28-135 f/4. Looks as if that lens will be more like the kit zoom for the Ex3. I could pull focus reasonably on that lens. Maddening that all of the reviews of the Sony FE 28-135mm fail to mention whether or not the lens has focus end stop.

I found that the 80-104mm E-mount did not yield the same "S35-look" shallow depth of field that you can get with the Canon EF glass. Do you think the reason for that is the E-mount glass is made for S35 while the Canon EF glass is made for FF? Or is it more that the Sony 18-105mm is an f/4 lens while the Canon's I have experience with are f/2.8 zooms?

I was going to wait for the Sony FE 28-135 to be released but as a result of the difficulty in riding focus on the Sony 18-105mm I purchased a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM II.

I really hated to spend $2K on a lens that doesn't have focus end stop, doesn't have an iris ring, has such short focus throw, and isn't truly par focal. But that's the nature of things these days. Forced compromise.

I will throw a party the day that I no longer have to use zooms intended for still photography. You are all invited, of course.

On the FS700 you can use 'tap to focus' with the 18-105 lens. Just tap on the
LCD screen where you want to focus. Then if you want to 'rack' focus to another
part of the shot, just tap on the screen in a new place. Makes it pretty easy to
pull focus and you don't even have to touch the fly by wire 'manual' focus ring.

I didn't think it was just me. I am pretty confident in my focus pulling ability. Like I said, it's damn near impossible to pull focus in a usable manner with these Sony e-mount lenses. I suspect it's the same with the A-mount, "Alpha" lenses.

The case will likely be different with the yet to be released Sony FE 28-135 f/4. Looks as if that lens will be more like the kit zoom for the Ex3. I could pull focus reasonably on that lens. Maddening that all of the reviews of the Sony FE 28-135mm fail to mention whether or not the lens has focus end stop.

I found that the 80-104mm E-mount did not yield the same "S35-look" shallow depth of field that you can get with the Canon EF glass. Do you think the reason for that is the E-mount glass is made for S35 while the Canon EF glass is made for FF? Or is it more that the Sony 18-105mm is an f/4 lens while the Canon's I have experience with are f/2.8 zooms?

I was going to wait for the Sony FE 28-135 to be released but as a result of the difficulty in riding focus on the Sony 18-105mm I purchased a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM II.

I really hated to spend $2K on a lens that doesn't have focus end stop, doesn't have an iris ring, has such short focus throw, and isn't truly par focal. But that's the nature of things these days. Forced compromise.

I will throw a party the day that I no longer have to use zooms intended for still photography. You are all invited, of course.

Yesterday was doing a shoot with two FS7's and an A7s. Had the E mount (full frame) zeiss 24-70 f/4 on the A7s, and focus pulling on it was incredibly difficult and unpredictable - as you describe it.

On one FS7 had the Zeiss Alpha mount 28-70 2.8 with an LA-EA2 adapter - and though the focus feel is not perfect it is 10x easier to pull focus than with the e-mount lens. The other FS7 camera had a Nikon adapter and different (old style) zooms on it -- 28-70 2.8 or 80-200 2.8. The older nikons have the advantage of having a manual f/stop ring and focus that works perfectly for pulling (though in the opposite direction from most video or cine lenses). And the 28-70 2.8 has the advantage of being one of the sharpest stills zooms I have ever seen. Plus the added advantage of being able to use on the A7s because it covers the full frame. (Of course for walking around stuff the image stabilization was a big help with the e-mount lens on the A7s...)

On the FS700 you can use 'tap to focus' with the 18-105 lens. Just tap on the
LCD screen where you want to focus. Then if you want to 'rack' focus to another
part of the shot, just tap on the screen in a new place. Makes it pretty easy to
pull focus and you don't even have to touch the fly by wire 'manual' focus ring.

A good tip for FS700 users. But not of much use when shooting handheld.

I assume this technique also tends to make the focus "jump" rather than smoothly rack. The length of time of a rack focus is often important. In other words, there are times where you want to slowly lead the viewer with the focus or slowly rack from multiple focus points. For instance, from the door of a room to a person sitting halfway to the door to a near object in the foreground. See person exiting door...see jilted lover sitting on couch weeping...see goodbye note on table in foreground. Or you want to slowly rack from the scoreboard at a sports venue to the dejected losing players seated on a bench in the foreground then rack everything in the shot out of focus.

The macro ring on B4 mount zooms was great for taking the entire shot out of focus or going from everything out of focus to your pre-chosen focal point. The detent or notch on the macro told you when it was back in the deactivated position. It lightly clicks back into place. With the macro on those zooms you could rack focus all the way to the front element on the lens. A buddy of mine once had an NFL player sign the uv filter on the lens while live on the air. He racked focus to the pen tip and the autograph and then back to the player as he trotted away.

Yesterday was doing a shoot with two FS7's and an A7s. Had the E mount (full frame) zeiss 24-70 f/4 on the A7s, and focus pulling on it was incredibly difficult and unpredictable - as you describe it.

On one FS7 had the Zeiss Alpha mount 28-70 2.8 with an LA-EA2 adapter - and though the focus feel is not perfect it is 10x easier to pull focus than with the e-mount lens. The other FS7 camera had a Nikon adapter and different (old style) zooms on it -- 28-70 2.8 or 80-200 2.8. The older nikons have the advantage of having a manual f/stop ring and focus that works perfectly for pulling (though in the opposite direction from most video or cine lenses). And the 28-70 2.8 has the advantage of being one of the sharpest stills zooms I have ever seen.

when you say "the 28-70 2.8 has the advantage of being one of the sharpest stills zooms I have ever seen." are you referring to the Nikon 28-70mm?

I believe you made a slight mistake in that the Sony Zeiss Alpha is a 24-70mm, not a 28-70mm. Just wanted to clarify whether you are saying it's the Nikon that is so sharp or the Sony Zeiss.

A tip for anyone using the Sony 18-105mm- The focus ring and zoom ring are very close together and both have the exact same texture and circumference. As a result it's easy to mistake the zoom for the focus. To address this I put a rubber lens band on the focus ring. That way it has a tactile difference from the zoom ring. When reaching blind for the focus ring the rubber feel of the focus lets you know that you are on the correct ring.

when you say "the 28-70 2.8 has the advantage of being one of the sharpest stills zooms I have ever seen." are you referring to the Nikon 28-70mm?

I believe you made a slight mistake in that the Sony Zeiss Alpha is a 24-70mm, not a 28-70mm. Just wanted to clarify whether you are saying it's the Nikon that is so sharp or the Sony Zeiss.


Yes, the lens I'm referring to as the sharpest stills zoom I've seen is the Nikon 28-70 2.8

Yes, you're right about the Sony Zeiss Alpha being 24-70 (That one belongs to the producer, so I don't have it in front of me to refer to.)

Sorry about any confusion.

A good tip for FS700 users. But not of much use when shooting handheld.

I assume this technique also tends to make the focus "jump" rather than smoothly rack. The length of time of a rack focus is often important. In other words, there are times where you want to slowly lead the viewer with the focus or slowly rack from multiple focus points. For instance, from the door of a room to a person sitting halfway to the door to a near object in the foreground. See person exiting door...see jilted lover sitting on couch weeping...see goodbye note on table in foreground. Or you want to slowly rack from the scoreboard at a sports venue to the dejected losing players seated on a bench in the foreground then rack everything in the shot out of focus.

The macro ring on B4 mount zooms was great for taking the entire shot out of focus or going from everything out of focus to your pre-chosen focal point. The detent or notch on the macro told you when it was back in the deactivated position. It lightly clicks back into place. With the macro on those zooms you could rack focus all the way to the front element on the lens. A buddy of mine once had an NFL player sign the uv filter on the lens while live on the air. He racked focus to the pen tip and the autograph and then back to the player as he trotted away.

You can set the amount of time you want it to take
to rack focus from point 1 to point 2. 1 second,
2 seconds, 4 seconds or whatever. I think it is
called focus transition and you set it in half second
increments. So if you want the focus to 'jump' quickly
you can have it do that, but if you'd rather have it slowly
shift focus as you said from a person going out the door
to person crying on couch....just set the focus
transition speed to a slower speed.

Just started playing with 18-105 and sadly I confirm the focusing problem. I have a shoot 35 follow focus that has easily set hard stops. With the AF nikon lenses ( haven't tried EF yet) I'm pretty sure if you set a hard stop on both ends of the focus ring's range ( infinity to min focus), then the follow focus will allow you keep the ring from "slipping" and you can make repeatable marks . However the 18-105 just does its own thing , there's no way to keep returning to the same spot. Actually it even seems to focus faster if you turn the ring faster and vice versa - though I might be imagining that. Can't say I like it. Disappointing.

I haven't used the 18-105 much since I acquired a Canon 24-70mm. The 18-105mm is now sort of my "emergency-only long lens" until I obtain the Sony FE 28-135mm.

Shame that the 18-105mm isn't more usable for video. It's a great size and 18-105mm is a very nice range to have. But the focus is just too damn squirrelly for my use, for manual focusing.

Both the Sony 18-105mm and the new Sony 28-15mm are f/4 lenses. I didn't think that would trouble me much since the Fs7 has such low-light capability but I find myself missing f/2.8 glass. Not only does f/2.8 provide a very sweet look that f/4 glass cannot, f/2.8 is TWICE the low light capability of f/4. That makes a difference. Recently in some low light conditions I was having to crank the gain way up on the f/4 glass.

IMO and experience if you are shooting Run & Gun you must have f/2.8 glass. Across your entire lens kit, if possible.

Another discovery with the Fs7 is that the ND provided on the ND wheel is not enough. Recently even with the heaviest ND rolled into place I was still having to shoot at an f/11 at ISO 800, 180 degree shutter. I had to attach a polarizer filter to wider stop and some shallower dof.

David, with the 24-70 are you using a speedbooster with the lens? Or just a EF to E adapter with out speedbooster?