I have -amongst a number of vintage lenses- the

Sony 18-105 f4
Sigma Art 18-35 f1.8
Canon 24-105 f4
Canon 70-200 f4
Canon 50mm f1.8

I have a CommLite EF to E-mount adapter and I'm getting the MetaBones Speedbooster. (Anyone know what the difference is between the Ultra and the latest version the T Speed Ultra. Can't find any info on that)

And I was looking into the Canon 24-70 2.8 or the Sigma 17-50 2.8 (anyone used the latter in combination with the FS7/5?) I read the Tamron 17-50 2.8 is not supported by MetaBones' SpeedBooster.

It's not clear to me if you are asking for lens suggestions to round out the kit or just asking about adapters? The choice of lenses really comes down to WHAT you shoot. Everyone's needs are different, but your kit would not work for me. You've a lot of lenses (and are apparently considering more) that are barely different from each other and have a lot of overlap. Ideally you should be able to get by with a core 2-3 lenses for 90% of your work, and maybe a couple of others for special situations. Your lenses mostly fall into a middle ground of slow f-stops and/or short zoom ranges and mid-range focal lengths.

Your kit (and the lenses you are thinking about) wouldn't work for me. For example, you've got nothing at all under 17mm and nothing at all over 200mm. Is ALL your shooting in that narrow range? Also, you don't have a single lens that I'd want to use as my workhorse lens for traditional sit-down interviews. Either they don't cover the right focal length range, or they aren't fast enough. None of them are in the sweet spot. A speed booster would help a lot with the wide angle end of the range, but what about telephoto and interviews?

Before buying more lenses or adapters and I'd sit down and seriously think about what I really need, what is missing, and what I can get rid of. Maybe you have already done that, but it seems like an odd assortment of lenses no matter what someone's needs are. That's my advice for whatever it is worth.

I just came from the GH4 with these lenses, Doug, and they certainly have served me well with that camera- except for the 24-105. (which could be a nice lens for the FS5, I thought, with the SpeedBooster)

Of course I didn't mention my workhorse there, the Panasonic 12-35 f2.8, because that's not going to do me any good on the FS5

I intend to shoot documentary (portraits) with the FS5 and I am looking for a workhorse lens like a 24-50/70. I know it overlaps but I want a faster zoomlens than the 24-105 and preferably with IS (which the Sigma doesn't have plus it's very front heavy)

Over 200mm is certainly not my priority but I'm curious as to what your suggestions are. Under 17mm? Yes, for these very tight spots. I shot in a small restaurant a while ago and could not get everyone in the frame, by far. Very clumsy... The Tokina 11-16?

I have no problem parting with a few lenses to round out a nice set for the FS5

And since you mentioned it, Doug: what would be the ideal 2-3 lens core for you? (or me, ENG/DOC style)

Personally for me, these 3 lenses cover everything I need:
Tokina 11-16 f2.8
Canon 17-55 f2.8
Canon 18-135 f3.5-5.6 STM + IS

I don't need anything longer than 135, and the 17-55 is brilliant for interviews.

When my FS5 arrives, I'm probably going to sell the 18-135 in favour of the Sony kit lens :)

Jody,

With what camera do you use them now?

Do you plan to get the Speedbooster for the FS5?

When do you find you use the 11-16 most often? Do people still look 'normal' when shooting ultra-wide?

Jody,

With what camera do you use them now?

Do you plan to get the Speedbooster for the FS5?

When do you find you use the 11-16 most often? Do people still look 'normal' when shooting ultra-wide?

I currently use them with my Canon C100. And I just plan to get a manual adapter for the FS5, I don't see the need for a speedbooster at this stage.

My Tokina 11-16 only gets used for wide establishing shots and when I'm shooting property videos. I've never used it when shooting people, but I imagine it would look a bit strange (unless that's the look you're going for). It does have a bit of distortion, especially at the wide end.

The lenses I use the most with my FS7 are (in order of use):

Zeiss 15.5-45mm PL f/2.6 (for handheld run & gun and landscapes, establishing shots, etc.)
Red 50-150 PL f/2.9 (for interviews and general shooting)
Sony 85mm PL f/2 (for interviews)
Duclos 11-16mm PL f/2.8 (for getting into tight spots)

I have several other lenses if I need them, but those are my core lenses that account for 99% of my FS7 shooting. They are all PL cinema lenses for the ergonomics and mechanical performance. Very little overlap in focal lengths. All are pretty fast lenses and have constant apertures. No stabilization, no auto iris, and no auto focus because I wouldn't use those things if they had them -- and lenses that have those features usually suffer in other ways to make up for having those features.

For the FS7 I don't need anything over 150mm because I use my F55 for that type of shooting. But I could easily get an adapter to use my Canon 200-400 f/4 if I wanted to.

That's what works for me, but as I said, everyone's needs are different. But it just seemed to me that you had a lot of very similar lenses with lots of overlap.

I'd also be curious to hear what three lenses people use on FS7 or will use on FS5.

Unlike Doug, I need stabilization. Auto focus and auto iris I not important.

My work is news and current affairs. Right now I use the 17-55 2.8 as the main lens on my C100. I also have a crappy 70-300 that I pull out when I need the reach. A kens this long wouldn't have to have stabilization as id always have it on sticks for these type of shots.

An uktrawide would be nice as well. 12 mm or something. Fixed foxal length no problem.

Just got the FS5 and Metabones Speedbooster (the "T" is the newest version, that's the difference). I've been using several C100's with the 17-55mm, 18-135mm, 24-105mm, Tokina 11-16mm, Canon 10-18mm, and other telephoto and specialty lenses. On the FS5, with the Speedbooster, the 24-105mm is king. It's a a match made in heaven.

The Speedbooster .7x will make the lens 17mm on the wide end, and with the Clear Image Zoom in HD (2x), it'll be a 147mm at the long end, (The actual 35mm equivalent will be different, but nevermind that). Plus f/2.8 with really good IS. So, an affordable 17-147mm f/2.8 IS lens - that's gold.

It also balances nicely and feels like a great fit to the FS5.

Newsshooter.com will have an initial review up soon.

Cheers,
Slavik

Slavik - what functionality do you get with the canon? Any auto features at all? The one that looked interesting with the Sony 18-105 (?) Was the zoom. Never held the lens though so no idea what it is like to use day to day. The canon 24-105 is great, preferable in function to 17-55, but was never wide enough for my typical shooting.

Slavik, you make the 24-105mm with a Speedbooster sound very tempting for my FS5. I might just have to take that advice.

I actually got the kit lens, a very maligned lens. But I must say on the FS5 it makes a lot of sense. Being native, AF and iris is instant and stabilization works very well. Yes it is a bit tricky to focus but you get used to it.

In HD it becomes 18-210 constant f4, not bad.

In UHD it becomes 18-160 and in my initial tests it is not bad.

And it is a power zoom and only costs $500. I still think of it as a variable prime, but it is nice sometimes just to do a slight push in on a face.

Other lenses I like:

Canon 1970's FD 50mm f1.4, this is fantastic for SDOF and I always liked this lens.A cheap mechanical only adapter.

I also have an 8mm f3.5 Rokinon that is a great effect lens for shooting in tight quarters like boats, cars or trains, just make sure your feet are out of the shot.

The Canon 70-200 f2.8 L and 100-400 Canon L rounds out the long end.

I also have the 24-70 f4 Sony/Zeiss and my Canon 24-70 f2.8 L those are both nice interview lenses and the 70-200 is as well.

I think for R&G the kit will stay on the FS5 so light and versatile, and for low light the 50mm f1.4 fits in a pocket easily. I actually like the old FD better than my new Canon EF 50mm f1.4.

I think I will be shooting a lot of interviews with the FS7 as A and FS5 as B so it is great I can mix and match all this lenses on both cams, then there is the A7s that also uses all these lenses, the low light king.

It is sort of ridicules I have over 20 lenses to choose from, but I am still glad I spent the $500 on the kit lens.

Almost all my work is still just HD. I shoot some in UHD and crop and stabilize a bit. But I am so used to just framing right in the first place I find myself going back to just shooting HD. It is so much easier in Post.

But for stock footage or incredible scenes I come upon I do switch to 4K, it is so nice to have the choice.

[The Speedbooster .7x will make the lens 17mm on the wide end, and with the Clear Image Zoom in HD (2x), it'll be a 147mm at the long end, (The actual 35mm equivalent will be different, but nevermind that). Plus f/2.8 with really good IS. So, an affordable 17-147mm f/2.8 IS lens - that's gold.]

I have FS7 with speedbooster, .7x magnification will not make much difference in the field of view.
Since the lens is made for FF sensor and FS 5/7 are S35 so some kind of crop factor will be in effect.

Rajiv

Skipping over to this thread to ask for advice on lenses.

What do you think of Sony kit vs Canon 24-105 f4 with speedbooster.

What comes to my mind from what I've read and my experiences with my canon 24-105:

Canon better built, better focus feel, faster (with speedbooster), a bit shorter (with speedbooster .07x) and a tad wider.

Sony has full auto functions such as push zoom, and has slightly better range.

Cost of Sony lens about the same as the Speedbooster.

What do you think of difference of image quality?

I suppose Speedbooster leaves one open to using other Canon EF lenses ... more selection than Sony.

I received my FS5 two days ago and have been doing a lot of testing (playing) and I have found it to be a joy to work with and the image quality is really nice. I have gone through the PP's and I am starting to formulate a plan with those. It is so much easier to grade than my XF300 or even the 5D's. And I can match cameras much easier that I was anticipating.
I bought both metabones adaptors and have tried them both out on Canon 14mm 2.8, 24-105, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 90TS and a 300 2.8, all L glass and sonys kit lens as well. There is not AF with any of the metabones adaptors but the iris works with all the glass except the 300-2.8. I will say that the kit lens takes a bit to get used to, especially the focus, but the zoom on the lens is actually quite handy, and the image quality is very very close to the canon's. I can see a difference but you have to be looking for it. The auto focus is supprisingly nice, it isn't fast like a dslr shooting stills or a camcorder style camera but it pulls focus in a very pleasing way, very similar to what one might do to rack focus for effect.
Overall I really really like this camera, the image with the S35 sensor is wonderful yet just a bit forgiving compared to shooting with a DSLR. The native 1000 iso is great with just a little noise showing up at 3200, I probably wouldn't shoot above 3200 unless I absolutely had to.
The form factor is awesome, lightweight and you just want to shoot it. I shot some of the 240fps slow mo and that is the coolest. I am just going to make up reasons to shoot slow mo now.
One thing I must get and maybe someone can help me. I want to relocate the handgrip to the back of my tripod arm for when I am on the sticks. I like having a start stop and zoom on a lanc on the tripod arm when I have the camera on the sticks. I wish it had a separate lanc impute so I could quickly grab it off the tripod and shoot but I don't know how to get that done. I read you can get a standard rosette but I don't see how the hand grip would mount to that since it is a bayonet. Any advice or a rig suggestions would be great. Coming from a XF300 and 5D's this is opening a whole new world for me.

Scott

I've got the sony FE 70-200 f4 and 16-35 F4 and so far so good. I had the canon equivalents in focal length( but the 2.8 versions). I'm happy to go with the native glass for sake of %100 reliability. I shoot weddings and having to reset adapters or cameras doesn't sit to kosher. I'm planning on adding the zeiss baits 85 and 25 and using them in conjunction with the clear image zoom function. I'll use these for the "beauty shots" I. E. portrait shoots, broll etc and also in low light conditions. The zeiss touit 12mm and also the loxia lenses look attractive as well.

I was wondering if anyone would use FE lenses on this cam. Since I'd be more or less starting from scratch having sold all my nikon glass awhile ago, I like the idea of not having to bother with adapters, although the speedbooster does sound good. However, it will be nice to have lenses that switch seamlessly between my Sony A7s and the Fs5.

How do you find the 16-35 for distortion? Or does the built in correction help with that?

Wondering what you think about the Sony 70-200 F4. Have a canon F4 IS but aster using it yesterday I kind of miss the autofocus.

The sony 16-35 looks great on both my a7sii and fs5. Distortion is controlled pretty good on the fs5 especially with the lens correction. Aperture looks constant throughout the zoom range and the af is acceptable for gimbal work and moderate tracking shots. On the a7sii the sony 70-200 f4 performs af pretty good. The face detection isn't bad either. I'm confident in using these lenses for my upcoming wedding shoots. I haven't used it too much on the fs5 so I can't comment too much.

I'd love to hear more about real world experiences with / comparisons between the Sony kit and Canon 24-105 with speedbooster 0.7x. These are the two I'm thinking about as main lenses for news / docs.

First shoot with two FS5 bodies with the 18-105mm Sony lens last Thursday. Shot HD, and 90% of the shoot was at 240fps.

Getting into the edit suite, the editor (who owns and shoots a Red), said, "This was with the kit lens?"

Me: Yep.

Editor, leaning closer to the big monitor. "Wow!"

Not scientific, but informative. ;)

Agree about manual focus being challenging with this lens. We also shot with 100mm Zeiss Macro f/2 (great manual focus) and 16mm Nikon fisheye. (Focus not that much of an issue ;) ).

I've used the Canon 24-105 with the CommLite adapter and I like the way it handles. I'd say that manual focus with the Sony is very hard. Especially if you're following someone moving around/are in an uncontrolled situation. The Canon not only feels better focusing but it is more precise. I'll see if I can do some sharpness comparisons next week. Bokeh is about the same, I believe.

I like the fact that you get an extra stop with the SpeedBooster. And obviously the MetaBones SB becomes more and more interesting if you have additional Canon glass. I also have the 70-200 F4. Used it today for the first time shooting doggies in the park.

I like to have both because the Sony is nice as a 'general purpose' lens. I like to bike around town and shoot all sorts of stuff for stock footage. The form factor, AF and (lack of) weight makes the Sony perfect for this.

Just got back from shooting docu with the FS5 for a couple days. The 24-105/Speedbooster was a pleasure to use and stayed on the camera for the majority of the time. We also used the Canon 70-200 f4 IS, the Tokina 11-16, Canon 35mm f2 IS, and even tried the Sigma 18-35 (which works but only at about 25mm and up). The Speedbooster worked flawlessly and the extra stop of light on the lenses was very useful.

The Sony kit lens is definitely lighter and maybe that is a preference for handheld-only shooters, but I find the combination of electronic zoom and electronic manual focus makes the lens frustrating to use - just takes the joy out of shooting. Especially for any kind of moving subject. The lens is always two steps behind what you want it to do. It is cheaper than the 24-105/Speedbooster combo, but it just feels like shooting with a giant point and shoot camera.

The one advantage of the kit lens is the Clear Image digital zoom kicks in seamlessly at the long end of the lens. On the 24-105 you can kick in the digital zoom anytime throughout the zoom range, and if you're not careful you'll forget it's on (the icon disappears from the screen after a few seconds).

Anyway, if you've got a 24-105 lying around already, I would skip the kit lens in a heartbeat and get the Speedbooster.

Cheers -

Interesting that most people agree that the kit lens is difficult to use. I wonder why Sony decided to basically ruin an excellent lens by implementing such an unusual method of focusing manually. I love the lens for the power zoom, but unfortunately I'll probably be selling it due to the inability to smoothly pull focus.

Slavik - how do you find auto iris using the Speedbooster + 24-105? Does it work smoothly?

Does anyone know the difference between the 'Speed Booster Ultra' and the latest version, the 'T Speed Booster Ultra'?

Interesting that most people agree that the kit lens is difficult to use. I wonder why Sony decided to basically ruin an excellent lens by implementing such an unusual method of focusing manually. I love the lens for the power zoom, but unfortunately I'll probably be selling it due to the inability to smoothly pull focus.
It's an autofocus lens with a crippled ability to manually focus. While I agree that it's crippled, I think we underestimate the number of people who manually focus versus autofocus. I bet 80% of the copies of this lens never come out of autofocus mode.

I bought it for the power zoom, but I can't say I've ever used it. Apparently 5 years without having a power zoom.. I just have learned to do without, and now on the (very) rare instance that I'd need it, the FS5 can do it without needing the servo zoom. So I may sell mine as well.

It's an autofocus lens with a crippled ability to manually focus. While I agree that it's crippled, I think we underestimate the number of people who manually focus versus autofocus. I bet 80% of the copies of this lens never come out of autofocus mode.

I bought it for the power zoom, but I can't say I've ever used it. Apparently 5 years without having a power zoom.. I just have learned to do without, and now on the (very) rare instance that I'd need it, the FS5 can do it without needing the servo zoom. So I may sell mine as well.

Great point - the clear image zoom works so well that a servo zoom might not even be necessary for the handful of times we need to use it.. I'm in the same boat as you, I haven't used power zoom for years, and I think I've learnt to live without it.

Does anyone have any recommendations for a good workhorse E-mount zoom lens with proper manual focus? Something similar to the Canon 18-135 would be ideal. I had that stuck to my C100 90% of the time.

I was asked, and I didn't know, what resolution the clear image zoom goes to.

That is, when you are shooting in HD, and use the CIZ to 2X, what do you get?

I think it looks good, but I didn't have any numbers to offer.

It's still HD, Tom.

You can use clear image zoom also with 4K up to 1.5x...

Thanks, guys. I knew it looked good.

Just thinking . . . we deliver in HD. But, if we shot certain scenes in 4K, using the 1.5X for the digital zoom, we could then push in . . . 4X? . . . in edit for a massive zoom?

Hi All,

Excuse me if this question has been answered elsewhere but for the FS 5, lens wise I think the Canon 24-105\Speedbooster appears a very good option but how does the Clear Image Zoom work with the manual zoom after you have manually zoomed in ? Do you switch to an assignable zoom button to continue the zoom or what ? Thanks.

Using the Sigma 24-105mm F/4 (or should I say F2.8!) with a Speedbooster with excellent results. The lens operates like normal, and you set the digital zoom of the camera with the lens rocker on the grip. It stays where you set it, so depending on what magnification you choose, your lens could be a 24-105mm or a 36-158mm when the Clear Image zoom is set to 1.0x or 1.5x respectively. Typically, I use the camera at 1.0x (no zoom) and when I want to go tighter than 105mm, I hit the zoom rocker to punch in.

The Sigma is in my opinion a better lens than the Canon with the one caveat that it's not parfocal. Sharper and without the 1/2 stop of light loss on the long end of the Canon that drove me nuts when I had that lens. The zoom and focus operation on the Sigma the smoothest I've ever had on a non-cinema lens.

The Sigma is in my opinion a better lens than the Canon with the one caveat that it's not parfocal.

I too use the Sigma 24-105 f/4 Art Lens, and I love it!
Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM Art Lens for Canon EF 635-101 B&H

I use the Speedbooster Ultra, making it an f/2.8. But actually the lens is parfocal. It stays in focus throughout the whole zoom range. At least mine does! I did a lot of research before buying it, and it's a better performer than the Canon 24-105 f/4, though a half pound heavier. Also I hear the Canon's IS is loud enough to get picked up by a mic mounted on the camera. So the Sigma 24-105 is my workhorse for now, but I plan to go wider and longer.

For Tele I'm about to pull the trigger on the awesome Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM.
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens 2751B002

It's close to 2 grand. It's just over 3lbs, so I'm worried about it hurting the E mount. It would be nice to not have to get all railed up just for that lens so I can add a support point. I haven't seen anyone else using this lens with the FS5, and I don't know why. It is one of those life-long lenses that will stay with you through all your camera bodies. Anyone have any opinions on the Canon 70-200? It's such a sharp lens that one could double the reach using the Canon Extender EF 2x III without losing too much sharpness. That could be a cheaper compromise than buying whole other 200-400 lens.

The wide lens I'm considering is the Canon 16-35 f/2.8.
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Lens 1910B002 B&H Photo Video

It's very wide without being too distorted (there is some of course) and with the Speedbooster it becomes an f/2. I'm holding off on this because rumors say a new version is coming out soon. I'm hoping one with IS. There is an f/4 version with IS, but I want the f/2.8. I can live without IS.

Chad, with the speed booster the 16-35L F4 will go down to 2.8. I use it on my FS5 and it works very well.

I'm aware of that Alfred. I want it at f/2.0.

Ok, sorry, I realise I kind of pointed out the obvious perhaps. IMHO less than 2.8 makes it very difficult to keep things in focus, if you don't work with immobile objects. Then it's great!

The Speedbooster .7x will make the lens 17mm on the wide end, and with the Clear Image Zoom in HD (2x), it'll be a 147mm at the long end, (The actual 35mm equivalent will be different, but nevermind that). Plus f/2.8 with really good IS. So, an affordable 17-147mm f/2.8 IS lens - that's gold.


Cheers,
Slavik

I really don't think this is accurate. I have the same set up but it definitely doesn't become a 17mm on the wide end. I'd say there is no change at all. It works as a 24-105mm. Or are there different kinds of Metabones T Speedbooster?

You're very lucky then! My Signa is not parfocal with the A7s. I just tried it and it's ever so slightly off when you zoom back out wide.

Ok, sorry, I realise I kind of pointed out the obvious perhaps. IMHO less than 2.8 makes it very difficult to keep things in focus, if you don't work with immobile objects. Then it's great!

Hi Alfred. One thing that's cool about using a focal reducer like the Speedbooster Ultra is that it gives you one stop of light more, BUT the depth of field remains the same as the lens. So on my Sigma 24-105 f/4, I get the light of f/2.8 but my DOF remains at f/4. That's a really great thing!. And the Ultra's crop is .7. So when combined with the crop of a super35 sensor (1.5) the lens ends up working at close to the focal length written on it.
Let's do the math:
24mm x 1.5 (super35 crop) = 36mm. 36mm x .7(Speedbooster Ultra crop) = 25.2mm.

So that makes it easier when using the FS5. The numbers on the lens are fairly close to what we're actually getting when we use the Metabones Speedboster ULtra with a full frame lens. Add to that an extra stop of light with no DOF decrease, I'd say it's worth the 650.00.

One thing that's cool about using a focal reducer like the Speedbooster Ultra is that it gives you one stop of light more, BUT the depth of field remains the same as the lens. So on my Sigma 24-105 f/4, I get the light of f/2.8 but my DOF remains at f/4.

Are you sure that the DOF remains the same? How does that work? I could swear that I struggle more at 2.8 than 4.
And yes, I really enjoy the Speedbooster too. Thanks for explaining the math. I couldn't quite figure out before how it worked!

I think I oversimplified it. I don't fully understand what's going on. The Bokeh definitely remains the same as the lens itself.

Here's what the Metabones FAQ says:

How does Speed Booster® affect the depth-of-field?
The short answer is Speed Booster® on an APS-C sensor gives essentially the same depth-of-field effect as if a full-frame camera body were used.

The long answer is complicated. If we are referring to depth-of-field in the mathematical sense, that depends on the aperture, magnification and circle of confusion (CoC). Magnification in turn depends on distance and focal length. The 50mm lens now becomes a 35mm lens which behaves very differently in terms of perspective. The question is, do we still keep the distance the same? Should the CoC be kept the same? There are many missing variables we need to choose and fill-in before we could get a meaningful answer. When people claim Speed Booster® does not change the depth-of-field, they usually neglect to state the implicit assumption that the distance is kept the same (thereby changing the object size) and the CoC is kept the same. The same logic would lead to the conclusion that an APS-C camera has the same depth-of-field as a full-frame camera, too, which under the same implicit assumptions is mathematically true (the depth-of-field formula is format-size-agnostic, after all), but with which many people would disagree from practical experience.

However, when most people ask about depth-of-field, they are not interested in mathematics, but rather, they are after a certain kind of shallow depth-of-field "look". If this is the case, the short answer above applies.

How does Speed Booster® affect bokeh?
From practical experience, Speed Booster® has negligible effect on bokeh. In most cases the resulting bokeh is that of the lens alone. Speed Booster® does not leave its own "character" or "signature" in the pictures. It is very neutral.

I too use the Sigma 24-105 f/4 Art Lens, and I love it!
Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM Art Lens for Canon EF 635-101 B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1009621-REG/sigma_635_101_24_105mm_f4_dg_os.html)

I use the Speedbooster Ultra, making it an f/2.8. But actually the lens is parfocal. It stays in focus throughout the whole zoom range. At least mine does! I did a lot of research before buying it, and it's a better performer than the Canon 24-105 f/4, though a half pound heavier. Also I hear the Canon's IS is loud enough to get picked up by a mic mounted on the camera. So the Sigma 24-105 is my workhorse for now, but I plan to go wider and longer.



Chad, your lens selection summary, in particular for the 24-105 range as an all round event/docu lens for the FS5, is really useful for me. My shortlist was the Canon 17-55 f2.8 with the E-mount smart adapter (least expensive), or the 24-105mm F4 Canon or Sigma with the Metabones Ultra T SpeedBooster. There have been varying reports about camera to lens communication via different the Metabones adaptors, in particular quirky aperture control. I'm guessing, aside from being satisfied with the image quality, you have no issues with the Sigma in this respect? Thank you.

Terence

Hi Terence,

Yes I'm loving the Sigma 24-105 f4 with the Speedbooster Ultra. The "Ultra" gives you a .7 crop factor which makes whatever full frame lens even out to close to what is marked on the lens. I usually like lenses to be a bit wider so with the Ultra I'm getting an f2.8 and the 24mm end is actually 25.2 (24 x 1.5 x .7) which is fairly close. I am waiting for NAB where Canon is expected to announce their 16-35 f2.8 mark III. I have fingers crossed for IS, but it probably won't have it. I'm holding out for only f2.8 lenses now so I'm getting an f2 indoors where light is scarce. I could get the Canon 16-35 f4 that does have IS, and is newer, sharper and cheaper than the f2.8, but that extra stop can come in handy when you need it.

My Iris control on the camera works with the Sigma lens, so there are not any issues that bother me. I usually set the iris where I want it, then use the variable ND to control exposure, at least outside. Auto focus is slow/non working, but nobody really should be using auto focus for video. Even in the best case scenario your focus is going to hunt sometimes, and you can't fix that in post.

That's great and just the reassurance I'm after. I would rarely use autofocus either. I think I will go with the Sigma then. The SpeedBooster is quite a chunk of money, but well invested I think for future glass. Thanks again!

Actually, I have only just this second realized, after rechecking the specs, the the Sigma lacks OIS, which would be nice to have for non-tripod work. Was that a factor you considered when buying this over the Canon? Do you miss not having it at all?

Yes, with the expensive Speedbooster Ultra, I'm thinking that it's such a great tool, and it makes it easy to adapt a bunch of glass to E mount easy. If I ever get an A7RII I can use it in Super 35 mode on that camera too. So I'm buying everything as Canon Mount.

As a side note, I have purchased a great little 14mm lens for wide stuff to hold me over until I find a suitable 16-35mm. Rokinon makes fairly decent prime cine lenses, but not everyone knows that Rokinon is made by Samyang, and they put out the same exact lens with a different brand on it. I saw the Rokinon 14mm Cine Prime is 500.00 on B&H, BUT the exact same lens with Samyang written on it is only 329.00! I had borrowed a friend's Rokinon 14mm to shoo some real estate stuff, and it worked great, so I ordered the Samyang.

It is similar to the Canon 14mm that goes for 1,500.00. Not as good, but not bad at all.
Samyang 14mm T3.1 Cine Lens for Canon EF-Mount SYCV14M-C B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=890556&gclid=CjwKEAjwubK4BRC1xczKrZyj3mkSJAC6ntgrwVj8kSes-7EtZUuud3tQitMaKbA4hctTf1cETBHykxoCHQXw_wcB&is=REG&ap=y&m=Y&c3api=1876%2C92051678882%2C&A=details&Q=)

Thanks for the extra information, Chad. There are almost too many routes when it comes to lenses / adaptors. Yes, I did know about the Rokinon/Samyang thing and have seen some prety nice work done with those. I was also toying with the Veydra primes as a serious non-breathing cine lens for nice focus pulls. Veydra are apparently soon to bring out a sub-20mm prime that works with APS-C/super35. These are all future possibilities of course. I just want to get the best all-rounder gun/run zoom to get going.

Just my last question again, wondering why you didn't opt for the Canon 24-105 over the Sigma, since it has got OIS.

Like I mentioned before, I was going to get the Canon, but I started watching shootouts, and it looked like the Sigma was performing better as far as sharpness goes, especially on the edges. I also heard one guy mention that the IS on the Canon was loud enough to hear in his recordings, where the Sigma was silent. So I went with the Sigma. It's also cheaper, but cheapness isn't the deciding factor when I'm buying lenses I plan on using forever. I would suggest you watch a bunch of shootouts and decide for yourself. The only thing I don't like is the extra half pound of weight, but really, I'm on sticks 99% of the time. But if I were carrying the camera I would be using a shoulder mount, where the weight doesn't make as much difference as holding the camera out in front of your body.

Hope that helps.

Very helpful - thank you!