Kit lens 18-55 equal good/bad to 18-200 lens?

Doug Jensen · May 2nd, 2012, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephan Hubenthal

But I wonder how come that nobody spoke about the problems focusing manually with the kit-lens?

I've been telling anyone who cares to listen to my advice NOT to buy the kit lens since I first got my hands on a pre-production FS100 before NAB last year. It is not a good match for the FS100 for many reasons besides just focusing. Save your money by buying the body only, and then use your savings to buy an adapter and any of the thousands of better SLR lenses that are out there.

MASTERING THE SONY NEX-FS100 CAMCORDER

Dan Asseff · May 2nd, 2012, 06:25 AM

Andrew,

Yes the NX-5u. I do live stage work too. I think I would get the FS-100 with the kit lens over the NX-5u unless you want to use the LANC control. The video above is almost 100% FS-100 and the 18-200 kit lens. The FS-100 will be cleaner using the AVCHD codec than the NX-5u with the samurai in my opinion.

Dan

Dave Mercer · May 2nd, 2012, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

I've been telling anyone who cares to listen to my advice NOT to buy the kit lens since I first got my hands on a pre-production FS100 before NAB last year. It is not a good match for the FS100 for many reasons besides just focusing. Save your money by buying the body only, and then use your savings to buy an adapter and any of the thousands of better SLR lenses that are out there.

MASTERING THE SONY NEX-FS100 CAMCORDER

I'm curious Doug. Why such disdain for the kit lens? What would you choose if you wanted IS/AF/AE? I know better to have a proper camcorder like a EX1, but if a FS100 has to do double duty as beauty Broll plus run and gun (without big support - dangerous for some self-shooters travelling light in developing countries) ... what lens would you recommend?

Cheers
Dave

Doug Jensen · May 2nd, 2012, 12:42 PM

Dave, I can't really tell you what would be better than the kit lens because there are so many options that I couldn't begin to list them all. There are probably hundreds of new lenses, and thousands of used lenses that would be better for the FS100. Furthermore, a better lens for me, might not be a better lens for you. Everyone has different needs and different budgets.

What I can do is tell you what I don't like about the kit lens:

First of all, the aperture is not constant throughout the zoom range which makes it quite a bit harder to set your exposure because every time you change the focal length the exposure will almost always change. That is a pain in the ass compensate for.

Second, at the widest angle, f/3.5 is pretty slow by professional lens standards. And f/6.3 at the telephoto end is a joke. A lot of people buy the FS100 because it has a large sensor, and then they shoot themselves in the foot by putting a slow lens on it that kills any chance of getting shallow depth of field anyway.

Third, the focus ring doesn’t have hard stops.

Fourth, the lens practically doubles in length when you zoom, thus making it nearly impossible to use a matte box.

Fifth, do you really want to sink $800 into an e-Mount lens? All things being equal, wouldn't you rather be investing in lenses with a Canon, Nikon, or Alpha mount?

Sixth, the lens and camera have terrible auto-focus capabilities. Of course you don't have to use it, but having auto-focus on a camera that is supposed to be designed for professionals just lulls people into using a crutch that is not even a good crutch. In other words, having bad auto-focus is worse than having no auto-focus at all.

Seven, where's the iris ring? Oh, it doesn't have one! A proper video lens should have an iris ring on the lens instead of a thumb wheel. Yeah, I know that's better than Canon lenses, but at least Canon lenses don't claim to be designed for video use. And I have the same complaint about them anyway.

Eighth, I'm not a huge fan of zooming while shooting, but if that is something you want to do, the lens does not have any servo zoom controls that you expect to find on a TV/video lens.

And ninth, it is physically impossible to build a quality lens that covers such a huge focal length range and does it well -- and then sell it for $800. Just think about it. There are reasons why decent glass costs what it costs and anyone who thinks they are getting anything other than a consumer lens for that price is just fooling themselves.

When I consider what lens to buy or use, it must meet at least two criteria that this lens does not meet: It must be at least f/2.8 and have a constant aperture throughout almost all of the zoom range.

Why buy a substandard lens when Sony gives you the option of saving hundreds of dollars and buying the body only??

That's my reasons why I don't recommend the kit lens. Other people will disagree and claim the lens is terrific, so I guess you'll have see what they are shooting with it. But what you won't see is what they missed because the lens is harder to work with or can't perform up to certain standards.

Dave Mercer · May 2nd, 2012, 07:58 PM

That's an exhaustive list Doug. Much appreciated!

Thomas Wong · May 2nd, 2012, 10:58 PM

it's not a bad idea to keep a kit lens, i sold my 18-200 and get a used 18-55 for run and gun
there is over $600 difference, you can add $200 to buy a nikon 80-200 F2.8, or use the $600 to buy a 35mm F1.4

Matt Davis · May 9th, 2012, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

Other people will disagree and claim the lens is terrific, so I guess you'll have see what they are shooting with it. But what you won't see is what they missed because the lens is harder to work with or can't perform up to certain standards.

I am not going to set myself up as an apologist for Sony's SEL18200, but taking it as a 'trick' or 'special purpose' lens in the kit bag, which may get used 10% of the time, I will stick my neck over the parapet to say that it does have some uses.

1) It momentarily turns your FS100 into a Faux EX1 - f8 on the FS100 eyeballs to the equivalent of f2.8 on the EX1

2) There are times when things are moving so fast in ObDoc and event videography* that you don't have time to change lenses (the other sort of missed shot).

3) The combination of IS and AF when supporting the camera on a monopod, then levering it overhead 'blind' can help you 'fish' for a couple of money shots that have proved popular.

4) Pulling focus on objects coming towards you on a long tele is tricky at the best of times. I tried doing catwalk stuff on a manual lens, but the kit lens was better than I. Probably one of the very few situations this would be true, but hey. Just reporting what happened.

5) Actually, no. I'm struggling now. The manual focus is so rubbish that it's an absolute liability. The whole lens is a liability in 90% of situations. The situation in 4) would be better served with the fancy new LEA2 focusy thingy as witnessed in many recent 'pull focus during 240fps slomo' tests. And with the arrival of my Metabones adaptor, I'll happily be using the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS for handheld Run & Gun work.

But I will say that the SEL18200 has had its uses, got shots I wouldn't have got otherwise, and deserves a little corner in my kitbag. YMMV.

* The stuff I do, for various reasons (legal, safety, time), means I can't always interact with the subjects or ask them to do something again - what happens, happens. If you're venturing out where ideally you'd have had an EX1 or similar (18x Fujinon on ENG?!), the SEL18200 has saved bacon here. Not perfect, but not left without a shot either.

Dan Asseff · May 9th, 2012, 06:20 AM

" And with the arrival of my Metabones adaptor, I'll happily be using the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS for handheld Run & Gun work."
Does the Metabones have auto focus?

* The stuff I do, for various reasons (legal, safety, time), means I can't always interact with the subjects or ask them to do something again - what happens, happens. If you're venturing out where ideally you'd have had an EX1 or similar (18x Fujinon on ENG?!), the SEL18200 has saved bacon here. Not perfect, but not left without a shot either.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, for fun and gun work you need auto focus.

Dan

Matt Davis · May 9th, 2012, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Asseff

Does the Metabones have auto focus?

Alas not, but then it's compact and its main job is iris and IS.

With that in mind, I almost sprayed coffee all over my Mac last night when I clocked what this chap was using: (at 03:24)

Birger bites back. Bleedin' typical. Just get my Metabones after holding off for 'the perfect EOS adaptor' - which may well have been the Birger, and suddenly a working mount pops up in a (very nice btw) test video. On an FS700, no less. Cold Fusion and Unicorn steaks in one sitting. However, I'm not sure if the Birger was going to do AF, though it was going to do programmable focus pulls.

I think, if AF is your bag (and this is a growing bag, I'll admit), the LA-EA2 and appropriate lenses are probably the better approach.

...

Oooh, and another Plus thing for the SEL18200, whilst we're allowing as-yet non-existent cameras to alter opinions: IIRC, the FS700 will have tap-to-focus on the touch screen.

Thomas Wong · May 9th, 2012, 08:37 PM

nice slow-mo

Frank Glencairn · May 14th, 2012, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

I've been telling anyone who cares to listen to my advice NOT to buy the kit lens [/url]

Come on Doug, It aint THAT bad.

Most of your points are absolutely valid, but it comes down to what one expects.

First I just bought the body, looked down at the kit lens and thought: bah, I have a whole case of the finest primes, what do I need that kit lens for?

Well, after my first run&gub job - I ordered one.

It is (was back than) the only glass that talked to the camera (and in the same dialect).
The 2 stage stabilization works great and I even find the autofocus (and I´m usually a manual evangelist) working surprisingly good, once it is locked in.
It works even better with the new firmware and on the FS700, you can even do face tracking, which worked great on a steadycam test I did with the 700.

It´s a bit slow, but that doesn´t really matter on this camera and you don't want a 1 inch DOF in run&gun situations anyway.

The manual focus sucks, but I break out that lens, when I want/need to use autofocus or push focus.
The extending tube is a joke, but than I use a lightweight sunshade instead of my usual mattebox.
The non constant aperture and the lousy zoom ring don´t count for me, cause I don't zoom while shooting.

So for me, the lens works just fine in the situations and shooting style I bought it for.
For the range and price, it delivers surprisingly good and sharp images.

But if you want to zoom, internal focus, constant aperture, need a real mattebox - this glass is not for you.
But you will be hard pressed to find a lens with all that features, plus excellent 2 stage stabilization and autofocus in that price range - if you find any at all.

Frank

Doug Jensen · May 15th, 2012, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Glencairn

Most of your points are absolutely valid, but it comes down to what one expects.

What can I say, I guess I just have higher expectations than you.
My advice still stands: Do not buy this lens. Save your money and apply it towards something better. It's like putting a cheap set of tires on a race car.

Gabe Strong · May 15th, 2012, 09:35 AM

I think another thing to think about here is budget and the types of shoots
you do. I do a LOT of interview based stuff. Corporate promos,
where the shallow depth of field, makes the subject 'pop' and just look
high end. Also some commercials, where the FS100 'look' is what is needed.
So for those, I wanted something like the FS100. However, on many of my
corporate shoots, I will get like an hour inside their facility to get
video of 12 different locations. And I shoot a lot of other run and gun
things as well, some events, freelance news, training videos and so on.
Ideally, I think an EX-1 and a FS100 would be perfect. Unfortunately,
that isn't in the cards for my business, just don't have the budget for
it. So, I bought the FS 100 with the kit lens, and some cheap FD lenses
off ebay....a 50mm F1.4, a 28mm F2.5 and a 28-90 F2.8 zoom. All three
lenses together cost less than $150, but optically are very good.
Now, I will use the FD lenses when I have time to set up interviews
or want something with that look, and use the kit lens to turn the
FS100 into sort of an EX-1. And even with the slow kit lens, I get
more shallow depth of field than I could with the EX-1. If you've
only got the budget for one camera, and need it to be a 'swiss army
knife' I think the kit lens could have some value for you (of course
you must also realize that the can opener on a swiss army knife isn't
as good as a proper one, but if you've only got the budget for one tool,
it is what it is.) I think the kit lens actually looks very good as far
as the image quality goes. BUT what Doug says is true, there are some
serious drawbacks to the kit lens. They don't bother me at all, I don't
mind shooting with the kit lens. I can get a wide, medium and close up
in a corporate location in about 10 seconds, shooting with a prime or still
zoom with limited range would never work with the time constraints I have
on some of my shoots. What I do, is I have a Heliopan variable ND, which has
stops marked on it, and when I zoom the kit lens in and lose a stop of light,
I just open up the Heliopan and let another stop in on the front end, easy as
can be. So for me, I the kit lens doesn't bother me, but for other people
it presents what could be very serious annoyances.....so, really if you have
a chance, the best thing would be to try it out before buying because
only you can make the decision of what will work for you.

Doug Jensen · May 15th, 2012, 02:18 PM

Gabe, that's good advice. Try before you buy.

Chris Joy · May 15th, 2012, 04:24 PM

Just got the FS100 and I've used it a bit with the 18-55 from my Nex7, its ok, but not great. I decided to skip the 18-200 and get the A mount 16-50 and LAEA1 adapter instead, should be here tomorrow. A constant f2.8 lens that's parfocal is a better option for me than a slow zoom. OS isn't a big priority for me and when shooting handheld I use the $35 cowboy studio shoulder mount or a monopod - both work wonders for stabilizing fast run-and-gun shooting. And the AF is nowhere near what it is on a still camera, with the brilliant peaking I can nail focus faster than the AF can. The 50/1.8 focuses faster on the FS 100, but you're limited to one FL. I have a set of Rokkors that I adapt as well, but I only use my 25, 35, 50 and 58 handheld, anything longer and I can't keep it from looking like Blair Witch crap.

May 2nd, 2012, 06:25 AM	#17
Dan Asseff Major Player Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Port Orange Fl Posts: 317	Re: Kit lens 18-55 equal good/bad to 18-200 lens? Andrew, Yes the NX-5u. I do live stage work too. I think I would get the FS-100 with the kit lens over the NX-5u unless you want to use the LANC control. The video above is almost 100% FS-100 and the 18-200 kit lens. The FS-100 will be cleaner using the AVCHD codec than the NX-5u with the samurai in my opinion. Dan

May 2nd, 2012, 12:42 PM	#19
Doug Jensen Vortex Media Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,441	Re: Kit lens 18-55 equal good/bad to 18-200 lens? Dave, I can't really tell you what would be better than the kit lens because there are so many options that I couldn't begin to list them all. There are probably hundreds of new lenses, and thousands of used lenses that would be better for the FS100. Furthermore, a better lens for me, might not be a better lens for you. Everyone has different needs and different budgets. What I can do is tell you what I don't like about the kit lens: First of all, the aperture is not constant throughout the zoom range which makes it quite a bit harder to set your exposure because every time you change the focal length the exposure will almost always change. That is a pain in the ass compensate for. Second, at the widest angle, f/3.5 is pretty slow by professional lens standards. And f/6.3 at the telephoto end is a joke. A lot of people buy the FS100 because it has a large sensor, and then they shoot themselves in the foot by putting a slow lens on it that kills any chance of getting shallow depth of field anyway. Third, the focus ring doesn’t have hard stops. Fourth, the lens practically doubles in length when you zoom, thus making it nearly impossible to use a matte box. Fifth, do you really want to sink $800 into an e-Mount lens? All things being equal, wouldn't you rather be investing in lenses with a Canon, Nikon, or Alpha mount? Sixth, the lens and camera have terrible auto-focus capabilities. Of course you don't have to use it, but having auto-focus on a camera that is supposed to be designed for professionals just lulls people into using a crutch that is not even a good crutch. In other words, having bad auto-focus is worse than having no auto-focus at all. Seven, where's the iris ring? Oh, it doesn't have one! A proper video lens should have an iris ring on the lens instead of a thumb wheel. Yeah, I know that's better than Canon lenses, but at least Canon lenses don't claim to be designed for video use. And I have the same complaint about them anyway. Eighth, I'm not a huge fan of zooming while shooting, but if that is something you want to do, the lens does not have any servo zoom controls that you expect to find on a TV/video lens. And ninth, it is physically impossible to build a quality lens that covers such a huge focal length range and does it well -- and then sell it for $800. Just think about it. There are reasons why decent glass costs what it costs and anyone who thinks they are getting anything other than a consumer lens for that price is just fooling themselves. When I consider what lens to buy or use, it must meet at least two criteria that this lens does not meet: It must be at least f/2.8 and have a constant aperture throughout almost all of the zoom range. Why buy a substandard lens when Sony gives you the option of saving hundreds of dollars and buying the body only?? That's my reasons why I don't recommend the kit lens. Other people will disagree and claim the lens is terrific, so I guess you'll have see what they are shooting with it. But what you won't see is what they missed because the lens is harder to work with or can't perform up to certain standards. __________________ Vortex Media http://www.vortexmedia.com/ Sony FS7, F55, and XDCAM training videos, field guides, and other production tools Last edited by Doug Jensen; May 2nd, 2012 at 01:50 PM.

May 2nd, 2012, 07:58 PM	#20
Dave Mercer Major Player Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Lake Atitlan, Guatemala Posts: 346	Re: Kit lens 18-55 equal good/bad to 18-200 lens? That's an exhaustive list Doug. Much appreciated!

May 2nd, 2012, 10:58 PM	#21
Thomas Wong Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 144	Re: Kit lens 18-55 equal good/bad to 18-200 lens? it's not a bad idea to keep a kit lens, i sold my 18-200 and get a used 18-55 for run and gun there is over $600 difference, you can add $200 to buy a nikon 80-200 F2.8, or use the $600 to buy a 35mm F1.4

May 9th, 2012, 06:20 AM	#23
Dan Asseff Major Player Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Port Orange Fl Posts: 317	Re: Kit lens 18-55 equal good/bad to 18-200 lens? " And with the arrival of my Metabones adaptor, I'll happily be using the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS for handheld Run & Gun work." Does the Metabones have auto focus? * The stuff I do, for various reasons (legal, safety, time), means I can't always interact with the subjects or ask them to do something again - what happens, happens. If you're venturing out where ideally you'd have had an EX1 or similar (18x Fujinon on ENG?!), the SEL18200 has saved bacon here. Not perfect, but not left without a shot either.[/QUOTE] Agreed, for fun and gun work you need auto focus. Dan

May 9th, 2012, 08:37 PM	#25
Thomas Wong Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 144	Re: Kit lens 18-55 equal good/bad to 18-200 lens? nice slow-mo

May 15th, 2012, 09:35 AM	#28
Gabe Strong Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Juneau, AK Posts: 814	Re: Kit lens 18-55 equal good/bad to 18-200 lens? I think another thing to think about here is budget and the types of shoots you do. I do a LOT of interview based stuff. Corporate promos, where the shallow depth of field, makes the subject 'pop' and just look high end. Also some commercials, where the FS100 'look' is what is needed. So for those, I wanted something like the FS100. However, on many of my corporate shoots, I will get like an hour inside their facility to get video of 12 different locations. And I shoot a lot of other run and gun things as well, some events, freelance news, training videos and so on. Ideally, I think an EX-1 and a FS100 would be perfect. Unfortunately, that isn't in the cards for my business, just don't have the budget for it. So, I bought the FS 100 with the kit lens, and some cheap FD lenses off ebay....a 50mm F1.4, a 28mm F2.5 and a 28-90 F2.8 zoom. All three lenses together cost less than $150, but optically are very good. Now, I will use the FD lenses when I have time to set up interviews or want something with that look, and use the kit lens to turn the FS100 into sort of an EX-1. And even with the slow kit lens, I get more shallow depth of field than I could with the EX-1. If you've only got the budget for one camera, and need it to be a 'swiss army knife' I think the kit lens could have some value for you (of course you must also realize that the can opener on a swiss army knife isn't as good as a proper one, but if you've only got the budget for one tool, it is what it is.) I think the kit lens actually looks very good as far as the image quality goes. BUT what Doug says is true, there are some serious drawbacks to the kit lens. They don't bother me at all, I don't mind shooting with the kit lens. I can get a wide, medium and close up in a corporate location in about 10 seconds, shooting with a prime or still zoom with limited range would never work with the time constraints I have on some of my shoots. What I do, is I have a Heliopan variable ND, which has stops marked on it, and when I zoom the kit lens in and lose a stop of light, I just open up the Heliopan and let another stop in on the front end, easy as can be. So for me, I the kit lens doesn't bother me, but for other people it presents what could be very serious annoyances.....so, really if you have a chance, the best thing would be to try it out before buying because only you can make the decision of what will work for you.

May 15th, 2012, 02:18 PM	#29
Doug Jensen Vortex Media Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,441	Re: Kit lens 18-55 equal good/bad to 18-200 lens? Gabe, that's good advice. Try before you buy. __________________ Vortex Media http://www.vortexmedia.com/ Sony FS7, F55, and XDCAM training videos, field guides, and other production tools

May 15th, 2012, 04:24 PM	#30
Chris Joy Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Tampa Posts: 220	Re: Kit lens 18-55 equal good/bad to 18-200 lens? Just got the FS100 and I've used it a bit with the 18-55 from my Nex7, its ok, but not great. I decided to skip the 18-200 and get the A mount 16-50 and LAEA1 adapter instead, should be here tomorrow. A constant f2.8 lens that's parfocal is a better option for me than a slow zoom. OS isn't a big priority for me and when shooting handheld I use the $35 cowboy studio shoulder mount or a monopod - both work wonders for stabilizing fast run-and-gun shooting. And the AF is nowhere near what it is on a still camera, with the brilliant peaking I can nail focus faster than the AF can. The 50/1.8 focuses faster on the FS 100, but you're limited to one FL. I have a set of Rokkors that I adapt as well, but I only use my 25, 35, 50 and 58 handheld, anything longer and I can't keep it from looking like Blair Witch crap.