A good zoom lens that doesnt extend?

[Jamie Roberts]

Hi all

I've ordered a FS100PK and from most reports, it sounds like the lens that comes with it is pretty good.

What Im wondering though is if any of you are using, or know of a decent zoom lens (general purpose (eg 24-70) that doesnt extrude or retract when you use the zoom?

Apparently there are a few out there, I just dont know what the terminology is for a 'non-extending' zoom lens.

Thanks

Jamie

[Matt Davis]

My vote is for the Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 DX - doesn't extend, front element doesn't rotate.

It does all you ask for, but focuses in the wrong direction for me. The Canon EOS 17-55 2.8 may well usurp it now I have the Metabones adaptor which powers its IS function and has better iris control than the Nikkor. But it doesn't tick all your boxes.

[Jamie Roberts]

Thanks Matt. The focussing in the opposite direction could be a bit of a pain but I guess you'd get used to it.

I'll check it out. Thanks for letting me know

Cheers

Jamie

[Jamie Roberts]

Does anyone know if the Sony SAL16-50mm A-mount extends/rotates?

[Bill Bruner]

Jamie - as you're discovering, only a few still camera zoom lenses have the rear-focus, non-telescoping feature (interestingly, the new Panasonic 45-175 power zoom doesn't telescope - but it doesn't have a manual aperture ring and the power zoom would be inoperable on your FS).

If you need a non-telescoping zoom for a specific purpose, maybe you should look into buying a PL to NEX adapter ($280 from eBay) and renting a cine lens like the RED 17-50mm ($85 a day and $255 a week from Adorama Rentals in NYC - sadly, I don't know what rental costs are in Australia). Real movie lenses don't telescope :-)

Good luck,

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution

[Wacharapong Chiowanich]

Matt, if I remember correctly, the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 DX racks out a bit maybe about an inch but not sure if that's at the wide or tele end. All the still photography zooms I've used that maintain their lengths are either short constant aperture wide or tele zooms e.g. 14-24, 16-35, 17-35, 70-200, 80-200 etc.

[Jamie Roberts]

Thanks Bill. If prices of camcorders in Australia are anything to go by, It would probably be the same price to buy a RED 17-50mm overseas as to rent one here ;-)

Wacharapong, what are the 16-35 and 17-35 lenses you are referring to?

Thanks

Jamie

[Chris Joy]

Originally Posted by Jamie Roberts

Does anyone know if the Sony SAL16-50mm A-mount extends/rotates?

It extends by about an inch when fully zoomed, as others pointed out, most lenses in this FL range do extend. That being said, its a brilliant, brilliant piece of glass that punches far above its weight. Its as sharp and contrasty as the E-Zeiss 24/1.8 (a real disappointment costing $400 more) at 24mm - and you get the bonus of everything else from 16-50. I keep beating this drum - its also parfocal, so you can zoom without having to refocus. IMHO this is THE run-and-gun lens for the FS100.

I've owned the Canon 16-35/2.8 and 17-40/4, they didn't extend, but they didn't cover the range the SAL 16-50 does. You will also need the elusive metabones adapter to change apertures. I have the LAEA1 and it works great. No AF on the FS100 (though I really wouldn't use it anyway), but it does AF on my Nex7, hopefully that will be in the next FS firmware update.

[Alister Chapman]

There is the older Angineaux based Tokina ATX pro 28-70mm lenses (Mk I or Mk II, not the ASV version). F2.6/F2.8 with a manual iris ring on the Nikon mount versions but reversed focusing or no iris ring but correct focussing on the EF mount versions (use with the metabones). You would have to find a used one as these went out of production some time ago. They are not quite as good at f2.8 as some of the better modern pro level lenses, but at f4 they really do perform quite well. Made of Magnesium alloy these are heavy solid lenses. I have a couple and even though I have lenses that might have a slight edge optically for general purpose shooting I keep coming back to these because they don't telescope, are nice and chunky so easy to work with and very solid.

[Jamie Roberts]

Thanks for your knowledge.

Im thinking I will go with the SAL16-50 and live with the extension. Flexibility is the key!

Cheers

Jamie

[Wacharapong Chiowanich]

Jamie, they are Nikkor 16-35 f/4 AF G-Type (no aperture ring) and the discontinued Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 AF-D with an aperture ring. Considering the price and versatility, the Sony 16-50 f/2.8 seems a better buy but I've never used it.

[Bill Kerrigan]

I'm happy with my SAL16-50... but test before you buy.
Nine months ago... I had to test a few, before I found one which was truly parfocal.

Bill Kerrigan
www.kerrigan.ca

[Thomas Wong]

I have sal1650 as well... It's a nice lens
I also bought a canon FD 35-105mm f3.5...
It doesn't extend while zooming, it's par focus, it has macro and it's $50 only

[Glen Vandermolen]

Is this the Sony 16-50 zoom lens you guys are referring to?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/819163-REG/Sony_SAL1650_16_50mm_f_2_8_Standard_Zoom.html

[Jamie Roberts]

Sure is Glen