Sony 14x Zoom Lens SCL-Z8X140

[Andrew Stone]

Street price is apparently 10 grand (give or take a few dollars).

[Paul Ream]

Yep - $9697 +Tax is what I'm paying in the UK...
(about the same as a RED 18-85mm T2.9)

[Doug Jensen]

Quote: "Unfortunately, for the work I do the EX3 is not regarded as broadcast spec without an external recorder. "

Well if the EX3 doesn't meet your broadcast specs without an external recorder, then I don't see how the F3 does not either. Both cameras record to the exact same codec on the internal SxS cards. If you require an external recorder on one, then you'd certainly need it on both. Just for the record, I do not feel an external recorder is necessary for either camera, and my own testing has proven that to me and my clients.


Quote: "By using the phrase "forcing the F3 to be a jack of all trades" you're implying that using this lens makes the F3 master of none!"

Yes, with that lens it, that is exactly what I am saying. The F3 is a master of many trades with the right lens -- particulrly if you want a cinematic look. But if you put the wrong lens on it, it becomes an inferior tool for other types of shooting. For ENG work, an EX3 would be a better choice for me -- and that entire camera costs thousands of dollars less than the F3's new zoom lens. Without adding a bunch of third-party accessories, the EX3 has superior hand-held design and a superior viewfinder. It is set to go right out of the box. Also, for ENG work, where extreme shallow DOF is not really neessary, the EX3 would be easier to shoot with.

Are you really going to be able to shoot with just a stock F3 and the new zoom lens? No, you're absolutely going to have to add addtional third party accessories (such as a better viewfinder, shoulder mount, etc) to make the package work in a hand-held configuration. More $$. Of course, you'll need to add those accessories even if you shoot hand-held with a decent prime lens on the F3 too, I'm just saying that the EX3 provides a lot of bang for the buck as a second camera to have when a shooting situation doesn't quite fit what the F3 does best. I'd rather have an EX3 for run & gun and ENG shooting than an F3 with any lens.



Quote: "Street price is apparently 10 grand (give or take a few dollars). "

I don't care if the street price is $12K or $10K. It is the performance of the lens that will keep me from using it on my F3. A couple thousand dollars either way is not important to me. It's still about $2K more than an EX3. Hey, I'm not telling anyone not to buy this lens when it becomes available, I'm just voicing my opinion of why it is not right for my F3 and bringing up some points that other people may not have considered. That's what this forum is for. If you like it and it meets your needs, go for it. I already own other cameras for ENG-type work. My F3 is for a different style of shooting, and THAT zoom lens would totally negate the reason I would be shooting with the F3 in the first place.

[Ron Wilk]

Well said.

[Charles Papert]

There's an awkward and ever-growing gap between camera and lens advancements and pricing, and this is yet another example. S35 sensor cameras have plunged rapidly in price, thanks to the RED1 (if that had not happened, you can bet that Sony would not have a pro-level camera available for under $20K) but there is a physical limit to what is possible to do with inexpensive optics. There's a reason that cine-style zooms are large and heavy and expensive, and Moore's Law doesn't apply here. It will continue to frustrate those who feel that lenses should track downwards in price in concert with cameras, as well as those who dream of a compact broadcast style lens for a S35 or larger sensor.

I have a sense that down the road, we will start to see cheaply produced and flawed lenses emerge that rely on the camera to "fix" their issues, be they distortion, tracking or aberrations. Harnessing ever-expanding processing power makes a lot more sense than trying to re-write the laws of physics and produce a more sophisticated lens than has ever been built for a fraction of the money--generally it goes the other way. Lens science is being pushed forward in a big way but the dollar figures will remain high for many people. I'm working with the Alura zooms on my current show and they are beautiful lenses for the money (approximately half as much as the prior generation) but still out of grasp for many users.

[Paul Ream]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

Well if the EX3 doesn't meet your broadcast specs without an external recorder, then I don't see how the F3 does not either. Both cameras record to the exact same codec on the internal SxS cards. If you require an external recorder on one, then you'd certainly need it on both. Just for the record, I do not feel an external recorder is necessary for either camera, and my own testing has proven that to me and my clients.

You are absolutely correct. I'd need two external recorders which is the very point I was making. I also agree that an external recorder isn't strictly necessary as the 35mb/s SxS codec is so good. However, if you want to deliver HD productions for broadcast BBC or ITV in the UK, 50mb/s is a minimum technical requirement. It's doesn't really matter what testing we've done or what your clients think!

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

The F3 is a master of many trades with the right lens -- particulrly if you want a cinematic look. But if you put the wrong lens on it, it becomes an inferior tool for other types of shooting. For ENG work, an EX3 would be a better choice for me -- and that entire camera costs thousands of dollars less than the F3's new zoom lens. Without adding a bunch of third-party accessories, the EX3 has superior hand-held design and a superior viewfinder. It is set to go right out of the box. Also, for ENG work, where extreme shallow DOF is not really neessary, the EX3 would be easier to shoot with.

The phrase is: "Jack of all trades, master of none" - I'm sorry but putting what you call the wrong lens on an F3 doesn't take away it's capabilities with other lenses... that doesn't make any sense? It's just another lens choice which means you don't need to carry two camera's.

You seem stuck on the notion that people will only buy this lens for ENG work. I've already said I don't think it's usable as an ENG zoom. I totally agree, that if you just want to self shoot ENG, an EX3 would be a better bet out of the box.

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

Are you really going to be able to shoot with just a stock F3 and the new zoom lens? No, you're absolutely going to have to add addtional third party accessories (such as a better viewfinder, shoulder mount, etc) to make the package work in a hand-held configuration.

Absolutely, I will be able to add this new lens to my existing F3 set-up without any additional cost? The aim is to give me and my clients more choice of glass, not to shoot ENG.

I wouldn't dream of giving a News crew an F3 with this lens... it's just not suitable. And if you have the time and money then fast PL primes are obviously going to give a better look. However, for many users, an 18-252mm variable prime, (even at T3.9 - T6.8), is going to provide shooting options that just aren't available for the F3 any other way right now.

It's all just our opinion, as none of us have seen how well this lens works on the F3 yet, it's difficult to judge. But as you say, no ones forcing you to buy it and other options are available!

[Paul Ream]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

There's an awkward and ever-growing gap between camera and lens advancements and pricing, and this is yet another example.

Charles - your points are spot on.

The physical limits of what we can do with glass and light have probably put quite a restriction on the mass adoption of large sensor camera's. Apart from manufacturers papering over cheap lens faults with technical tricks, we may also see the cost of some lenses drop simply because of market demand. If S35 cinema lenses start selling in thousands rather than hundreds, it would be nice to see some economies of scale filtering through to customers as well?

[Paul Ream]

Deleted double post - apologies!

[Doug Jensen]

Paul, Sony has already offered to send me a demo lens just as soon as they can. Perhaps you will see me on this board next month backtracking on everything I have said. Maybe it is a terrific lens that I won't be able to live without. But one thing is sure, I won't hold back speaking my mind no matter what I think of it. For now, I am keeping an open mind.

[Steve Kalle]

Originally Posted by Paul Ream

Charles - your points are spot on.
....If S35 cinema lenses start selling in thousands rather than hundreds, it would be nice to see some economies of scale filtering through to customers as well?

You hit the nail on the head.

We already have access to amazing 'Pro' level glass at low prices, but they are made for photography. The *key* to lower prices is supply and demand. With S35 cameras becoming ever more popular and accessible to lower budget projects, there will need to be more supply of affordable cine lenses. Red already uses other companies' lenses and rehouses them; so, its just a matter of time until Canon and Sony take their own SLR lenses and rehouse them for affordable cine lenses. Or another company like Duclos pops up and becomes a master of adapting SLR lenses for cinematography. However, many SLR lenses do need some reworking to remove breathing, barrel extension during zooming (ie., all great 24-70 lenses) and make zooms parfocal.

[Ned Soltz]

I had the chance to see the 14x lens and play with it just a bit a the Photo Plus expo in NYC. Big big lens. I will have a chance to shoot it for a couple of days along with the new SR-1 recorder and at that point will be able to share some impressions. Will definitely be useful in handheld work. More in a few weeks...

Ned

[Leonard Levy]

Seems to me a simpler alternative is to get a broadcast HD B4 (2/3") lens and add that adapter from Abel Cine or the one that Alister is making. You lose 2 stops but your still at least even with the Sony lens and it should be a more even f stop through the range. Although its about 5" long its probably still lighter and smaller than the Sony.
However an HD broadcast lens is well more than $10K to buy as I recall though I don't know about used these days. Quite cheap to rent though when you need one.
Haven't seen the Sony but it probably does have some more typically Cine PL characteristics like not breathing or longer focus thrown and gears for follow focus etc.

[Brian Drysdale]

Here's a FD article that has photos of the zoom lens in a possible hand held rig. It sort of gives a sense of the size.

New Sony 18-252 mm Zoom | Film and Digital Times: News

[Christoph Tilley]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

Here's a FD article that has photos of the zoom lens in a possible hand held rig. It sort of gives a sense of the size.

New Sony 18-252 mm Zoom | Film and Digital Times: News

with the best looking promotion "girls“ ever. just a side note.

[Paul Ream]

I can't wait to see what the images look like through this lens. It'll be interesting to compare picture quality to Doug's EX3? I've now been told to expect delivery 1st week in December, so I'm not holding my breath for anytime this year!