Lenses for the FS5

[Terence Morris]

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?

[Chad Johnson]

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

[Terence Morris]

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.

[Chad Johnson]

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.

[Terence Morris]

Very helpful - thank you!

[Alfred Okocha]

Originally Posted by Chad Johnson

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!

Hi Chad. I've done some tests now and the DOF definitely changes with my Canon lenses I use with the Speedbooster. I strongly disagree with that statement. (If it carries any importance for people, well, that's another thing...)

[Doug Jensen]

Chad is correct. The depth of field is determined soley by the optics of the lens so adding a speedbooster or putting the lens on a camera that has a smaller sensor than full-frame does not change the lens. The lens is still the same lens. It may feel to you like the depth of field has changed because the the field of view has has changed -- but any change you think you see to the DoF is just an illusion.

[Alfred Okocha]

Well, I know nothing about the maths but I'm sure the difference in these pictures are not imagined. Canons 40mm wide open and stopped down, to it's "normal" 2.8.

[Richard D. George]

There is a rumor that Sony will come out with a PZ zoom like the PZ 28-135 but with a range more to the wide angle range. The rumored range is 18-105. If so this might be a good multi-purpose lens with none of the ergonomic issues of the kit lens. It should also be sharper than the Canon 24-105 (which I never much liked and sold early on). Admittedly I shoot stills more than video, but many folks have a similarly low opinion on the optics of the 24-105. When I used Canon DSLR's, I found the Canon EF-S 17-55 constant f/2.8 to be much better optically, but this lens is an EF-S mount...). When I went to Canon full-frame DSLR's I bought the EF 24-70 f4.0L IS. Much better than the 24-105.

[Chad Johnson]

OK my bad fro not being more specific and exact. Apparently the DOF is made to be like a full frame camera, however the bokeh is not affected.

From the Metabones site:

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.

http://www.metabones.com/article/of/faq

[Chad Johnson]

Originally Posted by Richard D. George

There is a rumor that Sony will come out with a PZ zoom like the PZ 28-135 but with a range more to the wide angle range. The rumored range is 18-105. If so this might be a good multi-purpose lens with none of the ergonomic issues of the kit lens. It should also be sharper than the Canon 24-105 (which I never much liked and sold early on). Admittedly I shoot stills more than video, but many folks have a similarly low opinion on the optics of the 24-105. When I used Canon DSLR's, I found the Canon EF-S 17-55 constant f/2.8 to be much better optically, but this lens is an EF-S mount...). When I went to Canon full-frame DSLR's I bought the EF 24-70 f4.0L IS. Much better than the 24-105.

I bought the Sigma 24-105, f/4 Art lens because in all the shootouts I watched, the Sigma was much sharper than the Canon 24-105. I'm really liking the Sigma Art lens, but it is a half pound heavier. That's not a biggie because I use a tripod for almost everything. Generally it seems like Sigma is killing it with their quality. I've got my eyes on their 50mm f/1.4 now.

[Terence Morris]

Originally Posted by Richard D. George

There is a rumor that Sony will come out with a PZ zoom like the PZ 28-135 but with a range more to the wide angle range. The rumored range is 18-105. If so this might be a good multi-purpose lens with none of the ergonomic issues of the kit lens. It should also be sharper than the Canon 24-105 (which I never much liked and sold early on). Admittedly I shoot stills more than video, but many folks have a similarly low opinion on the optics of the 24-105. When I used Canon DSLR's, I found the Canon EF-S 17-55 constant f/2.8 to be much better optically, but this lens is an EF-S mount...). When I went to Canon full-frame DSLR's I bought the EF 24-70 f4.0L IS. Much better than the 24-105.

That would be wonderful if true.

[Chad Johnson]

Originally Posted by Richard D. George

There is a rumor that Sony will come out with a PZ zoom like the PZ 28-135 but with a range more to the wide angle range. The rumored range is 18-105. If so this might be a good multi-purpose lens with none of the ergonomic issues of the kit lens. It should also be sharper than the Canon 24-105 (which I never much liked and sold early on). Admittedly I shoot stills more than video, but many folks have a similarly low opinion on the optics of the 24-105. When I used Canon DSLR's, I found the Canon EF-S 17-55 constant f/2.8 to be much better optically, but this lens is an EF-S mount...). When I went to Canon full-frame DSLR's I bought the EF 24-70 f4.0L IS. Much better than the 24-105.

Yes, but a sony 18mm would still only work out to 27mm with the FS5 crop factor.

[Terence Morris]

True, but better than, what is it...~45mm? with the current offering, and in a lens designed for videography.

[Chad Johnson]

I'm just using the Sigma 24-105mm f4 with the Speedboster ultra, which makes it effectively a 25-110mm f2.8. The combo is cheaper than the PX 28-135mm, and performs better. Sony zooms aren't as good quality as their primes relatively speaking.