Sony lenses

[Mark K.]

As a matter of fact the only thing keeping me from buying CP.2's today, is that Zeiss is coming out with new stills glass that will be MUCH sharper across the whole frame at F1.4 than anything out there, with the exception of Leica C lenses. I think they will sell like hotcakes. Expect NAB to be very interesting on this front.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iizSm70dag

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/11/02/sample-images-from-the-new-zeiss-distagon-55mm-f1-4-zm-lens.aspx/

http://prophotocoalition.com/dcarr/...um_lens_range_for_dslrs_starting_with_55mm_f1

$3000 per lens by the way. Looks darn close to a cinema lens if you ask me. Clearly oriented towards the video market as well.

The new glass will no doubt make it's way to the CP.2 line-up eventually, though at a substantial premium I imagine (closer to the $5,700 of the new 15mm, 135mm lenses than the $3,990 of the current glass).

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

Autofocus lenses have been used for years by pro photogs in conditions equal or worse than cine lenses. If they didn't hold up they would not exist today.

Autofocus lenses exist today because it is easier for the masses to use than trying to hit focus themselves. However, even pro photographers never put their lenses under the same kind of stress as focus pullers throughout an 18 hours day for weeks on end. Really the kind of production environments we are talking about are quite intense. Remember it is not just a question of hitting a mark for an image, it is keeping that barrel controlled and moving all the time. An internall electronic motor will just never be as robust as the external kind and could not possibly stand up to that kind of abuse over the long term. Those internal motors were designed for quickly hitting a point with AF. Slowing that process down to constantly follow someone or something across large focal fields creates a tremendous amount of tork. As they were simply not designed for this, they will eventually give out before their time as stills lenses.

I was a professional photographer for more than 20 years, every single AF lens that I have owned has had issues with it's AF or IS after several years of use. Even the canon L series. I cannot imagine if I had put them under the stress of a feature film how long they would have held up. Currently the cost of replacing the motor on my Sigma 50 1.4 for instance is greater than the value of the lens itself. So what does this mean? It means either we live in a throw away culture, or I am using that lens now as a manual focus piece. I slap my O'Connor O'Focus Photo follow focus on it, and that 90 degree throw is suddenly 270 degrees. Perfect. Not a motor, battery or wire in sight.

So what does this mean for Sony lenses? It is the reason why plastic turned into metal and why they went from 3 lenses to 6 or 7. Robustness over time. They also cost more for this reason. Sony makes numerous AF lenses, often in coordination with Carl Zeiss. If AF were that important for cinema, they would have put it on these lenses. They didn't. Somehow I doubt there will be catastrophic results as a consequence.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Autofocus lenses exist today because it is easier for the masses to use than trying to hit focus themselves. However, even pro photographers never put their lenses under the same kind of stress as focus pullers throughout an 18 hours day for weeks on end. Really the kind of production environments we are talking about are quite intense. Remember it is not just a question of hitting a mark for an image, it is keeping that barrel controlled and moving all the time. An internall electronic motor will just never be as robust as the external kind and could not possibly stand up to that kind of abuse over the long term. Those internal motors were designed for quickly hitting a point with AF. Slowing that process down to constantly follow someone or something across large focal fields creates a tremendous amount of tork. As they were simply not designed for this, they will eventually give out before their time as stills lenses.

I was a professional photographer for more than 20 years, every single AF lens that I have owned has had issues with it's AF or IS after several years of use. Even the canon L series. I cannot imagine if I had put them under the stress of a feature film how long they would have held up. Currently the cost of replacing the motor on my Sigma 50 1.4 for instance is greater than the value of the lens itself. So what does this mean? It means either we live in a throw away culture, or I am using that lens now as a manual focus piece. I slap my O'Connor O'Focus Photo follow focus on it, and that 90 degree throw is suddenly 270 degrees. Perfect. Not a motor, battery or wire in sight.

So what does this mean for Sony lenses? It is the reason why plastic turned into metal and why they went from 3 lenses to 6 or 7. Robustness over time. They also cost more for this reason. Sony makes numerous AF lenses, often in coordination with Carl Zeiss. If AF were that important for cinema, they would have put it on these lenses. They didn't. Somehow I doubt there will be catastrophic results as a consequence.

You can't be serious! I have repaired more cine lenses than most people- maybe including yourself have seen in their lifetimes. Cine lenses are very high maintenance. They get completely serviced after every job- a day or a month. Now how many times did you have your still lenses serviced? They live in dusty camera bags and get banged up until they fail. Few years? haha some cine lenses like the heavy Optimos go out of focus on every job. The set screws are tightened so often they strip once a month.. etc, etc.... Boy some peeps have very little understanding of our industry. Owning Cine lenses is like owning a Ferrari- you either wealthy or you are a race car driver. Everyone else that owns one really shouldn't - they can't afford the maintenance cost, insurance etc...
It's not only the purchase price you know...

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

You can't be serious! I have repaired more cine lenses than most people- maybe including yourself have seen in their lifetimes. Cine lenses are very high maintenance. They get completely serviced after every job- a day or a month. Now how many times did you have your still lenses serviced? They live in dusty camera bags and get banged up until they fail. Few years? haha some cine lenses like the heavy Optimos go out of focus on every job. The set screws are tightened so often they strip once a month.. etc, etc.... Boy some peeps have very little understanding of our industry. Owning Cine lenses is like owning a Ferrari- you either wealthy or you are a race car driver. Everyone else that owns one really shouldn't - they can't afford the maintenance cost, insurance etc...
It's not only the purchase price you know...

Well in that case, you should have no problem with these new and therefore "low maintenance" manual photo lenses which Zeiss is coming out with, like the 55mm f1.4 that I mentioned previously and which was the starting point of our discussion.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Manual lenses have a very limited application in modern photography.
And their application in motion imaging is decreasing. There are more and more AF lenses used (also with drive by wire manual focusing, IS) every day. And this trend will continue until the still lenses converge with motion lenses. Just like what happened with cameras. This is not any bodys choice. This is inevitable...
It's funny how someone would promote disruptive technology and decide that it should stop developing all of the sudden. Entitlement.
Human nature I guess...

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

Manual lenses have a very limited application in modern photography.
And their application in motion imaging is decreasing. There are more and more AF lenses used (also with drive by wire manual focusing, IS) every day. And this trend will continue until the still lenses converge with motion lenses. Just like what happened with cameras. This is not any bodys choice. This is inevitable...
It's funny how someone would promote disruptive technology and decide that it should stop developing all of the sudden. Entitlement.
Human nature I guess...

Here is the reality.
This thread is about Sony lenses. If there is anything one can note about the original Sony lenses, it is that the last ones were not particularly well received. Why? Because they didn't have autofocus? Poor optical quality? No, because they were made of plastic. It was their build quality. Result? A new series of lenses with higher build quality - metal.

It is highly unlikely that you will find AF, IS, etc. in a lens housed in this manner (metal, heavy duty, etc.). They will be in plastic instead.

Personally, given the choice between a lens with solid, built to last mechanics and a long focus throw (cine lens) vs. a plastic lens with a short focus throw (to enable AF to work properly) where I will be dependant on an external adapter if I want to lengthen the throw and the internal electronics perhaps requiring an additional power source...I know which one I would choose. I am far from alone on that. Good luck if you are on location or in another country and you have an unidentfiable electronic issue. At least there is the possibility of being able to deal with the problem if it is mechanical. Additionally, I want the choice of being able to throw on an external remote focusing device like a Preston, Bartech or even the new Redrock for controlling focus rather than being OBLIGED to in order to use a lens.

Our cameras of today are far more fragile than 40 years ago, imagine Steve MCcurry trying to shoot in the Vietnam war with a Canon 5D Mark II rather than a Nikon F and some good old Nikkors. Which is more likely to survive the harsh conditions? Which is more likely to stop working for electronic reasons? Which camera would you want to carry around in the mud, the jungle and such a tremendous variety of circumstances? Which camera would have stopped a bullet from striking his heart (and did) ? Think about it.

 

[Daniel Stilling]

I'm in no doubt in the solid, metal, mechanic, PL mount lens camp. Here's an example: I have a RED 17-50. Last year I rented it out for a TV show shooting here in town. 4 Months of abuse, and returned to me like it never left, and focus checks out.
When that was happening, I bought a Tamron 17-50, which is the optical basis for the RED lens, but mechanics are obviously different. Used it in a couple of jobs, and the front plastic started separating from the body, and the focus doesn't hold. it's like a piece of glass moved ever so slightly out of alignment. Case in point.
Now moving back to the Sony lensesThey look interesting, wish they would come up with a 3 set lens that doesn't have a giant gap in the middle focal lengths...

 

[Peter Majtan]

It is highly unlikely that you will find AF, IS, etc. in a lens housed in this manner (metal, heavy duty, etc.). They will be in plastic instead.

Cough Cough - Canon "L" series are all metallic high-quality housings and most have AF, IS, etc... FIY

Peter

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Peter you are contradicting yourself in two sequential posts. On top of that you are using Canon AF lenses on your camera primarily. I think they call it hypocrisy
I don't think you read my post- cine lenses are very high maintenance and they hold up the best in a rental house where they are constantly serviced. Still lenses don't . I know I've been dealing with the cine lens tech for 25 years now.
Oh and saving from a bullet convinced me- I'm going PL now:yesnod:

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

Cough Cough - Canon "L" series are all metallic high-quality housings and most have AF, IS, etc... FIY

Peter

Oh yeah, so then why is my Canon 35/1.4 L made of plastic? I must be special.

Looks like you might have a bit of a cold there Peter...you gotta take care of yourself, man!:nads:

 

[David W. Jones]

Boy some peeps have very little understanding of our industry. Owning Cine lenses is like owning a Ferrari- you either wealthy or you are a race car driver. Everyone else that owns one really shouldn't - they can't afford the maintenance cost, insurance etc...
It's not only the purchase price you know...

In reality a modern Ferrari no longer requires expensive engine out maintenance. Since the introduction of the 360 some years back, Ferrari has engineered maintenance access points into the design of their cars for easier access to these needed areas. I can also say that my wife's former Audi was much more expensive to buy parts for that any of my other cars.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

David ,
Do you know how much a ceramic brake job costs?- about $5000-10000 I think. And you need one after every track day at least.
Tires? $500 a pop? Oil is like $80 a quart. Now that's what I call high maintenance. I remember on the F355 you had to hoist the engine to change the plugs.
but lets get back to lenses...

 

[Peter Majtan]

Peter you are contradicting yourself in two sequential posts. On top of that you are using Canon AF lenses on your camera primarily. I think they call it hypocrisy
I don't think you read my post- cine lenses are very high maintenance and they hold up the best in a rental house where they are constantly serviced. Still lenses don't . I know I've been dealing with the cine lens tech for 25 years now.
Oh and saving from a bullet convinced me- I'm going PL now:yesnod:

Jacek, You must be mixing posts and/or posters... ;o)

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Yes sorry Peter,
I've had a tough night.

 

[Peter Majtan]

Oh yeah, so then why is my Canon 35/1.4 L made of plastic? I must be special.

Looks like you might have a bit of a cold there Peter...you gotta take care of yourself, man!:nads:

All good here :reddevil:

You had to pick one of the rare "L" series made of plastic...
I have 5 L-series and they are all made of magnesium alloy - and YES - they do cover FF-35...
My simple point was that there are plenty of metal-body solidly constructed PRO lenses that use AF, IS, etc...
RED has also initially announced that they will produce electronic lenses, albeit that is now pretty-much history with the last update from Jarred. But I am 100% with Jacek on this and stand by my honest opinion that investing into glass that does not cover FF-35 today is a waste of money. This is also the reason why I am only interested in the new Canon CN-E cine primes and not the zooms. As brilliant as the zooms are - they only cover S35...

Peter

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

All good here :reddevil:

You had to pick one of the rare "L" series made of plastic...
I have 5 L-series and they are all made of magnesium alloy - and YES - they do cover FF-35...
My simple point was that there are plenty of metal-body solidly constructed PRO lenses that use AF, IS, etc...
RED has also initially announced that they will produce electronic lenses, albeit that is now pretty-much history with the last update from Jarred. But I am 100% with Jacek on this and stand by my honest opinion that investing into glass that does not cover FF-35 today is a waste of money. This is also the reason why I am only interested in the new Canon CN-E cine primes and not the zooms. As brilliant as the zooms are - they only cover S35...

Peter

Well, I also agree that FF is the way to go. However, what keeps me from jumping in on the CP.2's (or the Canon Cine Primes - besides the fact that there is a gaping hole where a 35mm should be and no PL mount) is that this new line of lenses from Zeiss has MUCH higher resolution to accomodate cameras which are moving into medium format pixel count range. I strongly suspect that the 55mm f1.4 will be as good as a Leica C lens in terms of sharpness across the entire frame at wide open at a price tag of just $3K by comparison. I am certain they are intending too that these lenses will by used by the video market. My biggest issue with most super speeds is that they really are quite mushy beyond the center sweet spot and have a tremendous amount of CA. These could be a far better alternative to what we have seen up until now in the F1.4/T1.5 range. They truly should be optimized for shooting wide open.

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

Peter you are contradicting yourself in two sequential posts. On top of that you are using Canon AF lenses on your camera primarily. I think they call it hypocrisy
I don't think you read my post- cine lenses are very high maintenance and they hold up the best in a rental house where they are constantly serviced. Still lenses don't . I know I've been dealing with the cine lens tech for 25 years now.
Oh and saving from a bullet convinced me- I'm going PL now:yesnod:

Knew I could convince you eventually:ciappa:
This ones for you Jacek:
(Actually it was Don McCullin's Nikon F, not Steve McCurry's)

 

[Mark de Blok]

Cine lense are not very high maintenance, because of the way they are build, designed, and used by professionals.
I know, I own them and use them, it is like owning a Ferrari instead of a ....

Best regards

Mark de Blok NSC

You can't be serious! I have repaired more cine lenses than most people- maybe including yourself have seen in their lifetimes. Cine lenses are very high maintenance. They get completely serviced after every job- a day or a month. Now how many times did you have your still lenses serviced? They live in dusty camera bags and get banged up until they fail. Few years? haha some cine lenses like the heavy Optimos go out of focus on every job. The set screws are tightened so often they strip once a month.. etc, etc.... Boy some peeps have very little understanding of our industry. Owning Cine lenses is like owning a Ferrari- you either wealthy or you are a race car driver. Everyone else that owns one really shouldn't - they can't afford the maintenance cost, insurance etc...
It's not only the purchase price you know...

 

[Andrew Ceperley]

It's the Tom Hooper set.

The Tom Hooper set would be an 8, 12, and 135.

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

back to topic...anyone tried these!?!?