Do you know if Sony, or a third party company, is planing to release a ENG zoom lens to go with this camera? From what I read, the kit lens is a pain to use manually. What I want is a 10X lens, with good manual focus and zoom (servo or not, don't really care) with marking, and an iris ring. It's ok if the aperture is 3.5f-6.3f. With a base sensitivity of ISO 800, this is about the same thing as using the lens provided with the EX3.

I would be willing to pay easilly up to 2K for something like that. I know, some might say that it defeat the whole idea of having a big sensor. I do not think it's true. such a lens would render the camera much more versatile. Put this lens when you are doing ENG style works and the DOF is not an issue, grab your set of prime and fast zooms for narrative work or to get a more cinematic feel.

I keep going between my 7D and the EX1, XLH1. If a lens like this is released, I will be able to shoot every assignement with this camera.

I totally agree. A lot of people have told me that it is pointless
as it defeats the whole purpose of a large sensor camera and that I just
need to learn to shoot 'narrative style' or else just get an EX-3.
What they don't quite seem to understand, is that from my point of
view, it is an interchangable lens camera, so on one day, I could use
it with a lens like you are describing for stuff I'd normally use
an EX-1, and then the next day, use a short DSLR zoom or prime
for a 'beauty shot' type piece. Right now, the F3, is the camera
which Sony is releasing a zoom lens for (servo zoom and everything).
However, I don't know of any such zoom that exists in the price
range you are talking. Look at the price of a RED zoom lens which
is 18-80 or so......we are talking 6 grand and that's probably
a good deal. You could maybe get something like a 17-55 and a
40-200 and with those two lenses you would be pretty set......that
would probably cost you about $2500 and I don't know how they
work with manual iris and focus, they are DSLR lenses so they
are made for still cameras.

These lenses exists however you need to be a millionaire to afford one. It's not so simple to get 10x zoom on a full frame sensor, 10x zoom on the EX1 is equivalent to a +/- 400mm lens.

Zeiss DigiZoom 17-112mm T1.9 1531-502 B&H Photo Video

You can buy used 35mm cine zooms, however, you'd need to check them over, plus see if they cover Super 35 and they're heavy. Definitely not ENG, but the camera is very light, so you'd be attaching it to the zoom, rather than the other way about.

Though not a 10x zoom, this could be a good choice for an every-day lens with full functions:

Sony SAL-2470Z 24-70mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar SAL2470Z

Though not a 10x zoom, this could be a good choice for an every-day lens with full functions:

Sony SAL-2470Z 24-70mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar SAL2470Z (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/545868-REG/Sony_SAL2470Z_SAL_2470Z_24_70mm_f_2_8_Carl.html)

That one's very nice. Here's my idea for a similar lens, but much cheaper:

Sony SAL-2875 28-75mm f/2.8 SAM Constant Aperture Zoom SAL2875

Every one of your suggestions are not suitable for eng work. If you already used something like an HPX2000 with a proper eng lens, you know what I mean. In fact, I don't think it's that difficult to build. The sony kit lens is a good start. It's a 10x zoom lens, compact and cheap. We just need to put the same optic in an ENG package... proper focus and zoom rings with hard stop and marking, proper iris ring, parfocal, and do not extend while zooming.

Since the camera is rated at 800 iso at 0db, we do not need a fast lens. 3.5-6.3 is enough, and allow the design to be fairly compact and cheap. I think that at a 2000 - 3000, a*manufacturer could sell a good bunch of them.

I think that if Ferrari would build a car that could go 200 Mph, carry 10 people, and haul a load of gravel when necessary, they'd sell a lot of them for $10,000. I just don't understand why they don't do it.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but let's be realistic, no camera is going to be able to cover all the bases. There are always going to be compromises. My last Betacam cost me over $60,000 with a lens in 1999. Now that same $60K will buy me several cameras and quite a few lenses that blow the Betacam out of the water in every way you want to measure it. Today's equipment is a huge bargain and allows me to earn more money with them than ever before. It's not what you spend, it's what the camera earns.

I, for one, don't expect a single camera to ever meet my needs again. I will always have multiple cameras for multiple purposes, and I certainly don't want to be hobbled with a $2K lens that tries to do everything. Decent glass costs money and always will.

The ENG lens on my F800 was over $25K. The lens on my F350 was over $12K. Do we really believe we can get a decent zoom lens for ENG/EFP use for $2K? I won't be buying one of those even if someone builds it.

Doug,

I mean this in the utmost respect as you are a very big authority on
the Sony cameras. But why not? Obviously you don't want that type of
lens as you see too many compromises and would rather use something else,
but if there are people that wouldn't mind being saddled with a lens that
tries to do everything, why not build it? They are already 9/10th of
the way there with the kit lens. The OP said he'd spend 2k on
something that was the speed of the kit lens, with proper iris and
focus and zoom rings and parfocal. Now I think the kit lens is
running about $500-$700. Would adding a proper iris, focus and zoom
ring add enough to make the price go over 2 grand? I honestly
don't know, and maybe it would for reasons I don't understand?
But if it wouldn't, and there is a market......not sure why they
wouldn't do it. I don't like 24p myself, but that doesn't mean
there isn't a market for it......

Maybe I'm just way off base and don't understand lenses here. But it didn't
seem like he was asking for a fast car that doubled (tripled?) as a SUV and
truck. He seemed to be OK with a slow lens just like the kit lens, as long
as it had some ENG type features. So given that he would be ok with a F3.5 - 6.3
is it really out of the realm of possibility?

Gabe,

Obviously I'm exaggerating a bit to make a point, and I don't mean to offend anyone with my sarcasm, but I believe it can't be done on a professional level. If you want to turn the FS100 into a consumer camera, be my guest. But with the "wish list" of features that have been proposed at that price point, it can't be done. Have you looked the prices of decent lenses? There's a reason why they cost what they do. I can pound a nail with a hammer, and eventually get it into the wood, but that doesn't mean it was the right tool for the job. Trying to make the FS100 (or any camera) something that it is not intended for is a waste of time and money . . . in my opinion. Others clearly disagree. Why not just buy an EX1R and be done with it? The shallower DoF isn't that big of a deal compared to all other other shortcomings of trying to make the FS100 into an EX1R.

Funny about the mention of the EX series. Those cameras (I just sold my EX-3) are very good and used by many network programmers, including BBC with a Nano. Part of the appeal is that for the price point they have pretty good lenses, and I doubt if the glass costs much more than $2,000 or so of the overall price. The FS100 version might even cost less because it wouldn't need (couldn't use) the servo zoom.

A lens of that quality configured to fit the FS and its big sensor would be great, and I could live with that. Any thoughts?

Tip McPartland

Doug,

Yeah, I mean I understand.....people are often asking for things
that are unrealistic at the price point they want....and usually
you have to make compromises somewhere. For lenses, you
obviously have a few things......the speed of the lens is usually
proportional to the cost....the 'faster' the lens, the more it costs.
Also, if you have a zoom lens, it can be cheap, but then it is
usually SLOW or it can be semi fast (still not as fast as a prime)
but then it is EXPENSIVE and BIG! So I guess, my question would
be (given that I truthfully don't understand everything involved!)
What would be a realistic price point for big sensor zoom
lens (like for the FS 100) that had an 8 or 10x zoom IF a
person was willing to live with a F3.5 - 6.3 lens, but wanted
'video style' features on it? Is it just not possible
because there isn't the economies of scale for a 'video style'
lens that there is for still lenses? Is it not physically possible?
Is it possible, but only if you are willing to pay 20 - 40 grand?

One of the zoom lenses that Sony has announced for the F3 is very close to what you are asking for. Unfortunately, it wont work on the FS100 and it isn't going to cost $2K - $3K. I have no idea what it will cost, but it won't be that cheap.

Doug,

I had heard that the Sony lens you are talking about was 'rumored' to
cost almost as much as the F3 itself. It was supposed to be a F 3.8
constant throughout the zoom range I think. However, to put to
this in perspective, about 2-3 years ago the local PBS station spent about
the same amount as it would cost to buy the F3 WITH this upcoming zoom
lens just to buy a F-355!

That one's very nice. Here's my idea for a similar lens, but much cheaper:

Sony SAL-2875 28-75mm f/2.8 SAM Constant Aperture Zoom SAL2875 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/646853-REG/Sony_SAL2875_SAL_2875_28_75mm_f_2_8_SAM.html)

Actually there is a world of difference one is professional grade with Zeiss ED glass optics, image stabilization and host of other features. It may be twice the cost but it is five times the lens.

It's ok if the aperture is 3.5f-6.3f. With a base sensitivity of ISO 800, this is about the same thing as using the lens provided with the EX3.

This statement bothers me, I don't understand how you think F3.5-6.3 would be useful for ENG work? The EX1/3 also has a native ISO 800 sensor and both camera's come with F1.9 a lens at F3.5 you are looking at some bad low light performance.

The low light spec's according to B&H.

Sony EX1/3:
0.14 lux (Typical)
1920 x 1080/59.94i mode, f/1.9, +18 dB gain, with 64-Frame Accumulation

Sony FS-100:
0.28 lx (1/30 shutter, IRIS F1.4, Auto GAIN)

You get good low light performance at F2.8 & lower. F3.5 is a full stop darker than F2.8. At F6.3 you almost need to be outside in full daylight to get any good results. Correct me if I'm wrong?

I think one of the key issues everyone is forgetting here is that very, very few DSLR zooms are parfocal. As you zoom the focus changes, it may not be by much but it's enough to make the pictures go in and out of focus when you zoom. That's why DSLR zooms are cheap compared to professional video zooms.

There is also the issues associated with producing a lens with silky smooth zoom operation with no change in tension or friction throughout the range. If your going to motorise a lens then the mechanics of that lens need to be far superior to a DSLR zoom. A further issue is the way most DSLR zooms telescope. That makes them all but impossible to use with a matte box of any kind an in addition at the extended position there is often a lot of movement in the lens barrel. That doesn't hurt too much with a still photo but you try shooting on a windy day and the wind is going to wobble the end of the lens making it next to useless for video.

Creating a Parfocal lens with silky smooth mechanics is much tougher and more expensive than making a cheap varifocal stills zoom where it really doesn't matter how smooth the zoom action is. Sure it can be done, but it's not going to be cheap.

This statement bothers me, I don't understand how you think F3.5-6.3 would be useful for ENG work? The EX1/3 also has a native ISO 800 sensor and both camera's come with F1.9 a lens at F3.5 you are looking at some bad low light performance.


On EX1 the ISO varies depending on the settings Adam Wilt did some tests

ProVideo Coalition.com: Camera Log by Adam Wilt | Founder | Pro Cameras, HDV Camera, HD Camera, Sony, Panasonic, JVC, RED, Video Camera Reviews (http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/review_sony_pmw_ex1_1_2_3_cmos_hd_camcorder/P3/)

The gamma settings can alter the ISO, some people are rating it at 320.

I'm not sure about the large sensor cameras as traditional ENG cameras, perhaps more for feature pieces rather than hard news. Although, there's nothing to stop people doing so, the traditional 2/3" ENG lens with a built in x 2 is extremely versatile for this work.

This statement bothers me, I don't understand how you think F3.5-6.3 would be useful for ENG work? The EX1/3 also has a native ISO 800 sensor and both camera's come with F1.9 a lens at F3.5 you are looking at some bad low light performance.

The low light spec's according to B&H.

Sony EX1/3:
0.14 lux (Typical)
1920 x 1080/59.94i mode, f/1.9, +18 dB gain, with 64-Frame Accumulation

Sony FS-100:
0.28 lx (1/30 shutter, IRIS F1.4, Auto GAIN)

You get good low light performance at F2.8 & lower. F3.5 is a full stop darker than F2.8. At F6.3 you almost need to be outside in full daylight to get any good results. Correct me if I'm wrong?

I keep reading that the EX1 is rated at ISO 320. FS100 is rated at iso 800. It's 1 1/3 stop faster. at f 3.5, the kit lens is about 1 2/3 slower than the EX1 lens. So the two cameras equiped with these lenses are about 1/3 stop from each other at 0db, the EX1 have the advantage. I can live with it.

I think one of the key issues everyone is forgetting here is that very, very few DSLR zooms are parfocal. As you zoom the focus changes, it may not be by much but it's enough to make the pictures go in and out of focus when you zoom. That's why DSLR zooms are cheap compared to professional video zooms.

There is also the issues associated with producing a lens with silky smooth zoom operation with no change in tension or friction throughout the range. If your going to motorise a lens then the mechanics of that lens need to be far superior to a DSLR zoom. A further issue is the way most DSLR zooms telescope. That makes them all but impossible to use with a matte box of any kind an in addition at the extended position there is often a lot of movement in the lens barrel. That doesn't hurt too much with a still photo but you try shooting on a windy day and the wind is going to wobble the end of the lens making it next to useless for video.

Creating a Parfocal lens with silky smooth mechanics is much tougher and more expensive than making a cheap varifocal stills zoom where it really doesn't matter how smooth the zoom action is. Sure it can be done, but it's not going to be cheap.

I understand that, but I assumed, perhaps badly, that you can "transform" a 700$ still lens in a proper ENG one for 2000-3000$.

Of course we can continue to have multiple cameras for multiple kind of scenarios. And the lack of such a lens is not a deal breaker for me. I already have one preordered. In the last two years, my 7D got a lot more work than my XLH1 and EX1.

But as a freelancer, I would have liked to get this camera to be super versatile and have only one workflow for all my work.

Perhaps AbelCine will make an adapter like the HDx35 one they do for the F3 that allows you to use 2/3" ENG zooms on the FS100. Only problem is the cost, $5,800 for the adapter plus a good HD zoom lens.

The extra engineering and lens sophistication required to make a Parfocal lens compared to a varifocal is significant. Just look at the price of the very cheapest 2/3" HD eng lenses and then consider it is much harder to make a zoom lens for a 35mm sensor than a 2/3" one.

The extra engineering and lens sophistication required to make a Parfocal lens compared to a varifocal is significant. Just look at the price of the very cheapest 2/3" HD eng lenses and then consider it is much harder to make a zoom lens for a 35mm sensor than a 2/3" one.

I totally agree and I am well aware for the cost of 2/3" lenses. But I assumed that making a slower one (broadcast lenses are usually pretty fast, f1.6, f1.8 is not uncommon) would render it easier and less expensive to build. I must be wrong.

Our HDx35 optical adapter could be used on the FS100 with a PL adapter.. Of course the adapter costs more then the camera :) But you would be able to use an ENG style lens on the camera. Their are huge advantages to ENG style lenses, but I don't really believe this would be a popular combination.

Actually there is a world of difference one is professional grade with Zeiss ED glass optics, image stabilization and host of other features. It may be twice the cost but it is five times the lens.

Well, you know your budget and I know mine. Sometimes "good enough" really is good enough.

I had an interesting fixed-lens Super 8 camera 35 years ago:

CHINON PACIFIC 12 SMR SUPER 8mm Movie Camera | eBay (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&_trksid=p4340.l2557&item=200581039566&nma=true&rt=nc&si=Mu0QA%252FvDFve%252BmDcpKly8hzGL5q4%253D#ht_1632wt_1143)

As I recall, it had a 12:1 parfocal f/1.7 power zoom lens and cost less than $1000 1970s dollars.

The Beaulieus cost more (~$2000 in 1970s dollars), but they had very fast (e.g., f/1.2) interchangeable C-mount Angenieux and Schneider parfocal power zooms.

If there's a market for it, it can be manufactured at an affordable price.

Sadly, the mass market for interchangeable-lens power zooms pretty much disappeared with high-end Super 8.

Doing a quick on-line inflation calculation, that's about $10,000 in today's money.

I imagine the Fujinon for the JVC might be a better model. Although I imagine you'd be talking about an f 4 ish max aperture for a Super 35 sensor and lesser build standard than the broadcast lenses.

Fujinon TH13x3.5BRMU 13x 1/3" JVC ProHD Lens TH13X3.5BRMU

The larger glass for Super 35 would mean adding some more mechanical beef, making it closer to a 2/3" lens in size.

FYI: Minolta made a power zooms: "In terms of overall build quality, Minolta's xi power zoom lenses from the early 1990s may represent a high water mark."

IF an A-mount adaptor had power contacts -- and a source of power -- there are controls on the lenses to zoom.

There are six different Minolta Maxxum Power Zoom lenses:
35-80 f/4-5.6
28-80 f/4-5.6
28-105 f/3.5-4.5
80-200 f/4.5-5.6
35-200 f/4.5-5.6


THESE ARE IDEAL:
MINOLTA MOTORIZED 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 ZOOM Xi LENS MAXXUM SONY ALPHA $100

Minolta Maxxum 28-80mm f4-5.6 Zoom Xi AF Lens for Sony $80

This should add a little substance to one's dreams:

http://www.angenieux.com/file/datasheets/cinema/pdf_Catalogue_2011-2012/24-290_catalog_2011.pdf

Make that nightmares. 12Kg, almost half a meter long. £450 per day to rent. As the sensors get bigger, so does the glass...

Of course it's big. 2.8 f constant aperture over 12x of zoom range... that's why I asked for something like the kit lens; 3.5-6.3, just repackaged to be more adapted to video work.

But it seems to be impossible...

Your best bet might be a version of the servo zoom that Sony are bringing out for the F3, possibly being announced at IBC, but it'll probably cost more than the FS 100. Most stills zoom aren't parfocal, which restricts the options for adaptation as an ENG style lens

Well, that zoom lens is designed for the F3's native mount and there's no way you're going to adapt it for use on an FS100. So keep looking . . . but nobody's going to come up with a nice ENG lens with servo 10x zoom, etc. for a S-35mm sensor for $2K. It's impossible.

Yes, that why I said a version of the lens I'd presume made by Sony if they thought it worth while.

Although, that's not say that an optical engineer couldn't change the lens mount to fit the FS100, depending on the mechanical design of the lens. That's been done quite a bit with cine lenses over the years, but anything like that costs.money. Not thing to do if you want something cheap.

It could be cheaper just to buy an EX3 and use it as a zoom, because you won't probably be gaining any real advantages with these slow zooms.

I can pound a nail with a hammer, and eventually get it into the wood, but that doesn't mean it was the right tool for the job.

Isn't that what a hammer is suppose to do? Sorry just being a smart a$$.

Seriously, one thing that seems to be missing is that such a lens on a FS100 would most likely not be in high demand. Even though it may be possible to engineer such a lens and manufacture it, and sell it for say $3000 under good sales numbers, it probably wouldn't be in high demand so by the time you figure development costs and tooling costs they would have to sell it for much more to make it a wise business decision. So, if they now have to sell the same lens for $6000 why wouldn't someone go out and buy an EX1R which is better suited for that shooting situation?

I understand the appeal of having a camera that can cover many situations. But as has already been expressed, what you usually end up with is a compromise on many levels. To use Doug's example of a Ferrari that can hold 10 people and haul a load of gravel, it's not an issue of how much it will cost., but more of the fact that it is impossible to meet both needs to an acceptable level of quality. Yes you can get something that is close to being as good, but as the demand for quality raises, it becomes more and more apparent that there are short comings. To me, it's a lot like the comparison between German cars. I will never buy a BMW. No offense to BMW's, they are very nice cars, sporty, luxurious, but in the end they are a compromise. If I want a luxury car, I'll buy a Mercedes to get that little bit more luxury and ride, and if I want a performance car I'll buy a Porsche so that I can go out and rack up the tickets. I view cameras in the same way. I'd rather have an FS-100 without an ENG lens plus an EX3 in my kit (actually I'd rather have an F3 plus and EX3 but that's another $15,000 story).

Just my two pennies.

Oops! I guess I better do a better job proof reading my posts. Glad you got the point anyway.

Yesterday I ordered a Novoflex Nikon to NEX adapter in anticipation of the FS100 arriving soon. Will be ordering a PL adapter soon.

It could be cheaper just to buy an EX3 and use it as a zoom, because you won't probably be gaining any real advantages with these slow zooms.

I'm not so sure about that. On an FS100, the lens that would be approximately equivalent in DOF an FOV to the EX3 stock lens would be a 21-293mm f6.3-11. I'm not sure about you, but I think an 18-250 f3.5-6.3 is still a pretty good improvement over that (about 2stops faster).

It was more a rhetorical comment, but it really depends on what you want to use this camera for and if a shallower DOF is a requirement in the type of productions where you tend to use ENG zoom lenses. There are non ENG zooms that you could use with it, such as RED zooms, which you can buy used and either fit a fluid zoom drive or rig a used servo motor zoom system.

Choices also depend on if you want a parfocal or varifocal zoom.

I think a lot of Canon DSLR users will be FS-100 customers. Considering this, what is the situation with EOS lenses? There seems some confusion on these as far as adapters and I am told only the Birger Engineering will allow iris control or auto-exposure.
Can anyone clear this up.... Doug?

I have mostly Canon L glass myself - but all zooms. I would like to move to 3 or 4 primes for the FS-100 even though I am a documentary guy.

I'm a Nikon guy, so the Canon mounts don't interest me too much. :-)
But I agree, a lot FS100 buyers will be coming from Canon, so I'll be looking into solutions when my FS100 arrives. Until then, I've learned not to waste too much time on stuff until I really need to know . . . because things change so fast these days.

I'll have a Birger Canon mount to play with next week, so I'll let you know.

Hi Alister.
did you play with it?
Really looking forward to see if Birger managed to drive focus motors in a way I can dismiss mechanical ff and older Nikkors.
Thanks

The Canon mount is ready?....good.

My FS-100 arrives on Monday so I am shopping for lens options right now.

Regarding a zoom did anyone see this new release from Sigma .... 120-300mm F.28!! for $3k -A-mount.

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS APO HSM AF Lens 136205 B&H Photo