Lenses for the FS5

[Tom Gresham]

Thanks, guys. I knew it looked good.

Just thinking . . . we deliver in HD. But, if we shot certain scenes in 4K, using the 1.5X for the digital zoom, we could then push in . . . 4X? . . . in edit for a massive zoom?

[Mark R. Olsen]

Hi All,

Excuse me if this question has been answered elsewhere but for the FS 5, lens wise I think the Canon 24-105\Speedbooster appears a very good option but how does the Clear Image Zoom work with the manual zoom after you have manually zoomed in ? Do you switch to an assignable zoom button to continue the zoom or what ? Thanks.

[Nate Haustein]

Using the Sigma 24-105mm F/4 (or should I say F2.8!) with a Speedbooster with excellent results. The lens operates like normal, and you set the digital zoom of the camera with the lens rocker on the grip. It stays where you set it, so depending on what magnification you choose, your lens could be a 24-105mm or a 36-158mm when the Clear Image zoom is set to 1.0x or 1.5x respectively. Typically, I use the camera at 1.0x (no zoom) and when I want to go tighter than 105mm, I hit the zoom rocker to punch in.

The Sigma is in my opinion a better lens than the Canon with the one caveat that it's not parfocal. Sharper and without the 1/2 stop of light loss on the long end of the Canon that drove me nuts when I had that lens. The zoom and focus operation on the Sigma the smoothest I've ever had on a non-cinema lens.

[Chad Johnson]

Originally Posted by Nate Haustein

The Sigma is in my opinion a better lens than the Canon with the one caveat that it's not parfocal.

I too use the Sigma 24-105 f/4 Art Lens, and I love it!
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1009621-REG/sigma_635_101_24_105mm_f4_dg_os.html
I use the Speedbooster Ultra, making it an f/2.8. But actually the lens is parfocal. It stays in focus throughout the whole zoom range. At least mine does! I did a lot of research before buying it, and it's a better performer than the Canon 24-105 f/4, though a half pound heavier. Also I hear the Canon's IS is loud enough to get picked up by a mic mounted on the camera. So the Sigma 24-105 is my workhorse for now, but I plan to go wider and longer.

For Tele I'm about to pull the trigger on the awesome Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680103-USA/Canon_2751B002_EF_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS.html
It's close to 2 grand. It's just over 3lbs, so I'm worried about it hurting the E mount. It would be nice to not have to get all railed up just for that lens so I can add a support point. I haven't seen anyone else using this lens with the FS5, and I don't know why. It is one of those life-long lenses that will stay with you through all your camera bodies. Anyone have any opinions on the Canon 70-200? It's such a sharp lens that one could double the reach using the Canon Extender EF 2x III without losing too much sharpness. That could be a cheaper compromise than buying whole other 200-400 lens.

The wide lens I'm considering is the Canon 16-35 f/2.8.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486708-USA/Canon_1910B002AA_EF_16_35mm_f_2_8L_II.html
It's very wide without being too distorted (there is some of course) and with the Speedbooster it becomes an f/2. I'm holding off on this because rumors say a new version is coming out soon. I'm hoping one with IS. There is an f/4 version with IS, but I want the f/2.8. I can live without IS.

[Alfred Okocha]

Chad, with the speed booster the 16-35L F4 will go down to 2.8. I use it on my FS5 and it works very well.

[Chad Johnson]

I'm aware of that Alfred. I want it at f/2.0.

[Alfred Okocha]

Ok, sorry, I realise I kind of pointed out the obvious perhaps. IMHO less than 2.8 makes it very difficult to keep things in focus, if you don't work with immobile objects. Then it's great!

[Alfred Okocha]

Originally Posted by Slavik Boyechko

The Speedbooster .7x will make the lens 17mm on the wide end, and with the Clear Image Zoom in HD (2x), it'll be a 147mm at the long end, (The actual 35mm equivalent will be different, but nevermind that). Plus f/2.8 with really good IS. So, an affordable 17-147mm f/2.8 IS lens - that's gold.


Cheers,
Slavik

I really don't think this is accurate. I have the same set up but it definitely doesn't become a 17mm on the wide end. I'd say there is no change at all. It works as a 24-105mm. Or are there different kinds of Metabones T Speedbooster?

[Nate Haustein]

You're very lucky then! My Signa is not parfocal with the A7s. I just tried it and it's ever so slightly off when you zoom back out wide.

[Chad Johnson]

Originally Posted by Alfred Okocha

Ok, sorry, I realise I kind of pointed out the obvious perhaps. IMHO less than 2.8 makes it very difficult to keep things in focus, if you don't work with immobile objects. Then it's great!

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!. And the Ultra's crop is .7. So when combined with the crop of a super35 sensor (1.5) the lens ends up working at close to the focal length written on it.
Let's do the math:
24mm x 1.5 (super35 crop) = 36mm. 36mm x .7(Speedbooster Ultra crop) = 25.2mm.

So that makes it easier when using the FS5. The numbers on the lens are fairly close to what we're actually getting when we use the Metabones Speedboster ULtra with a full frame lens. Add to that an extra stop of light with no DOF decrease, I'd say it's worth the 650.00.

[Alfred Okocha]

Originally Posted by Chad Johnson

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.

Are you sure that the DOF remains the same? How does that work? I could swear that I struggle more at 2.8 than 4.
And yes, I really enjoy the Speedbooster too. Thanks for explaining the math. I couldn't quite figure out before how it worked!

[Chad Johnson]

I think I oversimplified it. I don't fully understand what's going on. The Bokeh definitely remains the same as the lens itself.

Here's what the Metabones FAQ says:

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.

[Terence Morris]

Originally Posted by Chad Johnson

I too use the Sigma 24-105 f/4 Art Lens, and I love it!
Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM Art Lens for Canon EF 635-101 B&H

I use the Speedbooster Ultra, making it an f/2.8. But actually the lens is parfocal. It stays in focus throughout the whole zoom range. At least mine does! I did a lot of research before buying it, and it's a better performer than the Canon 24-105 f/4, though a half pound heavier. Also I hear the Canon's IS is loud enough to get picked up by a mic mounted on the camera. So the Sigma 24-105 is my workhorse for now, but I plan to go wider and longer.

Chad, your lens selection summary, in particular for the 24-105 range as an all round event/docu lens for the FS5, is really useful for me. My shortlist was the Canon 17-55 f2.8 with the E-mount smart adapter (least expensive), or the 24-105mm F4 Canon or Sigma with the Metabones Ultra T SpeedBooster. There have been varying reports about camera to lens communication via different the Metabones adaptors, in particular quirky aperture control. I'm guessing, aside from being satisfied with the image quality, you have no issues with the Sigma in this respect? Thank you.

Terence

[Chad Johnson]

Hi Terence,

Yes I'm loving the Sigma 24-105 f4 with the Speedbooster Ultra. The "Ultra" gives you a .7 crop factor which makes whatever full frame lens even out to close to what is marked on the lens. I usually like lenses to be a bit wider so with the Ultra I'm getting an f2.8 and the 24mm end is actually 25.2 (24 x 1.5 x .7) which is fairly close. I am waiting for NAB where Canon is expected to announce their 16-35 f2.8 mark III. I have fingers crossed for IS, but it probably won't have it. I'm holding out for only f2.8 lenses now so I'm getting an f2 indoors where light is scarce. I could get the Canon 16-35 f4 that does have IS, and is newer, sharper and cheaper than the f2.8, but that extra stop can come in handy when you need it.

My Iris control on the camera works with the Sigma lens, so there are not any issues that bother me. I usually set the iris where I want it, then use the variable ND to control exposure, at least outside. Auto focus is slow/non working, but nobody really should be using auto focus for video. Even in the best case scenario your focus is going to hunt sometimes, and you can't fix that in post.

[Terence Morris]

That's great and just the reassurance I'm after. I would rarely use autofocus either. I think I will go with the Sigma then. The SpeedBooster is quite a chunk of money, but well invested I think for future glass. Thanks again!