A manifesto for the humble zoom lens

[Mark Romero 2]

@kye Amen.

[greenscreen]

50 minutes ago, kye said:

Not sure what specific post you're referring to, but most kit lenses are ~24-70, most secondary zooms are 70-200, and most systems have a 16-35 equivalent.  The numbers all look different between brands and mounts etc, but they mostly boil down to those ranges.

I meant the aforementioned Sigma 18-35/1.8. And that link with the FF coverage for a part of its range. So, no idea if wide open too?

[Tim Sewell]

Gotta say I reaaaalllly don't like that Pana 20-60. I used it on this shoot for the short bits when I was on the gimbal and next to the images from my copy of the aforementioned Tokina 28-70 ATX Pro 2.6-2.8 (which I love) it was so videoish as to render some of the clips unusable due to my inability to get them even close to matching. I also used my 35mm, 85mm and 135mm Super Taks, so covered all the bases WRT this thread!
 

 

[bjohn]

4 hours ago, kye said:

With the BM S16 cameras they tend to be on the softer side due to 1080p sensors and lock of sharpening so having a tack-sharp lens isn't a bad thing per-se, it's just on the bland side.

"Just on the bland side" is the key for me. I get that the Sigma 18-35 provides you with a tabula rasa for whatever look you want to apply in post, but I view a lens more as a partner than a tool: I like lenses that assert their own character (which doesn't necessarily mean aberrations, just some distinction in the rendering and bokeh), and add an element of unpredictability. I don't want to be totally in control, either for stills or video; I like seeing what a lens offers in terms of its own look and learning to work within that universe.

[projectwoofer]

6 hours ago, Tim Sewell said:

Gotta say I reaaaalllly don't like that Pana 20-60. I used it on this shoot for the short bits when I was on the gimbal and next to the images from my copy of the aforementioned Tokina 28-70 ATX Pro 2.6-2.8 (which I love) it was so videoish as to render some of the clips unusable due to my inability to get them even close to matching. I also used my 35mm, 85mm and 135mm Super Taks, so covered all the bases WRT this thread!
 

 

I also mostly use old lenses, I love my Canon FDs and I also find some east German and soviet lenses very interesting but the 20-60 gives me very nice results too and I find the 20mm very useful for some really wide shots. I get that its look is more "modern" though.

[kye]

On 11/16/2021 at 5:51 PM, bjohn said:

"Just on the bland side" is the key for me. I get that the Sigma 18-35 provides you with a tabula rasa for whatever look you want to apply in post, but I view a lens more as a partner than a tool: I like lenses that assert their own character (which doesn't necessarily mean aberrations, just some distinction in the rendering and bokeh), and add an element of unpredictability. I don't want to be totally in control, either for stills or video; I like seeing what a lens offers in terms of its own look and learning to work within that universe.

Actually, there is such a thing as a mathematically perfect lens, and any deviation from that is theoretically defective, and therefore all character is made from aberrations.  

This isn't a criticism, and it's not pedantic either - I say this because it's helpful.  Once you realise that all character in a lens are deviations from perfection then it frames all of these into the same category.  Everyone agrees that some aberrations are good and others are definitely not, so then it just becomes a matter of taste.  This gets us away from the idea that there are two categories called "character" and <insert bad word here> and then arguing over what things fall into which categories.

It also helps in understanding what character is.  If you understand that it's made from particular elements that are measurable then you can start to narrow down what they are, understand where those might come from, and understand how one can select for them, potentially while removing the aberrations that are not to your tastes.

I've gone a decent distance down the lens rabbit hole and have a passing understanding of some of the aberrations that I like, but it's ridiculously deep.  Here are a couple of videos from a pair who are trying to write a book about the subject, which apparently is still years away and current drafts are over 1000 pages!

This is part of a larger theme around the creative elements of film, and where Steve Yedlin put it really well when he said:

Quote

The elusive thing that we call the photographic look is an abstract phenomenon. It's the aggregate perceptual experience that emerges from the sum of many smaller attributes that clue the eye.

So, the question is: can we as filmmakers identify, isolate and understand any of these underlying attributes so that we can manipulate them meaningfully for ourselves, or are we forever relegated to the status of shoppers; browsing for pre-packaged solutions and then wearing the badge of brand allegiance to the one we select.

Source: http://www.yedlin.net/OnColorScience/

He was talking about colour science and not about lenses specifically, but the principle holds.  Far too many of us are just choosing from pre-packaged solutions and not understanding the smaller attributes.

Right at the opening of the first lens video Christopher Probst says "yeah I've got to be careful what I talk about because I'm still buying lenses [from ebay] too".  So, what does this tell you?  The guy who is literally writing the book on lenses knows enough to be buying lenses from eBay that he thinks are undervalued and doesn't want to give the game away about them until he's bought the hidden gems he's found...  

The big take-away for me from those two videos was that the optical recipe was a thing that drives a lot of my interest, along with diffusion characteristics of the various coatings.  

These are particularly useful things to me because:

• Knowing I prefer older and simpler optical recipes means that instead of trying to buy CZ primes (which are very costly) I can buy modern copies from Chinese factories that are made very well but are much more reasonably priced
• Knowing I prefer certain levels of diffusion from the lens coatings (and a certain amount of flaring) means I can investigate filters that emulate these characteristics
• Knowing how to read the optical properties of lenses through MTF charts, and also knowing that perfect isn't actually desirable, I can draw parallels between Zeiss Super Speeds and Cooke Panchros (lenses that no-one here can afford) and the Helios 44 lens that everyone here can afford, and then understand the parallels between those and the modern lenses available from China that I previously mentioned

Knowing these things is actually empowering in a very real and practical way.  Taking a one-dimensional view of lenses and just separating them into "Good Character" and "Bad" is neither empowering, nor helpful.

You said you like to have the lens be more like a partner instead of a tool, this is a way to understand what kind of partner you'd like.  If I said that character in people was definable, you might balk and say it wasn't possible.  If I insisted it was then you might say you didn't want to know, but you actually do.  Imagine the character of two potential business partners below, and then tell me you'd prefer not to know about these and would rather choose at random:

• Partner A character traits: deceitful, grandiose, manipulative, emotionally unstable, volatile
• Partner B character traits: indecisive, ambitious, natural salesman, excitable, sentimental

Here's the funny thing, those two people could easily present as initially quite similar.  They talk big, their story changes a bit over time, they're dynamic, etc.  Knowing the traits and being able to read them gives insight.  It doesn't take away the mystery though.  Knowing everything isn't the only alternative to knowing nothing.

[kye]

An addenda to the above.

Think about the crap that people dump onto kit lenses and the mythical attributes they give to other lenses like the Helios and the 12-35/2.8 etc, and then compare that with the images I posted at the start of this thread.

If all you are doing is "browsing for pre-packaged solutions" then the conventional wisdom is radically misleading.  This "browsing" is the path to overpaying for what is trendy, not developing your own style, and likely using the wrong tool for the wrong job and not even knowing that it could be different.

[Emanuel]

On 11/16/2021 at 6:19 AM, greenscreen said:

I meant the aforementioned Sigma 18-35/1.8. And that link with the FF coverage for a part of its range. So, no idea if wide open too?

Expect no more vignetting* than this here:

source

24mm f/1.8

source

 

* which bothers me zero when under (crop &) control

 

[bjohn]

10 hours ago, kye said:

You said you like to have the lens be more like a partner instead of a tool, this is a way to understand what kind of partner you'd like.

Agreed, but you can choose to arrive at that understanding analytically the way you describe, or you can develop it through experience. I take the latter approach: I spend time looking at images shot with different lenses, gravitate to the ones that intrigue or resonate with me, buy those lenses, and then spend a couple of years getting to know them. I enjoy that process even if it's less efficient, and it has worked very well for me so far: I get a good idea for what that partner will be like under different conditions before I buy it, simply by looking at lots of images shot with it. I don't actually care about the specific technical factors that contribute to a lens's overall look.

I think either approach is valid, one is more analytical and the other more intuitive, but they're both based on evidence.

[kye]

3 hours ago, bjohn said:

Agreed, but you can choose to arrive at that understanding analytically the way you describe, or you can develop it through experience. I take the latter approach: I spend time looking at images shot with different lenses, gravitate to the ones that intrigue or resonate with me, buy those lenses, and then spend a couple of years getting to know them. I enjoy that process even if it's less efficient, and it has worked very well for me so far: I get a good idea for what that partner will be like under different conditions before I buy it, simply by looking at lots of images shot with it. I don't actually care about the specific technical factors that contribute to a lens's overall look.

I think either approach is valid, one is more analytical and the other more intuitive, but they're both based on evidence.

Yes, they're both valid, although I'd argue that an analytical approach is likely to get a better result, faster.

There are hundreds of variations of each focal length, maybe thousands for common ones, so the likelihood that you would stumble onto the best one for your preferences, or even one in the top 5, just by randomly looking at Flickr or whatever is pretty small.

If, on the other hand, you worked out that you like a certain quality of bokeh, then come to understand that the bokeh is a function of the optical recipe, then understand the history and usage of that recipe, then you're likely to be lead relatively quickly to potentially unknown resources where lists of lenses you've never heard of that have this trait are catalogued.

This might seem like a hugely specific thing that no-one actually does, but optical recipe is hugely common and is referred to almost as a matter of course in lens reviews - this is when reviews say a lens has "11 lens elements in 9 groups", and maybe mention how many are aspherical.  I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but I know that I wasn't until recently.  Since I worked it out, I realise that this is commonly included in lens reviews and specs, and there are many common lens formulas that get talked about regularly too, like Petzval, Tessar, Distagon, etc.

There are equivalents for other lens design aspects as well.

It just depends on what your goals are, if your goals are to look at lots of pictures and maybe get the best lens from a random selection of images then go right ahead, but if your goal is to get the best lens for your application and tastes then a more methodical approach is going to be more effective and hugely faster.  

[Trek of Joy]

Sony shooter checking in - and I love zooms. I shoot the a7sIII, a7III (though that will the the IV soon, hopefully LOL!) and the a6300 for a small/light/cheap backup or tiny walkabout cam. Though I love fast, sharp primes and I'm a shallow DOF/creamy bokeh junkie, most of my work is with the zoom trinity for its versatility, and most of that is the 24-70. I can't imaging being an all prime shooter and all the lens changes LOL! But I've always tried to keep my kit mobile in one medium size backpack - so I can carry 2 or 3 bodies with lenses and a prime or two, plus my drone in something like a Lowepro 450 size bag.

I've always worked best with the holy trinity - that's been a UWA somewhere in the 16-35 range (most recently the 12-24/4) and the standard which is the Sigma 24-70/2.8 right now. For the last year the long end of that trifecta has been the Tamron 70-180, which replaced the Sony GM and has been brilliant thanks to its size and great IQ. I use it a lot more than the GM since it's pretty much always in my bag. 

But Tamron has thrown a major wrench in the works with the new 35-150/f2-2.8 that has me seriously thinking about running a mostly 2-lens kit of the 16-35 GM/35-150 with 2-3 fast primes sprinkled in for smaller/faster stuff indoors or just for bokeh fun. The Tammy is faster than my 2.8 zoom through 60mm, but I'd lose a lot on the wide end and would need to carry a UWA - but realistically this could replace my 35/85 f/1.8's and the 24-70/70-180 with another lens on the wide end. I think LOL! There's definitely a mental barrier consolidating four lenses into one and workflow changes since I use the 24-70 on the wide end a lot. And with my first baby on the way, I want a fast prime or two for indoor low light shooting and some super bokeh shots of her little hands and feet and such. I've always been a 24/35/85 shooter, but there are just too many options to fill in primes around that 35-150 that I can decide, plus change is hard since I've had the trinity for more than a decade.

One E-mount outlier is the tiny a7c 28-60 kit lens. Its ridiculously small, really sharp and makes for a great gimbal lens or just a fun, small walkabout lens. For a $250 lens used, its amazing.

Cheers

Chris

[ac6000cw]

On 11/15/2021 at 10:09 PM, projectwoofer said:

I still love my Panasonic 12-32. On the GX85 it’s such a nice and portable combo. On the FF side the 20-60 is just gorgeous. But what do I know? I’m just an amateur with a camera! 😉

Me too... the convenience factor is huge versus a carrying around (and changing between) a whole collection of primes.

I think at least 99% of my video (and stills) is taken using three micro 4/3 zoom lenses - Pana 14-140mm f3.5-5.6, Pana (non-Leica) 12-60mm f3.5-5.6 and Olympus 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 (primarily used for wildlife). Used primarily on a G9, E-M1 mk2 and GX80.

They are relatively small & light and the two Pana zooms support Dual-IS2 on my G9. Having the Dual-IS support is far more important to me (as I shoot nearly everything handheld) than any small gains in performance I might get using non-stabilised primes. I also have the Pana 12-32 and Oly 14-42 EZ 'pancake' zooms, which get used when I want to keep things as small as possible.

I do have a small collection of small/light primes (12mm f2 Samyang, 20mm f1.7 & 25mm f1.7 Pana) but they normally only get used in very low light situations.

[PannySVHS]

great write ups, kye. thanks! my dream lens is a zoom lens. just not sayin which one at the moment, just lemme check ebay again:) would love a 2x or 3x s16 lens for my bmmcc cuby. anyone?

[kye]

On 11/23/2021 at 1:23 AM, Trek of Joy said:

Sony shooter checking in - and I love zooms. I shoot the a7sIII, a7III (though that will the the IV soon, hopefully LOL!) and the a6300 for a small/light/cheap backup or tiny walkabout cam. Though I love fast, sharp primes and I'm a shallow DOF/creamy bokeh junkie, most of my work is with the zoom trinity for its versatility, and most of that is the 24-70. I can't imaging being an all prime shooter and all the lens changes LOL! But I've always tried to keep my kit mobile in one medium size backpack - so I can carry 2 or 3 bodies with lenses and a prime or two, plus my drone in something like a Lowepro 450 size bag.

I've always worked best with the holy trinity - that's been a UWA somewhere in the 16-35 range (most recently the 12-24/4) and the standard which is the Sigma 24-70/2.8 right now. For the last year the long end of that trifecta has been the Tamron 70-180, which replaced the Sony GM and has been brilliant thanks to its size and great IQ. I use it a lot more than the GM since it's pretty much always in my bag. 

But Tamron has thrown a major wrench in the works with the new 35-150/f2-2.8 that has me seriously thinking about running a mostly 2-lens kit of the 16-35 GM/35-150 with 2-3 fast primes sprinkled in for smaller/faster stuff indoors or just for bokeh fun. The Tammy is faster than my 2.8 zoom through 60mm, but I'd lose a lot on the wide end and would need to carry a UWA - but realistically this could replace my 35/85 f/1.8's and the 24-70/70-180 with another lens on the wide end. I think LOL! There's definitely a mental barrier consolidating four lenses into one and workflow changes since I use the 24-70 on the wide end a lot. And with my first baby on the way, I want a fast prime or two for indoor low light shooting and some super bokeh shots of her little hands and feet and such. I've always been a 24/35/85 shooter, but there are just too many options to fill in primes around that 35-150 that I can decide, plus change is hard since I've had the trinity for more than a decade.

One E-mount outlier is the tiny a7c 28-60 kit lens. Its ridiculously small, really sharp and makes for a great gimbal lens or just a fun, small walkabout lens. For a $250 lens used, its amazing.

Cheers

Chris

They call them the Trinity of zoom lenses for a reason!

One thing worth considering with the Sony cameras is the Clearimage zoom, which is very high quality.  From what I saw (watching through the 4K YouTube compression of course) was that it was invisible up to about 1.4x magnification.  I also recall from the A73 that you could punch in to a 1:1 (?) 4K mode, which also gave a 1.4x magnification.  Combined they give a 2X factor, which you may find high quality enough to use to extend the long end of your 24-70.

It's a tough thing, moving from a 16-35 + 24-70 to a 16-35 + 35-150.  If it were me, I'd be thinking about:

1. How many of your shots are wider than 35mm
2. How many times those shots occurred after a shot longer than 35mm
3. How many times that transition had to be done in a hurry, or what the time cost would be if you had to change lenses constantly
4. How many times you could use the 1.4x crop / Clearimage zoom on the 16-35mm to get a longer shot (and therefore avoid changing from the 16-35 to the 35-150)
5. How many times you could use the 1.4x crop / Clearimage zoom on the 24-70mm to get a shot longer than 70mm
6. What the optical performance of your lenses is when wide open (as a 1.4x or 2x crop into their image circle will reveal softness or other issues)

My travel kit is 7.5/2 + 17.5/0.95 + 42.5/0.95 (FF equivalents of 15/4 + 35/1.9 + 85/1.9).  I originally had the 17.5 and was using a 58mm as the longer lens but I found the gap from 17.5 -> 58 to be too large (3.3x) so I bought the 42.5mm (2.4x).  The 17.5mm (35mm) stays on the camera most of the time so that's the default lens.  

However, I bought that kit while I was filming in the GH5 4K mode which I could get a 1.4x zoom by punching into the sensor.  I have since switched to 1080p to get ALL-I and therefore eliminating the need for proxies in my workflow, and in that mode I can engage the 2x digital zoom, which creates a 1080p image by downsampling a ~2.5K area of the sensor, and is higher quality than the 1:1 mode.

This means that instead of the 35mm cropping to a 49mm equivalent and having a large gap between that and the longer prime which was 116mm equivalent, it means that the 35mm crops to a 70mm which is a lot closer to that 116mm equivalent.  So I now have a 35mm(70mm) then an 85, which you could argue isn't so useful because they're so close together.  Had I known this before I bought the 85 equivalent, I might have gone in a different direction.

I guess I say all this to suggest that the crop/zoom functions can have a real impact on your lens requirements and should be factored in before you spend real money on glass.

[MrSMW]

7 hours ago, kye said:

I guess I say all this to suggest that the crop/zoom functions can have a real impact on your lens requirements and should be factored in before you spend real money on glass.

Indeed. This is a feature of my full frame Panny cameras that I have been using recently.

For stills anyway…

For video, I’m already shooting APSC crop mode because I shoot 4k 50p as my default, but for stills I have a fn button assigned to crop mode which can be set as APSC or 1:1.

With my S5, I’d set it to the 1.5x crop mode but with the S1R and it’s 47mp, the 1:1 mode makes for a great option with about the same resolution as your average 24mp camera!

The added bonus is that when shooting raw, the full res image is preferred and you only see the crop in your image editing software.

I shot my most recent wedding this way using the Sigma 35mm f2 as my indoor lens and at 35mm and ‘70’, plus the 65mm f2 outdoor as 65mm and 130.

It’s like having a twin lens set up on your camera but ideally, the harder you crop, the more megapixels help with quality!

[Video Hummus]

The the vast majority of the 250M budget of the latest 007 movie was spent on lighting, composition, blocking, camera movement, locations, sets. You could probably exchange the lens they used with almost any other lens and they would have shot great looking movie that would be completely ruined by 120hz “real motion” on some TV.

[kye]

On 11/24/2021 at 3:50 AM, PannySVHS said:

great write ups, kye. thanks! my dream lens is a zoom lens. just not sayin which one at the moment, just lemme check ebay again:) would love a 2x or 3x s16 lens for my bmmcc cuby. anyone?

The brand does start with A and end with X does it? 😎😎😎

If I didn't care about size (or budget 🙄) then I'd be all over some of those S16 cine lenses...

 

[Trek of Joy]

On 11/23/2021 at 5:54 PM, kye said:

They call them the Trinity of zoom lenses for a reason!

One thing worth considering with the Sony cameras is the Clearimage zoom, which is very high quality.  From what I saw (watching through the 4K YouTube compression of course) was that it was invisible up to about 1.4x magnification.  I also recall from the A73 that you could punch in to a 1:1 (?) 4K mode, which also gave a 1.4x magnification.  Combined they give a 2X factor, which you may find high quality enough to use to extend the long end of your 24-70.

It's a tough thing, moving from a 16-35 + 24-70 to a 16-35 + 35-150.  If it were me, I'd be thinking about:

1. How many of your shots are wider than 35mm
2. How many times those shots occurred after a shot longer than 35mm
3. How many times that transition had to be done in a hurry, or what the time cost would be if you had to change lenses constantly
4. How many times you could use the 1.4x crop / Clearimage zoom on the 16-35mm to get a longer shot (and therefore avoid changing from the 16-35 to the 35-150)
5. How many times you could use the 1.4x crop / Clearimage zoom on the 24-70mm to get a shot longer than 70mm
6. What the optical performance of your lenses is when wide open (as a 1.4x or 2x crop into their image circle will reveal softness or other issues)

My travel kit is 7.5/2 + 17.5/0.95 + 42.5/0.95 (FF equivalents of 15/4 + 35/1.9 + 85/1.9).  I originally had the 17.5 and was using a 58mm as the longer lens but I found the gap from 17.5 -> 58 to be too large (3.3x) so I bought the 42.5mm (2.4x).  The 17.5mm (35mm) stays on the camera most of the time so that's the default lens.  

However, I bought that kit while I was filming in the GH5 4K mode which I could get a 1.4x zoom by punching into the sensor.  I have since switched to 1080p to get ALL-I and therefore eliminating the need for proxies in my workflow, and in that mode I can engage the 2x digital zoom, which creates a 1080p image by downsampling a ~2.5K area of the sensor, and is higher quality than the 1:1 mode.

This means that instead of the 35mm cropping to a 49mm equivalent and having a large gap between that and the longer prime which was 116mm equivalent, it means that the 35mm crops to a 70mm which is a lot closer to that 116mm equivalent.  So I now have a 35mm(70mm) then an 85, which you could argue isn't so useful because they're so close together.  Had I known this before I bought the 85 equivalent, I might have gone in a different direction.

I guess I say all this to suggest that the crop/zoom functions can have a real impact on your lens requirements and should be factored in before you spend real money on glass.

Yeah, CIZ is good to 1.5x, I never go past it as IQ does noticeably degrade. I didn't take that into consideration, sometimes I forget its there LOL! I have that and s35 mode it on custom function buttons for quick punch ins. But you lose tracking and the ability to place your focus point with CIZ - so all you get is wide AF. But it can be handy since it doesn't impact IQ in any significant manner and it doesn't cut resolution like s35 mode with stills.

To answer your questions, I'm wider than 35mm a lot. I had the Tamron 28-75 and sold it for another 24-70 because I frequently needed it to be a tad wider. I change lenses less now. When I'm shooting I usually have the the UWA or a 24-70 on one and the 70-180/200 on the other body and then switch things up if needed. I even have a 24 and 35 primes because I like that range a lot. I really wish Sony would do a better 28 so I could consolidate both, its a happy medium for me.

But utilizing the CIZ with 150mm on the long end effectively negates the shorter range in many situations. I have glass beyond 200mm too, but that's a specialty lens that's not in my daily carry. I'm pretty sure a high IQ UWA zoom and the 35-150 would work well for the way I shoot, and for a small chunk of that range I'd get a bit more light gathering than the 24-70. I *think* I'd be more efficient being able to use the zoom and crop options to extend the reach. 

We'll see. I'm in no hurry to sell off a bunch of gear and buy two new zooms, despite the fact new stuff is fun. I'll probably rent the Tamron for a long weekend and tinker or wait for used copies to start popping up on Fred Miranda and get one at a bit of a discount.

I've also been looking at the Freewell magnetic VND's and such to further simplify my kit while staying versatile. Right now I have screw on filters and a 100mm filter holder with a bunch of filters I don't use very much because of the time it takes to setup. I always just wind up using my VND's, even for landscape photos and such - which I shouldn't do since I have the big/little stoppers, a CPL and a few ND grads with that NISI system. But its hard to be more run and gun fumbling with large glass plates.

Cheers

Chris

[kye]

On 11/30/2021 at 5:08 AM, Trek of Joy said:

Yeah, CIZ is good to 1.5x, I never go past it as IQ does noticeably degrade. I didn't take that into consideration, sometimes I forget its there LOL! I have that and s35 mode it on custom function buttons for quick punch ins. But you lose tracking and the ability to place your focus point with CIZ - so all you get is wide AF. But it can be handy since it doesn't impact IQ in any significant manner and it doesn't cut resolution like s35 mode with stills.

To answer your questions, I'm wider than 35mm a lot. I had the Tamron 28-75 and sold it for another 24-70 because I frequently needed it to be a tad wider. I change lenses less now. When I'm shooting I usually have the the UWA or a 24-70 on one and the 70-180/200 on the other body and then switch things up if needed. I even have a 24 and 35 primes because I like that range a lot. I really wish Sony would do a better 28 so I could consolidate both, its a happy medium for me.

But utilizing the CIZ with 150mm on the long end effectively negates the shorter range in many situations. I have glass beyond 200mm too, but that's a specialty lens that's not in my daily carry. I'm pretty sure a high IQ UWA zoom and the 35-150 would work well for the way I shoot, and for a small chunk of that range I'd get a bit more light gathering than the 24-70. I *think* I'd be more efficient being able to use the zoom and crop options to extend the reach. 

We'll see. I'm in no hurry to sell off a bunch of gear and buy two new zooms, despite the fact new stuff is fun. I'll probably rent the Tamron for a long weekend and tinker or wait for used copies to start popping up on Fred Miranda and get one at a bit of a discount.

I've also been looking at the Freewell magnetic VND's and such to further simplify my kit while staying versatile. Right now I have screw on filters and a 100mm filter holder with a bunch of filters I don't use very much because of the time it takes to setup. I always just wind up using my VND's, even for landscape photos and such - which I shouldn't do since I have the big/little stoppers, a CPL and a few ND grads with that NISI system. But its hard to be more run and gun fumbling with large glass plates.

Cheers

Chris

Great stuff!

I'm especially heartened to hear you're not in a hurry and will rent equipment before you buy.  

I've used the Manfrotto Xume magnetic adapters before and they make working with filters really convenient, so I'd suggest that a system based on magnetic attachment is likely to be a positive experience that you'll really enjoy and benefit from.

[Jimmy G]

On 11/15/2021 at 6:20 AM, kye said:

Tell Panasonic (or whoever) I just upgraded their AF.

^^LOL^^

Big fan of zooms for my nature/wildlife documentation, my 2xS1 setups contain the 24-105 kit and a EF-adapted Sigma 150-600 Contemporary (soon to be replaced by a native L-mount 150-600 Sport) and my low-light setups are the EF-adapted f/1.8 Sigma's 18-35 and 50-100 Arts and f/2.8 120-300 Sport. My primes (EF-adapted f/1.4 Sigma 20, 50 and 85) are specialized for night scenarios and see the least amount of usage. None of these lenses are slouches and I could care less if any suffered from vignetting, lack of corner sharpness or focus breathing, my subjects are always middle-thirds. Zooms all the way for this shooter (well, mostly! Ha!).