Jump to content

Sony 16-70mm F/4.0 OSS or 18-105 F/4.0 OSS


Arikhan

Recommended Posts

Someone out there owning both lenses and experienced in video shooting? Which of these two would you buy? Are there substantial differences in IQ between the two lenses? 
Lens will be used at this time on a Sony A6500 (for video). Thank you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd be interested to know as well - there were reports of the 18-105 having bad distortion particularly at the wide end in 4k on the Sony fs7 as its processor wan't able to correct this by software in camera. Was fine in 1080p though. Is this also the case with the a6500?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Geoff CB

I saw the 16-70 F4 Zeiss three days ago on a FS700 and it did an amazing job. In my eyes it's nearly parfocal - the shooter told me, the 18-105 behaves there a little bit strange (it wasn't on the camera as we did the shots, so I couldn't compare for myself...To make a long story short, my buddy told me the same. Thank you for sharing your experience!

OK, the 18-105 has much more focal length to offer, so at the end of the day it could be a great "universal lens" to carry, but IQ is the most important aspect at the end of the day...

BTW:The 16-70 F4 Zeisst focussed great with the FS700 in the daylight scenes shots...It was hard for me to believe what I see: A 4,5 years old camera focusing a lot more reliable with contrast AF than latest modern Pana cameras...But shooting on the shoulder (with the LCD on top of the cam) with the FS700 is a pain...Oh boy...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Arikhan said:

@Geoff CB

I saw the 16-70 F4 Zeiss three days ago on a FS700 and it did an amazing job. In my eyes it's nearly parfocal - the shooter told me, the 18-105 behaves there a little bit strange (it wasn't on the camera as we did the shots, so I couldn't compare for myself...To make a long story short, my buddy told me the same. Thank you for sharing your experience!

OK, the 18-105 has much more focal length to offer, so at the end of the day it could be a great "universal lens" to carry, but IQ is the most important aspect at the end of the day...

BTW:The 16-70 F4 Zeisst focussed great with the FS700 in the daylight scenes shots...It was hard for me to believe what I see: A 4,5 years old camera focusing a lot more reliable with contrast AF than latest modern Pana cameras...But shooting on the shoulder (with the LCD on top of the cam) with the FS700 is a pain...Oh boy...

 

Also with the distortion correction the 18mm is more like a 19mm. I've always found having the wide angle more useful than the long end. Also the 18-108, once you hit 85mm the sharpness falls off a cliff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Geoff CB

Quote

Also the 18-108, once you hit 85mm the sharpness falls off a cliff.

That's what most users say, yes...So, at the end of the day, it would be better to buy a lens like the 16-70 because of the quality over all focal lengths...And buy an additional 70-200 F/4 as complement...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed the 18-105 for the money and the size. The stabilizer is great too, impressive at times even with the a6300. There must be some sample variation going on, as I have used 2, and one was clearly better than the other (maybe some case of moved elements inside?). 

No much experience with Sony cameras, but it seems like a good small combo for the a6xxx cameras.

If you have the money, and the space in your bag, and the willingness to change lenses on a shoot, 2 better lenses are always much more preferable than one worst!

I have seen the 16-70 once, I just hold it, felt plasticky (even thought there was metal all around), but I heard only good things about its image quality, and I always go for 16mm in APS-C, and it is not that more expensive either.

f stop, build quality, no dust proof - spill proof, would be my only worries, but these apply to both of them. Certainly 2 of the most interesting Sony lenses of their kind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kisaha

Quote

If you have the money, and the space in your bag, and the willingness to change lenses on a shoot, 2 better lenses are always much more preferable than one worst!

Full ACK. The 18-105 is probably a "vacation lens", to carry with you, when you want to walk around with light gear. Carrying around the 70-200 (as complement to the 16-70) is for sure not a pleasure, as in Europe Sherpas are quite expensive at the moment... :grin:

Nothing new here: For a maximum of flexibility AND quality requirements, you just need a bunch of lenses - and deep pockets to pay them...

I use the A6500 at the moment and mostly like it. Ingenious technology in the body of an idiot, as @Andrew Reid commented in one of his Sony reviews. I have to make a serious decision till end of this summer: Which manufacturers line to go for video...As I like the A6500 and the A7R ii (portraiture and architecture) as devices for stills (in addition to my "serious" Nikon bodies), it would be better to put my money in 2 FS700 + 2 Odyssey 7Q+, so then my investment would be in Sony lenses. But I also keep my eyes on the LS300, so then I would need completely different lenses and adapters.

It's a hard decision. I owned about 34 Canon lenses and some FF and APSC devices till end 2016, now mostly sold ( I just kept 11 Canon lenses). Now I take photos with Nikon FF, NX1 and A6500...and probably with a A7R ii, my next buy. Shooting stills and video with ONE manufacturer would be nice, as it would decrease a six figure lens + gear investment a little bit. Secondly, it's much easier to get good results when beeing perfectly familiar with color science, menus, etc., of ONE manufacturer, instead of owning x cameras of many different manufacturers with completely different concepts and product lines...

It takes time to get familiar with camera and lens characteristics, if you want to get best possible results...

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience, only higher end Canons have similar color science, and Canon in general, from m43 and Sony, it seems like every one or two models they have something different in their color science so do not count on it. In Sony land, menus again are mostly different, and they are keep changing them (they won't be there for at least half a dozen of years!).

I told you before, FS700 seems tempting, but is a nightmare of a camera to rig and use. Plus in my experience the build quality is questionable, at least. Plus the FS700+Odyssey is quite expensive and huge to carry and set. If you are spending so much money, buy a C300mkII+CN-E lenses that have you covered 18-200, a 5DmkIV, and a M6 and you are covered from all angles.

JVC is not similar at all to the FS700 combo, I am not sure why you keep bringing it on, they are not comparable in mostly anything, except they both shoot video! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kisaha

Quote

buy a C300mkII+CN-E lenses

Kisaha, as said in another thread, I need two identical cameras at a total budget (without lenses, rigs, addtional gear, etc.) of rpund about 13.000 EUR. If I would buy a C300 ii, I could  afford only one camera...

Quote

a 5DmkIV, and a M6

I'm done with Canon in stills. As said, I've sold the almost complete Canon camera and lens collection end of 2016. I shoot now Nikon FF and will buy the A7R ii for portraiture, landscape and architecture...So in stills, I will go for sure SoNykon...My remaining 11 Canon lenses will be used to adapt to the Sony stills camera(s) coming...

Quote

I told you before, FS700 seems tempting, but is a nightmare of a camera to rig and use.

The FS700 + 7Q+ is a big and affordable chance for me to get into RAW and high quality IQ. Meanwhile I can use it for "quick & dirty shots" (no high IQ requirements) by shooting internally. I worked now for some days with this camera (not mine) and like it, as I could work with it alone (perfect phase detection AF with LA-EA2 + A-mount lenses, very reliable contrast AF with E-lenses, touch screen, etc.) and it is not bad in low light. 4K RAW is mindblowing, just premier league, 200fps in 2k, etc...So it's a camera for dual use: A. Quick. nice shots that could be done on tripod (interviews, etc.) by a one man band) and B. High IQ shots (external recording) with a crew /in controlled environments and lighting...

And still - as you mention - this camera is a nightmare in some aspects. But I simply don't have the budget to spend on TWO Canon C300 ii - as simple as that...

Quote

JVC is not similar at all to the FS700 combo

Yes, I know...It's NOT a cinema camera at all, but it has its own characteristics and charme...And the versatility and live streaming capabilities are very good too...It's a special IQ, very close to the NX1 (picture structure, color science, etc.)...And as you know, I am NOT the only one guy who loves this kind of imaging...The LS300 and the FS700 are completely different cameras, but each one has characteristics I like.. :astonished:

To be honest, additonally I am tired of the "Canon color science", of the smooth and warmish "Candy look"...As nostalgic filmer, you can probably not understand this aspect, but many "non-filmers" (= normal audience) think like me...Neutral colors, sharpness, detail and crispness are factors I'm looking for nowadays...I've shot some weddings as second shooter (stills) to get some experience and there is no sign, that "normal Joe" loves Canon more than the color science of other manufacturers...

Personally, I am not nostalgic at all and don't want to copy the 70's style. We live in the digital era and it's time to move on...Just my two cents...

Thank you very much for your engagement and for sharing your thoughts and experience! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kisaha

Oh, I believe you misunderstood me: With saying "don't want to copy the 70's style" I didn't mean you personally (I know that you are also doing ENG work and so on)...I mean the "old film style" very many people try to copy, wihtout carrying about the preferences of the audience and state of the art of technology. People craving for old fiilm style/appearance just refuse to admit, that we live in the digital era - and don't try to use today's advantages (resolution, sharpness, detail, colour variety, etc.) in their work. They just try to "ride the old horse the old way"...

I ask myself, WHY don't they shoot with 40 years old Soviet cameras? They are cheap, grainy, mushy & smooth (by resolution)  and quite perfect for "filmic style" of the 70s...WHY do these people cry for sharp 4K, when mushing out the 4K footage to 720p-style in post?

So, no offense, I respect you and your opinion...no matter how old you are...as I am for sure much younger than you, I will be glad for learning from experienced people... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2017 at 8:30 AM, Arikhan said:

Someone out there owning both lenses and experienced in video shooting? Which of these two would you buy? Are there substantial differences in IQ between the two lenses? 
Lens will be used at this time on a Sony A6500 (for video). Thank you!

I have owned both.  I kept the 18-105 - plenty sharp, more range, smoother zoom and focus rings, plus the power zoom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2017 at 0:47 AM, Arikhan said:

@Kisaha

Oh, I believe you misunderstood me: With saying "don't want to copy the 70's style" I didn't mean you personally (I know that you are also doing ENG work and so on)...I mean the "old film style" very many people try to copy, wihtout carrying about the preferences of the audience and state of the art of technology. People craving for old fiilm style/appearance just refuse to admit, that we live in the digital era - and don't try to use today's advantages (resolution, sharpness, detail, colour variety, etc.) in their work. They just try to "ride the old horse the old way"...

I ask myself, WHY don't they shoot with 40 years old Soviet cameras? They are cheap, grainy, mushy & smooth (by resolution)  and quite perfect for "filmic style" of the 70s...WHY do these people cry for sharp 4K, when mushing out the 4K footage to 720p-style in post?

So, no offense, I respect you and your opinion...no matter how old you are...as I am for sure much younger than you, I will be glad for learning from experienced people... 

Good question. From the earliest days of photography, photographers tried to imitate the look of paintings, charcoal drawings and pastels. Maybe they were bent on proving that photography was an art, who knows? But a lot of those works look pretty awful today, not all of them, but quite a few. When I studied photography in college, I worked with a lot of historical printing processes myself - cyanotype, gum bichromate and gravure - and I'd scratch negatives, photosensitize expensive French watercolor paper, use different toners, draw with pastel over my prints: anything to make the pictures look like something other than a photograph. But to this day, I still prefer a 'straight' photograph by Irving Penn or any number of others to over-manipulated images. Digital filmmaking is still in its infancy, and I expect with time, there will be less of this trying to make digital resemble film, for better or for worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@jonpais

Full ACK...BUT: Photography should NOT try to immitate old painting style. Old paintings should (in some cases) only be (sometimes) an inspiration. Art means in my eyes creativity and not plagiarism helped by modern technology...Filming is in my eyes the creative coexistence of phantasy and reality - capturing the moment with all its emotions and backgrounds is driven by inspiration and phantasy. Realized with the help of todays technology...

Many "enthusiastic filmmakers" haven't in my eyes much inspiration and phantasy...Just take a look at thousands of "test videos", completely contentless, useless - no story, no emotion, just techie junk - pure time lost for the audience and confession of failure for the creators...Modern gear sluts with latest technology in their hands, aiming to get the style of good old days - but clearly not capable to develop an own style...

Nowadays we always say, we live in a very well developed, modern society...But it seems, we are not capable to manage modern technology to transform the technical progress into a slave (tool) of our inspiration and phantasy...Many times I think we care too much about technical specs and pixel peep around, wihout any sense for real content. So it seems, we became the slaves of technology and became useful idiots - our phantasy seems to fail and we completely suffer from poverty of innovation. So, lacking of one's own ideas, we try to copy the style and feeling of good old days...

Just take a look at the "postindustrial" photography or "lost places" style - developed during the last decades...Take a look at the expressive, emotional photography portraiture style - developed during the last years, using wireless HSS as tool to lighten up and "unmask" faces and characters...These styles have nothing to do with the photo style of the 70s...Visionists (aka artists) inslaved modern technology to put their vision of subjects characters into digtal pictures...

And then, don't forget that todays imagery is minimum 50% post production...But neither cameras, nor lighting or most modern image editiong software could drive up our phantasy or create a "shooting plan" in our brains...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 18105 is a fantastic lens for all it's features, perfect for AF (almost no breathing), smooth zooms (seems to be parfocal or almost), and despite the focal ranges rather lightweight. If it's your only lens, you are probably very happy with it. If you buy a second lens you might notice that it's not very sharp. That's a pity. It is cheap, but had there been a version for, say, $1000, with better optical quality, it would be perfect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Axel

Quote

If it's your only lens, you are probably very happy with it. If you buy a second lens you might notice that it's not very sharp.

No, I haven't the lens yet but wanted to have first user impressions before buying. My mom uses the A6500 and the 35mm 1.8 OSS and till now it's the only lens she uses ("one woman, one lens") but now we like to buy a second "more universal" APSC lens. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experience!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both are good lenses and neither one really excels over the other. You would think that the 16-70 would roll all over the 18-105 for being twice the price but that really isn't the case. They both exchange punches in sharpness through out their focal ranges but the 16-70 is usually a tad bit sharper in the center and wins here and there in the corners. Is the better sharpness worth twice the price? To me, it wasn't. Also the 16-70 has a well known reputation for having a wide variance in QC where many people had to exchange it, some numerous times, to get a good copy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...