Zoom Lens for Video on the A7sii

Hi!

I've been using my A7sii for filming music clips, short films and commercials, which worked splendid for it. I've rented several types of cine lenses and all of them performed great, of course, but preferably I'd like to invest into my own equipment, so I've saved up some cash and am willing to invest around 2500€.

I've got 2 candidates and I'm just a click away of ordering one of them, but I might be totally wrong about something, so I hope you guys can support me in the decision making.

But first off my needs:

Ideally this new lens would cover all of my efforts in video making. So far I've been almost exclusively shooting in 20, 35 and 50mm, so I think a zoom is going to be my best friend. Manual focus only so far and I'd like to keep it that way, but sometimes AF might come in handy, so not saying no. I do like to travel and in a perfect world, this lens would be still portable enough for trips around the world. I wouldn't mind a big lens, if it's the only one I'll have to carry around.

So considering these points my candidates are:

Sony GM 24-70mm F2.8

Sony PZ 28-135mm F4 OSS

While the GM is more of a photo lens, it seems to be made for videographers as well. I assume the PZ will be better in handling, but picture-wise the GM probably is way ahead. Not sure in terms of filming though... Right now I'd say the GM should be my choice, because it's smaller, lighter, easier to carry on trips, but still good enough for professional film making. If a job really demands pictures outta this world I'm probably going to rent a Arri Alexa anyway... but then again, there's a cine-style lens like the PZ who might be somewhere in-between these two worlds. Another factor might be that I do a lot of low-light shootings, so the 2.8 of the GM seem way better as well.

Any thoughts? I'd be very grateful for a professional opinion. Thanks a ton and best from Berlin,

Dario

:edit: Oh, totally forgot to mention... my lenses right now are old DDR Carl-Zeiss Flektogons, so in terms of stills it's probably going to be a huge step up anyway.

I have a bought. I recommend PZ28-135 for video and GM24-70 for still.

They have about same sharpness for video (PZ 28-135 is very sharp).

Still use GM24-70 is slightly sharper.

--
markku

MaroonLoto said:

So considering these points my candidates are:

Sony GM 24-70mm F2.8

Sony PZ 28-135mm F4 OSS

Click to expand...

I basically weighed up this same choice (though with an a7RII and a6300 rather than the a7SII - which I may add at some point...), with some similar considerations regarding video vs stills applications, and ended up deciding in favour of the GM.

I concluded that the GM was clearly better for stills and better (to a lesser degree) in most respects for video. Of course, the extra reach of the PZ would be a plus in either case, but not at the expense of its bulk (it's really a tripod-mount-only proposition!) and slightly lower IQ. At any rate, that was my logic.

I use the PZ with my A7S and A7RII for video and am very happy with it. For video it's clearly the better choice than any lens for stills, primarily because of the handling. Buttersmooth zooming and focusing and a seperate, declickable aperture ring. Without changing anything in the menu you can easily switch from motorised to manual. For it's price it's probably the best cinelens for Sony you can get at present. Besides it's excellent optical qualities the zoom-range is also very good. I have used many different lenses and for video this is my clear favourite.

Thank you for sharing your thought, guys! I really appreciate it. Great to hear from people who had to make the same choice.

macautio said:

I have a bought. I recommend PZ28-135 for video and GM24-70 for still.
They have about same sharpness for video (PZ 28-135 is very sharp).
Still use GM24-70 is slightly sharper.

Click to expand...

While sharpness is a key factor, how would you describe the color rendition? I love the way Pentax handles colors, but had mixed feelings about Sony so far. Then again, color grading makes it a matter of taste really.

SilvanBromide said:

I basically weighed up this same choice (though with an a7RII and a6300 rather than the a7SII - which I may add at some point...), with some similar considerations regarding video vs stills applications, and ended up deciding in favour of the GM.

I concluded that the GM was clearly better for stills and better (to a lesser degree) in most respects for video. Of course, the extra reach of the PZ would be a plus in either case, but not at the expense of its bulk (it's really a tripod-mount-only proposition!) and slightly lower IQ. At any rate, that was my logic.

Click to expand...

I'd totally agree so far, but since you got the hands-on-experience, unlike me, why would you say the GM is even slightly better for video? Would you say the image color, besides sharpness, is better? I don't really care about the 135mm range, 70 would serve me completely, and the weight and size of the PZ makes it kinda obsolete when travelling.

SelfMadeMan said:

I use the PZ with my A7S and A7RII for video and am very happy with it. For video it's clearly the better choice than any lens for stills, primarily because of the handling. Buttersmooth zooming and focusing and a seperate, declickable aperture ring. Without changing anything in the menu you can easily switch from motorised to manual. For it's price it's probably the best cinelens for Sony you can get at present. Besides it's excellent optical qualities the zoom-range is also very good. I have used many different lenses and for video this is my clear favourite.

Click to expand...

Thanks a ton for sharing... I had expected the PZ to outshine the GM in terms of handling, but it's great to hear, the image quality is up there as well.

Honestly, right now my decision is dependent on the handling only. I still tend more towards the GM for travelling and my smaller projects which just demand some decent level of film equipment. So the most irritating part is the focus-by-wire that Sony implements in their lenses...

I couldn't find a clear answer online regarding if I'd be able to use a follow focus with the GM? Is it by wire, or actually a real manual, mechanical focus? I don't care about the Zoom being by wire, because I'd never zoom while recording anyway. But focusing is key and if there's really problems when using a rig with follow focus or focus pull the GM is probably not going to be a good choice for me. So in that case I'd better get the PZ and use my vintage lenses for travelling.

Can you guys confirm any of this? How does the GM perform on a shoulder rig?

Again, thanks a lot! This is really helpful.

Are you going to use 4K? If not, then in terms of sharpness, there is absolutely no difference. Even the 28-70 should outresolve a "simple" 1080p video in normal usage. It is, after all, only 1920x1080, not even 2MP. (Of course, other things like bokeh and lens artefacts like aberration are different)

The PZ is better if you want smooth zooming action without additional hardware. I can't remember if it's parfocal, but as it is a lens with video-production in mind, it might be, and you might welcome that very much.

nagi603 said:

The PZ is better if you want smooth zooming action without additional hardware. I can't remember if it's parfocal, but as it is a lens with video-production in mind, it might be, and you might welcome that very much.

Click to expand...

The PZ is parfocal indeed and the sharpness is perfect in 4K too. I use it in 4K all the time for corporate videos. I also shoot 4K when I only need 1080 because it opens more possibilities in postprocessing (reframing, zoom etc.). And the resized result from 4K is better than shooting in 1080.

It also works very well with follow focus on a rig. Bokeh is very nice and creamy and there's almost no distortion at all. It also performs very well in backlit scenes and I'm very happy with it's color rendering.

nagi603 said:

Are you going to use 4K? If not, then in terms of sharpness, there is absolutely no difference. Even the 28-70 should outresolve a "simple" 1080p video in normal usage. It is, after all, only 1920x1080, not even 2MP. (Of course, other things like bokeh and lens artefacts like aberration are different)

The PZ is better if you want smooth zooming action without additional hardware. I can't remember if it's parfocal, but as it is a lens with video-production in mind, it might be, and you might welcome that very much.

Click to expand...

In fact I am using 4K, but just occasionally, so it's not a big deal to me. So you'd say the PZ would be better for 4K as well? Why so? Or did I get it wrong and you mean the GM is better in terms of 4K?

Zooming is also something I'm not interested in while filming, so crucial is the focus. If that is not possible in a traditional way on the GM, then indeed the PZ would be better for me.

SelfMadeMan said:

nagi603 said:

The PZ is better if you want smooth zooming action without additional hardware. I can't remember if it's parfocal, but as it is a lens with video-production in mind, it might be, and you might welcome that very much.

Click to expand...

The PZ is parfocal indeed and the sharpness is perfect in 4K too. I use it in 4K all the time for corporate videos. I also shoot 4K when I only need 1080 because it opens more possibilities in postprocessing (reframing, zoom etc.). And the resized result from 4K is better than shooting in 1080.

It also works very well with follow focus on a rig. Bokeh is very nice and creamy and there's almost no distortion at all. It also performs very well in backlit scenes and I'm very happy with it's color rendering.

Click to expand...

Yeah, when it comes to filming there really is no better choice I guess. Was hoping for a lens that could combine filming and travelling, but seems like I'll have to choose...

nagi603 said:

1080p video in normal usage. It is, after all, only 1920x1080, not even 2MP.

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. 1920 x 1080 is 2.07 megapixels.

MaroonLoto said:

SilvanBromide said:

I basically weighed up this same choice (though with an a7RII and a6300 rather than the a7SII - which I may add at some point...), with some similar considerations regarding video vs stills applications, and ended up deciding in favour of the GM.

I concluded that the GM was clearly better for stills and better (to a lesser degree) in most respects for video. Of course, the extra reach of the PZ would be a plus in either case, but not at the expense of its bulk (it's really a tripod-mount-only proposition!) and slightly lower IQ. At any rate, that was my logic.

Click to expand...

I'd totally agree so far, but since you got the hands-on-experience, unlike me, why would you say the GM is even slightly better for video? Would you say the image color, besides sharpness, is better? I don't really care about the 135mm range, 70 would serve me completely, and the weight and size of the PZ makes it kinda obsolete when travelling.

Click to expand...

First, I have to admit I wasn't able to directly compare shots of the same scenes taken with each lens in 4k video (though I compared video of different scenes), so my assessments of imaging results were based more on comparing stills. I concluded that colour, contrast and sharpness were all a bit better with the GM.

As per observations others have made, the sharpness difference should not be noticeable in 1080 video, and not as noticeable in 4k as it is in still images. However you will still get a slightly different look with the GM, and that was a big part of the reason I decided in its favour (along with it's relative portability and quality for stills).

I use my a7r11 as a back up and edc for broadcast news and decided on the 24-70 gm

perfectly happy with it

MaroonLoto said:

nagi603 said:

Are you going to use 4K? If not, then in terms of sharpness, there is absolutely no difference. Even the 28-70 should outresolve a "simple" 1080p video in normal usage. It is, after all, only 1920x1080, not even 2MP. (Of course, other things like bokeh and lens artefacts like aberration are different)

The PZ is better if you want smooth zooming action without additional hardware. I can't remember if it's parfocal, but as it is a lens with video-production in mind, it might be, and you might welcome that very much.

Click to expand...

In fact I am using 4K, but just occasionally, so it's not a big deal to me. So you'd say the PZ would be better for 4K as well? Why so? Or did I get it wrong and you mean the GM is better in terms of 4K?

Zooming is also something I'm not interested in while filming, so crucial is the focus. If that is not possible in a traditional way on the GM, then indeed the PZ would be better for me.

Click to expand...

No, I was not stating anything regarding 4K, only that in 1080p, the resolution is too small to perceive any difference between the lenses. I do not have a 4K workflow, (I'm missing the external 4K recorder for tha A7S) so I could only make educated guesses.

balazer2 said:

nagi603 said:

1080p video in normal usage. It is, after all, only 1920x1080, not even 2MP.

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. 1920 x 1080 is 2.07 megapixels.

Click to expand...

Ah, yes, I work in IT, so I usually use 1024^2 for anything that is used with IT equipment. Common mistake for me, though it is less than 5% error in this case.

tvnewsbadge said:

I use my a7r11 as a back up and edc for broadcast news and decided on the 24-70 gm

perfectly happy with it

Click to expand...

Great to hear! Do you use manual, or autofocus? If manual, is it precise to control, or does the lag turn out to be a problem?

Questions:

1) Have you ever consistently carried a lens the size and weight of the 28-135 f4 g?

2) Would you use the features of the 28-135 f4?

I suspect that not having it in hand, and having the S II, you will need to own to it to know for certain. I think it's bar none the best video lens for the money. I owned it alongside the 24-70 f4, the 18-105 f4, the 24-240, a grip of primes for a time. What a wonderful lens it is. The best in class, the best for hybrid video, the best Sony OSS, that wonderful zoom smoothness, great for transitions, panning, crashing, it's just rock solid for a lot of things. My video looked, felt, became better with the 28-135 in hand, no doubt, and the parafocal zoom was sweet. It was steadier, because of the weight, but also because that lens demands respect, it demands a different approach than the 24-70 f4, or a lone prime, or other. However, I'm more of a run and gunner, so it was too much to hang from the neck consistently. Ultimately, with the S II, I found that I did not need the big f4 for video as much as I needed to just show up with a thoughtful approach and steady hand. For 4k and 1080p, I found that the 24-70 and the 24-240, soft as they are at times, can be used well into the evenings and extend shooting scenarios out to 500mm in 120fps modes for video (or to 1.5x digital zoom on 4k without noteworthy softness). I found that a lone, compact zoom, and that a lone prime backing a smaller zoom was more fun for me, and that the diversity and shot types that I tended toward improved with a more compact lens.

It's a personal preference though.

I'd buy the 28-135 f4 again in a heartbeat, if it were my profession. As is, it's a bit much for my uses; not the features, just the lens as a whole.

Arizona Sunset said:

Questions:

1) Have you ever consistently carried a lens the size and weight of the 28-135 f4 g?

2) Would you use the features of the 28-135 f4?

I suspect that not having it in hand, and having the S II, you will need to own to it to know for certain. I think it's bar none the best video lens for the money. I owned it alongside the 24-70 f4, the 18-105 f4, the 24-240, a grip of primes for a time. What a wonderful lens it is. The best in class, the best for hybrid video, the best Sony OSS, that wonderful zoom smoothness, great for transitions, panning, crashing, it's just rock solid for a lot of things. My video looked, felt, became better with the 28-135 in hand, no doubt, and the parafocal zoom was sweet. It was steadier, because of the weight, but also because that lens demands respect, it demands a different approach than the 24-70 f4, or a lone prime, or other. However, I'm more of a run and gunner, so it was too much to hang from the neck consistently. Ultimately, with the S II, I found that I did not need the big f4 for video as much as I needed to just show up with a thoughtful approach and steady hand. For 4k and 1080p, I found that the 24-70 and the 24-240, soft as they are at times, can be used well into the evenings and extend shooting scenarios out to 500mm in 120fps modes for video (or to 1.5x digital zoom on 4k without noteworthy softness). I found that a lone, compact zoom, and that a lone prime backing a smaller zoom was more fun for me, and that the diversity and shot types that I tended toward improved with a more compact lens.

It's a personal preference though.

I'd buy the 28-135 f4 again in a heartbeat, if it were my profession. As is, it's a bit much for my uses; not the features, just the lens as a whole.

Click to expand...

Thank you very much for the helpful reply!

1) Not for video, but as for travelling, I've been using a Canon 70-200 USM lens, which is kinda the same size, but not the same weight. Honestly, considering size and weight I wouldn't think much about taking it with me on trips, or occasional events, but rather use my vintage lenses instead and just use the PZ for proper jobs. I've never ever used zooms for my video work, so limiting it to that one use only feels almost decadent.

2) Yes, I would, for jobs, but probably not so much for private use. And since I'm not into broadcasting/news footage the demands on quality pictures is quite high, so I'd rent cine lenses instead of just using the PZ for everything. I might be wrong about the quality differences, but there must be a reason why the Zeiss CP-2, which I use for music videos and short films, are twice the price.

The only reason I'm still unsure about the 24-70 GM is I don't trust the focus by wire focus. Unfortunately no store around got the lens available for a test run, but I've just found this review, which seems to give it a thumbs up. Still in doubt nonetheless.


Bottom line: The 28-135 would probably become a dust catcher, at least there's the risk, and that would be a shame considering the price tag. But I'm open to suggestions. Heard great things about the new Canon 24-70, but I'm done with trying to get those adapters working properly. Even the super-expensive Metabones didn't work right.