Reading mode: Light Dark

Testing Sony's Worst Full-Frame Zoom Lens at 4K60p on "the most beautiful street in America."

Go to last post
M

Markr041

Forum Pro
Messages
10,081
Solutions
12
Reaction score
3,643
Location
US
Says who? Mark Twain and Charles Dickens. And the same houses exist today on the street: Hillhouse Avenue, New Haven, CT.

Sony a7s iii 4K 60p video. Shot in HLG3. The lens: the Sony FE 24-240mm zoom.



All the reviews show how low-resolution the lens is, especially at the long end. But of course, the testing is for stills, on high-megapixel sensors (42 megapixels!). For 4K, we only need a little more than 8 megapixels.

So why consider this lens? The stabilization, combined with IBIS, is stellar, it is near parfocal, it is relatively compact, it is silent, its AF works fast, it starts at a good wide end - 24mm, and it is very versatile being 10X. It is useless in low light, of course. Don't ask for a demonstration.
 
Mark, as you are one of the most experienced video shooter (at least at this discussion forum), I am watching all your threads. And I agree with you that even the mediocre lenses can deliver acceptable videos. But while the sharpness is acceptable, I found out the overall IQ far below your other videos, taken with different lenses/cameras. In such a sunny day like this video shows, there is an evident lack of "juice". Either it is caused by the lower lens contrast or some other missing "clarity" factors. But to be sure that it is due to that lens (and not due to PP), you might shoot the same scene with another (better) lens in addition, and then make comparison.

--
Regards,
Peter
 
Last edited:
Kind of felt like I was watching something recorded on from VHS 30+ years ago, but with today's quality.

Especially the first zoom of the jogger on the street and some of the tree scenes.

Could be the music also that triggered that feeling.
 
sludge21017 said:
Kind of felt like I was watching something recorded on from VHS 30+ years ago, but with today's quality.

Especially the first zoom of the jogger on the street and some of the tree scenes.

Could be the music also that triggered that feeling.
Click to expand...
Could it be that you did not see the 4K version? I do not think YouTube has processed the video fully yet (I do not see it in 4K). It makes a big difference (not just in resolution).

I like the sound of "VHS 30+ years ago in today's quality" - but I don't get the meaning? Don't worry, I got nothing to defend, I just want to understand.
 
I'm not sure I can fully explain what I mean. You right, I do remember 1080/60 earlier, but I really don't see a difference. I turned night light off to compare, the color is warmer on my mini-led laptop.

It kind of looks like a camera from year ago, transferred to VHS - because of the blur that starts out soft and then gets deeper the further you can (I can see that on the trees in the street scenses)

I tried to watch once without the music.

The music must have set me off. It kind of makes me think I'm watching a promotional video, I'm ready to see "Welcome to .... " , with a narrator calling out most of the scenes. "Here we paint the fences year round", "We always have green grass".. I guess all we need to finish it is some side sweep type transitions between the scenes.
 
sludge21017 said:
I'm not sure I can fully explain what I mean. You right, I do remember 1080/60 earlier, but I really don't see a difference. I turned night light off to compare, the color is warmer on my mini-led laptop.

It kind of looks like a camera from year ago, transferred to VHS - because of the blur that starts out soft and then gets deeper the further you can (I can see that on the trees in the street scenses)

I tried to watch once without the music.

The music must have set me off. It kind of makes me think I'm watching a promotional video, I'm ready to see "Welcome to .... " , with a narrator calling out most of the scenes. "Here we paint the fences year round", "We always have green grass".. I guess all we need to finish it is some side sweep type transitions between the scenes.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I actually dislike music overlaid on videos that otherwise have no sound. In this case, there was so much wind, the ambient soundtrack was useless. Of course, with an external mic and a proper dead cat, that would have been solved. Few of my videos actually have a sound track. I do not understand why the YouTube video .

I am posting a ZV-1 video of the same street, with no music track (it has a dead cat) in this thread for comparison. The 4K version of the a7s iii video is finally ready.
 
HLG3 graded as opposed to Slog3 graded for the a7s iii video (now also in 4K).
 
I wonder how the sharpness compares to the Sony E PZ 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3, which is an APS-C lens.

I have a Sony 18-105mm f/4, which is a good range for general shooting, but it's not the best in regard to sharpness & distortion.

The Sony 24-105mm f/4 is the full frame version, and it's 1 1/3 stop faster than the 24-240mm on the telephoto end, but obviously not the same focal length, but perhaps the A7S III is so good in low light that a slow lens is not an issue.

At what focal length does the 24-240mm stop down to f/6.3? I think my Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6 reaches f/5.6 at around 100mm.

P.S. Why are new mirrorless camera lenses slower than their DSLR predecessors? The Sony A-mount 55-200mm was f/4-5.6, but the E-mount 55-210mm is f/4.5-6.3. What gives?
 
Andrew S10 said:
I wonder how the sharpness compares to the Sony E PZ 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3, which is an APS-C lens.

I have a Sony 18-105mm f/4, which is a good range for general shooting, but it's not the best in regard to sharpness & distortion.

The Sony 24-105mm f/4 is the full frame version, and it's 1 1/3 stop faster than the 24-240mm on the telephoto end, but obviously not the same focal length, but perhaps the A7S III is so good in low light that a slow lens is not an issue.

At what focal length does the 24-240mm stop down to f/6.3? I think my Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6 reaches f/5.6 at around 100mm.
Click to expand...
The 24-240mm lens reaches f6.3 at 102mm.

One can read reviews of camera lenses, which test "sharpness." A point of this video is to ask whether those sharpness stats matter much for high-quality (not pixel-binned, line-skipping) 4K video. My bottom line is that no one who looks at the video is going to say - wow, that is really soft (and there are lots of examples in it at 240mm).

And no viewer interested in content pixel-peeps a video (blows it up 200% and stares an inch from the screen), as we see in some video tests.

I think it is a good question whether with today's sensors and full-frame whether we need especially fast lenses for low light video to not suffer from lots of noise (leaving aside DOF issues)..
 
Markr041 said:
Andrew S10 said:
I wonder how the sharpness compares to the Sony E PZ 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3, which is an APS-C lens.

I have a Sony 18-105mm f/4, which is a good range for general shooting, but it's not the best in regard to sharpness & distortion.

The Sony 24-105mm f/4 is the full frame version, and it's 1 1/3 stop faster than the 24-240mm on the telephoto end, but obviously not the same focal length, but perhaps the A7S III is so good in low light that a slow lens is not an issue.

At what focal length does the 24-240mm stop down to f/6.3? I think my Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6 reaches f/5.6 at around 100mm.
Click to expand...
The 24-240mm lens reaches f6.3 at 102mm.

One can read reviews of camera lenses, which test "sharpness." A point of this video is to ask whether those sharpness stats matter much for high-quality (not pixel-binned, line-skipping) 4K video. My bottom line is that no one who looks at the video is going to say - wow, that is really soft (and there are lots of examples in it at 240mm).

And no viewer interested in content pixel-peeps a video (blows it up 200% and stares an inch from the screen), as we see in some video tests.

I think it is a good question whether with today's sensors and full-frame whether we need especially fast lenses for low light video to not suffer from lots of noise (leaving aside DOF issues)..
Click to expand...
Excellent comments that I agree with. I ended up choosing the Tamron 28-200 myself, mainly due to its rep from still photographers. (My dealer doesn't stock the Sony, only the Tamron for this reason.) But based on these results maybe I should have chosen the Sony for the IS and wider zoom.

--
Garfield
 
Last edited:
Mark, this second video is far, far better than the previous one. So, different shooting mode, different PP or simply, this small Sony has a superior lens.

--
Regards,
Peter
 
Last edited:
Markr041 said:
Thanks. I actually dislike music overlaid on videos that otherwise have no sound.
Click to expand...
I'm the opposite. Silence to me takes away from the interest of the piece, unless it's being done to make a point (perhaps at a funeral, for example). And even there I think I'd make sure that some sound is present during some of the piece so that the silent portion stands out.

That being said, the sound doesn't have to be music. If there's ambient sound that fits the scene, that can work really well. And if you're unable to get a good capture of the ambient noise then to my mind substituting sound recorded on another occasion or stock sound would be preferable to nothing at all.

I put together a bit of a labour of love showing the departure of "The Canadian" , Canada's transcontinental passenger train, from Vancouver. I deliberately left it bereft of any music whatsoever so that the primary sound is that of the train itself. I've gotten a few comments thanking me for that, although to be honest the sound is "cheated" in a lot of places. There are a lot of very long shots where you'd hear nothing at hall had I not done a lot of cutting, pasting, and adjustment of sound levels. And a lot of swapping of audio where the recordings from different cameras were inconsistent.
 
Sean Nelson said:
Markr041 said:
Thanks. I actually dislike music overlaid on videos that otherwise have no sound.
Click to expand...
I'm the opposite. Silence to me takes away from the interest of the piece, unless it's being done to make a point (perhaps at a funeral, for example). And even there I think I'd make sure that some sound is present during some of the piece so that the silent portion stands out.

That being said, the sound doesn't have to be music. If there's ambient sound that fits the scene, that can work really well. And if you're unable to get a good capture of the ambient noise then to my mind substituting sound recorded on another occasion or stock sound would be preferable to nothing at all.

I put together a bit of a labour of love showing the departure of "The Canadian" , Canada's transcontinental passenger train, from Vancouver. I deliberately left it bereft of any music whatsoever so that the primary sound is that of the train itself. I've gotten a few comments thanking me for that, although to be honest the sound is "cheated" in a lot of places. There are a lot of very long shots where you'd hear nothing at hall had I not done a lot of cutting, pasting, and adjustment of sound levels. And a lot of swapping of audio where the recordings from different cameras were inconsistent.
Click to expand...
I most certainly did not advocate silence, though I can see why you could have interpreted what I said that way. I am in favor of real ambient sounds, not simply a music track. A video with just music is just a silent film. I was complaining that too many videos are silent films.

So, I agree with you. And, most of my videos have real-time audio. The main exceptions are slow motion. A real question, when one mixes slow motion clips with normal speed ones, what to use as audio for the slow motion parts?
 
Markr041 said:
A real question, when one mixes slow motion clips with normal speed ones, what to use as audio for the slow motion parts?
Click to expand...
I think it depends pretty heavily on the subject matter and whether or not it would present better based on the sound being synchronized or not. One of the very cool things you can do with audio these days is to pitch-correct it while you stretch and compress it. I got my start in audio editing using 1/4" magnetic tape that you had to physically cut and tape together, so modern audio software is like magic to me.
 
Hi Sean,

As I am a big fan of trains, I really enjoyed your video. Excellent! Just the Canadian trains are so obsolete, what I remember, European trains from 40 years ago were far more modern :-( .

--
Regards,
Peter
 
Last edited:
flektogon said:
As I am a big fan of trains, I really enjoyed your video. Excellent! Just the Canadian trains are so obsolete, what I remember, European trains from 40 years ago were far more modern :-( .
Click to expand...
The equipment used on "The Canadian" is actually 65 years old - it was introduced in 1955, a far cry from the 1980's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top