I feel you. The most viable solution is to go for Sigma Art lenses. I believe it uses the same design from its cinema line. It's sharp, sometimes too sharp for video works. It's manual focus is excellent, with hard stops.
I see a person upset that his precious camera system doesn't support fully mechanical lenses.
It's not the macro issue. I have not a single one doubt that with macro lenses everything is great because macro photography is very demanding to precision of manual focusing, so Sony did the work correct here. The problems appearing when it comes to lenses like 135 1.8 GM. I used Canon's 135 f2 L in the past a lot. I enjoyed it. The most favorite part was to play with bokeh, using micro adjustments of Af. And guess what? It's gone. This ability is gone. I tested 135 GM in store with show room for like an hour. And it's literally impossible to do basic simple things I did for years on Canon L primes (135/200) due to the reasons written above - bad, jagged, spurting response of the ring, too big increments (they are much different on 135, because sony decided that this is portraits-only lens so they made increments big enough to fast focusing but too big for calm manual shooting of scenic stills, while 70-180 Tamron, just for an example, is pretty good in this terms, but this is uncustomized option and I literally can't to adjust the size of increment) and standby mode by default on FBW; when ring is idle - FBW isn't active which is a big problem as I wrote previously. And this is just one example, for one lens - 135 GM. But i had pretty same issues with FBW on my Zeiss 55 1.8 which I'm using for years and after years with FBW i really started to hate it. All of that issues are different for every lens but most of the issues are same. Macro photography uses close distance for focusing and all discussed issues ain't a big problem for such distance for macro lens. I literally think to get Sigma 135 1.8 Art instead of GM due to awfull implementation of FBW (which is already not perfect, compromise tech, with a lot of different flaws) on 135 GM (and Sigma's 135 is much weaker optically glass than 135 GM, but Sigma's focus ring is so good - classic mechanical physically attached to the motor ring). I just hoping that, possibly some other vendor would create decent 135 1.8 glass for a Sony, with optics on par with GM but with classic mechanical focus ring, but that's the dreams. Even 135 f2 L with 5dm4 looks better as an option than 135 GM on any latest Sony's body. And this is just a one issue with FBW. Imagine how many issues ain't discussed still due to adolescence of this tech. The problem is that i want 135 GM so much because of it's overwhelming optics (and an optics on 135 GM is beyond magnificent), but also I want normal, reliable classic mechanical focus ring, attached to the motor, and guess what? Such lens ain't exist. There's Zeiss Apo 135, full manual, Sigma 135 Art with polymeric glass and weak bokeh, and good old Canon 135 f2 L, which is can be only adapted via RF/EF adapter on RF body, and it's absolutely not fast, when works with adapter. I'm really considerng switching to R6/Z6M2 because at least I can adapt old non-FBW lenses there. FBW is such a frustration. People here writing here how they are happy with FBW, but give it a time. Few years of using FBW on daily basis (like I did) and you would start to hate it. It's just annoying. It has too many flaws. It's so uncooked technology. And after years with FBW I just want mechanical focus ring back. Maybe I would just by some manual-only lens as a compromise but that's incongruous - that I need to buy two lenses, manual and AF, just to get same result as on good old Canon's 135 f2 L. 2021 is frustrating. Almost all vendors aside from Sigma went FBW and that's it.
Where do you see that person?
Where do you see that system?
I don't deny that
But I have a problem with over the top, unsubstantiated claims like in this thread
Cine mainly wants a long throw and hyperfocality
It's a term of expression of the English language. It's not meant to be taken literally. A literal response is fairly autistic.
On the Fujifilm website and on your gear list.
Good.
It's not unsubstantiated, nor is it over the top. On a mechanical lens, you have a much higher range of focus adjustments that can be made, as described by the OP. You can substantiate this by testing yourself, like I and many others have done.
And they happen to be mechanical focusing. Hence the statement that they're vastly better. If they weren't, movie studios would be using autofocus, fly-by-wire lenses.
