wide+macro lens recommendations for a Sony APS-C video system?

[bghazzal]

Hello all,

 

I'm started looking into future upgrade options for my video rig, and APS-C cameras seem to be the best in my price range (otherwise I would like a cropped sensor more than FF)

Currently looking into the Sony A6700, which seems to be a better package than the Canon R7 in the APS-C range (though I do have reservations about WB possibilities), and more financially accessible than the Sony FX30

 

However, I'm completely clueless in the Sony ecosystem and practical for lenses for video, so was wondering what your recommendations would be for:

 

- a wide lens

AF is not really important here (I will be shooting in manual), but I would like to avoid corner distortion. Doesn't have to be super-duper wide.
The Sony 11mm F1.8 SEL11F18 has been recommended - maybe rectilinear options?

 

Matching port recommendations for a Nauticam housing would be welcome

 

- a macro lens

This would need good AF support, as main application would be blackwater/bonfire type scenarios (again, video only)

AF is one of the reasons (along with 4K60fps, HDMI monitor support and battery life) prompting the interest in an update, as following fast moving small critters on a tiny focal plane is tricky - there's only some much you can do with elbows and it's too fast for manual adjustements.

Since this is an APS-C cropped sensor with a x1.5 crop, I'm thinking a 60mm macro would be good in this type of scenario?

 

Looking forward to reading your wise insights

 

cheers!

 

ben

 

 

Edited November 14 by bghazzal

[ChipBPhoto]

4 hours ago, bghazzal said:

Since this is an APS-C cropped sensor with a x1.5 crop, I'm thinking a 60mm macro would be good in this type of scenario?

Hi @bghazzal,

 

For macro, I have been quite impressed with the Zeiss 50 2.8 macro.  I use it with my a1 and have found it to be a fast and accurate focus with very sharp details.  This translates to an 75mm in FF lingo, which is not much of a difference than 90.  I also tried the Canon EF-S 60 with a Metabones V.  For a Sony solution, I prefer the Zeiss 50 in all aspects over the Canon 60.

For wide, I’m a big fan of the Nauticam WWL-1B, or WWL-C depending on the lens used.  It is super sharp to the corners and allows zooming as needed.  The view range is 130 degree FoV down to ~60 degree FoV.  It also allows super close focus on standard lenses which is great for a near macro closeness or close focus wide angle work.

 

Curious why you’re not interested in the Canon R7?  Canon white balance has traditionally been better, but Sony has made significant improvements.

chip

 

Edited November 14 by ChipBPhoto

[Nikolausz]

The Sony 11mm F1.8 SEL11F18 is actually a rectilinear lens, but I can also recommend the SEL1118 F4 optically stabilised zoom, which is good when you have enough light and it gives you additional flexibility. 

There is a new version (E PZ 10-20 mm F4 G) but I don't have any experience with it.

I think A6700 is an excellent choice. I use A6400 but I would prefer A6700 if I would start from scratch.

For macro I use the 90mm lens but I think it's not the best choice for blackwater video. 

I also have the 30 mm macro, which could be an interesting choice for close-up but not good for extreme macro.

A really good macro lens around 50mm is a bit lacking. Optical quality is there but according to my research AF is not that fast and accurate.

[Chris Ross]

Not an easy choice, there's trade offs a-plenty in APS_C.   Canon allows good WB, probably good AF with the old EF-S 60mm macro on their adapter, the 18-45 lens is also listed with the WWL.  Sony allows you to use the WWL with the 28-60 which is a good solution by all accounts - the Zeiss 50mm seems to work well with the A1 - but how is it with the A6700?  As I recall the 90mm was regarded as a bit slow until the A1 came along so AF seems to be a bit body dependent.

 

On housings I see Marelux now has an R7 housing with an A6700 coming soon.

 

If you were looking at photos I'd be suggesting m43 as a good option plenty of lenses to choose from there, but for video OM system doesn't have the reputation that Panasonic does and AF might be lacking with the Panasonic bodies for macro.  If the OM-1 were good enough in video the 30mm Panasonic lens is very snappy AF and a wide choice of rectilinear wides available. 

[bghazzal]

10 hours ago, ChipBPhoto said:

Hi @bghazzal,

 

For macro, I have been quite impressed with the Zeiss 50 2.8 macro.  I use it with my a1 and have found it to be a fast and accurate focus with very sharp details.  This translates to an 75mm in FF lingo, which is not much of a difference than 90.  I also tried the Canon EF-S 60 with a Metabones V.  For a Sony solution, I prefer the Zeiss 50 in all aspects over the Canon 60.

For wide, I’m a big fan of the Nauticam WWL-1B, or WWL-C depending on the lens used.  It is super sharp to the corners and allows zooming as needed.  The view range is 130 degree FoV down to ~60 degree FoV.  It also allows super close focus on standard lenses which is great for a near macro closeness or close focus wide angle work.

 

Curious why you’re not interested in the Canon R7?  Canon white balance has traditionally been better, but Sony has made significant improvements.

chip

 

Thank I'll look into these - main reason for putting the R7 is the crop factor applied for 4K video - to quote what I've been reading online on the subject, on the R7 uncropped 4k60fps is line-skipped, and the image quality is not as good as in 4K fine (which is oversampled from 7K) or 4k60 crop (which is a 1:1 4K “cutout” of the R7’s sensor) - specs on 4K modes are here maybe I'm reading this wrong but it seems like R7 sensor crop implementation is not as efficient as on the similarly priced A6700.
But yes, i'm a little worried about WB on the Sony...
 

9 hours ago, Nikolausz said:

The Sony 11mm F1.8 SEL11F18 is actually a rectilinear lens, but I can also recommend the SEL1118 F4 optically stabilised zoom, which is good when you have enough light and it gives you additional flexibility. 

There is a new version (E PZ 10-20 mm F4 G) but I don't have any experience with it.

I think A6700 is an excellent choice. I use A6400 but I would prefer A6700 if I would start from scratch.

For macro I use the 90mm lens but I think it's not the best choice for blackwater video. 

I also have the 30 mm macro, which could be an interesting choice for close-up but not good for extreme macro.

A really good macro lens around 50mm is a bit lacking. Optical quality is there but according to my research AF is not that fast and accurate.

Thanks, I’ll do some digging. Good to know for macro lenses - a primarily BW shooter also mentioned that some people using the A7R are using the monster adapter to use the Nikon 60 macro
But not sure if this would work on the A6700 as well.

90mm on a cropped sensor will be too much to handle for BW type scenarios I think.

 

The A6*** range is a little odd, so I'm really happy to hear feedback from someone using one for video.
I don't really understand the positioning, seem to me these are mainly aimed a v-loggers and professionnal land shooters look for a cheaper B-cam?
Very little info for UW use, even less for UW video.

But on the spec front, it looks pretty capable, with a somewhat similar lineup to the FX3 range - not sure how this works in real life though, and if I had the choice, I would prefer a camera which isn't a hybrid since I don't shoot stills, but these are in a different price bracket.

 

3 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

Not an easy choice, there's trade offs a-plenty in APS_C.   Canon allows good WB, probably good AF with the old EF-S 60mm macro on their adapter, the 18-45 lens is also listed with the WWL.  Sony allows you to use the WWL with the 28-60 which is a good solution by all accounts - the Zeiss 50mm seems to work well with the A1 - but how is it with the A6700?  As I recall the 90mm was regarded as a bit slow until the A1 came along so AF seems to be a bit body dependent.

 

On housings I see Marelux now has an R7 housing with an A6700 coming soon.

 

If you were looking at photos I'd be suggesting m43 as a good option plenty of lenses to choose from there, but for video OM system doesn't have the reputation that Panasonic does and AF might be lacking with the Panasonic bodies for macro.  If the OM-1 were good enough in video the 30mm Panasonic lens is very snappy AF and a wide choice of rectilinear wides available. 

Thanks Chris - yes, it’s tricky and I still do have reservations regarding the Sony when it comes to wide-angle WB (which for me will be with a Keldan filter and/or mixed lighting) - for this I would love to reunited with Canon colours, but at the same time in terms of image quality/sensor and AF Sony does seem to have the lead for video in this price range.
 

I didn’t know for the Marelux A6700, thanks for the heads-up.
 

Regarding M43, this was indeed my go to choice until recently - unbeatable plan was to get a second-hand GH5s rig, and work with that for a while as it’s a great tool.

But something came up, unfortunately... a growing interest in plankton and BW/bonfire type shooting scenarios, for which I really need a workable video AF.

Working in manual works fine for wide or standard ground-based macro/supermacro, but when it comes to small critters moving in the water column, the combination of shallow depth of field and erratic movement makes manual focus too much to handle.

What happens is that I get the animal in focus (using peaking as my ref) and start shooting, but they tend to move in and out of focus range too fast for me to make the small adjustments required to follow-focus at this magnification level.

I’ve even played around with Panasonic tracking AF, and can get the tracking locked on the critter (it’s amazingly good - possibly because this is a high-contrast situation), but the lens / actual AF is way too slow to follow and make the required micro-adjustment in time (as in really slow, 3 seconds of so...), so manual focus and following with the camera is more efficient.

And I can't adjust manually on the camera itself  - I need to lose a hand to reach the knob, which moves/shakes the camera a lot at this magnification level, and also the adjustement range is not precise enough to follow-focus.

So I just follow in manual by moving the camera, using peaking as a reference - we're talking small adjustments forward of back, of a couple of cm, but it's tough to try to read critter movement.

And this is where AF would come in - logically, if the lens is fast enough to do its bit while I also follow along, working together should work well and extend the in-focus duration of  encounters

Also having 60fps will allow me to slow down to 50% speed, which will help as well compared to 30fps.
 

But all this said and done, the main issue I’m having here is that it’s very difficult to estimate underwater AF performance for macro video, where I would need the camera to work with me and make small focal adjustements so we follow the critter together.
I think it's doable as I'm already able to tracking-lock on critters, which is pointless but shows that even a Panasonic can track. Then it's just a question of lens AF efficiency.

 

cheers
ben

 

Edited November 15 by bghazzal

[Davide DB]

Out of curiosity, What's wrong of this native lens?

No stabilization, huge MFD?

 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1277527-REG/sony_sel50m28_fe_50mm_f_2_8_macro.html

[Chris Ross]

1 hour ago, Davide DB said:

Out of curiosity, What's wrong of this native lens?

No stabilization, huge MFD?

 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1277527-REG/sony_sel50m28_fe_50mm_f_2_8_macro.html

Very slow AF I believe.

[Davide DB]

15 hours ago, Nikolausz said:

The Sony 11mm F1.8 SEL11F18 is actually a rectilinear lens, but I can also recommend the SEL1118 F4 optically stabilised zoom, which is good when you have enough light and it gives you additional flexibility. 

There is a new version (E PZ 10-20 mm F4 G) but I don't have any experience with it.

I think A6700 is an excellent choice. I use A6400 but I would prefer A6700 if I would start from scratch.

For macro I use the 90mm lens but I think it's not the best choice for blackwater video. 

I also have the 30 mm macro, which could be an interesting choice for close-up but not good for extreme macro.

A really good macro lens around 50mm is a bit lacking. Optical quality is there but according to my research AF is not that fast and accurate.

 

How does it work tracking AF for video on your A6400?

Did you make any test on moving UW critters?

 

[Nikolausz]

3 hours ago, Davide DB said:

 

How does it work tracking AF for video on your A6400?

Did you make any test on moving UW critters?

 

With wide angle lens with bigger fish (Pike, catfish) it works quite well.

I will test macro (30mm and 90mm) in December in Bali.

[fruehaufsteher2]

I have the 6400 and am struggling with whether I shouldn't buy the 6700. The 6400 is already very good in terms of AF and tracking, but the 6700 should be a whole generation better.
If the tracking is even at the level of the A7 IV, then the tracking feels like a military target acquisition system and you can rely on it amazingly well. This should also make the 50mm Macro much faster (hopefully)

I'd go with the 10-20 with dome for wide angle and zeiss touit 50/2,8 for macro (consider also the 90mm Sony!)

[ChipBPhoto]

45 minutes ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

I have the 6400 and am struggling with whether I shouldn't buy the 6700. The 6400 is already very good in terms of AF and tracking, but the 6700 should be a whole generation better.
If the tracking is even at the level of the A7 IV, then the tracking feels like a military target acquisition system and you can rely on it amazingly well. This should also make the 50mm Macro much faster (hopefully)

I'd go with the 10-20 with dome for wide angle and zeiss touit 50/2,8 for macro (consider also the 90mm Sony!)

 

Yes, I've been told by a6700 users that it is a noticeable improvement over previous "a" series models, especially in focus speed, tracking, and overall lens performance.  This does boost the Zeiss 50, and other legacy lens performance.  White balance is also noticeably improved.  

 

If you decide you want a longer macro, perhaps consider the new Tamron 90.  It translates to 135mm in FF terms.  The min focus distance is less than the Sony.  It does not have the OSS found in the Sony 90, but there is onboard stabilization in the a6700 body.  Some still prefer to have OSS built in to the lens, while it is not an issue for others.  Personal choice and needs. 

 

[fruehaufsteher2]

With the massive improvement of the AF, the 90mm Sony is now fast!

[Nikolausz]

Tamron 60mm would be fine

[Davide DB]

While the used market is full of camera bodies, housings are like unicorns 🦄

[ChipBPhoto]

15 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

While the used market is full of camera bodies, housings are like unicorns 🦄

 

...especially current models! 

[humu9679]

12 hours ago, Davide DB said:

Out of curiosity, What's wrong of this native lens?

No stabilization, huge MFD?

 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1277527-REG/sony_sel50m28_fe_50mm_f_2_8_macro.html

 

It has a reputation for slow focusing. On newer bodies, once it's locked on, it tracks pretty well.

[humu9679]

4 hours ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

I have the 6400 and am struggling with whether I shouldn't buy the 6700. The 6400 is already very good in terms of AF and tracking, but the 6700 should be a whole generation better.
If the tracking is even at the level of the A7 IV, then the tracking feels like a military target acquisition system and you can rely on it amazingly well. This should also make the 50mm Macro much faster (hopefully)

I'd go with the 10-20 with dome for wide angle and zeiss touit 50/2,8 for macro (consider also the 90mm Sony!)

 

I think Sony's autofocus is really something. Amazingly sticky tracking once it's locked on. The 10-20mm or older 10-18 may be good behind a dome. 90 is a bit long unless you're exclusively shooting creatures <20mm, so the Zeiss Touit 50 macro may be the winner.

[humu9679]

@Davide DB Any opinions on using the WWL for video? I think I saw a post where you mentioned wobbles at depth.

[Davide DB]

4 hours ago, humu9679 said:

@Davide DB Any opinions on using the WWL for video? I think I saw a post where you mentioned wobbles at depth.

 

This was the thread I opened while ago.

It's strange I was the only one to notice it but we are few guys to shoot video with wet lens.

 

 

 

[ChipBPhoto]

For what it's worth, I have not noticed any issues with the WWL doing video.  I also have a good friend that exclusively does video on a m4/3 and has used the WWL for years with no issues.  The only exception is a time she didn't burp the lens after entry and missed some footage due to the camera focusing on a small grain between the flat port and WWL.  Oops! 

[Davide DB]

9 hours ago, ChipBPhoto said:

For what it's worth, I have not noticed any issues with the WWL doing video.  I also have a good friend that exclusively does video on a m4/3 and has used the WWL for years with no issues.  The only exception is a time she didn't burp the lens after entry and missed some footage due to the camera focusing on a small grain between the flat port and WWL.  Oops! 

 

Yes of course you can. I've been using this combo for 5 years without any problems. But since I was coming from another 5 years of the classic dome solution, I had noticed that the stability of my shooting had deteriorated. My friends used to tease me that I was getting old and my hand was shaking. 

Then I had the counter proof by reusing the 12-35mm and the dome.

It depends on the focal length used. The defect is much less noticeable at maximum wide but zooming in is more pronounced. With the 12-35mm I can be stable at 35mm (70 equiv.) In free water. With the 14-42mm zoomed to maximum behind WWL absolutely not.

So it also depends on what kind of shooting you do. For narration you use narrower focal lengths usually.

I'm splitting hairs of course 😉

 

 

[bghazzal]

Thanks for all the advice, this is really useful.

 

I would love to know your opinion on the following - as stated, I've recently started shooting small planktonic critters (so small, 10- 5cm for the largest to 0.5mm range) in blackwater/bonfire type settings, which I most likely will be concentrating on in the future.

On the 1" compact I currently shoot with,  I have a zoom lens , and I'm working mostly with my 36-72mm equivalent lens at zoomed in to 50mm equivalent, combined with a +6 diopter - this is my default shooting mode and works well in most BW-type situations (at f/11, I get a working distance of  min: 30mm max: 210mm with this setup)

Now this is all on a 1" sensor, so a crop factor of 2.7.

 

I zoom out to 36mm for larger subjects (eventually removing the diopter for bigger ones like squids).
I sometimes shoot with a stronger diopter (+12.5, in this clip for instance) also in zoomed to 50mm equivalent, but rarely go beyond 60mm equivalent with either diopters as it's very difficult to handle (shake and in-camera spotting/framing issues)

Now switching to Sony ASP-C will be a completely different game of course,.

Looking at the macro options mentioned above a 50mm like the Zeiss (plus diopters on a flip-mount) should give me required magnification with good image quality.
 

However, I'm a little concerned about flexibility, and wondering if in this type of scenario it might not be better to go with a zoom lens, like a 16-50mm, which has been suggested.
Keep in mind that this is for video, so as much as I love pixel-peeping, it's a little different with moving pictures.

Two things I'm concerned about with a zoom lens is:
1. having to work in the telephoto range more often than not (which will increase shake and increase distortion)
2. autofocus performance, which might be slower than with a prime?

Any thoughts on this, 50mm prime vs. 16-50mm zoom for bw-type video on an ASP-C sensor?

thanks!

Edited November 17 by bghazzal

[Davide DB]

4 hours ago, bghazzal said:

However, I'm a little concerned about flexibility, and wondering if in this type of scenario it might not be better to go with a zoom lens, like a 16-50mm, which has been suggested.

 

With an optional CMC-x flip holder...

[fruehaufsteher2]

It‘s your @bghazzal fault that I ordered the A6700, but this time at the express wish of my wife (!!) who now wants to shoot videos and photos. 
 

Housing will be Guccicam but now I am searching for a dome solution that is also capable of splits (the new 10-20 comes with the A6700). 
 

Maybe it won’t take long until I can give you some feedback. 

[humu9679]

@bghazzal If you're doing exclusively macro, I think a dedicated macro is the way to go (maybe Zeiss Touit 50mm - 75mm FF equivalent), plus a CMC-2 (easier to work with) and CMC-1 (more magnification) - or equivalents. The 16-50mm would give more flexibility if you use a wet wide lens and close up lenses, but it's very pedestrian for close focusing on its own, unlike the FF 20-70mm or Olympus' 12-40/45 lenses. The 90 macro on APS-c is a 135mm FF equivalent - a bit unwieldy and tight with its narrow angle of view - probably not good for BW.

 

I have a FF A7c and a 90 macro. Had and sold the Sony 50 macro. Looking to try a Zeiss Touit 50 macro on an APS-c body in the future. Probably the A6700. I traveled with the FF Sony 50 macro, which worked okay with the A7c in terms of locking on and tracking for general photos. The combo did not work well for me with BW. I was autofocusing, locking and tracking - but the photographer - or the combo -  was too slow. Manual focusing with both the Sony and Zeiss may be a chore with their relatively long throws (turn, turn, turn). I've seen pretty good FF 90 macro BW, but I haven't tried BW with that combo. You'd think, living in Hawaii, I would have more opportunities to do BW, but my time in the water is limited by personal circumstances.