Why I picked the Fujinon ZA17x7.6BERM lens for my Sony F800?
First a quick note on my experience with the XDCAM PDW-F800 after a month of using the camera.
I am so impressed with this camera. The image quality is much better then the PMW-350 and the optical disk is a huge time saver. I have one client who I shoot for monthly and we shoot 5 hrs in the helicopter. With the EX1 and 350 I used the Nano Flash which is a great recorder but very cumbersome when it comes to delivery and archive. Still the best choice if you only have 4.2.0. color spacing and lower bit rates. But you have to take the files off the CF cards, then put into FC and check each file since QT will not play them smoothly, then out of FC, then .MXF transfer, then load on a HD. Now with the optical disk I review the files off the disk then send the disk. This saves me a day a month, 12 days a year and that is only one client. This camera will pay back the extra cost quickly. What is your time worth?
Now on to why I picked the Fujinon ZA 17×7.6 lens.
When I purchased the PMW-350 I knew the stock lens would be a starting point. But I needed the optical extender and also better quality glass for some clients. So I spent a lot of time asking question on forums, with Charles at Abel Cine Tech, with friends in the industry, and it all came down to the same advice I give, RENT.
So I rented and borrowed the following lens options:
Canon J15x9.5B4 SD 2/3” lens
Canon HJ17ex7.7B WASE with servo focus and zoom
Fujinon stock PMW-350 16×8
Fujinon HA18x7.6 BERM
Fujinon ZA17x7.6 BERM
I ran the lens through the following test.
1. Studio test with focus/color charts and a set with small details
2. Field test for wide shots at full light and sunset/night light
3. Field test mid zoom and full zoom without extenders
4. Field test mid zoom and full zoom with extenders on all except 350 stock lens
5. Helicopter test flights with same flyby, landing, takeoff, and general shots.
My findings are not based on charts and scopes, but to look at the recorded footage on two different corrected monitors and an HDTV. This is what I see when I show clients footage and how I edit the footage so anything else is not important to me. When I finally select a lens I have Abel Cine Tech in NYC check the lens with their gear so they can approve it and then shade the lens to my camera.
Each lens summary and performance/price rating 1-10:
First test was the 350 stock Fujinon lens. I was surprised how well it performed. The sweet spot in the iris is f4-8. Anything out side this and the lens started going softer. The zoom also did not work very smoothly compared to all the other options. It shuttered and you could not count on it every time so a real weak part of this lens. How would I rate this lens? 7 out of 10 on performance and 8 out of 10 on cost ($2,000 guess)
Next was a SD CanonJ15x9.5 option I borrowed from Doug Jensen. This lens has an optical extender and is the longest lens I tested. First off you can see more CA in this lens then the stock 350 lens. The edge of the picture is softer at all focal lengths. Not bad at full wide to half zoom for the price but I would not use this on a job and sell the footage as HD. The iris sweet spot seemed similar to the stock at f4-8. Rating: 5 out of 10 performance and 9 out of 10 on cost ($3,000 used)
Canon HJ17x7.6 came from Canon in NJ knowing I was testing the lens to buy so you would think it would be sharp and spot on. Well I could not have been more disappointed with this lens. The CA was the worst of all the lens tested. Yes worse then the J15x9.5, which shocked me. The lens did have servo zoom and focus controls. This pushed me to keep my Libec zoom control, and go with a manual focus control. With the manual focus control I feel you have more precise control over the final small movement. Rating: 4 out of 10 on performance and 4 out of 10 on cost ($19,500)
Fujinon HA18x7.6 now this is what a lens is supposed to look like for the price. Very sharp picture through the full zoom range and excellent build. I could not see any CA at all. The iris gave me a bigger range where it looked great down to 2.8 and up to 11 on some tough back lit flying shots. Rating: 9 out of 10 on performance and 6 out of 10 on cost ($16,500)
Fujinon ZA17x7.6 I looked and looked and could not see the difference between this lens and the HA. Very sharp also and through the whole range and amazing how sharp is stays with the extender on. What a bargain for an amazing lens I hope the word is out on this great choice. Rating: 9 out of 10 on performance and 9 out of 10 on cost ($11,900)
I was very disappointed in the Canon HJ and would not say they are all bad. But for Canon to send me this lens knowing I was looking at this for a test against Fujinon to see which one I would buy, well not impressed.
Both the Fujinon lens options are great, and I can see some difference in build but not much. As for optically I could not see any difference between them and neither could a few other people who helped with the test. Maybe this is due to the Fujinon knowing Abel would look the lens over prior to sending it to me or maybe they just have better quality control. Either way Fujinon has earned my business and when I look for a 4.5 wide they will get the nod.
I hope this helps and lets you know RENT when you are looking at glass for your camera or any gear were you will be spending the big bucks.