Author: Matt Johnson

The iPhone 17 Pro just introduced two massive upgrades for filmmakers, and one of them is genuinely surprising. In fact, it is a world first for a smartphone.

Apple has been steadily pushing the iPhone closer to dedicated video cameras, and with the iPhone 17 Pro, that momentum continues in a big way. Let’s break down the two features that matter most if you create video.

A Completely New Front Camera for Video

The first upgrade was heavily rumored and widely expected: a new front facing camera.

Apple last made a meaningful upgrade to the selfie camera all the way back with the iPhone 11. Since then, it has remained mostly unchanged. While it was usable on the iPhone 16 Pro, the rear cameras had advanced so much that many creators started using MagSafe mounted monitors just so they could record with the back camera while still seeing themselves.

With the iPhone 17 lineup, Apple finally addressed this.

All iPhone 17 models now feature a significantly upgraded selfie camera, but the real innovation is not just resolution or image quality. It is the sensor shape itself.

Why the Square Sensor Matters

Instead of using a traditional horizontal sensor, the new front camera uses a square sensor design. This is something you usually see in 360 cameras. DJI’s Osmo 360 is a great example.

The benefit of a square sensor is flexibility.

If you want to film vertical video, the camera crops the sides of the sensor. If you want to film horizontal video, it crops the top and bottom. The key advantage is that you no longer need to rotate your phone just to change orientation.

Because the resolution remains the same either way, you can keep holding your phone vertically and still capture high quality horizontal video. Considering how often we naturally hold our phones upright, this is a surprisingly smart move by Apple.

ProRes RAW Comes to the iPhone

The second major upgrade is the one that caught me completely off guard.

Apple has officially added ProRes RAW internal recording to the iPhone 17 Pro.

After introducing ProRes video on the iPhone 14 and Apple Log on the iPhone 15, Apple slowed down major video upgrades with the iPhone 16. The iPhone 17 Pro makes up for that pause in a big way.

ProRes RAW is a widely used raw video format that, until recently, required an external recorder. Over the past year, more cameras have started supporting internal RAW recording, and now the iPhone has joined that list.

Apple Log 2 and Potential Dynamic Range Gains

Alongside ProRes RAW, Apple has also introduced Apple Log 2.

Apple says this new version offers a wider color gamut, which raises an interesting question about dynamic range. It is unclear whether dynamic range has actually improved, but this is something I will be testing extensively.

If Apple Log 2 delivers even a modest improvement, it could make the iPhone 17 Pro an even more serious option for professional video workflows.

Why Internal RAW Took So Long

There are two main reasons ProRes RAW did not arrive on the iPhone sooner.

First, RED previously held the patent for internal RAW recording and aggressively defended it. Apple even lost a court case over this years ago. In 2024, Nikon acquired RED, and since then, the company appears to be far more flexible with licensing. That shift has opened the door for internal RAW recording across many brands, including Apple.

The second reason is heat and processing power.

ProRes RAW creates extremely large files and generates significant heat. With the iPhone 17 Pro now using a vapor chamber cooling system, Apple finally has the thermal headroom needed to support this feature reliably.

Internal Storage vs External SSD Recording

One big question remains: will ProRes RAW be limited to external SSD recording?

It is possible Apple will allow ProRes RAW recording to external storage using the native Camera app. At the same time, third party apps like Blackmagic Camera may support recording ProRes RAW directly to internal storage.

This could also explain why Apple now offers a 2TB version of the iPhone 17 Pro. Recording 4K ProRes RAW footage fills storage incredibly fast.

More Video Upgrades Are Coming

Beyond these headline features, there are several additional improvements that filmmakers will appreciate. These include new rear camera sensors, improved anti reflective screen coating, and a new telephoto zoom option.

I will be testing all of these features in depth and sharing my full iPhone 17 Pro review from a filmmaker’s perspective very soon.

The final boss of portrait lenses is here!

Sigma just did something that has literally never been done before. This is the world’s first 135mm f/1.4 lens, and it produces some of the most beautiful, buttery, beard-grabbing bokeh I’ve ever seen.

In this article, I’m reviewing the Sigma 135mm f/1.4 from the perspective of a wedding videographer and corporate and commercial filmmaker, and helping you decide if this lens is actually worth buying and where it shines the most.

Why This Lens Is a Big Deal

We’ve had plenty of f/1.4 lenses.
We’ve had plenty of 135mm lenses.

But we have never had a 135mm lens with an f/1.4 aperture!

Sigma pulled it off, and I love that they continue to release unique lenses instead of the same safe designs everyone else is making. This lens exists because Sigma is willing to do things other brands won’t.

Why I Love the 135mm Focal Length

I’ve owned the Sony Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 and the Sony 135mm f/1.8 GM, and I keep coming back to this focal length for one reason. It has a very specific look.

A 135mm lens is perfect for head-and-shoulders shots of a single person or a couple. You get incredible compression on the subject while the background just melts away, even at f/1.8.

So naturally, the question is… what if you could have more?

More background separation.
More low-light performance.
More melty-ness?

Sigma answered that question by actually building it.

Size, Weight, and Handling

Yes, this lens is bigger than other 135mm lenses, especially up front. That’s expected when you’re dealing with an f/1.4 aperture at this focal length.

That said, it’s not as massive as I expected it to be.

The lens feels short and stubby rather than long and unwieldy. Honestly, it feels like a big telephoto lens that got hit with a shrink ray.

One interesting design choice is the included tripod collar. Usually, you only see these on very heavy lenses to help balance weight, but this lens is only about one pound heavier than the Sony 135mm f/1.8, which does not include a collar.

The good news is that the tripod collar is removable, and personally, I’d probably take it off for most of my filming.

Build Quality and Controls

From a build standpoint, this feels like a modern, high-end Sigma lens.

You get:

• A large 105mm front filter thread
• Two programmable buttons
• An aperture ring that can be locked or de-clicked
• A dedicated autofocus and manual focus switch

Everything feels solid, well-built, and professional.

Autofocus and Focus Breathing

Autofocus performance was fast and reliable in all of my testing, which lines up with my experience using other newer Sigma lenses.

There is some focus breathing, similar to Sigma’s 200mm lens, but the amount of bokeh this lens produces hides most of it. In real-world use, I don’t think it’s a problem at all.

Overall, focus breathing is minimal, especially considering that Sigma lenses do not support Sony’s focus breathing compensation feature.

Image Quality and Bokeh

This is what you actually care about.

With this much glass, the image quality is absolutely gorgeous.

I’ve always loved the look of a 135mm at f/1.8 because of the compression and bokeh, and this lens takes that look and pushes it even further. Shooting wide open at f/1.4 gives you an insanely shallow depth of field.

Speaking of which, Sony 135mm GM – You NEED This Lens For Your Wedding Films (Review) is worth a look too.

You can have an eye in focus but not an eyelash. It genuinely feels like the camera is focusing on the iris itself, while the rest of the eye starts to fall out of focus.

That kind of depth of field is wild.

Autofocus is good enough to keep up, but if you’re trying to pull focus manually while handheld, even subtle body movement from breathing can shift focus. This is not a lens you casually manual focus at f/1.4 unless the camera is locked down.

Real-World Use for Filmmakers

If you film weddings, interviews, or talking head content, this lens is ridiculous in the best way.

You could be filming in a venue with a mediocre background, look through this lens, and suddenly ask yourself, “What background?”

It’s gone. The bokeh has completely eaten it.

Your subject pops off the frame so aggressively that it almost feels like they were cut out and placed on a green screen.

And honestly, I have zero complaints about that.

Final Thoughts

If you already love the 135mm focal length and didn’t think it could get any better, this lens proves that it absolutely can.

The Sigma 135mm f/1.4 is big, bold, unapologetic, and incredibly beautiful. It’s not for everyone, but if extreme subject separation, compression, and cinematic depth are your thing, this lens is very special.

Thanks for reading, and have a great day.

Is this the FX3 killer?

Nikon and RED have officially released their first fully collaborative camera, and on paper, it looks wildly competitive. Internal RED RAW and Nikon RAW, excellent Nikon autofocus, 32-bit float audio with no adapter, one of the largest screens on a mirrorless camera, and a $2200 price tag.

That is the new Nikon ZR. I also gave the Nikon Z5ii the first-impressions treatment if you want the cheaper end of the lineup.

But there is one big question: without a fan, how does it handle heat during long shoots like outdoor wedding ceremonies?

I’m reviewing the Nikon ZR from the perspective of a wedding, documentary, and commercial filmmaker to help you decide if this camera is worth buying.

First Impressions and Camera Body Design

When you first pick up the ZR, it feels far more like a Nikon mirrorless camera than a RED camera. Traditional RED cameras are boxy and require full rigs with rails, handles, and accessories. The ZR is different.

This camera has a grip, a built in screen, and can easily be handheld without any rigging. That sets the tone for the entire experience.

Overall, the ZR feels about 70 percent Nikon and 30 percent RED. That is not a bad thing, but if you are coming from a traditional RED camera, there will be an adjustment.

A Huge Screen That Changes Everything

One of the best design choices on the ZR is the rear screen.

The FX3 has a 3 inch screen. The ZR has a 4 inch screen. That may not sound dramatic, but in real use, it feels significantly larger and far easier to see.

The screen is bright, sharp, and works extremely well outdoors. Touch controls are responsive and thoughtfully designed. While it is not fully articulating without flipping out first, that is not a dealbreaker for me.

There is no EVF on this camera, which reinforces that it is built for video first. The FX3 does not have an EVF either, but the ZR’s larger screen makes that easier to live with.

The Weirdest Card Slot Choice I’ve Seen in Years

Now we need to talk about the strangest design decision on this camera.

When you open the battery door, you will find two card slots. One is a CFexpress Type B slot, which is exactly what you want. The other is a microSD card slot that can only record H.264 or H.265.

Yes, microSD.

This is confusing and honestly hard to justify. It is not another CFexpress slot or even a full size SD card slot.

Even worse, the ZR cannot record to both card slots at the same time, just like other Nikon cameras. That means no true backup recording.

My hope is that Nikon adds proxy recording to the microSD slot via firmware. That would actually make this choice useful.

Until then, it is something you will have to accept if you want this camera.

Sensor Specs and Video Performance

The ZR uses the Nikon Z mount, giving you access to native Nikon lenses and a huge selection of adapted glass.

Inside, it features a partially stacked sensor with 7.5 stops of in body image stabilization. Dual ISO sits at 800 and 6400. Video specs include:

• Up to 6K at 60fps in full frame
• 4K at 120fps with a 1.5x crop

The FX3 offers a smaller crop at 4K 120fps, but personally I shoot 60fps far more often, so this does not bother me.

If these specs sound familiar, that is because the ZR shares its sensor with the Nikon Z6 III, which I still consider one of the best value cameras Nikon has ever made.

Aggressive Pricing That Makes No Sense (In a Good Way)

Here’s where things get interesting.

The Z6 III launched at $2500. The ZR is a more video focused camera, built in collaboration with RED, and it costs $2200.

That is not how this usually works.

Sony, Panasonic, and Canon all charge more for their cinema focused versions. Nikon did the opposite.

Considering the FX3 now costs around $4100, the ZR comes in at nearly half the price.

That alone makes it impossible to ignore.

Internal RAW Recording in Three Formats

This is the headline feature.

The ZR supports three internal RAW formats, which is the widest RAW support I have ever seen in a camera.

Nikon N-RAW

N-RAW has always looked fantastic and plays back smoothly in DaVinci Resolve. It is reliable, efficient, and easy to work with.

ProRes RAW

ProRes RAW is here as well, but support across editing software is still limited. I personally struggle to recommend it unless your workflow demands it.

RED RAW

Yes, this camera records RED RAW internally. This has never existed outside of a dedicated RED box camera.

There are limitations. It is 12 bit instead of 16 bit, and compression options are fixed. That may be a dealbreaker for some, but remember the price. This is still the cheapest RED camera ever made.

More importantly, the color science matches RED cameras incredibly well, making it a fantastic match for multi camera shoots.

Autofocus That Actually Matters

One of my biggest hopes for this Nikon and RED collaboration was Nikon’s autofocus.

Thankfully, it is excellent.

Autofocus is fast, reliable, and capable of detecting people, animals, and objects. It is fully competitive with Sony and Canon.

Considering RED cameras have never been known for strong autofocus, this is one of the biggest upgrades RED has ever received.

32 Bit Float Audio Done the Right Way

This might be my favorite feature.

The ZR supports internal 32 bit float audio recording through the 3.5mm microphone jack. No adapter required.

Panasonic cameras require a $500 XLR adapter for this. Other cameras require external recorders. The ZR does not.

Plug in a shotgun mic, lav, or wireless system, and you get 32 bit float audio internally.

That keeps rigs smaller, lighter, and far simpler.

Wireless 32 Bit Float with Hollyland Lark Max 2

I tested the ZR with the Hollyland Lark Max 2, which supports full chain 32 bit float audio.

Running the receiver into the ZR’s mic jack works flawlessly. I recovered audio that was clipped by over 20dB with no issues.

It is genuinely impressive.

Timecode and Ports

The ZR supports timecode over Bluetooth or HDMI, just like previous Nikon cameras.

It does use a micro HDMI port, which is not ideal, but the 4 inch screen makes an external monitor less necessary for many shooters.

There is no dedicated timecode port, so Tentacle or Deity systems will need to use the mic input.

Overheating Tests in Texas Heat

This was my biggest concern.

The FX3 has a fan. The ZR does not.

I tested two ZR cameras outdoors in direct sunlight at 91 degrees Fahrenheit. One recorded 6K 60fps RED RAW. The other recorded 6K 24fps RED RAW.

The results were shocking.

• 6K 60fps recorded for 1 hour, 21 minutes before overheating
• 6K 24fps recorded for over 1 hour, 23 minutes with no warnings

The 24fps camera likely would have lasted until the battery died.

This performance is closer to the Sony a7S III than anything else, and that is excellent news.

Final Verdict: Is the ZR an FX3 Killer?

In many ways, yes.

• Higher resolution
• Internal RED RAW and Nikon RAW
• 32 bit float audio with no adapter
• Larger screen
• Nearly half the price

There are compromises though. The microSD card slot is strange. There is no dual card recording. There is no fan.

But at $2200, this camera is absurdly competitive.

It feels more Nikon than RED, and that will matter depending on your background. For me, that familiarity is a positive.

When you compare the ZR to a $4100 FX3, it is very hard not to call this an FX3 killer.

Let me know what you think!

I’m a Windows guy who has always built his own PC desktops. But this tiny $600 M4 Mac Mini is making me question everything I know about budget video editing.

I bought this Mac Mini with my own money. Apple didn’t send it to me. And after buying an M4 MacBook Air earlier in 2025 and being genuinely blown away by it, I really wanted to see how the Mac Mini would perform with the same chip but now with an actual fan.

What Specs Did I Get?

I put together a full Mac Mini buyer’s guide that breaks down the best bang-for-your-buck option, and spoiler: it’s the base model you can pick up for around $600. That’s the sweet spot. Same M4 chip, same 16GB of unified memory.

For my own setup, I spent a little more. I added $200 for a 512GB SSD (up from 256GB) and another $100 for a 10-gigabit ethernet port so I could connect my NAS. But performance-wise, this machine operates at the same speed as the base $600 model. Same chip, same RAM.

Size and Ports

The M4 Mac Mini is downright tiny. I’m used to a mid-ATX tower case. My first desktop was a full-size tower that weighed around 80 pounds and I carried it back and forth to my apartment in college. The fact that the Mac Mini fits in your hand and outperforms a large desktop is still kind of wild to me.

But the small size comes with a tradeoff: the port situation is minimal. My PC has around 8 USB-A ports, USB-C, plus multiple DisplayPort and HDMI connections from my Nvidia 3080. The Mac Mini? You get 3 Thunderbolt ports on the back, 2 USB-C on the front, and one HDMI port. That’s it.

I run a lot of external hard drives. I’ve had up to 3 monitors going at once. I love ports. So yes, this was a noticeable adjustment.

Sleep, Startup, and macOS

One thing that surprised me coming from PC: the Mac Mini’s sleep and wake behavior is fantastic. With my Windows desktops, I always had to do a full shutdown every night because sleep and hibernation were unreliable. Blue screens, unresponsive computers, you name it. And turning it back on meant waiting anywhere from 30 seconds to a couple of minutes.

The Mac Mini just works. It sips power in sleep, wakes up instantly, and I rarely ever have to fully shut it down. It’s a genuinely great quality-of-life improvement.

I’m still learning macOS. Some things work better than I expected, others are still a bit confusing coming from Windows. I still don’t love the backspace behavior or cut-and-paste workflow, but I’m getting there.

Video Editing Performance: Timeline and Playback

If you read my M4 MacBook Air long-term video editing review, you know that laptop completely blew my mind. Things loaded fast, the timeline scrubbed effortlessly, and it handled 4K and 6K footage without breaking a sweat.

I expected the Mac Mini to be a noticeably bigger step up because of the fan. But honestly, the timeline performance is essentially the same. Fast load times, buttery scrubbing, multiple effects applied with no issues. The M4 chip with 16GB of unified memory handles 4K and 6K editing so well that I struggle to think of a typical video editor who would need the M4 Pro version, let alone a Mac Studio.

The Fan: Quieter Than You’d Expect

The MacBook Air is completely fanless, which was already shocking coming from Dell and Asus laptops that sounded like jet engines. My custom PC has six fans and creates a constant background white noise in my room.

The Mac Mini has one fan. And I consistently find myself wondering if it’s even spinning. It runs at around 1,000 RPM most of the time, including during video renders. You can put your ear right next to it and hear almost nothing. It’s remarkable.

Export and Render Speed: Mac Mini vs. MacBook Air

This is where I expected to see a big difference, and honestly, it’s more minimal than I thought.

If you want to go deeper, I’ve also got A Video Editor’s Review of The Zotac Magnus Mini PC (vs Mac Mini).

In DaVinci Resolve, both the Mac Mini and the MacBook Air took almost exactly the same time to export a 10-minute video with a mix of 4K and 6K clips: around 4 minutes and 8 seconds each.

In Premiere Pro, there was a small gap. The MacBook Air took 11 minutes and 50 seconds. The Mac Mini took 11 minutes and 9 seconds. A 41-second difference on an 11-minute export.

Interestingly, even during that Premiere Pro export, the fan stayed at its baseline 1,000 RPM. I even used a fan control app to manually ramp up the fan speed to see if it would help. It didn’t. Same render time either way. The computer just wasn’t getting hot enough to need more cooling.

Bottom line: if you’re expecting the Mac Mini to be a massive leap over the MacBook Air for rendering, the gap is smaller than you’d think. The MacBook Air is that good. And the Mac Mini is essentially half the price of the Air as long as you already have a monitor and keyboard.

So, Is It the Best Budget Video Editing Computer?

Yes, in my opinion, it absolutely is. As a lifelong Windows PC builder, I can say clearly: nothing on the Windows side comes close to this performance at this price. For a long time, Windows was the go-to for budget video editing. That’s no longer the case.

You will not get this kind of editing speed from a Windows machine at $600. It’s not even close right now.

That said, am I ditching my PC? Nope. I still love PC gaming, and my desktop is still extremely fast. I’ll keep using both, just like I switch between DaVinci Resolve and Premiere Pro depending on the project.

Want to Get Better at Video Editing?

If you’re using a Mac Mini or any other computer for video editing and want to level up your skills, check out my free Edit Videos Like a Pro guide. It covers some of the biggest pro tips I’ve learned over years of editing, and it won’t cost you a thing.

The Sigma 200mm F2 is impractical. I love it!

Let me put it a different way: all these camera and lens companies have made all of the standard lenses at this point. We have all seen a 24-70 or 70-200, and most of these lenses are on their 5th or 6th generation. But me? I love a weird lens. Give me a zoom with only 18mm of focal range. Give me a prime with a crazy aperture.

Give me this lens. The Sigma 200mm F2.

The marriage of an ultra-tight focal length with a crazy shallow depth of field. This lens has one purpose: to give you a stupid amount of bokeh. And I am here for it.

I’m reviewing this lens from the perspective of a freelance, commercial, and wedding filmmaker. I’ll tell you what situations I think it works really well for, because while a lens like this is typically associated with sports photography, I think there are plenty of other uses, especially in the world of filmmaking.

Quick note on transparency: this video is not paid or sponsored by Sigma, but they did loan me the lens so I could make this review, and I’ll be sending it back to them soon.

Build Quality and Features

Take the Sigma 200mm F2 out of the box, and the first thing you’ll notice is that for such a tight lens, this thing is pretty wide. It has quite the circumference at the front, and that isn’t super surprising. For a lens to hit this focal length while letting in this much light, it is going to need a lot of glass, and Sigma has definitely delivered.

What Sigma has also given it is incredible build quality. I’ve used a decent amount of Sigma lenses over the past few years, and this one feels like one of the best lenses they’ve ever made. Everything about it screams premium.

It’s definitely large, but none of that size has gone to waste. You get a ton of functionality packed in: three programmable buttons spaced around the lens, a very smooth focus ring, an aperture ring that can be made clickless, and honestly, a lot of switches. Here’s what they all do:

• AF/MF switch for autofocus and manual focus. And let me just say, the autofocus is fast and responsive, even considering how much glass it’s moving. It had no problem locking onto anything I pointed it at.
• Focus distance switch to set whether the lens can focus closer or only on objects in the distance.
• Optical stabilization switch, because yes, this lens has built-in stabilization that works with your camera’s in-body image stabilization. A lot of companies have gotten away from including stabilization in their lenses lately, and I’m glad to see it here.
• Stabilization mode switch with mode 1 for stationary shots (like on a monopod) and mode 2 for panning shots. If you’re using this lens for video, I recommend leaving it on mode 2.

The bottom of the lens also has a larger tripod mount that makes it easier to hold, and it’s compatible with Arca-Swiss plates, which is a nice touch.

One thing to keep in mind on the front of the lens: because of the large diameter, any filters you use will need to be 105mm, so keep that in mind if you’re shopping for an ND filter for this lens. It also comes with a very large hood, which helps cut back on reflections from all that glass up front. In my testing though, reflections weren’t an issue in any of the footage I filmed.

Teleconverter Compatibility

Since this is a fixed 200mm prime with no zoom, you might be wondering about teleconverter compatibility. Good news: if you buy the L-mount version, Sigma says it will work with their 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, turning it into either a 280mm F2.8 or a 400mm F4. Essentially, you could get three lenses in one.

Focus Breathing

Focus breathing on this lens is interesting. It’s noticeable if you look for it, and there’s more of it than on many newer lenses. But here’s the thing: the depth of field is so shallow that the bokeh actually covers up a lot of the focus breathing, making it a non-issue in practice. And honestly, how often are you doing a full rack focus on a 200mm lens compared to, say, a 35mm? Not very often.

Image Quality

Like pretty much every modern Sigma lens I’ve used, this lens is incredibly sharp. The bokeh is pleasing even stopped down, and once you open it all the way to F2, the separation from the background is just ridiculous. Whatever you want in focus will be ultra sharp, and everything else will melt away into nothingness.

And that is exactly the reason you would buy a lens like this. Is it specialized? Yes. Is it large? Yes. Does it have the versatility to get a wide variety of shots in different scenarios? No. And that’s OK. Buy a 70-200mm if you want versatility. That’s not what the Sigma 200mm F2 is about.

This lens is about giving you the most ridiculous, bokeh-filled shots you’ve ever taken. It won’t be the only lens in your bag, but when you need it, you’re going to be really glad you have it.

While you’re here, take a look at ULTIMATE Wedding Ceremony Lens – Sigma 60-600 Lens Review.

Who Is This Lens For?

Obviously this lens is going to be right at home for sports and wildlife photography. If you’re filming football games, basketball courts, or you’re out in the woods trying to get the perfect shot of a Roseate Spoonbill (yes, that’s a real bird, look it up), you already know you’re going to love this lens.

But what about filmmakers outside of those categories? Here’s where it gets interesting:

Wedding filmmakers: imagine you’re filming a ceremony and need a long focal length to reach the front, but the venue has an incredibly distracting background. Why did they put the ceremony in front of the parking lot? I don’t know, but what I do know is this lens can blur anything behind your subject into oblivion, giving you a much cleaner and more beautiful image. If you’re looking for tips on filming ceremonies and receptions, check out my post on how to film a wedding reception.

Concert filmmakers: you’ve got an extra stop of light with an F2 lens over an F2.8, meaning your subject is properly exposed in challenging lighting situations.

Portrait and couple filmmakers: portraits, head-and-shoulders shots, a couple staring into each other’s eyes, the background is going to look like butter. Film a person on a street or in a crowd and everything else will disappear around them.

Now, I hear you: “Matt, I have an 85mm, I can do the same thing!” But can you? An 85mm is still a specialized lens, but it’s dramatically more versatile than a 200mm, and the compression and background rendering between these two focal lengths look very different. If you want to learn more about what makes a great filmmaking lens, I also reviewed the Sony 50mm F1.2 GM and the Sony 100mm F2.8 GM Macro, both of which are worth checking out.

Should You Buy It?

Here’s my recommendation: rent it first.

If you already have the basics covered, a 24-70, a 70-200, etc., and you want something more specialized, spend $100 or $200 to rent this lens for a week and see how the photos and videos you take with it make you feel. It may be too niche for you, or you may absolutely fall in love with it and bring it to every job you have from here on out.

If you’re looking to improve all aspects of your filmmaking and editing, check out my Edit Videos Like a Pro guide for everything you need to take your work to the next level.