The case for old Nikkors...

[Evin Grant]

I've been thinking about still lenses a bunch since our latest SALT test, specifically about how unsuitable AF lenses are to narrative filmmaking (without a possible electronic follow focus) but even still there are real reasons to have manual aperture control and manual focus. Also at this point in the production ecosystem it's not unusal to be shooting an Epic, a HDSLR, and an M4/3 camera all on the same day. That sort of mount diversity requires something very versitile, and despite it's age the Nikon F mount is pretty much the only lens mount that can be adapted easily and quickly to anything else (except PL, which nothing except medium format lenses can be adapted to without re-mounting).

Then there are the other factors both pro and con...
First Pro:
AI/AIS Nikkors are very light (compared to Lecia/Zeiss) ususally come in both fast (f1.4-2) and standard (f2-2.8) apertures, are very well built and designed for professional use and most importantly they are inexpensive and plentiful on the used market, and easy to repair or replace if needed.

Now con:
They focus the right way :) but since nobody else in the film world does it means that ACs have to think a little more or get a reversing gear. They do not have a Leica or Zeiss logo, this is a real concern when working with myopic producers who do not really understand that a Zeiss ZF is not the same as a Master Prime. Distance marks not as good as Leica R but the same as Zeiss ZF or CY.
Some lenses may be quite old and abused and these will not give as good results as well cared for samples.

But how are they optically?
As with all still lenses, it depends. Some are really quite sharp and beautiful, some were designed for a specific puprose and may not be up to today's expectations. Or you may like the softer look of the older vintage glass, it depends on your project and concept. Overall though most of the lenses designated AI or AIS are pretty great optically, they have a little less contrast than thier modern "G" progeny but they will mostly outresolve the Epic sensor in the center where it counts.

Some of the lenses I've tried and reccomend are...
15mm 3.5
20mm 2.8 or 3.5 (3.5 is tiny and just as sharp)
24mm 2.8 (f2 is soft wide open)
28mm 2
35mm 2
50mm 1.2, 1.4 or 2 (1.2 is the best still 50 I've ever used)
85mm 1.4, 2
105mm 2.5, 1.8 or 2.8 macro
135mm 2 (stellar!)
180mm 2.8 ED (stellar!)
200mm 2 (I have this in PL mount it's so good)

When available I highly recccomend trying to get a really good condition AI lens over an AIS despite the newer vintage because the AI series has a longer focus rotation (180+) and more marks. They are optically identical otherwise.

This brings me to the ultimate point of this post, price/performance/versitility, this more than any other factor is why I put together a set of f2-2.8 AI Nikkors (20mm-180mm) I'll eventually have them cine-modded by Duclos. For only a few thousand dollars, the price of one RPP or two AF 2.8 Zooms you can build a 6-8 lens Nikkor prime set that can be mounted and used on literally Any camera system in current use (maybe not alexa, haven't checked).

[Matt Gottshalk]

Couldn't agree more. They are one of my favorites.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

I wonder if the Nikon or Canon-ness of a person can be found in the map of the human genome?

If the focus turns the other way does that turn your DNA into AND?

All joking aside, I think Evin's post addresses several of the more critical issues one faces in using lenses built for stills in a motion project. Of course he neglects to note how much better the Canon L glass is...

Couldn't resist ;-)

Cheers - #19

[Evin Grant]

Actuall I agree that for the most part Canon L glass is better, the question is is it better enough to justify the 3-4 fold increase in price given the poorer (mechanical) ergonomics. And could you even see that difference at 4-5K moving? (We're talking low budget shooting here, I've already beaten the cine Vs. still horse into hamburger).

Here's an example of a budget 6 lens Nikkor set...
20mm 2.8 $450
28mm 2 $350
35mm 2 $250 (the f2 is a better choice than the 1.4 IMHO)
50mm 1.2 $450
85mm 1.4 $500
135mm f2 $600
Total $2600

Now how about a Canon L set...
20mm 2.8 $500
24mm 1.4 $1630
35mm 1.4 $1379
50mm 1.2 $1500
85mm 1.2 $2050
135mm 2 $1013
Total $8072

Yes, the 24 and 35 Ls are faster but does that justify the difference ? It may if you have the money, but if you just dropped $15-20K on a Scarlet maybe not.

I can also see an argument for buying the best 2.8 Zooms from either Nikon or Canon and then having a manual focus Nikkor prime set for other uses like mounts and fast moving handheld (that is actually why I built my set.)

[Elsie N]

I've been thinking about still lenses a bunch since our latest SALT test, specifically about how unsuitable AF lenses are to narrative film-making ... mount diversity requires something very versatile, and despite it's age the Nikon F mount is pretty much the only lens mount that can be adapted easily and quickly to anything else (except PL, which nothing except medium format lenses can be adapted to without re-mounting).

...(big snip)...
This brings me to the ultimate point of this post, price/performance/versitility, this more than any other factor is why I put together a set of f2-2.8 AI Nikkors (20mm-180mm) I'll eventually have them cine-modded by Duclos. For only a few thousand dollars, the price of one RPP or two AF 2.8 Zooms you can build a 6-8 lens Nikkor prime set that can be mounted and used on literally Any camera system in current use (maybe not alexa, haven't checked).

Let me preface this by saying I'm a non-expert of lenses. But from an Indie POV, I have to say I agree with Evin about the older Nikon lenses for narrative work.

I've recently been going through my cache of old manual lenses and was surprised at how sharp a Vivitar 75-260 is on my Epic. I deemed it unusable on my old R-1 M sensor but I'm liking this lens so much on the Epic, even at 5k, I just bought another one on ebay for a measly $30 plus shipping. And while I'm not likely to use these on set, I put a three x extender behind one recently and I would not be afraid to use that footage in a long shot, if necessary. I'm starting to wonder if the Epic is just going to make beautiful pictures no matter what glass you hang on front.

This has me rethinking whether to use my Nikkor G lenses or experiment with a couple of old (non A-I) 50-300 zooms as variable primes. The movie can benefit from an older look, and maybe this lens will provide that. I still want the rumored '-) Red Nikon mount, but like Evin, I think it may be more useful in ways other than narrative work.

I wonder if the Nikon or Canon-ness of a person can be found in the map of the human genome?

If the focus turns the other way does that turn your DNA into AND?


Cheers - #19

I think it is a simple methylation process... that is, one gene works for both but when in Nikon mode it is turned on, while the Canon mode is switched off. '-)

[Steve Sherrick]

This is why I have been unable to part ways with my Nikkors. There's just too much cost/performance benefit to ignore. Sure, they frustrate me at times because I know I'd have an easier time with the mechanics of a cine lens but overall, I'm happy I can use them on R1, Epic, GH2, etc. Ones lens kit goes a long way.

[Dave Blackham]

I agree about the AI over the AIS. There are coating differences though and other odd subtle differences. Trying to get matched lenses is tricky with in IAS, seems easier with AI, Im no expert on on Nikon history but I had to go through a bucked load to get a 3D matched set for our 3D time lapse work.

Alexa was mentioned I think Tom makes an Amount for Alexa now too.

[Dave Blackham]

Just out of interest were any Nikkor's Panavised ?

[Evin Grant]

Actuall most fo the Panavision "C" series Anamorphic lenses use Nikkor lens elements. Those are the lenses used on "Close Encounters" "Raiders of the lost Ark" "Blade Runner" and many other benchmark anamorphic films. There are other Nikkors in the Panavision vault but I don't know them specifically.

[jaadgy akanni]

Evin, I'm surprised you didn't recommend the 85mm f/1.8 instead of the 85mm f/2, which I find kinda dull.