Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 AFS (The one you've all been waiting for) Review

[Zane Roach]

Is anybody shooting wide open with the nikon 17-35 actually going to finish and that project in 4k? Seriously?

Nikons will be used in low budget stuff that gets finished in 1080p.

 

[Mike the beginner]

I usually look on the numbers first. MTF graphs for different f stops.
Then I look on the picture. Very unlikely that bad number lenses will perform good.
If I see that MTF drops sharply in the zone away from the center of the picture or below f5 then usually there will be problem ahead. If zoom do not perform at wide angle end, then I will try it anyway since it may work in 80% of the range very good.

Example is Canon EF-S 10-22mm works very well above 14.

Also 135 type lenses on S35 could perform exceptionally well since the sensor is two times smaller so you do not go all the way to the edge of the illumination circle of the lenses. Again it will be difficult to get 135 sensor size lenses for less then 18 mm fl so this way or the other we have to pay extra for 100 degree view lenses.
For fl of 20 to 80 there are plenty of lenses that perform more that sufficient for 4K sensor especially if lenses are for 135 sensor size.

Andrew, could you elaborate on this comment "Example is Canon EF-S 10-22mm works very well above 14."

I am considering this lens and so are other underwater guys along with the birger solution of flange mounts etc. It would be used wide open a lot. How does it perform wide open, is is too soft or what when at the 10-12mm range?

Thanks for any info from anyone on this particular lens:biggrin:


Mike the beginner

 

[Andrew M.]

Andrew, could you elaborate on this comment "Example is Canon EF-S 10-22mm works very well above 14."

I am considering this lens and so are other underwater guys along with the birger solution of flange mounts etc. It would be used wide open a lot. How does it perform wide open, is is too soft or what when at the 10-12mm range?

Thanks for any info from anyone on this particular lens:biggrin:


Mike the beginner

This lenses is giving to much of chromatic aberration, more then ¾ distance from the center out at 10mm. Up to 3 pixel distortion and it was at f8-11 so not a wide open.
When you look on the picture on the 30” screen it looks like a shot from the low end camera. Looks much better at 14mm setting, otherwise it is bit softer then Nicons in the same category.

Check new Canon lenses here:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=148&modelid=14907
Looks like more and more people are not happy with all these spherical and chromatic aberrations so Canon is doing something about it.
I think it is driven by the fact that we do not watch the pictures on 4X5 hard copy format anymore.
In most cases we use 20-30” screens to look at the pictures now.
Also the screens are wide screens now 60 deg instead 45 so it adds to the wide end.
At this size of the screen the lenses errors are clearly visible.
Send me your e-mail address and I will e-mail you shot from Canon 10-22 at 10mm settings.
Also they use newer glass and its combinations.
Look here for old new glass comparison.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml
And it is not the comparison of the new II just to be released.
If we have the same improvement from I to II then it is something worth checking.

I would like to see the crops of the edges of the picture not the centre.
Also winter pictures and high contrast shots are much better for evaluation.

Canon is coming with the new 22MP Ds model this year. They will have hell of the problem to offer any zoom lenses for it, both on the wide angle side and even the far zoom side. They better come up with some good zoom lenses for it, Even non zoom L series will not do here. I guess professional photographers will have to get Arri/PL to canon adapters for this new camera

 

[Evin Grant]

I'm sorry, I'm not a photoshop guy- what is a 100% crop?

What that means is that the image is represtented 1:1, pixel to pixel on your computer screen, 100% magnification. You would need a 4k projection to a 40' screen and be just feet from it to replicate the same magnification.

Not to be nitpicky, but "all lenses are softer wide open" is not true, unless you're just talking about still photography lenses. The Zeiss Digiprimes are optimized to perform best wide open, and they do...they're beautiful!

The Digiprimes are indeed optimised for wide open, but all that means is that they resolve enough wide open that you can't see an improvement when stoped down, but it is there, to a point, if you could just get an imager with high enough resolution to see it. I'm sure most DPs would be very dissapointed if thier lenses got worse when they stopped them down.
(This is true with diffraction limiting but not useually till f11)

"numbers don't get projected on movie screen." True, but if you look at the MTF data, you can determine the real sweet spot in any lens. If you look at those graphs from photozone, it seems like the real sweet spot in this lens is at F5.6....most lenses are optimized to be used 5.6-8, but it does vary.

That's exactly what my test showed without having to resort to MTFs.

I'd think you'd want to know this before going out and shooting, especially with Red in 4k...you don't want the lens to be the limiting factor when you're trying to resolve a 4k image.

This particular lens will not be your limiting factor I assure you.

 

[steevo435]

That's exactly what my test showed without having to resort to MTFs.

Actually, you proved that the data from the MTF chart was correct :clown2:

Different strokes, right? If you didn't have time to test lenses before a shoot, you could at least refer to the data in a pinch. Film making is part art, part science. If we didn't have the pocket protector guys, we wouldn't know if our goal was 480, 1080, 2k, 4k or beyond!!!

 

[Steve Gibby]

Film making is part art, part science.

True...and so are the rest of the motion media family: digital cinema, television, and video.

 

[Corrado Silveri]

Many thanks Evin,
just finished to read this great (as usual) thread.
Just one clarification, all the pictures posted are NOT actually shot with a REDone, right?

Thanks again,
Corrado.

 

[Steve Gibby]

None of them were shot with RED One....he used a Nikon DSLR with a CMOS sensor similar in size and properties to that of RED One... a D2X I believe. IMO, his results should be very relative to frames we'll see out of RED One using a Nikon 17-35mm.

 

[Mike the beginner]

Originally Posted by Mike the beginner
Andrew, could you elaborate on this comment "Example is Canon EF-S 10-22mm works very well above 14."

I am considering this lens and so are other underwater guys along with the birger solution of flange mounts etc. It would be used wide open a lot. How does it perform wide open, is is too soft or what when at the 10-12mm range?

Thanks for any info from anyone on this particular lens

Mike the beginner

Andrew;23271]This lenses is giving to much of chromatic aberration, more then ¾ distance from the center out at 10mm. Up to 3 pixel distortion and it was at f8-11 so not a wide open.
When you look on the picture on the 30” screen it looks like a shot from the low end camera. Looks much better at 14mm setting, otherwise it is bit softer then Nicons in the same category.

Check new Canon lenses here:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=148&modelid=14907
Looks like more and more people are not happy with all these spherical and chromatic aberrations so Canon is doing something about it.
I think it is driven by the fact that we do not watch the pictures on 4X5 hard copy format anymore.
In most cases we use 20-30” screens to look at the pictures now.
Also the screens are wide screens now 60 deg instead 45 so it adds to the wide end.
At this size of the screen the lenses errors are clearly visible.
Send me your e-mail address and I will e-mail you shot from Canon 10-22 at 10mm settings.
Also they use newer glass and its combinations.
Look here for old new glass comparison.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml
And it is not the comparison of the new II just to be released.
If we have the same improvement from I to II then it is something worth checking.

I would like to see the crops of the edges of the picture not the centre.
Also winter pictures and high contrast shots are much better for evaluation.

Canon is coming with the new 22MP Ds model this year. They will have hell of the problem to offer any zoom lenses for it, both on the wide angle side and even the far zoom side. They better come up with some good zoom lenses for it, Even non zoom L series will not do here. I guess professional photographers will have to get Arri/PL to canon adapters for this new camera:

Thanks Andrew that it very useful information indeed. I shall look at the canon site and hopefully they might well come out with a new lens to go with the new camera, just hope it is a really wide angle zoom?

The specialised mount that Birger engineering are doing has got me interested. Also the underwater housings will have to be made (i imagine) to suit one particular lens and once the camera is out third parties will want to quickly make a housing for the red one. Current prices for a cine prime lens at 10mm is hugely expensive. Even if canon came out with a brilliant new still photo wide angle to go with their upcoming new camera it would still be massively cheaper than the existing cine lenses out here. Heres hoping a good solution comes out of it all. Thanks though for all the info Andrew it is greatly appreciated.

Mike the beginner

 

[John Godden]

Evin

Thanks for posting these comparison pics.

I owned a 17-35 for a while. GREAT lens for stopped down landscapes! The sharpness and low CA of this lens is renowned.

I haven't owned one but the 17-55 is supposed to be somewhat better wide open. ??? If you get a chance please post some pics of that lens.

Regards
JohnG

 

[number6]

Evin, am wondering if the 17-35 in the AF version will perform as well as the AF-s model? Am seeing some expanding price differentials between the AF-s model over the AF. Am wondering if since the RED will not utilize the auto-focus anyway, (at least, that's my understanding) why not buy the less expensive AF lens?

 

[Bruce Allen]

Number6, if you're thinking of getting a used 17-35, be sure to make extremely sure that the focusing is smooth. One of the rental 17-35s I used in my tests was pretty much impossible to focus - combination of short focus throw, jerky focusing action and lack of hard stops made it suck.

I didn't know there was an AF-only (not AF-S) model. Link please?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[number6]

Number6, if you're thinking of getting a used 17-35, be sure to make extremely sure that the focusing is smooth. One of the rental 17-35s I used in my tests was pretty much impossible to focus - combination of short focus throw, jerky focusing action and lack of hard stops made it suck.

I didn't know there was an AF-only (not AF-S) model. Link please?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Yikes! Bruce... I've looked at so many lenses since Jim Jannard has given us some sort of timetable that I'm not sure where I saw or even read about the 17-35mm AF. My recollection of it was that the AF was pretty much the same as the AF-s except that it didn't have the super quiet auto focus. I've seen some for sale at one or more places but I'm really not sure where. If, after my question gets answered, and I perhaps buy one, maybe my memory will unfail:bleh: Hah!

Seriously, I've checked all the windows I have open and even though I've got one open to the AF-s, I don't see one to the AF model. Appreciate your sharing your experience with the lens. Still, they are difficult to find new, and pretty expensive, too. But from some of the posts on this thread, it sounds like a pretty good first option for me.

But I'm wondering how much the Nikon mount will cost, and if we need to be in some lint free environment when we change the mount from PL to Nikon, (to protect the sensor) and perhaps even when we change lenses. I've been thinking about one of those heavy plastic see through zip-up clothes bags to put the camera in when making a lens change, and especially the more time-consuming mount change. Wonder if that could create a static electricity problem?

 

[Bruce Allen]

Judging by digital still cameras, I'm sure dust will be a problem with any lens change. If I were getting a Red, I'd definitely look at their zoom instead - I think it's worth it (better ergonomics, plus greater range means less lens changes). As a matter of fact, I'm even looking at the Red zoom or maybe used PL mount lenses for use with my HV20 + 35mm adapter! If only someone would lend me the PL mount to test...

Are you sure you're not getting confused between the 80-200 2.8, which has both AF and AF-S versions? It could be that the people selling used 17-35s are marking them as AF instead of AF-S by mistake?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[number6]

Judging by digital still cameras, I'm sure dust will be a problem with any lens change. If I were getting a Red, I'd definitely look at their zoom instead - I think it's worth it (better ergonomics, plus greater range means less lens changes). As a matter of fact, I'm even looking at the Red zoom or maybe used PL mount lenses for use with my HV20 + 35mm adapter! If only someone would lend me the PL mount to test...

Are you sure you're not getting confused between the 80-200 2.8, which has both AF and AF-S versions? It could be that the people selling used 17-35s are marking them as AF instead of AF-S by mistake?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Confused seems the right term. I've been back on ebay and I've seen lots of AF stuff but no AF 17-35mm stuff.

But anyway, what PL mount lenses are you looking at and in what price range? I would definitely go the Red Lens route if I could, but I can't. So I've got to find another (affordable) option. What do you see as a good manual focus option for 4k REDCODE RAW, either in the PL mount or Nikon?

 

[Bruce Allen]

Confused seems the right term. I've been back on ebay and I've seen lots of AF stuff but no AF 17-35mm stuff.

But anyway, what PL mount lenses are you looking at and in what price range? I would definitely go the Red Lens route if I could, but I can't. So I've got to find another (affordable) option. What do you see as a good manual focus option for 4k REDCODE RAW, either in the PL mount or Nikon?

A used Cooke, Zeiss or Angenieux. Or strike a deal with someone to borrow their lenses in exchange for Red use. Talk to local rental companies - will they let you use their lenses in exchange for them renting out your Red? Be careful, of course!

Be aware though that the Red lens seems good and shouldn't depreciate in value much. Although this is heresy I will suggest that in 5 years' time, it will definitely have depreciated less than the Red.

If you go with the Nikon, you absolutely need a follow focus with hard stops. Or a remote follow focus. Suddenly you are talking about quite a bit of cash (unless the upcoming RedRock remote does the trick) - definitely the difference between your Nikon and the Red zoom. On the other hand you then get a nice follow focus which also doesn't depreciate in value much.

Personally I am torn between these things right now, just with my HV20 + 35mm adapter. IE, get a cheap follow focus and the Red lens. Or the Nikon plus a Arri LFF-1! Bear in mind that this is for my own personal use when running around South Africa, or auditioning actors, etc. If I directed a feature or a music video with a budget (more likely) I would upgrade either the lens or the follow focus (whichever one I skimp on now). And definitely go to Red for A-camera

By the way, I just bought the 80-200 AF-D new. It is being discontinued so I had to jump on it (can't afford the more expensive variants and also too scared to buy a used one after the focus ring troubles with the 17-35). I'll try to get it to Evin so that he can test it.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[number6]

A used Cooke, Zeiss or Angenieux. Or strike a deal with someone to borrow their lenses in exchange for Red use. Talk to local rental companies - will they let you use their lenses in exchange for them renting out your Red? Be careful, of course!

Small toun, no rentals available... doubt there's even an HVX in this ten camera toun.

Be aware though that the Red lens seems good and shouldn't depreciate in value much. Although this is heresy I will suggest that in 5 years' time, it will definitely have depreciated less than the Red.

Full agreement, but cash flow etc. etc. ad infinitum

If you go with the Nikon, you absolutely need a follow focus with hard stops. Or a remote follow focus. Suddenly you are talking about quite a bit of cash (unless the upcoming RedRock remote does the trick) - definitely the difference between your Nikon and the Red zoom. On the other hand you then get a nice follow focus which also doesn't depreciate in value much.

Will probably forego the follow focus and just go for high (or is it low, anyway, the depth of field one) fstop and zoom in a little closer than neutral with some variation and stay there on one camera, at least some of the time. Since almost everything will be shot outdoors with plenty of light, I'm guessing that will get me good recorded data, but will test early. There aren't too many close-up movement scenes that I envision so shouldn't need to worry about a "too shallow" dof for very many shots. With two cameras, I see one as most often stationary, with the other one shooting from a different angle or doing any high shots (from a 13' deer stand), or occasionally handheld. I'm not sure if I'm a fan of the overuse of handheld shots... Will experiment.

Personally I am torn between these things right now, just with my HV20 + 35mm adapter. IE, get a cheap follow focus and the Red lens. Or the Nikon plus a Arri LFF-1! Bear in mind that this is for my own personal use when running around South Africa, or auditioning actors, etc. If I directed a feature or a music video with a budget (more likely) I would upgrade either the lens or the follow focus (whichever one I skimp on now). And definitely go to Red for A-camera

Not A-cameras?:wink:

By the way, I just bought the 80-200 AF-D new. It is being discontinued so I had to jump on it (can't afford the more expensive variants and also too scared to buy a used one after the focus ring troubles with the 17-35). I'll try to get it to Evin so that he can test it.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

AF-D 80-200? Well, we finally got back on topic. And that brings another question to mind... do I need to use the same brand of glass on both cameras? That is, will the shots look noticeably different if I use differnt lens brands?

 

[chuck colburn]

Why would you need a hard stop when using a follow focus unit ? The white disc that the 1st AC marks his/hers footage marks on would serve that purpose.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Chuck - the damn lens's focus ring doesn't stop turning when you hit infinity. Then when you turn it back the other way, it starts focusing back immediately. So if you focus it to infinity then turn a little more, you are screwed because then all of your marks are now off.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[chuck colburn]

Chuck - the damn lens's focus ring doesn't stop turning when you hit infinity. Then when you turn it back the other way, it starts focusing back immediately. So if you focus it to infinity then turn a little more, you are screwed because then all of your marks are now off.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Hi Bruce,
Something's goofy here. I understand the concept that the lens can focus pass infinity, (some cameramen like that and I use to set up lenses that would do just that) but when the lens was focused in the oppisite direction it would still hit infinity at a given point on the focus ring travel. The only thing that comes to mind is that the focus threads be they single or multi (helicoid) start have so much slop that they don't repeat when reversing direction. In which case it wouldn't matter if there was a hard stop. As I say I might be missing something, but damn if I can figure out what. lol

Chuck