Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

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

Let me try this again. If it's already up here put me at the front of the idiot line (again). Larger lens gears OR smaller follow focus gears. And possibly putting a hard stop at the follow focus knob.
 
So from minimal focal distance to infinitey, how many degrees of rotation do you actually have on the lens? also, could someone describe the markings on the focus (are they in 3" or 6" incriments for the first couple of feet our are they all in whole feet or what?).
 
Unwounded said:
So from minimal focal distance to infinitey, how many degrees of rotation do you actually have on the lens? also, could someone describe the markings on the focus (are they in 3" or 6" incriments for the first couple of feet our are they all in whole feet or what?).
Click to expand...

It's 1/4 turn of the barrel for the full focus range, or 90 degrees. Very short.

m and ft markings are essentially worthless on this lens. They serve little more than an optical indicator of about where the lens might happen to be focused. Or it just tells you if your at or close to infinity. At the one end of the dial you have infinity. And that's with the focus ring turned all the way right (if you're looking down at the marks with the lens pointed away from you. Turning the lens to the left reveals the following marks:

ft - 3 2 1.5 1.25 1
m - 1 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.35 0.28

So it's not all that informative or useful with those minimum focus designations. But with such a short focus throw, I'm not sure what else they could've done. I don't really understand the very short throw... Other silent-wave lenses like the 85mm f1.4, have much greater travel for the focus ring and better markings.
 
So if you can't rely on the markings how are you gonna judge accurate focus? Close only counts in horse shoes and handgrenades and probably not as much in 4K. Great optics are nice but accurate focus is pretty swell too :)
 
Unwounded said:
So if you can't rely on the markings how are you gonna judge accurate focus? Close only counts in horse shoes and handgrenades and probably not as much in 4K. Great optics are nice but accurate focus is pretty swell too :)
Click to expand...

Good question. I'm thinking with a larger gear ring to add more finesse to a follow focus, you just have to map out your focus points and mark them on the FF dial. Or focus by eye, watching the EVF/monitor and hope you're good enough or hope that the RED's focus assist can help.

But you just asked the $6500 question... And my bet is that this lens is going to be painfully difficult to use in most situations. So I'm planning to spend the extra $6500 for the 18-50mm RED zoom. Not all RED users are going to want or be able to do that though.
 
Unwounded said:
So if you can't rely on the markings how are you gonna judge accurate focus? Close only counts in horse shoes and handgrenades and probably not as much in 4K. Great optics are nice but accurate focus is pretty swell too :)
Click to expand...


Exactly!!!

Thats why I see shooting with this lens on a red being like hunting bear with a BB gun. I just don't see either person being to happy with the end results.
 
hmmm......relying on focus assist and a small monitor. I sure wouldn't wanna be there for the screening of the dailies on a big screen with the producer that day :) I mean OK, buy the cheap lens but then have to go out and buy(rent) the really expensive big sony crt or get the nice Red lens and buy the smaller cheaper panasonic 17". It seems like maybe the saving wouldn't really be as much in terms of the bigger picture. It's a shame that switching from PL to nikon mount isn't just a simple adapter. It'd be nice if you could use the red 18-50 as you're primary and be able to quickly change to some nikon primes when appropriate. It'd give you a lot of flexibility and still come in well below 10K (which is quite a savings over the 20k for the red primes). (Also wonder how colors would track from red to nikon).
 
I'm interested to see how color will differ between RED lenses an Nikkors. If the RED lenses turn out to be what I'm hoping (a great lens for a great price) then I will get the 18-50 as well as the 50-150. I'm thinking of getting some Nikon primes re-mounted to PL so I don't have to swap lens mounts very often or at all. The re-mounting is expensive though, not as bad as completely re-housing the lens elements, but it could be several hundred to $1K per lens. Still cheaper than the RED prime set though. OTOH, the RED prime set still may be a bargain, even at $20K.
 
For your information, the 20-35mm is just as good, except for the last 3mm of course. It is much cheaper, and it takes a full turn to focus from one feet to infinity...
 
ZzzZZz... said:
For your information, the 20-35mm is just as good, except for the last 3mm of course. It is much cheaper, and it takes a full turn to focus from one feet to infinity...
Click to expand...

If you can find one... The 20-35mm has been discontinued and replaced by the 17-35mm. In some ways it's the nicer lens, especially for use with 35mm adapters and RED. Because it doesn't have the Silent Wave motor and it has a much longer focus throw. Could be a real good lens if you find one on eBay or from a used gear dealer like KEH.

There is also an all-manual version of the 20-35mm, but it's usually more expensive.
 
Personally I would be very interested in a review of the Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8.
I think I would be using that much more often than the 17-35, in spite of the "cropfactor".
 
thanks for the link... too bad those tokinas don´t have an aperture ring... otherwise the 16-50mm would be a good alternative to the 17-35mmm
 
Yes... I crave for more news from erik. If the nikon mount is as good as I expect I might consider going for the 18-200mm nikon as an allround lens + a nice set of fast primes for shallow dof, nice bokeh... etc. fancy pants stuff.
The new 18-200mm ( 27-300mm - 35mm equivalent) has VR, which is a big deal! Imagine what a PL lense with that type of technology would cost. :bye2:
 
cckid said:
Evin hi,

What do you mean exactly by that? Would it mean that I would be able to normally use also my new af-s vr nikkor micro 105/2.8g if/ed lense that doesn't have an aperture ring such as my other nikon d-series lenses?
Click to expand...

Birger who is producing the Canon EOS mount will also be producing a Nikon version that will allow you to control the nikon lenses in automatic mode. So yes your nikkor lens would work fine on it as far as I know.
 
Points on the Nikon mount, to quote Birger:

"When our Nikon mount comes out you will need to have AF-S lenses to get focus control. and D or G lenses to get iris control."

That's AF-S, not AF for focus control which rules out a lot of lenses (especially primes), but good news for focusing the Nikon 17-35.
 
I have a 18-20mm for my sony alpha and it is just about the only lens i need for my camera. I think that an 18-200mm lens is a good jumping off point for any camera setup still or video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top