New Nikon 14-24 f2.8 Wide Zoom

[chuck colburn]

Well that means you probally can't put very much of anything in front of it without causing vignetting.

 

[Roberto B]

good input chuck.. so, canon EOS route.. sorry evin.. that 10-22mm will rock anyways..

 

[Stephen Williams]

Well that means you probally can't put very much of anything in front of it without causing vignetting.

Hi Chuck,

Also the max T stop could be reduced before vignetting occurs & strange shaped bokeh may then result.

Stephen

 

[chuck colburn]

Hi Chuck,

Also the max T stop could be reduced before vignetting occurs & strange shaped bokeh may then result.

Stephen

Could be Stephen.

I'm not saying it can't be done, and as Evin said, mayby a small clip on filter holder will work. Elsewise I don't see how the lens can accept filtration as it doesn't seem to accept drop in filters.

 

[Mr. Paul White]

Hi Chuck,

Also the max T stop could be reduced before vignetting occurs & strange shaped bokeh may then result.

Stephen

??...

 

[Stephen Williams]

??...

Hi Mr White,

Shading the lens has the same effect as a water house stop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterhouse_stop

The Bokeh on a wide open lens should be round, you may end up with strange shapes due to shading the front element.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

Stephen

 

[chuck colburn]

I think I'm missing something here. I looked at several sites about the 14-24 lens and I can't find one that says it is a full frame (24x36mm) lens. The other thing is, in the site listed below it shows the aspherical elements in blue shading an it does not included the front one. Mayby I'm seeing it wrong but in the photos it sure looks like that front element has a bump in the center which I would say makes it an aspheric.

http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/zoom/af-s_zoom14-24mmf_28g/

 

[Zack Birlew]

If a mattebox is going to be mounted on the RED Rails anyway, couldn't you just slide the mattebox in front of the lens?

 

[chuck colburn]

Hi Jack,

Yeah but you might have to slide it so far over the lens that you would not be able to use filters.

 

[Bruce Allen]

I think I'm missing something here. I looked at several sites about the 14-24 lens and I can't find one that says it is a full frame (24x36mm) lens=

Anything not full frame has been consistently labeled DX by Nikon. Also, there are product photos of the (full-frame) D3 with that 14-24 lens attached. I know you can shoot cropped on it but it'd be mighty weird choice for a product photo. And the pricing, weight and overall look are similar to the (full-frame) 17-35. So I'd be 99% sure it's full frame. I'd say 100% sure but I have my "killjoy" reputation to uphold

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[chuck colburn]

"Killjoy",

That makes sense.

 

[Roberto B]

I'd say 100% sure but I have my "killjoy" reputation to uphold

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

shut up bruce.. you're one of the most cool guys here and now you lost or are losing my humor.. killjoy boy.. eheheh btw, i invite you to edit again that post from yours.. it was a good post.. i just didn't answer you because it was a good post.. nothing more i could say.. i didn't yet look for on my temporary files but you would deserve it.. :bleh:

 

[chuck colburn]

I've got a question.
Why is it that some people or group of people don't use their real names....EVER? Or put any info in their profile not even what country they are in.

 

[Desert Rune]

This is a sexy lens but no VR? f/1.4 would also make it übersexy.

 

[Roberto B]

I've got a question.
Why is it that some people or group of people don't use their real names....EVER? Or put any info in their profile not even what country they are in.

curious, chuck.. hein? eheheh i was waiting for that one from you.. :innocent: perhaps because jarred loves privacy.. or there are famous people posting over here.. :huh:

 

[Bruce Allen]

Apologies for my recent lack of humor. I have a nasty cold. Filmmaker's Gang, I sent you a nice PM.

So the summary is that we are hopeful that a clip-on mattebox / small filter in front might JUST work because we have a 1.5x crop, right?

This is a sexy lens but no VR?

We have to see if the still lens's VR actually works well in motion with the Birger mount. If it doesn't, lack of VR will have saved us money.

f/1.4 would also make it übersexy.

Of course! I'd settle just for 2.0... It's a pity Nikon hasn't made any cool ultra-sharp sub-2.8 wide primes - guess they think the higher ISO has them covered. And they prefer a cheaper, lighter lens. And since the Zeiss ZF prime range hits 2.8 at 25mm, I'm not to hopeful for a wide sub-2.8 from them either. But then if you go below 2.8 you probably really want something with excellent focus marks, long focus throw, etc - eg cine lens. I ended up getting a Nikon 24mm 2.0 which is has long, smooth focus and is a decent compromise IMHO for $150.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Roberto B]

"Apologies for my recent lack of humor. I have a nasty cold. Filmmaker's Gang, I sent you a nice PM." :cold: :usd:


"We have to see if the still lens's VR actually works well in motion with the Birger mount. If it doesn't, lack of VR will have saved us money." :greedy:

but it's true.


"But then if you go below 2.8 you probably really want something with excellent focus marks, long focus throw, etc - eg cine lens. I ended up getting a Nikon 24mm 2.0 which is has long, smooth focus and is a decent compromise IMHO for $150."

more suggestions on the long focus throw side?..

 

[Desert Rune]

It's doubtful Nikon will ever make f1.4 wide zooms. :sad: Their 28mm f1.4 prime is fetching $2700+ on eBay. Yikes.

I picked up a 28mm f2.0 AI for $120, and a 20mm f2.8 AIS for $200 so I am happy.

 

[Roberto B]

ebay sucks.. other day i tried to bid and lost the auction.. some bug didn't allow my bid.. with no reason at all

 

[Mark Mannschreck]

Anything not full frame has been consistently labeled DX by Nikon. Also, there are product photos of the (full-frame) D3 with that 14-24 lens attached. I know you can shoot cropped on it but it'd be mighty weird choice for a product photo. And the pricing, weight and overall look are similar to the (full-frame) 17-35. So I'd be 99% sure it's full frame. I'd say 100% sure but I have my "killjoy" reputation to uphold

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Yeah, but unlike the 17-35mm this is a "G" series lens and doesn't have an aperture ring. It is basically useless until Birger releases their Nikon version.