Just bought 3 Nikon Zooms. Need some advice

[Brandon Fraley]

So I just got back from the shop with 17-35mm, 28-70mm, and 80-200mm (AF-S, not AF-D) in hand.

First question: These are all used lenses. They all feel good, and initial impression is that the pictures look fine. What else can I do to check these lenses or any defects or such? I have 90 days to return them if something is wrong.

Secondly: I paid a little more for the 80-200mm AF-S instead of the AF-D because they had one and not the other. It has a couple advantages in that it doesn't have the weird "wiggle" problem that seems to be inherent in the AF-D version, and also it has rounded aperture blades instead of straight blades which is nice. But it's also longer and heavier, in addition to being a couple hundred bucks more expensive. So I'm wondering if anyone can tell me if I made a mistake and should really try to find the AF-D lens.

THANKS

 

[Nils J. Nesse]

Secondly: I paid a little more for the 80-200mm AF-S instead of the AF-D because they had one and not the other. It has a couple advantages in that it doesn't have the weird "wiggle" problem that seems to be inherent in the AF-D version, and also it has rounded aperture blades instead of straight blades which is nice. But it's also longer and heavier, in addition to being a couple hundred bucks more expensive. So I'm wondering if anyone can tell me if I made a mistake and should really try to find the AF-D lens.

I believe the AF-D has hard stops at the end of the focus scale, while the AF-S keeps on turning. This may be a bigger deal than the marginally better IQ from the AF-S. (I noticed no difference in image, but the AF-D was lighter and better to operate.)

 

[Brandon Fraley]

I believe the AF-D has hard stops at the end of the focus scale, while the AF-S keeps on turning. This may be a bigger deal than the marginally better IQ from the AF-S. (I noticed no difference in image, but the AF-D was lighter and better to operate.)

I initially thought the spinning focus ring was a problem, but you can feel when it ends, it's gets a little more difficult to turn. If using a FF I imagine you can use hard stops on that. What is IQ?

Also, does anyone know how I should check these lenses for any issues?

EDIT: Also, Nils, did you experience the "wiggle" I was referring to in the AF-D?

 

[Nils J. Nesse]

EDIT: Also, Nils, did you experience the "wiggle" I was referring to in the AF-D?

No, I have no idea what wiggle you're talking about.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I have wiggle on mine. When you are zooming the lens, the image shifts side to side. This is on the AF-D version. I don't do much zooming during a shot, so never really an issue for me.

 

[Brandon Fraley]

actually the wiggle or shift I'm talking about happens while pulling focus. maybe while zooming also. My 50mm does it and I've heard people say these zooms do it also, so I was happy when none of the zooms I got did it.

 

[Sam Roberts]

Hey Brandon. I planned to buy the exact same zooms as you. I did buy the 28-70 last week and have been playing around with it the last few days. It is clunky and heavy for a still lens and you have to keep refocusing. But this is the price you pay for non cine lenses. The pictures look really good though. Glass-wise it's a nice lens.

But after doing some low light tests I am rethinking my plan for all zooms from 17-200. Holding the focus in low light is hard with a 2.8 lens and the refocusing every time you change focal length is a real pain for someone used to lenses that hold focus through out the zoom range.

So I have re-thought the all zooms idea and have decided to keep the 28-70 and get the 80-200. But for my bottom end and much of my middle range I think I'm going to go with fast primes instead of the Nikon 17-35. I just have a feeling this will make life easier in the long run despite having to change lenses more often.

With the RED at ASA 320 you need lots of light to get the lens stopped down enough to where focus is not such a critical issue. Outdoors the zooms will be fine, but I do a lot of indoor available light shooting or with minimal tungsten so I need the speed.

For a zoom guy like me (HD Video lenses) having to physically move toward or away from my subject in order to get the framing I want is going to take some getting used to. But I'm actually looking forward to the changes in my shooting style that primes will demand.

Here is what I'm thinking of buying. I'd love Zeiss primes but I'll settle for Nikons and Sigmas (!) so as not to break the budget.

I chose the Sigmas because Nikon lenses can't match their speed on the bottom end and according to the reviews I've read they match the Nikons pretty well quality-wise:

Nikon 14mm or 16mm (which?) both f2.8 nothing I can do here, I don't think anyone makes anything faster at this focal length

Sigma 20 0r 24mm both f1.8

Nikon 35mm f1.4 AIS (not sure if this one is manual exposure)

Nikon 50mm f1.2

Nikon 85mm f1.4

Depending on what I buy, these primes come to only a couple of hundred bucks more that if I had bought the 17-35 zoom.

Maybe the difference between f2.8 and f1.8/1.4 isn't all that much but I just feel every little bit helps speed-wise for my type of shooting.

 

[Brandon Fraley]

while I wasn't expecting them to, both the 17-35 and 80-200 hold focus really well through a zoom, so I can zoom in, focus, and zoom out. The 28-70, eh, not so much, but hey I though all 3 would be like that so... bonus.

Yeah, I always intended to buy 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm primes also. All f/1.4. But I wanted to zooms first so I'd have the whole range covered. Of course I'm broke now, but if I can get some work then those 3 primes will complete my unofficial wish list.

 

[Sam Roberts]

Probably smart to start with the lenses that give the most coverage without having to carry a case of lenses around everywhere. I may end up kicking myself for not getting the 17-35 which I have heard is a really nice lens.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Probably smart to start with the lenses that give the most coverage without having to carry a case of lenses around everywhere. I may end up kicking myself for not getting the 17-35 which I have heard is a really nice lens.

Sam, get ready for some fun. :biggrin:

Shooting low light with fast lenses is challenging because of the focus. But with Red, the speed is necessary to get a good exposure and keep the noise down. At minimum, I want a 2.0 or faster lens for available light situations where i have no control over how much light hits the lens. I recently shot a Doc style piece with a 50mm 1.4 most of the time, and went to a 24mm 2.0 for some of it. With my 17-35, I might have been in trouble for some of the shots. The 2.8 just wouldn't have cut it. I don't like to push the ISO past 500 and try to keep it at 320 most of the time. Now if I had more control over lighting, I would feel fine flying around with the 17-35 on these interior shoots, and I do use it for those times. Zooms just are not fast enough for low light scenarios. Unless you can deal with the noise that comes along with it.

 

[Sam Roberts]

Sam, get ready for some fun. :biggrin:
Shooting low light with fast lenses is challenging because of the focus.

I had been thinking more along the lines of if I had a fast lens to start with then I have a better chance of maybe being able to stop it down a bit for better depth of field. But you're right, use them wide open and....well.....fun is one way to put it!

 

[Brandon Fraley]

I had been thinking more along the lines of if I had a fast lens to start with then I have a better chance of maybe being able to stop it down a bit for better depth of field. But you're right, use them wide open and....well.....fun is one way to put it!

unfortunately that's not how it works. the depth of field of the f2.8 zoom is the same as a 1.2 prime stopped down to 2.8.

f2.8 is f2.8

The only reason to get faster primes is because obviously they open up more (an f/2.8 lens can only open to 2.8, but an f/1.2 can physically open up larger), and also lenses tend to be a bit softer when wide open, so 2.8 on the zoom will probably be a bit softer that 2.8 on the prime stopped down a stop.

did I explain that well? :/

 

[Sam Roberts]

lol....you did. I did some more research here on REDuser and pretty well anyone who mentions the 17-35 loves it. The fact it holds focus through the zoom is very nice and a surprise since I read no Nikon zoom will hold its focus. Now I'm really not sure what to do. I know I want the 50f1.2 because it is Nikon's fastest and the 85 f1.4 would be great for head shot interviews. Hell, I want them all.....:greedy:

 

[J. Bernard Vallon]

FWI a zoom will only hold focus through the zoom range if the camera is collimated to the lens, and with the 17-35 collimation if very sensitive.

 

[Brandon Fraley]

The fact it holds focus through the zoom is very nice and a surprise since I read no Nikon zoom will hold its focus.

well, MINE does. I honestly think it's a crap shoot. that why i paid a little more to buy them at my local store. Each individual lens is built differently, so you never know exactly what it's gunna "feel" like until you actually use it yourself.
If the focus issue is a deal breaker for you, make sure you try every lens before you buy it.

Oh, and test it on the RED! literally take your RED body into the shop to test lenses. lenses will often work completely differently on a DSL body, so make you you like the feel when on your RED.

 

[chuck colburn]

FWI a zoom will only hold focus through the zoom range if the camera is collimated to the lens, and with the 17-35 collimation if very sensitive.

No, that's backwards. Camera flange depth is set to a given standard and the lens is adjusted to that standard.

Also a zoom lens will only hold focus if the variator and compensator groups are optically and mechanically capable of doing so. If the camera is set to a given flange focale depth say Arri (52mm) and the zoom lens is set to that flange depth at the wide and telephoto ends of its range there is still no gaurenty that it will hold focus through out its range due to the inherent diviation of focus shift that is inherent in zooming optics. Thats why some little still camera lens cost $1500.00 an a Angenieux costs $50,000.00