Sigma and Nikon lenses on the Red

[Chris Burket]

I'm looking at buying some Nikon mount lenses for my Red to play around with . I was thinking about the following lenses, anyone have any experience or opinions?

Sigma 18-50 2.8 macro
Sigma 50-150 2.8
Nikon 24-70 2.8
Nikon 80-200 2.8
Nikon 17-55 2.8
Tokina 11-16 2.8 (I know this lens is amazing already)

I don't want to buy all of them, I was thinking about just getting the tokina and sigmas to have 11-150mm in range. But has anyone used the new nikon 24-70 2.8, or the sigma's? Any big downsides to any lenses listed above?

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

11-16, 17-55, 80-200

 

[ScottyC]

I read a lot of reviews that say the Sigma lenses are crap. Some have plastic housings, are not very sharp, and can have lens flare-ups. I personally don't own any because of the reviews I have read, so don't take my word as a definite decision-maker for you. Just look around for reviews already out there. There are probably a few other RED users that can give insight on this as well. If nothing else, Sigma is a lens that is fairly cheap... but you always get what you pay for.

Good luck and Happy hunting!

 

[David W. Jones]

I read a lot of reviews that say the Sigma lenses are crap. Some have plastic housings, are not very sharp, and can have lens flare-ups. I personally don't own any because of the reviews I have read, so don't take my word as a definite decision-maker for you. Just look around for reviews already out there. There are probably a few other RED users that can give insight on this as well. If nothing else, Sigma is a lens that is fairly cheap... but you always get what you pay for.

Good luck and Happy hunting!

And I read a review once that said a Ferrari 512TR was crap.
Having put 45K miles on one, I'd say the reviewer was mistaken.
..............................................

All of the lenses you listed are modern lenses which are available for testing at just about any camera store. My suggestion would be to try each one out and see if it works for your situation.

All the Best!

 

[Marc Berger]

11-16, 17-55, 80-200

Very good choice!
I have the 24-70mm 2,8 and the 17-55mm 2,8. The 17-55mm 2,8 is much better on Red. Very little breathing, holds focus while zooming, 4,5K sharp from edge to edge. 24-70mm 2,8 breaths a lot and doesn´t hold focus (its a fantastic lens on FX Nikon).
Marc

 

[Nils J. Nesse]

All of the lenses you listed are modern lenses which are available for testing at just about any camera store.

Yes. Also, Tokina's other f/2.8 zooms, 16-50 and 50-135 , are worth consideration.

 

[jimhare]

I have used the Tokina 11-16 on almost every shoot. Fantastic lens for the money!

Other than that I always use Zeiss ZF primes. Amazing lenses in a Nikon mount.

 

[D Fuller]

Marc and Zakaree -- I've heard a lot of praise for the 17-55 on the RED, but when I put mine on the camera it shifts all over the place when zooming. I don't mean physically, i've got the ProLock mount and its rock solid. But the optics shift terribly on the RED. (I never noticed this on my Nikon.) Have I just got a bad sample of this lens?

 

[hdcrew]

Just got the Nikon 17-55 and love it, using it with the Pro-lock mount and it has shot a few jobs now without any complaints, I can also recommend the 10.5 fish eye if you're looking for something a little bit different.

 

[Marc Berger]

Marc and Zakaree -- I've heard a lot of praise for the 17-55 on the RED, but when I put mine on the camera it shifts all over the place when zooming. I don't mean physically, i've got the ProLock mount and its rock solid. But the optics shift terribly on the RED. (I never noticed this on my Nikon.) Have I just got a bad sample of this lens?

David, it looks like you have a bad example. Mine doesn´t shift at all (but the 24-70mm 2,8 does). I´m really impressed about the 17-55mm 2,8.
Try to change it!
Marc

 

[Chris Burket]

How about the 80-200 2.8D? For those who have used it, how is the breathing and can it hold focus very well?

 

[Marc Berger]

Chris,
I use it. It´s the 80-200 2,8 AF-ED. Not much breathing, but strong image shift. I think the older pump zoom version is better, but to be sure which one´s the best, read the Steve Gibby´s comments. Steve is reference number one IMO!

Marc

 

[hdcrew]

Shot this today on the 17-55 Nikon DX and Pro Lock, quite pleased with the lens, using it with a clip-on gear and the Arri MFF-1 reversed.

The 80-200mm 2.8 AF-s is also a great lens, I'll try and post some shots in the next few days.

http://vimeo.com/8356947

 

[Johnny Friday]

Chris,
I use it. It´s the 80-200 2,8 AF-ED. Not much breathing, but strong image shift. I think the older pump zoom version is better, but to be sure which one´s the best, read the Steve Gibby´s comments. Steve is reference number one IMO!

Marc

I use the older (pump zoom) 80-200 and LOVE the results. It is amazingly sharp for a lens in that price range. In fact i now have a wide series of Nikon and Tokina Nikon mount lenses that are ALWAYS in my kit and in full-time use on natural history work. Another nice lens is the 18-200 and 80-400 Nikon

*Photos: wide shot is using 18-200 at wide end; closeup on pelicans using long end of 80-400

 

[Johnny Friday]

and here is from the long end of the 80-200

 

[David Battistella]

Shot this today on the 17-55 Nikon DX and Pro Lock, quite pleased with the lens, using it with a clip-on gear and the Arri MFF-1 reversed.

The 80-200mm 2.8 AF-s is also a great lens, I'll try and post some shots in the next few days.

http://vimeo.com/8356947

Very nice. We still do not have that much snow in Toronto.

David

 

[David Rasberry]

Shot this today on the 17-55 Nikon DX and Pro Lock, quite pleased with the lens, using it with a clip-on gear and the Arri MFF-1 reversed.

The 80-200mm 2.8 AF-s is also a great lens, I'll try and post some shots in the next few days.

http://vimeo.com/8356947

Very pretty shots. I especially like the way that lens flares. Very clean.