Best Nikon Lens?

[Steve Gibby]

You can get an adaptor from Schneider Optics to install the 150-600 Century short conversion into the Nikon mount. That's how I use mine. But it wiggles a bit, like any of the lenses over 200 mm I use. I'll be interested to see your evaluation of the new mount.

I'm glad to hear your success with the Nikon mounts in general. I guess after years of working with B4 and PL I expect the lens to be rock solid on the camera, which mine are not. If you grab the lens, it wiggles. Still works fine, but just doesn't feel like A-List equipment. Maybe my mount isn't up to spec, but I suspect it is more tied to design, hence the new Optitek. Either way, I hope the Epic will improve the situation. (put Jacek on the team!)

Thanks for that tip on the Century conversion. I'll check on that with an associate of mine at Century. My Nikon lenses don't wiggle in either of my Underdahl Nikon mounts, nor did they in my original RED Nikon mounts. Either I just got extra good versions of the mounts, with close tolerances, or mine are set up right - or both factors. Yes, I'm interested to see how Jacek's new Nikon mount performs. My friend Matt Uhry seemed to be impressed by it, and I respect Matt's opinion on equipment. We'll see...

In my motion media work, almost my entire career (30+ years) has primarily been using B4 and PL mounts. I know what you mean by "rock solid", and naturally I prefer that, just like you. But the still photo portion of my career (since 1969) has been with Nikon and Canon mounts. On RED One, when I use Nikon lenses, I use all my lenses that weigh over around 3 pounds with a rod and bracket support of some kind underneath them.

All those longer lenses of mine have a lens collar and screw receptacle: 80-200 AF-S, 50-300 AIS, and 400 AIS. I've been using a custom bridge bracket, on 15mm ET aluminum rods (12"), placed through my ET hybrid plate or ET 15mm plate. I use that exact same setup to support my Canon FD 150-600, which is stock except for the Century PL conversion. The screw receptacle on the Canon takes the larger screw than the Nikon lens collars do, so I have a few different screws I use to go from through bridge plate into the collar. For the Nikons I've had to adapt some custom hard rubber spacers to buy space between the bridge plate and the lens collar.

My Nikon 80-200 AF (3 pounds), as opposed to my Nikon 80-200 AF-S (4 pounds), is light enough to use on my Nikon mounts with no support underneath (see pic below). But I always use my Nikon 50-300 AIS (5 pounds - see pic below), and Nikon 400 AIS (6 pounds), with rod support.

I've attached a few pics that illustrate how I support my long Nikon lenses and Canon 150-600 (9 pounds - see pic below), as described above. You probably already do the same, but even if you have a loose Nikon mount for some reason, your long lenses shouldn't wobble on the mount if you have them supported well underneath. My rule of thumb for supporting my 35mm stills lenses on RED has been: up to 3 pounds, no support underneath. Anything over 3 pounds gets support. My long lenses have been rock solid using that procedure.

 

[James Brundige]

Gibby,

Thanks again for your generous advice. You led me to the 150-600 about a year ago, and I got some fine wildlife shots last season. Grizzlies and wolves for a fall 09 PBS special. Am I the first Red to shoot Robert REDford?

I'm curious about the 50-300. (who made the bracket?) I use the Nikon 80-400 to cover that range, but sometimes it's not quite as sharp as I would like. Have you compared the two?

 

[James Brundige]

Cine guys like the 'Zeiss' (Cosina) lenses because they're overweight, overpriced, and have a lot of focus travel. Like cine lenses.

Image-quality-wise, they don't offer you anything over the Nikons.

If it was me I'd get the Nikon 35/2 which is a great lens at half the price of the Zeiss 35/2.

If you are on a budget, the Nikons look as good. Some say they have much nicer bokeh.

 

[FocusOptics]

The ruby wide rehoused 14-24mm t2.8 by focus optics also comming rehoused 24-70 t2.8 Ruby standard and the 70-200 nikkor t2.8 tele.
stuart

 

[Steve Gibby]

Gibby,

Thanks again for your generous advice. You led me to the 150-600 about a year ago, and I got some fine wildlife shots last season. Grizzlies and wolves for a fall 09 PBS special. Am I the first Red to shoot Robert REDford?

I'm curious about the 50-300. (who made the bracket?) I use the Nikon 80-400 to cover that range, but sometimes it's not quite as sharp as I would like. Have you compared the two?

Glad the Canon 150-600 is working out for you James, and congrats on the PBS special! That's very cool...I'll look for it.

You definitely need good, long glass like the 150-600 to shoot wolves and bears...been there, done that.

The under-lens support bracket I use came along with my 150-600 a few years ago when I bought the lens from a veteran 35mm film cinematographer in L.A. whose specialty was automotive commercials. I have no idea where he got it and it has no manufacturer's label on it. It's a great bracket though - machined aluminum with a long hole in the cross-piece with a fitted screw and room for other screws to pass through.

I believe Birns & Sawyer sells a bracket like that...

Compared to the Nikon 50-500 AIS, the Nikon 80-400 is lighter, and more compact. I haven't used the 80-400, but from what I've read its a pretty good lens, especially from f5.6 to f11, which is where most sports and nature shooters would be shooting it.

The Nikon 50-300 was made from 1967 to 1999. The earlier versions were good for their day, but the final version, the AIS lens with ED glass was far and away the best version. The AIS version was made from 1982 to 1999. Mine is a high serial number, made around 1996. It is immaculate. I bought it two years ago used from B&H for $1,300 - money WELL spent. Its a great lens for wildlife and sports. The constant 4.5 aperture is fine for those genres. It is extremely well built, all metal, has great glass, holds focus perfectly throughout a zoom, breathes little, is light for its 6x focal length, and the images from it on RED One are exceptionally good.

IMO the 50-300 and the Canon 150-600 make up a perfect two lens kit for a nature and sports cinematographer. Then if you add in a Nikon 80-200, you have the perfect 3-lens kit for a nature and sports cinematographer.

The 50-300 was the dominant kit lens for Nikon wildlife stills photographers, and many sports photographers all through the '80's and up into the early '90's.

It is just slightly soft wide open at 50mm, and wide open at 300mm, but at focal lengths between 55mm and 295mm it is very crisp, good contrast, nice bokeh, no weirdness - well shot RED footage shot with it looks wonderfully filmic. Its aperture sweet spot is between f5.6 and f11, although it is still very good stopped down further. Its wide enough on the wide end to shoot some scenic and establishing shots, but long enough to push to the action.

With the 80-200, 50-300, and 150-600 in my kits I'm ready for any and every long lens sports or wildlife situation with RED.

I produce, direct, and shoot in a lot of other genres besides wildlife, adventure travel, and sports, but I have to admit those three genres are my favorites that I work in.

My good friend and close business associate Kennan Ward, whose Alaska footage and stills have been posted here on RED User, recently bought a 50-300 on my recommendation - and he's way stoked he did. His other staple lens of his wildlife kit is the Nikon 200-400 f4.

If you look closely at the photo of my 50-300 in my Post #62 of this thread, there is a gold metal band around the lens, toward the end of the lens barrel. Thats one of the ways you can recognize the AIS version. Other ways are the highest aperture number in both scales on the end of the lens are in Orange script, and on the bottom side of the mount there is a small "U" notch in the metal.

Those who are buying older Nikon lenses need to do some Google searches, bookmark some good info sites, and know what they're after - and what to pass up. Here's a good link to a site that has a ton of info on new and vintage Nikon lenses, including serial numbers, pictures of each lens, recognizable features, info on how many were made, etc.
Link: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html#85

I own a lot of the new Nikon lenses (14-24, 17-35, etc.), and I definitely like them with RED. But I also love Nikon AIS lenses. They're well built, affordable, and they dance VERY well with RED One.

 

[rod bradley]

Hey Steve, I'm sure I speak for many in saying how much I appreciate all of your contributions to the forum, especially valuable to the many of us also work in non-cine modes. PS: Sent you a PM re getting a 50-300 repaired.

 

[jaadgy akanni]

The ruby wide rehoused 14-24mm t2.8 by focus optics also comming rehoused 24-70 t2.8 Ruby standard and the 70-200 nikkor t2.8 tele.
stuart

Stuart, my one issue with the 70-200mm, though, is the fact that it won't cover Full Frame well enough-corner sharpness suffers too much. I'd wait 'til Nikon releases an update to that lens...I don't know...
It'd be perfect on the RED One, though

 

[Steve Gibby]

Thanks for the kind words Rod...

In answer to your PM about your 50-300, I just emailed you some input

 

[Mark K.]

The best lens for what? In terms of sheer image quality and aesthetics I'd say it's the 200mm f/2 VR (but that's a pretty specialised lens, so it's not going to do you much good for wide or standard angles of view)

 

[Nils J. Nesse]

also comming rehoused 24-70 t2.8 Ruby standard and the 70-200 nikkor t2.8 tele.
stuart

The Nikon 24-70 expands when zooming -- will this be fixed in your rehousing?

 

[FocusOptics]

24-70

24-70

The Nikon 24-70 expands when zooming -- will this be fixed in your rehousing?

Nils,
This will be an internal zoom lens. All movement will be internal.
Stuart

 

[James Brundige]

The best lens for what? In terms of sheer image quality and aesthetics I'd say it's the 200mm f/2 VR (but that's a pretty specialised lens, so it's not going to do you much good for wide or standard angles of view)

What is great about this lens? I'm not familiar with it.

 

[Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock]

My favourite Nikon darling used to be the 85mm f1.4.
But a few month ago "I´ve met someone":

Nikon 28mm f/1.4

Incredible, incredible lense.

Jochen

 

[Evin Grant]

Yep, my 28mm 1.4 Nikkor is always close at hand...

Even when driving!

....but a new lady has been getting a lot of attention lately...

The supremely tasty 300mm f2.8 AFS-VR, seriously this lens is so sharp at 2.8 that you can shoot with the 1.7x teleconverter (510mm f4.5) and not see any sharpness difference!

 

[Evin Grant]

Stuart, my one issue with the 70-200mm, though, is the fact that it won't cover Full Frame well enough-corner sharpness suffers too much. I'd wait 'til Nikon releases an update to that lens...I don't know...
It'd be perfect on the RED One, though

Really? I've had this lens for a while and even though it's not my first pick out of the bag (85mm f1.4 mostly for weight and Bokeh) I still find it's extremely good optically, even in the corners on full frame. And more importantly how often are the corners even in focus on a 70-200mm lens? Who knows if a new 70-200 is anywhere near release, I want these three zooms yesterday! I've had the pleasure of shooting with the 14-24 Ruby on two jobs already, but the 24-70 & 70-200 would really round out the package.

I'll try to test my 70-200 on my D3 this weekend and see if I can detect the issues your talking about or if maybe it was sample variation.

 

[Jarred Land]

I'll try to test my 70-200 on my D3 this weekend and see if I can detect the issues your talking about or if maybe it was sample variation.

its not just sharpness.. the lens actually vignettes. Its a very real problem and you can even see it on the LCD, it's not a true full frame lens even though Nikon loves to call it that. I would expect a new design to come out shortly.

 

[Lee Saxon]

I'll try to test my 70-200 on my D3 this weekend and see if I can detect the issues your talking about or if maybe it was sample variation.

I would guess technique issues before sample variation. The least bit of unsteadiness at that focal length can throw things way off critically sharp.

By the way I'm so freakin jealous that you have a 28 1.4. I really want one but the collectors have pounced on it and they're $3-4000 on eBay and KEH!! If I'd only pounced on it when it was available new 3 or 4 years ago...I never imagined the new price of ~$1800 would turn out to be cheap!

 

[jaadgy akanni]

its not just sharpness.. the lens actually vignettes. Its a very real problem and you can even see it on the LCD, it's not a true full frame lens even though Nikon loves to call it that. I would expect a new design to come out shortly.

ditto.

 

[Lee Saxon]

its not just sharpness.. the lens actually vignettes. Its a very real problem and you can even see it on the LCD, it's not a true full frame lens even though Nikon loves to call it that. I would expect a new design to come out shortly.

The objective tests agree:

www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget...izontal&&config=LensReviewConfiguration.xml?2

But I've been shooting sports wide open with this thing for years and I don't think I've ever taken a shot where it was noticeable, for whatever it's worth.

 

[Jarred Land]

Have you been shooting it on a full frame camera Lee? The lens really shines on the older DX format, but as soon as I put it on my D3 the problem jumped out at me within 30 seconds.