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 :)

Better for features: RPP 300, or converted Nikon 200/2

M

Morgan Schmidt

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
450
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Greetings,

Curious to hear folks' thoughts. I'd like to acquire a longer lens to add to my package, partly to get those beautiful out of focus backgrounds. The two candidates that are in my price range (of course if you're aware of others...) are the Red 300/2.8 and the older converted Nikon 200/2. Do you have an opinion on which is more 1) useful in day to day feature production, and 2) beautiful? By beautiful I mean there's a 'vibe' to the shots made with it, it flares beautifully, particularly nice bokeh, etc...

Cheers,
Morgan

--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.morganschmidt.com
--------------------------------------------------------
 
Completely agree - the 200 T.2 Nikkor is a must. For me I find it be the longest useful focal length when shooting in the normal set environment. Trying to employ a 300mm for a close up would involve moving the camera too far away from the set. Don't get me wrong if you have the space a 300mm is great as you can really compress your backgrounds, layer foreground elements, crosses etc... But yeah, the Nikkor 200mm t2 ranks up there as one of my all time favorites. Very sharp, beautiful focus rolloff, matches well with most primes. There are many out there that have been converted to cinema mechanics by Century Precision, Optex and others, you should rent one on a shoot, and you'll quickly see what I mean. On a recent feature project, the director loved the look of that lens so much, we designed the coverage of entire scenes around it, and although sometimes tricky for our focus puller those scenes were my favorite from the film.
 
I'll give an alternative; the Canon FD 200mm f/1.8 is gorgeous, but as rare as rocking horse shit. Wish I had one... Optex did some PL conversions on them. I do have the FD 300mm f/2.8 and it's a lovely thing.

I've never tried the Nikon but if I can't find a Canon I'll probably buy a Nikon in PL; I've heard a lot of people rave about it.

Mike
 
I have the 300mm RPP. We used it on a number of shots on our feature and it was sweet. We added my doubler to get some 600mm action, which was even sweeter. Can't comment on the other glass but I can tell you we loved the results from the 300.
 
If you're up for a small adventure, i suggest taking a look at the Wild Heerbrugg (Leica) 98mm f1.4 lens. Originally made for aerial reconnaissance cameras, it has an image diameter of roughly 90mm and it's blistering sharp wide open.
While it does have an aperature, it lacks any sort of focussing.... some machining might be required.

The large image diameter translates to about 300mm on a s35 sensor.
 
Last edited:
Shane Kelly said:
You'll have to explain that one to me.
Click to expand...


Crop Factor

The image produced by the Heerbrugg is ~3 times the size of the Red Epic Sensor, thus only recording the cropped area of the image projected by the lens
 
Last edited:
It's still a 98mm lens, though. It will be a 98mm lens on any camera, crop factor has nothing to do with it. A medium 50mm on a red is still a 50mm and will give the same approximate field of view. You may only be using the center of the lens but it's still a 50mm.
take a look at: http://blog.abelcine.com/2010/05/14/a-lens-is-a-lens-is-a-lens/
 
Lee Saxon said:
I assume we're referring to an older 200/2 AI-s and not the modern AF-S?

I have no experience with that lens, but for whatever it's worth the modern one is absolute magic.
Click to expand...

Yes, the older one is the one that used to get converted. It's a great lens as is the 300/2.8.
 
Shane Kelly said:
It's still a 98mm lens, though. It will be a 98mm lens on any camera, crop factor has nothing to do with it. A medium 50mm on a red is still a 50mm and will give the same approximate field of view. You may only be using the center of the lens but it's still a 50mm.
take a look at: http://blog.abelcine.com/2010/05/14/a-lens-is-a-lens-is-a-lens/
Click to expand...

Where am i claiming it's a 300mm lens though? I'm merely stating that the image magnification will be similar to using a 300mm lens. ;- )
 
Shane Kelly said:
It's still a 98mm lens, though. It will be a 98mm lens on any camera, crop factor has nothing to do with it. A medium 50mm on a red is still a 50mm and will give the same approximate field of view. You may only be using the center of the lens but it's still a 50mm.
take a look at: http://blog.abelcine.com/2010/05/14/a-lens-is-a-lens-is-a-lens/
Click to expand...

Shane, he's talking about the behavior (field of view) of that particular focal length when put on the EPic. Obviously a 98mm lens is always a 98mm by design and that wont change, but the field of view WILL change when you switch sensors of varying sizes. As Steven pointed out, the image circle diameter of the Heerbrugg is ~3x the RED epic sensor diameter, which would mean the field of view of that 98mm lens is equivalent to the field of view you would obtain from a 300mm lens with an image circle diameter of roughly the RED epic sensor diameter.

When people say a 50mm is a 50mm is a 50mm, they are talking about the mechanics of the lens itself - not the field of view or crop factor (which vary among cameras/sensors).
 
depends, do you want to do a closeup of your talent at 60 feet away from you or 100 feet away from you hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Sorry - couldn't help myself.
 
Yousuf Abbasi said:
Shane, he's talking about the behavior (field of view) of that particular focal length when put on the EPic. Obviously a 98mm lens is always a 98mm by design and that wont change, but the field of view WILL change when you switch sensors of varying sizes. As Steven pointed out, the image circle diameter of the Heerbrugg is ~3x the RED epic sensor diameter, which would mean the field of view of that 98mm lens is equivalent to the field of view you would obtain from a 300mm lens with an image circle diameter of roughly the RED epic sensor diameter.

When people say a 50mm is a 50mm is a 50mm, they are talking about the mechanics of the lens itself - not the field of view or crop factor (which vary among cameras/sensors).
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. If you put a 98mm lens on a epic, no matter what format it was designed to cover, it'll look like a 98mm, not a 300mm. It may have been designed to cover a larger sensor but it will still behave like a 98mm on an epic, not a 300mm. There's no way around that.
I have a zeiss 180/2.8 that was designed to cover medium format that was converted to PL. It has the same field of view as my 180/2.8 nikon on my epic. It's a 180mm and will always be a 180mm.


200mm nikon f/2 is still a great lens though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top