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 :)

New to Nikon

I like to break it out by budget, if you're going to play in the PL mount world you can start with the 17-50 but be prepared to spend 15-20K to complete the kit down the line and that's on the low end. PL glass is an investment and if you make it wisely you will make it all back and then some but it's not for the light of heart or wallet. I tell everyone who wants to buy camera or lens gear to make sure you have the clientele first, then buy the gear.

As far as Nikon I'd go AIS or "G". In AIS find a 17-35 f2.8 AF-S and then AIS 28mm f2, 35mm F2, 50mm 1.4 (Or even better 1.2) and an 85mm 1.4 you can also get an 105 1.8 and 135 F2 if you're so inclined.

As for the "G" lenses you'll need either a Long Valley "G" mount of the Optitek mount. I have a Long Valley for sale if you're interested.
Here you have probably the best bang for buck optics available period, but you have to put up with some little annoyances till the Epic Nikon G mount ships.
You'll want the 14-24 f 2.8, it's unbeatable, then the 24,35,50 & 85mm F1.4 G primes I have them all and they're pretty much Master Prime sharp.
Lastly get the 70-200mm f2.8 G VRII for the long stuff. That'll cost you $10K or more but it's a bit more future proof and the performance is stellar.
 
Couple of other issues with Nikons. They barrel forward when they focus which means that you will have serious difficulties with most matte boxes. Additionally, you will have to buy a follow focus which accommodates the shorter throw on the Nikons eg a Chrosziel single sided video follow focus or the Arri FF5. These are not trivial issues.
 
Okay, I just bought the 17-50 RPZ. I'm now in PL world and ready to invest in my future. For too many years I've bought industrial video lenses or stills lenses (not that they're not great on my Canon). I want to start shooting shorts and film them properly so I'm going to try cine glass. I'm also going to buy the RED mattebox once it lands in the UK. All this talk of Nikon has made me a bit giddy. It just seems easier (if not a lot more expensive) to buy a cinema lens built for the job. I'm interested in the Tokina for real wide work too. Now, what should I do about those longer lenses? RED 50-150?
 
For the longer lenses I would (and did) purchase the 85mm RPP. I shoot narratives so the 85mm is all I need for CU. Plus with the close focus of the 17-50 RPZ you have a great tool for those cut-aways and inserts.
 
Before you dive all in I will say that there is a radical change to camera lens landscape in the works. Nikon and Canon will be clear winners. Cosina, Sigma , Tamron will follow.
PL (PV, BNCR etc cine standards) lenses in the traditional sense are at the downward slope of the bell curve. The focus pullers are changing their ways already.
The (cine) lenses are too heavy, too expensive and too cumbersome for the modern cinematographer. They offer very little in the image quality advantage. (the modern still lenses are built to resolve 20+ mpix sensors) and they are missing some key features that are increasingly important for motion work. You may find that, sooner than you think, your expensive PL lenses will be collecting dust . 3D is a whole new world that needs help in lens department and the new breed will deliver.....
My 2c
 
What Jacek says deserves to be a whole thread. My own strategy was that I was going to opt for PL mount primes but I have felt the change in the wind and am holding off. In the interim I purchased a Nikon prime set, got them "done" at Duclos and purchased Jacek's Prolock mount as an interim measure to see how the landscape unfolds in the next couple of years. I feel pretty good about that decision.
 
Slightly "newer" (less old) AI-s Nikons usually have slightly better designs (less of them have a focus ring that barrels in and out) and better coatings, I would look for those rather than the AI versions which usually don't sell for all that much cheaper anyway.
 
Rob Castiglione said:
They barrel forward when they focus which means that you will have serious difficulties with most matte boxes. Additionally, you will have to buy a follow focus which accommodates the shorter throw on the Nikons.
Click to expand...

This isn't necessarily generally true of all Nikons. Focus throws vary from ridiculously short on some newer AF zooms to 180+ degrees on some older primes. Some barrel out so much they almost double in length, some even move the focus ring too (!), some move like 2mm, and some are entirely internal- or rear- focusing.

Evin Grant said:
Lastly get the 70-200mm f2.8 G VRII for the long stuff. That'll cost you $10K or more but it's a bit more future proof and the performance is stellar.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about a cine-modded version? Stock it's like $2.3k?
 
OptiTek said:
Before you dive all in I will say that there is a radical change to camera lens landscape in the works. Nikon and Canon will be clear winners. Cosina, Sigma , Tamron will follow.
PL (PV, BNCR etc cine standards) lenses in the traditional sense are at the downward slope of the bell curve. The focus pullers are changing their ways already.
The (cine) lenses are too heavy, too expensive and too cumbersome for the modern cinematographer. They offer very little in the image quality advantage. (the modern still lenses are built to resolve 20+ mpix sensors) and they are missing some key features that are increasingly important for motion work. You may find that, sooner than you think, your expensive PL lenses will be collecting dust . 3D is a whole new world that needs help in lens department and the new breed will deliver.....
My 2c
Click to expand...

Agreed...and I've been posting opinions like that for a long time here on Red User and elsewhere. Since August 2007 when I received my first Red One camera I've used almost all Nikon (and one Canon) lenses on my four Red One cameras. At one time my kit of Nikon lenses I kept for use on Red One was 28 lenses. Now since receiving my first Epic (0008) almost three months ago I've been using a Canon lens (with PL mount because Canon mount isn't ready yet). Once the smart Canon and Nikon mounts for Epic are ready I'll probably never use the PL mount or PL lenses on my Epics again - ever. Once the new Red Electronic Lenses and Red mount are ready I'll also acquire those and use them heavily. Then before each shooting day or shot sequence using Epic I'll simply decide on the mounts (Red, Canon, Nikon) and lenses I want to use for the shots I want to get. On Epic changing mounts is quick (4 bolts), and then adjusting flange focal distance (FFD) is also quick.

If someone does indie production and the many shooting genres and styles (hybrid, EFP) outside of narrative cinema I'd strongly advise using 35mm still lenses on Epic. If the production you do isn't independent, and/or is heavily cine style, then PL lenses will probably need to be your choice.

I think all too often newcomers to the industry get caught up in the "be like the big boys" syndrome where things like peer pressure, wanting to look like a "real cinematographer", and unfamiliarity with the many lens options brings them to buying lens types and accessories on their camera setups that may not need to be there to work in the genres and styles they really want to work in. They learn a very expensive lesson in the process.

My approach has always been to only put on a camera setup exactly what absolutely needs to be on the camera to get the needed shots. Its an "indie minimalist" setup. In truth there are nuances and workarounds to using stock (non-cinevised) 35mm still lenses on Red One and Epic. But top-level 35mm still optics are remarkably close to PL optics in the images they can generate on Red One and Epic, so IMO the nuances and workarounds are more than justified by the drastically lower price paid and greatly decreased accessory needs and weight/bulk of 35mm still lenses over PL lenses. Less bulk/weight equals increased mobility, which enables a wide range of shots you simply can't get with bigger and heavier camera setups.

Bottom line - if you work union, and/or do a lot of narrative cinema work, then you'll need to go the PL route. But if you work indie, don't do a lot of narrative cinema, work in the myriad of non-narrative production genres, and also do 35mm stills work too, then IMO using 35mm stills lenses on Red One and Epic easily makes the most sense. Epic and Scarlet are DSMC cameras (digital stills and motion cameras). Only modern electronic 35mm still lenses in tandem with smart mounts will enable the broad spectrum of stills and motion work on Epic and Scarlet. PL lenses and mounts on Epic and Scarlet will be specialty setups for specialty work, in essence non-indie narrative cinema work. The still photo and combined hybrid/EFP production industries dwarf the cine industry in terms of number of workers, equipment buyers, and productions each year.

To each their own - but I'd say to newcomers that they closely analyze what their production goals, genres, and styles will be before deciding on what type of lenses and accessories to choose for Red One and Epic. This advice is coming from someone (me) who has owned four Red One cameras since they first started delivering in August 2007, an Epic M for three months now, and shortly has two Epic X coming - someone who works extensively in the hybrid and EFP industries and genres of production that really call for the lenses and setups I've described. Its advice worth considering for newcomers and veterans in transition to DSMC equipment.

In closing let me add that I deeply respect all genres and styles of production. Everyone should choose the cameras, lenses, and accessories that best suit the work they do. That said, IMO too many people in this industry repeatedly try to fit round pegs into square holes - and really suffer financially for their choice. Its a tight economy and a very competitive industry - spend wisely my friends.
 
Thanks Steve and well noted. I'll hold on to my Canon L Glass for the Epic.
 
David Baumber said:
Thanks Steve and well noted. I'll hold on to my Canon L Glass for the Epic.
Click to expand...

I'd do that :)

My DSLR system is a Canon 5D, and for it I own a wide range of L series Canon lenses. I'll be using those same lenses on Epic as soon as the first Red Canon smart mount is available. If Red would have had a smart Canon mount for me on February 4 when we received Epic M8, I'd have been using all Canon lenses on the camera since then. With just a PL mount available so far for Epic, the only 35mm still lens in my kits that I've been able to use on Epic is my stock Canon FD 150-600 f5.6L because it has a Century PL mount conversion installed. I've felt like a one-legged man in a butt kicking contest :)

The new smart Red Canon mount, in tandem with my modern Canon lenses, will give me the capability of shooting manual, part auto, or full auto, utilizing AF if I need it for certain shots - basically similar to the options I have with my 5D. The side grip for Epic also enables easy DSLR style shooting of stills or motion, with user assignable buttons, a scroll wheel, a rocker switch, etc.

Real mobile production of high resolution and high frame rate motion and stills is a reality with Epic :-))
 
Right now I am poor so I use an AI-s prime kit (28 2.8, 50 1.2, 85 1.4, 105 1.8), but I'm very anxious to get a G prime kit (24 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.4, 200 2, and 135 2 whenever Nikon gives it the G makeover).

Gibby is a dirty bastard putting the sexy 180 2.8 ED up for sale when I really should not be spending more money. :P
 
Lee Saxon said:
Gibby is a dirty bastard putting the sexy 180 2.8 ED up for sale when I really should not be spending more money. :P
Click to expand...

:-)) Its calling to you Lee, saying: "I'm only $375, I'm an excellent 180 2.8 in pristine condition, and you really need me for the top end of your Nikon AI-s prime kit!".

Email me a quick PayPal payment and its yours - steve (at) cut4 (dot) tv

I really hesitate to sell that lens - the images from it on Red are superb. Where else are you going to get a great Nikon 180 2.8 AI-s for Red for only $375? Come and get it...
 
Lee Saxon said:
Right now I am poor so I use an AI-s prime kit (28 2.8, 50 1.2, 85 1.4, 105 1.8), but I'm very anxious to get a G prime kit (24 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.4, 200 2, and 135 2 whenever Nikon gives it the G makeover).

Gibby is a dirty bastard putting the sexy 180 2.8 ED up for sale when I really should not be spending more money. :P
Click to expand...

I put together an AIS prime kit for my Red One to compliment the AFS zooms that I had for still photography. I discovered that the 17-35, the 28-70, and the 80-200 AFS all looked better than the older primes. I shoot nature and landscapes, so the sharpness of the newer lenses worked better for me.

If I was shooting faces and dramatically lit people, the (very slightly) softer look of the older primes might be better. I used the 85 AIS, which I still love, to shoot a standup with a mature celeb (REDford), and that was nicer to him. I've just added the new G 35 mm prime, which is the best of all, in anticipation of Epic based lens control.
 
The Nikon ED 180 f2.8 AIS is very crisp, with excellent contrast and bokeh...one of the better primes Nikon has ever made.

Since I use a lot of zooms in the hybrid/EFP genres of production I work in, the Nikon 17-35, 28-70, and three versions of the 80-200 are in my Nikon lens kits, along with the Tokina 11-16 (Nikon mount), 14-24, and 200-400. I was up to 28 Nikon lenses at one point, but now down to "only" 18 Nikon lenses - 12 zooms and 6 primes.

I've loved both Nikon and Canon lenses on Red One, and love the one Canon I've used on Epic so far.
 
I'm really surprised to hear that you're still using the 17-35 after getting the 14-24. I suppose it could be sample variation but my 17-35 never impressed me at all and once I got the 14-24 that got multiplied by 50. I haven't touched it once since. The Digital Picture doesn't always agree with my real-world experience (and I'm not sure why, btw), but I think this comparison is pretty dead-on with my experience: http://the-digital-picture.com/Revi...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

I also was never blown away by the 28-70. Although back when I owned it I didn't know about autofocus microadjustment, I'm now realizing...

And I have the first 70-200, which is unambiguously crap at the long end. I literally drive across town and borrow a friend's 70-200 II whenever I need one, that's how much better it is.

By the way James you're right about many AI-s primes having a softer (I think more organic) look, in particular that 85, but the 105 1.8 ain't one of 'em. I shot some portraits with it the other day and, uh, thank God the model had great skin...
 
Hey Gibby is one of your 80-200s the AF-S version? For some reason that one, which I think is the best one until the latest 70-200 II, was really short lived. Maybe they intentionally wanted to make it a collector's item...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top