Nikkor 17-55mm DX

[PaulClements]

What are peoples opinions on the Nikkor 17-55mm DX? Had some pretty good reviews, not quite as good as the 17-35mm but being a DX works out wider:

17-55mm on Red equates to 18-58mm

17-35mm on Red equates to 28-57mm

Edit:

Sorry I was talking about relative field of view not magnification. I did think about it after I posted and meant to amend it but had to go out. This bloody crop factor thing gets on my nerves everytime I have to think about it! What about opinions on the lens then!

 

[Michael Hastings]

No multiplier for DX lens.

No multiplier for DX lens.

What are peoples opinions on the Nikkor 17-55mm DX? Had some pretty good reviews, not quite as good as the 17-35mm but being a DX works out wider:

17-55mm on Red equates to 18-58mm

17-35mm on Red equates to 28-57mm

I was contemplating a good Nikkor Zoom combo with the Birger mount might be the 17-55mm DX, 35-70mm and 70-200mm. All have f2.8 across the range so are relatively fast for a zoom. On RedOne they work out as:

18-58mm (17-55mm)
57mm-114mm (35-70mm)
114mm-324mm (70-200mm)

Hope my maths is right, I used x1.621 for 35mm's and x1.063 for the DX lens.

I think you meant 17-55mm on Red equates to 28-88mm (you said 18-58)
There is no multiplier for DX - millimeters are millimeters whether it is 17mm DX or 17mm regular. The factor only comes into play when you are comparing the angle of view on RED vs. the angle of view on a 24x36mm SLR frame, so if the chart says it is a 17mm 100 degrees on SLR it would be about 62 degrees on red.

The DX 17 would be the same 62 degrees on RED, the only difference is since it won't cover full frame slr its specs will give the coverage on the DX size - again about 62 degrees, hence you don't need to convert.

The Dx only means that it has a smaller image circle size so it wouldn't work to cover a full frame slr. Since the DX size is about the same as RED it should work fine. The only advantage of DX would be that the size of the lenses might be physically smaller and a little cheaper since it is designed for a smaller imager. This may be pretty important for the compact DSLRs but probably not important for REDusers.

A reason NOT to use DX is that with the regular 17-55 you would be only using the center portion of the optic (which is usually the sharpest and least chromatic aberration (CA) and distortion) whereas with the DX you are using all of it where there likely will be more distortion and CA at the edges.

The main reason to look at DX is that they have wider lenses available e.g. the 12-24 zoom. So other than the wide angle side, you are probably better to use standard lenses.

So in summary the 17-55mmDX is NOT wider than the 17-35. If you want wider on RED you should look at the 12-24 DX lens.

One of the reasons I am leaning toward Canon on the Birger mount is the 10-22 EF-S. "EF-S" with Canon is like "DX" on the Nikons. It only works on the smaller imagers of the REBEL and 20D 30D type imagers. But 10mm is almost 20 percent wider than the widest Nikon (the 12-24) and it actually tests out better in reviews even by Nikon-centric testers like Ken Rockwell. For the record I am comparing only their rectilinear lenses not some of the wider fisheyes.

 

[Darwin]

17-55mm lens is '17-55mm lens' DX or not. I think where people get confused is when we talk about multplication factors. You must first establish a baseline for your multplication factor. Is it 35mm still or what? I don't understand your comparison or math.

 

[Emanuel A.]

but being a DX works out wider:

17-55mm on Red equates to 18-58mm

17-35mm on Red equates to 28-57mm

Paul,

A 17mm focal length is a 17mm, it doesn't matter where the coverage is. The sensor coverage is what will bring a different focal length aspect on it. On the RED ONE 35mm format, we'll have a 1.62x magnification effect. So, any 17mm will convert on a 28mm (27.54) focal length aspect equivalent (SLR).

Emanuel

 

[Emanuel A.]

Darwin, take a glance on this thread:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2771&page=2

E.

 

[PaulClements]

I think you meant 17-55mm on Red equates to 28-88mm (you said 18-58)

Actually no, the 17-55mm is a DX lens for sensor sizes of 23.6mm wide which is ever so slightly larger than Red's which is 22.2mm wide, therefore the crop factor is x1.063 (23.6/22.2). 17 x 1.063 = 18 (Rounded) and 55 x 1.063 equals 58 (Rounded) so the 17x55mm has an equivalent fov of an 18x58mm.

By comparison the 17-35mm is optimized for 35mm (which is actually 36mm wide) so the crop factor is 36/22.2 which is x1.62, and so it worked out that the 17x35mm had the equivalent fov of a 28x57mm zoom.

I know the magnification does not change. And therefore the different sized sensors is only really a matter for wider lenses because lenses for smaller sensors allow you to fit in more at the left and right of the picture from the same distance.

Though frankly I've confused myself lol

Anyway what about opinions on the zoom lol.

 

[Evin Grant]

Paul, I think I know where you're going with this but it's still confusing. Before we go further let me just state that both the 17-55 and 17-35 will behave exactly the same with exactly the same field and angle of view from 17-35mm and the 17-55 will of course allow for 20mm more telephoto zoom.
The 17-55 is a very sharp lens, from what I've seen (I've only shot wot it once) the images are crazy crisp, so much so that I almost prefer the 17-35 adn 28-70 for people becasue although sharp they seemed to be less edgy. But if super sharp and crisp is your thing you won't find a better zoom lens.
BTW I have also heard there is a bit of sample variation with this particular lens so watch out and buy from a place that takes returns.

 

[Eddie]

Aquavideo isn´t 10mm more like a "special effect" or atleast special application lens, which is mainly of interest to you due to your underwater recordings. I think people in general worries less about the really low focal lenghts than you. I for one don´t particularly like the perspectival character of focal lenghts under 20mm, but thats just me.
Anyway tokina makes a good 12-24mm for nikon dx mount, which you might want to check out, It cost about half of the canon lense and holds its max aperture of f4 throughout the zoom range, unlike the canon. Rockwell like wide photography and raves about it. But on the other side, 12mm just isn´t 10mm, so maybe one would end up with the sigma 10-20 and lose a 2/3 stop... its not easy to decide, but I believe that what the nikon mount is lacking in the ULTRA wide department is negligable for most people.

 

[Poi Boy]

I have a 17-55 that hardly ever comes of the camera..excellent lens, crisp and fast.
Aloha
-A

 

[HD Hildebrand]

Paul, I think I know where you're going with this but it's still confusing. Before we go further let me just state that both the 17-55 and 17-35 will behave exactly the same with exactly the same field and angle of view from 17-35mm and the 17-55 will of course allow for 20mm more telephoto zoom.
The 17-55 is a very sharp lens, from what I've seen (I've only shot wot it once) the images are crazy crisp, so much so that I almost prefer the 17-35 adn 28-70 for people becasue although sharp they seemed to be less edgy. But if super sharp and crisp is your thing you won't find a better zoom lens.
BTW I have also heard there is a bit of sample variation with this particular lens so watch out and buy from a place that takes returns.

I have to say, the 17-55 is a much more attractive range then the 17-35. End up with a lot less lens swapping and during run and gun work that can prove to be very valuable, though this over sharpness you mention Evin is a little concerning. I would love to go the 17-55 route if the Briger mount is out by the time my Red ships, but if it is "too sharp" and gives me a "video look" this is a problem. What about a slight softenning in post (not too interested in doing that) or filtering on the lens? Any shots or footage out there comparing the 2 lenses?

Cheers,
Dale

 

[Michael Hastings]

is 10mm a special effect and also DX sensor size issues

is 10mm a special effect and also DX sensor size issues

Aquavideo isn´t 10mm more like a "special effect" or atleast special application lens, which is mainly of interest to you due to your underwater recordings.

Obviously superwide is important for underwater and therefore of somewhat greater interest to me. However, the 10mm EF-S isn't really a specialty wide angle and I'll explain why but to do this we have to nail down the parameters first:

The biggest confusion comes up in that each format - 35mm movie, 2/3 video, 1/2" video, 35mm SLR,etc. - a 50mm is radically different in angle of view. So often when thinking about lenses we used 35mm SLR as a common denominator since almost everyone that shoots in the other formats also had a 35mm SLR and could relate to still lenses - i.e. 50mm was a normal lens, 35 mm was a slight wide. The movie guys knew that a 32 was about equivalent for normal and 21mm was slight wide. The Betacam guys new their zoom starting at 9 was the same slight wide.

The fly in the ointment came when DSLRs came out and full frame (24x36mm) sensors were unavailable so they started using the DX size in Nikon and the APS-C size in Canon and to relate to the picture you used to get on your film SLR you had to multiply by approx. 1.6.

Bottom line: APS-C, DX and 35mm movie frames (and therefore RED) are almost exactly the same size (I'll bust Paul's b*lls for splitting hairs in a minute.:innocent. So if you buy a Nikon DSLR or a Canon REBEL DSLR and look at it or take a picture with it, it will be a near perfect match for the same shot with RED. (I think David Mullen or someone else suggested getting one of these cameras instead of a light meter since it is not only a perfect light meter but a director's viewfinder as well.) However, if you are surfing B&H photo's website looking for lenses, unless it is specifically a DX lens or EF-S (their designations for lenses that can only be used with the smaller sensors) then the specs will give angle of view for the larger SLR frame and you will have to multiply by 1.6.

But you always have to remember that millimeters is millimeters, so whether it is a Zeiss 16mm Cine or a Canon or Canon 16mm EF-S or 16mm Nikon DX they are all going to give you the same angle of view on RED.

So to be precise with your question although 10mm (about 106 degrees diagonal) is an extreme wide I wouldn't consider it a specialty lens - it is a rectilinear lens (i.e. not fisheye - lines at the edges are straight) - the 10-22 is really basically the equivalent to the 17-35 for full frame SLRs. 10 is equivalent to 16 on an SLR and equivalent to about 4.5mm on a Betacam or F900 - again very wide but the starting point to the Fujinon 13x4.5mm wide zoom which is probably the most desirable lens out there for ENG/EFP video shooting if you can afford it. (Canon has an equivalent lens). And it is the same as the Zeiss 10mm which isn't even the widest of their Ultraprimes that are rectilinear (they have an 8mm rectilinear as well - 20 percent wider).

In other words I would consider a fisheye a special effect/specialty lens, but there are many cases where rectilinear extreme wide angles are very useful beyond just funky forced perspective shots: Certain interiors, cars, boats, buses, etc. As far as underwater - I'd really like that Ultraprime 8R I just can't quite justify the $24,000 difference between it and the $799 Canon 10-22.

The other thing that you should take from this is that the optical engineering is sort of based on the angle of view. In other words making a lens with a 100 degree angle of view has about the same optics if it is a 10mm for the ~22x12mm format of DSLRs/RED as it is for the 16mm lens for 36x24mm film SLR format. In other words the elements and groups and distortion correction would basically be the same. The only difference is that the actual elements get smaller for the smaller size image. That's why you see something like 3.5mm lenses on the small digital cameras. To make a 3.5mm lens that covered RED sensor would need a front element about a foot wide (I really don't know exactly but you get my point)

A good resource for a full range of lenses, and lens angles on full frame and smaller DSLR sensors, is this pdf from Canon's site:

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/Lens_Extender_chart_new.pdf

Actually no, the 17-55mm is a DX lens for sensor sizes of 23.6mm wide which is ever so slightly larger than Red's which is 22.2mm wide, therefore the crop factor is x1.063 (23.6/22.2). 17 x 1.063 = 18 (Rounded) and 55 x 1.063 equals 58 (Rounded) so the 17x55mm has an equivalent fov of an 18x58mm.

Though frankly I've confused myself lol

Anyway what about opinions on the zoom lol.

First of all everyone, anything I say on this forum is meant to be with low key and good humor. I know this stuff gets confusing - I have had to deal with these format issues on almost a daily basis for the past 15 years so it is a little easier for me to keep straight. With that said: Paul, you managed to get me confused for a minute. While the multiplier for full frame lenses is major, you probably shouldn't get too concerned about the 6 percent size difference - that's 3 degrees on a normal lens - which you probably can't perceive without a side by side comparison.

The key is that both the Canon and Nikon DSLR sizes are slightly larger diagonal than the RED 35mm size and so the DX and EF-S SHOULD work. (I've learned not to take these things for granted so initial tests with these actual lenses to make sure there isn't any vignetting is important.) Also, to be persnickety, you are considering the 35mm cine CROP of the RED sensor - the actual sensor is Super35 24.4 x 13.7mm which is getting pretty tight, although I doubt if many of us will be using the full sensor.

So to your real question - which zoom? 1) The DX should work. 2) You get the extra range 3) a little lower price. Pluses for the regular zoom: 1) The standard zoom has a manual iris ring the DX does not 2) Possibly superior quality since you are shooting the center of the lens 3) No worries about coverage - even on the full sensor.

I would lean to getting the regular 28-70 f2.8 (53-22 degrees) which may be a better overall midrange and has manual iris; and one of their telephoto zooms with VR, and the 12-24DX (99-61 degrees) if you need superwide.

With all of that said, since 1) the Birger will be available much sooner for Canon, 2) the Canon 10-22 at $799 compared to Zeiss 10 at $20K, and 3) Nikon only goes to 12 at their widest non fisheye... I haven't been convinced that Nikon is the best way to go. The only objective difference I have seen is the manual iris on their standard lenses (not DX).

 

[Poi Boy]

I have to say, the 17-55 is a much more attractive range then the 17-35. End up with a lot less lens swapping and during run and gun work that can prove to be very valuable, though this over sharpness you mention Evin is a little concerning. I would love to go the 17-55 route if the Briger mount is out by the time my Red ships, but if it is "too sharp" and gives me a "video look" this is a problem. What about a slight softenning in post (not too interested in doing that) or filtering on the lens? Any shots or footage out there comparing the 2 lenses?

Cheers,
Dale

You don't have to worry about the 17-55 giving you a video look, it is sharp, but that alone will not make for a video look and you can always use filters if you want a softer look.
Aloha
-A

 

[PaulClements]

...the actual sensor is Super35 24.4 x 13.7mm which is getting pretty tight, although I doubt if many of us will be using the full sensor.

Indeed, my calculations were according to the 35mm sizes of 22.2 x 12.49mm and not the S35 that you discussed, afterall if people are using still lenses I doubt they'll be sticking $6,500 on the RAW port.

I did a little research into some of my points and discovered I was pretty much completely wrong anyway. Everything I've seen basically points to using non DX/APS-C lenses.

 

[S. Um]

The only objective difference I have seen is the manual iris on their standard lenses (not DX).

If the Birger mount also controls the iris, I would think that you would prefer NOT to have a manual iris ring.

 

[J. Bernard Vallon]

...afterall if people are using still lenses I doubt they'll be sticking $6,500 on the RAW port.

Probably true, but I remember a lot of clammer a while ago for a Redcode shooting format of 23.6 x 10.1 for a 4.5k 2.35 scope image, which would use the full horizontal frame and not need a raw port. No word yet, but it seems like an upgrade Red might put in ones all the chips have settled. I'd use it.

If the Birger mount also controls the iris, I would think that you would prefer NOT to have a manual iris ring.

Since all modern nikons control the iris electronically regardless of whether or not you have a manual ring, I'd image the birger mount would control the iris in the same way, so the manual ring is redundant, rather than in-the-way.

 

[Michael Hastings]

more

more

Indeed, my calculations were according to the 35mm sizes of 22.2 x 12.49mm and not the S35 that you discussed, afterall if people are using still lenses I doubt they'll be sticking $6,500 on the RAW port.

I did a little research into some of my points and discovered I was pretty much completely wrong anyway. Everything I've seen basically points to using non DX/APS-C lenses.

I think that is true except for the superwides. I agree on the S35 point, as I said I was just being jerky bringing it up.

If the Birger mount also controls the iris, I would think that you would prefer NOT to have a manual iris ring.

You're correct it works the iris, but some people on this board really like the manual iris capability as well. I am leaning toward canon which don't have iris rings on any of their EOS lenses, so obviously it doesn't bother me.

 

[Jaime Vallés]

I did a little research into some of my points and discovered I was pretty much completely wrong anyway. Everything I've seen basically points to using non DX/APS-C lenses.

Wait... What do you mean? You can't use DX/APS-C lenses, or you don't want to use them? If you don't want to use them, why not? I'm confused... :help:

 

[Eddie]

Thanks for your reply aquavideo... After a bit of digging i am now also considering the canon mount. Not so much because of the ultra wide, but because only canon has a f/2.8 wideangle zoom 17-55mm with image stabilization. That could turn out to be crucial. If this trick really works with handheld shots and show no weirdo effects, the canon mount might be the best option, atleast untill nikon adds that feature to their 17-55mm. Does anyone know if the canon 2.8 17-55 IS USM will be present at L.A.R.T?

 

[Evin Grant]

No one has mentioned it. I'm not sure how usefull the IS/VR will be, in the limited testing I've done with my IS/VR lenses on a DSLR the image stabilizes in the VF but it's still doing minor corrections I think are jumpy. We won't know for sure until we get an IS lens on the Birger mount but I have my doubt's, it is after all designed to stabilize for just a spit second under most situations.

 

[PaulClements]

Wait... What do you mean? You can't use DX/APS-C lenses, or you don't want to use them? If you don't want to use them, why not? I'm confused... :help:

No, not that you can't. You can use them when shooting 35mm(4k), not S35 (2540p). But with the non DX/APS-C, 35mm lenses you will hit the sweet spot of the lens and get less distortion and vignetting on what you shoot. In motion, zoom and focus this might be noticable on some lenses, since they were built for still shots. On a single frame you wouldn't really see it, and can compensate for them in photoshop quite easily anyway. In cine use I prefer the idea of basically getting the entire frame fitted into the sweet spot of the lens, where the distortion and vignetting should be minimal.

I'm sure their results will still be good. I've simply decided to rely on normal 35mm lenses.