Nikon lenses with the Red One

[James T Mather]

I'm used to shooting interiors with an HVX and an M2 adapter, so hopefully whatever Red setup I end up with will be a great improvement when it comes to lighting.

Yes I've shot that system and you'll certainly find it an improvement. (you were working somewhere around 160 asa I guess) - the difference is that the lens adapters generally offer a much wider "neg" (more like ff35mm) so the 20mm is much wider than it will be on a motion picture s35mm frame. It just means you have to be cautious before signing off on tight/small locations where the director is demanding to see the whole room in a shot.

 

[number6]

Though we also use a wide range of cine lenses on RED One, we've also had very good results with Nikon on the multiple RED One cameras I own. We use them in hybrid cine/EFP productions, using 1:1 image magnification to sight focus. For mobility and lightness, we almost always use screw-on filters, rarely use a matte box, and never a follow focus. Genres have included adventure travel, alternative sports, nature, documentaries, business media, and many more.

Some of the Nikon lenses we use are recent manufacture, and others are 10+ years old AIS lenses.

The Nikon lenses we use are:

17-35 f/2.8, 80-200 f2.8, 50-300 f4.5 AIS, 400 f3.5 AIS, 85 f1.4 AIS, 180 f2.8 AIS, and a few others (14mm, 20mm, etc.).

Gibby, just curious... is your 50-300 the ED version? If so, does it warrant the extra cost for use on a RED?

 

[Steve Gibby]

Gibby, just curious... is your 50-300 the ED version? If so, does it warrant the extra cost for use on a RED?

Yup...it is the ED version. IMO its worth the extra time and expense to get the ED AIS version of the 50-300. Every lens reviewer I've read seems to agree with that. That's not to say that the pre-ED versions aren't good lenses - they are. But the ED lens coating reduces flare and any other minor artifacts. The 50-300 is one of the best lenses Nikon ever made, and certainly one of the very few best zoom lenses they have made. It is crisp! It used to be the staple lens in the kit of sports and nature shooters who used Nikon. It weighs somewhere around 5 pounds. I use it without a matte box or follow focus, with screw-on filters.

The footage from the ED 50-300 f/4.5 AIS on RED is very nice - crisp, clean, artifact free, excellent bokeh, etc.

Its not super fast at f/4.5, but then again is is almost always fast enough for what its is designed for - natural light shooting of wildlife, sports, etc.

I bought mine about five months ago online in the used equipment store at B&H. If you're familiar with their 1 through 10 ratings for used lenses, this one was rated by B&H as a 9. I picked it up for $1,500 - and it was one of the best Nikon lens decisions I've made for use on my REDs.

If you shoot sports, nature, or some other genre with RED where you can use a crisp 6x manual zoom, I highly recommend the Nikon ED 50-300 f/4.5 AIS zoom - if you can find one - they're hard to find because they're such a good lens that photographers tended to hang onto them, even when they switched to newer lenses throughout the rest of their kits.

 

[Mo Kamal]

The Nikon lenses we use are:

17-35 f/2.8, 80-200 f2.8, 50-300 f4.5 AIS, 400 f3.5 AIS, 85 f1.4 AIS, 180 f2.8 AIS, and a few others (14mm, 20mm, etc.).

Which 80-200 f2.8 do you own?

I'm wondering if the AF-S is worth getting (over the AF-D).

 

[Steve Gibby]

Which 80-200 f2.8 do you own?

I'm wondering if the AF-S is worth getting (over the AF-D).

I own the ED 80-200 AF, which was made from 1988-92 (mine was made in '92). It is optically excellent, basically a very similar optical design to the later Nikon 80-200 lenses. It is built like a tank. Images from it are very sharp, it is pretty good wide open, but becomes excellent at f/4 and further stopped down. If you look around you can find one in very good condition used for around $600 USD.

The AF-S was made from 1999-2004 and is also a great lens - very sharp. The AF-D is the most current version of 80-200, and though I haven't used it I hear very good things about it from associates who use it on their Nikon DSLR cameras.

All three of these Nikon 80-200 lens versions (AF, AF-S, AF-D) are excellent lenses and should be very good on RED One. I have only used my AF version, and the images from it on RED One have been very crisp, with nice rolloff and bokeh - and the performance to price ratio of the lens on is sky high.

For those who shoot Nikon on RED One, and shoot genres where a zoom is useful, IMO there are two "must have" zooms for your kit: the 17-35 and one of these versions of the 80-200.

Hope this helps...

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Nikon shooters - purchase Nikon mount from Red. Upgrade that to Doug's newer mount, buy only good glass (there are some lemons out there), and definitely look at lenses like the Tokina 11-16.

As has been mentioned, still lenses are tougher to focus than cine lenses, are not always optically equivalent, i.e. quality control not always as tight as cine lenses, and can have some color shift within a set. But if you get a good set going, you'll find they are a great way to go for certain projects.

 

[Mo Kamal]

yes the Tokina 11-16 seems to be a great value, I think that any other Nikon mount lens in that focal range would either be slower or way more expensive.

 

[Denis Buhot]

already said, maybe..

already said, maybe..

yes the Tokina 11-16 seems to be a great value, I think that any other Nikon mount lens in that focal range would either be slower or way more expensive.

.. but consider some in the sigma range, nikon mount. Especially long or very long lenses, if you care to use any. Shorter lenses seem to have lost their iris ring recently... Too bad, when you take a look at some footage here, skaters in Paris Trocadero, notably...