Nikon Mount - Shifty Lens Play?

[Ryan Gibb]

Fixed Ours

Fixed Ours

We were getting play with our mount as well. Especially with our 17 to 35mm. We were able to fix a lot of the play by stretching out the ramps on the inside of the mount. I don't know exactly how to explain this but I'll try. If you look on the backside of the mount there are three ramps that give pressure on the lens to hold it in place. They are like slits or look kind of like leaf springs, but one side isn't attached. You can push (bend) them out and they put more pressure on lens which holds it in place much better. We got the idea cause had another nikon mount for another camera where they were out much further and the Red Nikon mount came bent in. Anyways I hope you guys can figure out what I mean from this post but it has helped out a lot since we did that. We still get a little bit of a shift when we pull focus.

 

[Jarred Land]

We are looking into this.. there may be a simple fix for you guys that want a "tighter" fit, almost along the lines of what beans mcgibb suggests (nice name btw) , but a little more elegant, since the solution for a tighter fit is in the springs. As many said here.. play is somewhat normal in the fundamental design of the still-mount, and making the springs tighter may make some lenses not fit, but we are always looking to make things better

 

[Martin Weiss]

The Nikon "F" mount was never designed to be a "Cinema" mounting solution. If you cannot work within it's capabilities rent or buy a set of PL mount lense.

Is that also the case for the Canon Mount? Can we thus expect similar "wiggling" with the perpetually upcoming Birger Mount?

 

[Michael Hastings]

Is that also the case for the Canon Mount? Can we thus expect similar "wiggling" with the perpetually upcoming Birger Mount?

I have a version of the Birger canon mount and I have used it as a dumb mount with zeiss contax/yashica lenses and nikons via adapters. It is very well made so lenses don't shift much but remember once you get to the real electronic birger mount working with EF lenses you won't have the shifting because focus would be done via the electronic motors and the focus knob of the birger mount. It is another thing that makes the birger mount such a powerful innovation. Focus range will be "mapped" to the follow focus knob - I believe it is 360 degrees by default but eventually that should be user programmmable, with stops and possibly ramps, breathing correction on zooms, etc.

By the way, the birger mount makes a good universal manual "dumb" mount because the short flange focal distance of EF lenses means almost everything else works with simple mechanical adapters. I have used contax yashica zeiss lenses (which are basically the same as the zeiss zf nikon mounts - except they focus in the "right" direction.), nikon lenses, pentax m42, all with adapters and good results. You can also use Leica-R and others.

 

[Anthony Gratl]

I have a version of the Birger canon mount and I have used it as a dumb mount with zeiss contax/yashica lenses and nikons via adapters. It is very well made so lenses don't shift much but remember once you get to the real electronic birger mount working with EF lenses you won't have the shifting because focus would be done via the electronic motors and the focus knob of the birger mount. It is another thing that makes the birger mount such a powerful innovation. Focus range will be "mapped" to the follow focus knob - I believe it is 360 degrees by default but eventually that should be user programmmable, with stops and possibly ramps, breathing correction on zooms, etc.

By the way, the birger mount makes a good universal manual "dumb" mount because the short flange focal distance of EF lenses means almost everything else works with simple mechanical adapters. I have used contax yashica zeiss lenses (which are basically the same as the zeiss zf nikon mounts - except they focus in the "right" direction.), nikon lenses, pentax m42, all with adapters and good results. You can also use Leica-R and others.

This all sounds great and very encouraging. Now the only thing that remains to be seen is whether or not the birger mount voids warranty....

 

[C.H.Haskell]

Great to hear Jarred, I would not expect anything less from you guys.

Nikon users, what would you say is a great or a must have lens for your RED ONE nikon set? Everyone seems to have the 17-35.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

17-35 zoom
some midrange primes (maybe 35mm 2.0, 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4)
80-200 zoom

 

[C.H.Haskell]

Thanks Steve.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Do you want to be run & gun or more cine setup? If run & gun the 2 zooms could get you by for a while.

 

[C.H.Haskell]

I do both really...but I lean towards the cine.

 

[Jeremy Newmark]

We've been shooting a lot of nature footage with the nikon mount recently, using the 17-35, 28-70 and 80-200 in a run and gun fashion. All three lenses have been producing gorgeous images. For that type of shooting the 80-200 has been the workhorse for sure. The 17-35 is wonderful and the 28-70 has seen the least amount of action, but that's not due to quality, just the needs of the shot. We do get the lens play on the mount, but it does not effect the image in any way on any of the 10 or so nikkor lenses we've tested.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Just did some shooting in Rockport with the lenses you mentioned (excluding the 28-70. Beautiful stuff.

But I can confirm for those who have asked about zooming, forget about it. I tested the 80-200 and there is no way to do a manual zoom without the image shifting left to right. I haven't tried a zoom on the 17-35, but I would assume the same results. You lock in at a focal length and stay there. But I don't do zooms unless instructed to for style and it won't be an issue for me most of the time.

I will say that if you plan on using the zooms with follow focus units and want to do lots of rack focusing, etc look into having hard stops put in on the focus ring and put Delvin gear rings on them. It's going to make your life easier. Also, I think removing the click stops on the aperture is important too. I was wishing I had that the other day. I have to save up some money to get mine done but look forward to doing it.

 

[Kenn Michael]

Slightly off-topic, but to Jeremy, Steve and Richard:

I just got a 17-35 (from keh.com with an EX rating). All I heard about this lens is how extremely sharp it is, but it's a hair (maybe 2 hairs) softer than my Nikon primes and definitely softer than my Red 18-50. I know primes are supposed to be sharper than zooms, but in your opinion, do I have a bad lens or is this normal performance?

 

[J.D. Frey]

We've shot on our new mount, but have not noticed any play- i'll have to check more closely the next shoot.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Slightly off-topic, but to Jeremy, Steve and Richard:

I just got a 17-35 (from keh.com with an EX rating). All I heard about this lens is how extremely sharp it is, but it's a hair (maybe 2 hairs) softer than my Nikon primes and definitely softer than my Red 18-50. I know primes are supposed to be sharper than zooms, but in your opinion, do I have a bad lens or is this normal performance?

Any stills to compare? That way we can see how far off it is.