Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

PL mount Nikkor 17-35mm T2.8 - Do you want one?

PL mount Nikkor 17-35mm T2.8 - Do you want one?

  • less than 5000€

    Votes: 50 89.3%

  • not more than 6500€

    Votes: 4 7.1%

  • 8000€

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 9500€

    Votes: 1 1.8%

  • more.

    Votes: 1 1.8%
  • Total voters
    56
  • Poll closed .
The Third Man said:
"The Nikon 14-24mm is a G lens, meaning Nikon removed the aperture ring to save costs."

And to install a new aperture ring in the rehoused lens would cost more that US $ 5.000.

The price could be minimum about 10K.

14-24mm-no-aperture-ring.jpg

Look ma - no aperture ring!

LINK>>>
Click to expand...

That's the point Sanjin, Once you chop up the back of the lens you need to move the iris ring anyway. Not that huge an additional cost, certainly not "oh my god $5000" - if it's too expensive for you don't get it. Any stills zoom lens that's nicely re-mounted and rehoused is going to cost $5000-20,000

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
Matt Uhry said:
That's the point Sanjin, Once you chop up the back of the lens you need to move the iris ring anyway. Not that huge an additional cost, certainly not "oh my god $5000" - if it's too expensive for you don't get it. Any stills zoom lens that's nicely re-mounted and rehoused is going to cost $5000-20,000

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
Click to expand...

Yes Matt,

and we know that the price between 10K-20K for the lightweight zoom in that class is a still bargain.
 
At this point maybe it's time to think about a 2nd Red with a dedicated Birger Nikon mount. I just got the new 24-70 f2.8 AF-S lens with my D3 and OMFG!
It bests the old 28-70 in every possible way and the 28-70 was phenomenal.
For $23,000 you could have a dedicated Red for Nikon AFS and the 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm VR all T3 and all spectacular lenses that quite honestly would give Daren's LWZ a run for it's money, especially wide open.
 
The Third Man said:
"The Nikon 14-24mm is a G lens, meaning Nikon removed the aperture ring to save costs."
Click to expand...

When you rehouse the lens you have to make a new aperture ring anyway. On the 17-35 the aperture is controlled by electronics as well and had to be remade.
 
sbaechler said:
When you rehouse the lens you have to make a new aperture ring anyway. On the 17-35 the aperture is controlled by electronics as well and had to be remade.
Click to expand...

The 17-35 has a manual aperture mechanism as well, so at least most of what is needed should already be there. Or it should be quite a bit easier to adapt it than a G series lens.
 
For me the conversion would have to be less than 5K euro including the cost of the lens to make sense.
Aloha
-A
 
Poi Boy said:
For me the conversion would have to be less than 5K euro including the cost of the lens to make sense.
Aloha
-A
Click to expand...

Why? It would theoretically by better then a RED lens? You paid $6500 for that.

(the RED is believed to be re-housed out of a sigma for $389 and the Nikon is $1700)


fred
 
weirdcrew said:
Why? It would theoretically by better then a RED lens? You paid $6500 for that.

(the RED is believed to be re-housed out of a sigma for $389 and the Nikon is $1700)


fred
Click to expand...

I have both lenses, the red lens is way better overall. Also you don't know that it is a $389 sigma. If Sigma does make it though, I'm sure there is more to it than just their $389 model.
Aloha
-A
 
Also a better range on the red.
-A
 
Poi I would bet my cooke up against your red 18-50 that the red lens is indeed a sigma 18-50 stills lens. I have compared the sigma and the red lens and they are 100% the same lens only the red has been rehoused.

Care to put your lens up and take that bet?
 
It may very well be, I didn't say it wasn't, just that we don't know for sure. Regardless, I own both and stand by my statement. So, Fin baby, you have taken the two apart have you ?
-A
 
Poi Boy said:
It may very well be, I didn't say it wasn't, just that we don't know for sure. Regardless, I own both and stand by my statement. So, Fin baby, you have taken the two apart have you ?
-A
Click to expand...

Don't really need to as it peeks out when you zoom :innocent:
 
it's just uncircumcised.
-A
 
weirdcrew said:
Why? It would theoretically by better then a RED lens? You paid $6500 for that.
Click to expand...

Would it be better?

I own the Nikon 17-35 and it's a great lens... IMO, it isn't all that much better optically (or even better at all) than the RED 18-50. The RED 18-50 obviously makes compromises to reach its price point. But my complaints with it are not about the quality of its optics. Like you said, in theory it would be better. I don't think we'll get better optical performance out of it and the rest of the mechanics would have to be better than what RED is offering with their lenses for me to consider this conversion.

In terms of price, if the re-housed Nikon isn't about the same price or a bit lower than the RED lens, it better have some good reasons to justify the higher cost. It's already lacking in focal range, the difference between 17mm and 18mm on the low end is trivial, they're about the same speed (f2.8 ~ T3), RED lens is readily available and has a warranty.

(the RED is believed to be re-housed out of a sigma for $389 and the Nikon is $1700)
Click to expand...

I suppose no one will know for sure until someone cuts open a RED lens... But I have serious doubts about any "re-housing". That makes no sense, IMO. I wish people would quit throwing that around until someone can prove it. However, I'm fully willing to believe it's likely RED is using Sigma's 18-50 glass elements and some internal components for the construction of their lenses. I just don't see them ordering truck-loads of Sigma lenses and then delivering them to someone for the lenses to get butchered and rebuilt. Much easier ways to handle something like that when we're talking about a product of which several thousand will be produced.
 
chuck colburn said:
How can a f2.8 lens turn into a T2.8 lens?
Click to expand...

easy...

535_1204269923.jpg


Their "T" stop scale is the same 2.8, 4, 5.6.. as on the Nikkor "F" scale... Makes you wonder about the quality of the rest of the conversion. Oh well, it's a rental.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top