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 :)

Real World Experience of Nikon 17-35mm

R

Rob Castiglione

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
1,061
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Australia
Website
www.robcastiglione.com
I am waiting on my Red which will be using with the Nikon mount. Initially, I will be using it for documentary work.

Is there a good manual zoom to use for this purpose at the wider end? I have read the thread on the Nikon 17-35mm. This seems on the face of it a natural choice but having read the thread it appears to have a very short throw. This concerns me.

Is it a practical lens for documentary work? Is anyone actually using it in the field successfully for doco work? Can I realistically focus going hand held with the 17-35mm?

Alternatively, Is anyone using the older Nikon 20-35mm because it has a longer throw?

Rob
 
Hi Rob, I got an Nikon DX 17-55mm f/2.8 from eBay the other day but don't have it in my hands yet. I chose it over the 17-35mm full frame.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1755.htm

Now that the Nikon DX mount is available http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17820 a much broader range of lenses can be used.

Especially for documentary work I would welcome the wider zoom range of the 17-55. Constantly switching my primes drove me nuts, especially outside when I do not need the additional stops.

I will be able to comment on how well the 17-55 works on the Red early next week if you are interested.
 
Mike, that is really helpful. I am going to hold off on buying a zoom for a while and not jump in too quickly.

I would really appreciate your reports once you get the 17-55. That is a really useful range.

Rob
 
Rob Castiglione said:
Is it a practical lens for documentary work? Is anyone actually using it in the field successfully for doco work? Can I realistically focus going hand held with the 17-35mm?
Click to expand...

Rob,

We've been using the 17-35 for quite some time now. We haven't used it for any hand-held work, only on sticks. I would say that with the focus assist or edge highlight tools and some practice you could definitely use this lens hand-held. Would it be the best choice? Well I don't think anyone else can answer that question for you. If you can I would test the lens out before you buy it. But I will say that optically, this lens is absolutely gorgeous.
 
I use the 17-35 regularly on my RED cameras, with the RED Nikon mount. The footage results have been excellent. The lens is lightweight, and yes, I do a lot of hand held work with it. I rarely use it with a matte box. I use screw on filters (ND .3, .6, .9. and CP). Documentaries are one of the core areas of my business. I use the 17-35 for my wide zoom when I'm using a Nikon mount on my RED cameras, and I also use the RED 18-50 for the same functions when I'm using my cameras with a PL mount.
 
Thanks for your experiences. I really appreciate the time people take to post them and help out those just starting out on their own Red adventures.

I must say I am very tempted by the 17 -35mm..

I think I will try and test out the different options by borrowing some lenses (as soon as my Red gets here!)

Rob
 
I use the 17-35mm hand held all the time.
Hard to focus in low light, but stopped down to around f8 it's lovely to work with.

It has a bit of "wiggle" when focusing (partly due to the nikon mount). But other than that a sound investment.
 
This is an excellent lens. I have used it in several situations and it looks great. It intercuts nicely with all the other Nikon glass I have.

David
 
For those interested in the Nikon route, and looking to purchase Nikon glass. We have a full set, with gears, for sale, including a 17-35mm. I announced it a while back in the "Jobs/Equipment For Hire" section. I'm bumbing it so it's back in the recent threads, in case anyone is interested : http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16468

Cheers,
Damien
 
Mike Zinner said:
Hi Rob, I got an Nikon DX 17-55mm f/2.8 from eBay the other day but don't have it in my hands yet. I chose it over the 17-35mm full frame.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1755.htm

Now that the Nikon DX mount is available http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17820 a much broader range of lenses can be used.

Especially for documentary work I would welcome the wider zoom range of the 17-55. Constantly switching my primes drove me nuts, especially outside when I do not need the additional stops.

I will be able to comment on how well the 17-55 works on the Red early next week if you are interested.
Click to expand...

No Iris control on the 17-55 would seem to make it not so useful ? Sounds like a nice lens otherwise.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
Gibby said:
I use the 17-35 regularly on my RED cameras, with the RED Nikon mount. The footage results have been excellent. The lens is lightweight, and yes, I do a lot of hand held work with it. I rarely use it with a matte box. I use screw on filters (ND .3, .6, .9. and CP). Documentaries are one of the core areas of my business. I use the 17-35 for my wide zoom when I'm using a Nikon mount on my RED cameras, and I also use the RED 18-50 for the same functions when I'm using my cameras with a PL mount.
Click to expand...

I would love to hear your opinion on how the Nikon Zoom lens compares with the RED zoom?
 
My experience has been that the Red zoom is a slight/tad bit sharper than the 17-35. The 17-35 has a slight bit of ghosting at f/2.8 that goes away at f/4. The difference in sharpness is no deal breaker because the 17-35 is indeed very sharp (just not as much at f/2.8).

Mechanically, the Red zoom has a much longer focus throw which made it much easier to 'nail' focus by eye - that is until I got used to the short throw on the Nikon.

If you can deal with the mechanical differences, you love the 17-35. I've intercut footage shot with both zooms with no problems.
 
One of the major considerations for me is weight. The Red zoom has such a great range (and good price) but I hear is much heavier than the Nikon. That is important to me because I have to strip this camera down to be able to use it all day shooting shoulder mounted.

Rob
 
Steve Sanacore said:
I would love to hear your opinion on how the Nikon Zoom lens compares with the RED zoom?
Click to expand...

Rob Castiglione said:
One of the major considerations for me is weight. The Red zoom has such a great range (and good price) but I hear is much heavier than the Nikon. That is important to me because I have to strip this camera down to be able to use it all day shooting shoulder mounted.

Rob
Click to expand...


Size comparison
The RED 18-50 weighs 2.3 pounds (35oz), and is 4.12" long. The Nikon 17-35 weighs 1.7 pounds (26.3oz) and is 4.5" long. Bottom line: the two lenses are very close in weight and dimensions. The 18-50 is a little fatter because of its gear rings. The 17-35 is a little longer. Both lenses are small, lightweight, and well suited to mobile work.

Performance
I agree with what Kenn Michael has posted. I get excellent footage from both lenses. In the usual genres I work in, I generally shoot in a range between f4 and f11, which tends to be the strongest performance range of many lenses, these two included. I've intercut footage from both lenses with no problems. The X factor is we're shooting RAW with RED, not RGB, thus the post flexibility of RAW helps in intercutting footage from multiple lenses and lens types. Cine purists may turn up their noses at both of these lenses, the 18-50 for its telescoping center casing and other nuances (somehow they expect a $40k lens for $6.5k), and the 17-35 just because its a 35mm still lens, but true indies and those not hung up on peer pressure, who don't do union work, and whose business model centers around getting good images while minimizing expense, will do really well with either the 18-50 or 17-35. Again, both lenses are affordable, and both lenses can generate excellent images on RED One.

The bottom line
I own multiple RED cameras, and one of them has the RED Nikon mount installed. Thus for any shooting situation I have the option of choosing whether I want to shoot cine lenses via a PL mount or Nikon lenses via a Nikon mount. That comes down to a choice of lens mechanics, whether I want to use a follow focus, and if I need the extra 15mm of focal range that the 18-50 provides. If it is wide-angle zoom shooting I want to do, then I weigh those factors out and choose my mount/lens combo accordingly. When shooting documentaries, sports, and nature, I’m a sight focuser with RED One, thus I operate cameras and lenses by myself. When I do shoot wide open its not just to be trendy, but rather when it is the best choice for a shot to tell the story the shot needs to tell. I've shot 35mm stills, cine style, and EFP style throughout my career, so I'm not hung up on any one shooting style - I just choose what I feel is the best style and equipment for each individual project (or portion thereof) and go get the images. The RED 18-50 and Nikon 17-35 both generate excellent images on RED One. IMO the choice between the two lenses, or using more expensive cine lenses, are matters of personal preference, project budget, field workflow needs, crew situations, and lens mechanical needs of the projects you shoot. I'm glad I bought both lenses, and I use both regularly...

End note: I also produce and direct large productions with sizable budgets and crew sizes – and on those we often use more expensive cine or EFP lenses – selecting the best tool for each job is the goal.
 
Thanks Gibby. As always, a really useful and informative post.

You have to be careful what you believe - someone had told me the 18-85 weighed 10 pounds!! If you had not corrected this I would never have known. So many myths and misinformation out there..

Rob
 
Rob, the RED 18-85 does weigh about 10 lbs. Gibby was talking about the RED 18-50.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top