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 :)

Using Nikon Lenses

Love my Nikon glass on the R1MX. Optitek prolock firmly holds the lens tight and gives iris control for my DX lenses. I have a Petroff follow focus which simply and quickly can change the direction of a Nikon lens for focusing, and has the added advantage of a .7/1 gear reduction for more FF knob rotation. I have noticed that the new AF-S prime 24mm f1.4 (which, by the way is stunning optically wide open) has 180 degrees of rotation as does the 50mm f1.4 AF-S. Hopefully the new 35mm f1.4 AF-S and the new 85mm f/1.4 AF-S will have the same 180 degree focus throw. In addition, I just got a Nikon D7000 two weeks ago, and am more than impressed with the 1080p image quality, the high ISOs, auto focus with subject tracking, 12 hours of recording with two sdxc cards in camera, and a $1200 price tag. Now I have a nice little "grab camera" to accompany my Red. Too much fun.
 
so helpful

so helpful

Guys, I really appreciate all of the information that you have posted on here. I has been a tremendous help.

Robert Mott
 
jaadgy akanni said:
Jeff, if you want a real workhorse, you should take a look at the new Nikon 28-300mm-a surprisingly good lens at all ends; in fact, I'd say it's as good as it's prime equivalents at 50mm and 85mm; and better than the 70-300mm even at 300mm.
Click to expand...

Actually I have that lens... I'm not a real fan. I find the f3.5-5.6 ramped aperture a constant nuisance and IQ is good, but not as good as their other flagship zooms -- 14-24, 24-70, and especially the 70-200. I do agree that the the 28-300 is better at 300 than the 70-300. For some reason the 70-300 is just not a great lens and serves no real purpose in their product line. Nikon doesn't have a zoom that can touch their top primes. The 24, 35 and 85 f1.4 are incredible. The 50mm f1.2 and f1.4 are also great. I would argue that the 24 f2.8 and the 85 f1.4 are possibly the two finest pieces of glass that Nikon makes.

All things considered, I think the 28-300 makes too many compromises to keep the overall zoom range and < $1K price point.
 
jaadgy akanni said:
Jeff, if you want a real workhorse, you should take a look at the new Nikon 28-300mm-a surprisingly good lens at all ends; in fact, I'd say it's as good as it's prime equivalents at 50mm and 85mm; and better than the 70-300mm even at 300mm.
Click to expand...

I'd have to disagree with that I'm afraid Jaadgy. I'm a Nikon man myself but the 28-300 isn't considered one of their 'performers' in comparison to the pro primes and zooms (even by Nikon themselves).
 
Stephen Pruitt said:
No. . . the one to watch is the 50mm f1.4 (NOT the 50mm f1.2 which I think is really, really soft) and, of course, the greatest of the greats. . . the 85mm f1.2.
Click to expand...

I've used both Canon versions but I didn't know Nikon made a 50 f1.2 or an 85mm f1.2. Are these old AI lenses?
 
I am not aware of an 85 1.2 or a 50 1.2 in Nikon's line ever, either. The 85 1.4 is awesome, as is the 50 1.4. There is a 55 1.2 but it's a little bit softer, which is why I never got one.
 
I have a beautiful set of Non-Ai Nikon Nikkor Primes, in your opinion what are the advantages and disadvantages to shooting with them on Red One/Epic? Would they need to be converted to AI to be mounted on Red One/Epic?
 
Liam Hall said:
I've used both Canon versions but I didn't know Nikon made a 50 f1.2 or an 85mm f1.2. Are these old AI lenses?
Click to expand...

This lens was still listed on Nikon's site until recently. The original release date was around 1986 but nikon has kept making them until recently.

Most reviews are really positive, consensus seems to be it's soft wide open but it hits its sweet spot early around f1.8 and is sharper then both the 1.4/1.8 at the same aperture. But thats just what I've heard... never shoot with it... might be a good idea to pick on up before new supply dries up.

Full manual nice build quality.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...35_NIKKOR_Normal_50mm_f_1_2.html#ReviewHeader


... was wrong seems nikon still has it listed

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/ProductDetail.page?pid=1435
 
My mistake. . . the glory lens is the Nikon AI-S 85mm f1.4. . . not f1.2 as I originally posted. I did not like the AI-S f1.2, however. I found it very soft compared to the glorious AI-S f1.4.

Sorry for the confusion.

Stephen
 
I'd shoot everything on the Nikon AI-S 85mm f1.4 if I could. Okay, maybe not everything, but I certainly do like it. The 50mm 1.4 is great as well.

Here's an example Nikon glass. Everything was shot run-n-gun with very small crews (on none at all :mad2:):
http://www.hildebrandfilms.com/One_Breath.html

The very last shot with the pull focus was either the 50mm or 85mm. I don't remember, but the pull feels natural and doesn't breath like some fear (my opinion anyway). But when you're filming a birth, you have one kick at the can to get your pull focus right. And when you're shooting and pulling focus all by yourself, you better hope you are used to the reverse pull of a Nikon lens.

The other handy thing about Nikon glass is I only have to travel with one set of lenses for both the Red and my DSLR that I use for additional timelapse shots.

Quality optics, weight, portability, and value for the buck tend to be what I look at. Sure I'd love a great set of PL primes, but I need to weight what is most practical for my needs, and right now, this works.
 
Elsie N said:
Just be sure to use the AF-S lens and not the DX ones for full sensor coverage.
Click to expand...

Those terms aren't related. 'AF-S' just indicates that the lens has an internal focus motor rather than relying on the camera's screw drive. AF-S lenses can be DX format. In fact, I believe all DX format lenses ARE AF-S.

The 'opposite' of DX [24x16mm] is FX [36x24mm], but the latter never appears in lens names, so what you're looking for is the ABSENCE of a 'DX' in the name.

G Lap said:
There are rumours of a 50mm f/1.2G coming, but nothing concrete that I've seen.
Click to expand...

And there are rumors that it'll cost $5000. I'll pass.

Richard Foster said:
Here's a performance review:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50mm-f12.htm
Click to expand...

Ken is a great resource for getting an idea of what Nikon made when and what your options are in the used market (aka, there's no "stuff we used to make" list on NikonUSA's website).

But never listen to his reviews. He's never actually used 2/3 of the lenses he reviews and my experiences often contradict his on the other third. I find that he is obsessed with telling you "you can get just as good performance for a third this price with X" even if X is nowhere near as good.

Worst example for me is his claim that any 80- or 70-200 2.8 is just as good at 200mm as the 200 2.0 unless you absolutely need the wider aperture. This is WILDLY untrue even with the latest (and best by a good margin) 70-200. Even comparing them wide open (FORGET about it if you stop the prime down to even 2.2).
 
Lee Saxon said:
Those terms aren't related. 'AF-S' just indicates that the lens has an internal focus motor rather than relying on the camera's screw drive. AF-S lenses can be DX format. In fact, I believe all DX format lenses ARE AF-S.

The 'opposite' of DX [24x16mm] is FX [36x24mm], but the latter never appears in lens names, so what you're looking for is the ABSENCE of a 'DX' in the name.
Click to expand...
This is from the Ken Rockwell site http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/dx-lenses.htm
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]Basics[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Nikon's DX lenses are lenses which only cover the smaller sensor of DX digital cameras. DX lenses have reduced capacity compared to regular lenses.[/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Used on a film or full-frame sensor, at some or all settings they will black-out in the corners. FX cameras have the option to use only a smaller section in the center of their larger sensors, so DX lenses will work properly on FX cameras, too. [/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There's no advantage to DX over other lenses due to the DX name itself. All Nikon digital SLRs have been designed from the ground up to use the same Nikkor lenses that have been around for years. Discount lens makers talk about special "digital" lenses just to get you to want to buy them instead. Ignore this.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The reason you care about DX lenses is that these extra short focal lengths are available only in DX, which is the only way to get wide lenses on DX digital cameras. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]All Nikon lenses work great optically on the digital cameras, although AF and metering compatibility will vary case-by-case.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]FX cameras can crop their sensors to use DX lenses, although that wastes much of the capability of the FX cameras, but it doesn't waste the DX lenses.


[/FONT]You are correct. Avoid DX lenses because they do not cover a full frame sensor... only a center cut, if that is a concern. Ensure the lens you are getting covers the AFX designated full frame if you want to utilize the full capability of your sensor.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Actually I have that lens... I'm not a real fan. I find the f3.5-5.6 ramped aperture a constant nuisance and IQ is good, but not as good as their other flagship zooms -- 14-24, 24-70, and especially the 70-200. I do agree that the the 28-300 is better at 300 than the 70-300. For some reason the 70-300 is just not a great lens and serves no real purpose in their product line. Nikon doesn't have a zoom that can touch their top primes. The 24, 35 and 85 f1.4 are incredible. The 50mm f1.2 and f1.4 are also great. I would argue that the 24 f2.8 and the 85 f1.4 are possibly the two finest pieces of glass that Nikon makes.

All things considered, I think the 28-300 makes too many compromises to keep the overall zoom range and < $1K price point.
Click to expand...

Jeff can you give the full ident on the 24 35 and 85 nikons ie, AF S etc.
Paul
 
Reference Ken Rockwell referred to by Lee above. It is true that he is not a perfect source. You want to look for ones he has sample shots with so you can judge for yourself. Another good source for Nikon lens reviews from someone who is a good nature photographer is http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html.
 
Richard.
Are you saying these lenses are no longer made. What I was after is the full identification number, I am going down the nikon route.

Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top