Are Nikons worth the money? at DVinfo.net

Matt Buys · August 14th, 2007, 07:11 PM

Nikon lenses, I don't wonder why, have jumped up in price. But a minolta prime lens can still be had for twenty bucks on ebay. I'm thinking of buying a minolta adapter and jumping on that bandwagon before it leaves town but I was wondering if the glass experts out there can really spot the difference?

Cary Lee · August 14th, 2007, 10:22 PM

It's just basic economics that Nikons have rose up in price with all these 35mm adapters in the market. Not to mention I find that the older Nikons have really been a bargain overall since they made better glass in the 60's and 70's vs the DX models that tend to not be as dynamic in it's picture quality. My 2 cents.

Matt Buys · August 15th, 2007, 05:50 AM

I should have been more specific. Is there a major difference in glass quality between Nikons and minolta's etc. One that justifies 5x the price. Instead of using Nikon's I'm thinking of buying minolta's for a brevis.

David W. Jones · August 15th, 2007, 06:40 AM

As long as you have the proper lens mount you should be fine.
There is great glass out there from other manufactures as well that people are missing the boat on.
The Nikon craze is a little silly if you ask me. Someone reads an article in Studio Monthly, then a couple of people post on the internet, and bam! Everyone wants Nikon glass and the price climbs. The same thing happened with all those Russian Lomo lenses. It used to be you could pick one up for $30 bucks. Now if you can even find one the prices are sky high.
I will admit that I have a couple of Nikon lenses, but I have relegated them down to "C" status, as I only use them if I absolutely have to.
The thing I don't like about Nikon is... The controls are bassakwards from other lenses. So you have to try and remember to focus in the opposite direction.
For what it's worth, the sharpest glass out there for the money are the Contax Zeiss lenses.

Good Luck with your quest!

Ben Winter · August 15th, 2007, 11:43 AM

With the resolution even the best HDV cameras see on these adapters, it really doesn't matter what brand of lens you use. They all tend to produce fairly good images.

Gints Klimanis · August 15th, 2007, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cary Lee

It's just basic economics that Nikons have rose up in price with all these 35mm adapters in the market. Not to mention I find that the older Nikons have really been a bargain overall since they made better glass in the 60's and 70's vs the DX models that tend to not be as dynamic in it's picture quality. My 2 cents.

Given your Nikon lens lineup, you certainly speak as a power user. Though, I'll have to speak up for DX. I own and use both the Nikon 28-70mm and 17-55mm DX, and I wouldn't say that the 28-70mm is obviously better. In fact, until f/4 or so, it's softer than the 17-55DX. Most of the people using these 35mm adapters will be drawn to the faster Nikon lenses, and as you know, there aren't any DX fixed focal length lenses. Any zoom of today is better than a zoom from the 60's and 70's , so DX zooms, "pro f/2.8" or not, are worthy of praise.

I've found that my Nikon lenses, such as the 28mm f/1.4 , with ridiculously short lens hoods deliver better performance with deeper hoods.

Matthew Nayman · August 15th, 2007, 03:54 PM

I love the 28 1.4. Really want one. The 105 2.0 is awsome too.

Nikons are great..., also, having a long Flange Focal Distance, they can be mounted in pretty much any other mount using adapters (ef-nikon, etc)

Useful for various brands of adapter.

Bob Hart · August 16th, 2007, 07:45 AM

Except for the smaller image area which is just big enough for 24mm wide and f4 widest available aperture and no manual aperture ring at all, the Nikon 12mm-24mm, which is a DX lens, is unexpectedly sharp for a zoom and even more surprisingly, seems to work better in artificial light rather than outdoors daylight.

The f4 widest aperture and no aperture control limits its usefulness but the available field-of-view is second only to the 8mm fisheye and it is a rectilinear lens meaning all strasight lines in the image stay straight. The corners get stretched a bit.

August 14th, 2007, 07:11 PM	#1
Matt Buys Major Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Asheville NC Posts: 426	Are Nikons worth the money? Nikon lenses, I don't wonder why, have jumped up in price. But a minolta prime lens can still be had for twenty bucks on ebay. I'm thinking of buying a minolta adapter and jumping on that bandwagon before it leaves town but I was wondering if the glass experts out there can really spot the difference?

August 14th, 2007, 10:22 PM	#2
Cary Lee Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood USA Posts: 128	I like the older lenses It's just basic economics that Nikons have rose up in price with all these 35mm adapters in the market. Not to mention I find that the older Nikons have really been a bargain overall since they made better glass in the 60's and 70's vs the DX models that tend to not be as dynamic in it's picture quality. My 2 cents. __________________ Canon XHA1, SGpro,Flip,FF, RR Mattebox, Nebtek V-R70p-HDA with Canon, Nikkor Primes 24mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 35mm f2.0, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4, 105mm f1.8, 135mm f2.0, and 300mm f4.0.

August 15th, 2007, 11:43 AM	#5
Ben Winter Trustee Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 1,675 Images: 1	With the resolution even the best HDV cameras see on these adapters, it really doesn't matter what brand of lens you use. They all tend to produce fairly good images. __________________ BenWinter.com

August 15th, 2007, 05:50 AM	#3
Matt Buys Major Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Asheville NC Posts: 426	I should have been more specific. Is there a major difference in glass quality between Nikons and minolta's etc. One that justifies 5x the price. Instead of using Nikon's I'm thinking of buying minolta's for a brevis.

August 15th, 2007, 06:40 AM	#4
David W. Jones Trustee Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Little Rock Posts: 1,383	As long as you have the proper lens mount you should be fine. There is great glass out there from other manufactures as well that people are missing the boat on. The Nikon craze is a little silly if you ask me. Someone reads an article in Studio Monthly, then a couple of people post on the internet, and bam! Everyone wants Nikon glass and the price climbs. The same thing happened with all those Russian Lomo lenses. It used to be you could pick one up for $30 bucks. Now if you can even find one the prices are sky high. I will admit that I have a couple of Nikon lenses, but I have relegated them down to "C" status, as I only use them if I absolutely have to. The thing I don't like about Nikon is... The controls are bassakwards from other lenses. So you have to try and remember to focus in the opposite direction. For what it's worth, the sharpest glass out there for the money are the Contax Zeiss lenses. Good Luck with your quest!

August 15th, 2007, 03:54 PM	#7
Matthew Nayman Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 917	I love the 28 1.4. Really want one. The 105 2.0 is awsome too. Nikons are great..., also, having a long Flange Focal Distance, they can be mounted in pretty much any other mount using adapters (ef-nikon, etc) Useful for various brands of adapter.

August 16th, 2007, 07:45 AM	#8
Bob Hart Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA. Posts: 4,477	Except for the smaller image area which is just big enough for 24mm wide and f4 widest available aperture and no manual aperture ring at all, the Nikon 12mm-24mm, which is a DX lens, is unexpectedly sharp for a zoom and even more surprisingly, seems to work better in artificial light rather than outdoors daylight. The f4 widest aperture and no aperture control limits its usefulness but the available field-of-view is second only to the 8mm fisheye and it is a rectilinear lens meaning all strasight lines in the image stay straight. The corners get stretched a bit.