HD200, Zork, Nikon 80-200 2.8 ED fitment

[Eric Gulbransen]

I've been wondering about this combination for a long time now. Never enough details for me though - no matter how long or hard I search. Could I use my mattebox or will the lens extend as you zoom? Would the lens need additional support? Does the image look like it's two steps from hell? Depth of field? etc. etc.

Last night the adapter arrived. Two nights ago I got the lens. No images yet, but the two mounted up real well and a lot of my questions found answers. If you are curious about this as well, HERE YOU GO

[Sean Adair]

Hey Eric,
Quite the impressive looking rig - but what are you planning to use this for?
It's a pretty specific tool - not called for in most cinematography.
Having this powerful a telephoto has been applied for nature photography with the camera. I hope your tripod is extra beefy, and your touch is delicate!
There is an elaborate pun in here about having fluid in your head as well, but I'm too tired to finesse it.

I admit this is a tempting path - I've got a batch of Nikon lenses myself - it's just that I don't have the specific need for this - and there are a lot of challenges to getting a good image. Not just the stability, smoothness issues, but difficulty in tracking, atmospheric haze etc. I hope to follow the story, and see some results first hand though!

[Eric Gulbransen]

Sean, my first target is Elephant Seals fighting their way up the beach at Ano' Nuevo here in northern Ca. I went out today to try the setup only. I anticipate I'll be kept to a distance of 50-85 yards with the seals, so I found some horses today and kept them at that same distance, to practice. On my way I saw a hawk flying and was able to keep him framed well enough as he came from close to far and back again, but I was shot for accurate focus. I do have a monitor but I didn't bring it, purposely. That won't happen again.

The focus ring on this Nikon lens is also pretty aggressive. It takes a very delicate touch to dial something in perfectly when you're wide open. I can see now where a good follow focus setup would be real useful here especially - used WITH an external monitor.

Another difference here is how fast the lens is. Light pours through this thing at a pretty good clip when you open it up.

I'm sorry but I only had time to visit the land with no color for this test shot. Anywhere around here is so fried by the sun and no rain all year long that everything is brown. While you might see a deer with your eyes, all the camera sees is dirt and straw.

All in all I am very pleased so far. Very pleased.

Horses at 85 yards

[Sean Adair]

Yep, for nature photography it's definitely practical. Sounds like a good plan, although I expect there will be some challenges still to come.
Since I've already got a bunch of Nikon glass, I'm tempted to play with this stuff too. Where did you get the zork? How much was it?
Is mounting on the rails essential for the 80-200? I'm sure with smaller lenses it's no problem - but also less reason to use them, since there is no depth of field limiting with this type of rig at normal distances/ focal lengths.

[Bill Ravens]

I've been to the Zork website, but, they show no price or ordering info. The website is a dead end. How did you contact them?

[Eric Gulbransen]

Originally Posted by Bill Ravens

I've been to the Zork website, but, they show no price or ordering info. The website is a dead end. How did you contact them?

I feel your pain Bill. How about when you find the pop up page that actually shows the HD100 with the Zork adapter mounted to it - but it doesn't tell you anything or lead you anywhere? Made me feel like a complete moron for missing something obvious.

I "think" I found the US contact info a long time ago in an old post here on Dvinfo.net, who I once mailed about whether an EOS adapter existed. The answer was no but at least I made contact.

Zoerk@Comcast.net is the address, Joshua is your contact. They're out of Oregon.


Sean, if you go back to the original link to the gallery, I wrote some notes above each image about how it all came together, and why. More answers than you asked are there, but YES, you need to support the 80-200. I remember reading somewhere here that you don't have to, and perhaps you don't, but once you get to hauling the camera from here to there and back again - you'll support it too.

You already know how the Fujinon mounts - real tight with lots of pressure. Well think about it, the Nikon simply twists on and clicks just like it's on a still camera. Then realize that while Nikon gives you a nice tripod plate about mid lens, without the use of rails you can't use that plate. I agree with Nikon, it needs support.

There are some links about the images in the gallery too. They bring you to Cinevate's accessory page, where you can get some some of the parts that I used. Chrosziel's website was down when I made the gallery.

[Sean Adair]

oops, speaking of "feeling like a complete moron for missing something obvious."
I went to your gallery page before, and didn't bother clicking on the enlargements of the picture with all the information!

I'd participated in some of the early discussions about this converter, and have recommended it to some people with specific needs. Great to have all your background info here. I'd have some fun trying some long shots with it, but can't justify the cost for the amount I'd use it now.

For some reason I thought the adapter was even cheaper than this (for some reason I thought just 75 euros). Then the rails are pricey too.... I keep thinking I'll find a way to mount my nice mattebox with 12mm rails on this camera, but I've only seen 15mm systems...

[Eric Gulbransen]

I've had the Zork adapter for a few weeks now. Only played with it so far, experimenting with different lenses. Found some interesting things (to me anyway) out:

The 16X allows a lot more light through it than either the Nikon 28-70 2.8ED, or the 80-200 2.8ED. Obviously at f1.4 it's brighter, but even when you match apertures - 2.8 for 2.8, or anywhere else, the 16X is considerably brighter.

*note* these shots were taken to show the differences in framing, NOT quality (it's a mug for Pete's sake).
Unfortunately I did not match apertures or exposure. Moron. I'll attempt good quality comparisons soon.

The 28-70 at 28mm equals the field of view of the 16X at @28mm.

The 28-70 at 70mm equals the field of view of the 16X at @60mm.

The 80-200 at 80mm equals the field of view of the 16X at 88mm.

Then the 80-200 continues on to no-man's land from there.

Considering aperture, and depth of field, these different lenses produce very similar results. IE, f4 looks like f4, which looks like f4 - until you start zooming...

The Nikons produce colors differently. Not hugely different, but it will take some tweaking to get them to complimenting each other. A different memory card with separate settings would work well.

[Marc Colemont]

I got in touch with that Zörk company.
They are based in Munich Germany.
I'm in Munich next week for a job, if I have the time I'm gonna visit them to see what possibilities they have for Canon ES lenses.

[Eric Gulbransen]

I had asked them about E"OS" lenses a while ago and they laughed at me when I said I was prepared to set the aperture on the Canons, and then swap over. Sound desperate? Did to them, so they don't make EOS adapters. I hope for your sake that they do make the ES. Good luck.

By the way their customer care/service is quite honorable. I'd buy from them again easy.

[Jim Boda]

Originally Posted by Eric Gulbransen

I've had the Zork adapter for a few weeks now. Only played with it so far, experimenting with different lenses. Found some interesting things (to me anyway) out:...

It is interesting. Keep working.

Looks like you have a dead pixel in your shots...

[Eric Gulbransen]

Originally Posted by Jim Boda

Looks like you have a dead pixel in your shots...

wow that stinks.. Thanks for pointing it out. What do you do for that?

[Jim Boda]

Originally Posted by Eric Gulbransen

wow that stinks.. Thanks for pointing it out. What do you do for that?

Well, I don't have the camera ... yet. But, first you need to confirm that it is a dead pixel. Let the camera warm up and open up the iris against a dark background and you should see it in the viewfinder.

There is a pixel masking utility that you could do a search on in this forum...

Or someone who has the camera could walk you thru it. It's a common fix that you should be aware of...especially when travelling.

[David Scattergood]

Originally Posted by Eric Gulbransen

wow that stinks.. Thanks for pointing it out. What do you do for that?

It's pretty straighforward Eric:

Here's a good post running you through the process:

http://dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?...26&postcount=5

I've had a couple (and missed one unfortunately during an earlier shoot.
I always check for these against a black background (lens cap on!) although it's tough seeing them on the small LCD monitor...all the better if you have a field monitor (which I don't).

Oh and nice set up there Eric.

[Eric Gulbransen]

Thank you guys, for the help. I know I can't add much here but I try any time I discover something that I used to be dying to know. My hope is it helps those near as green as me.

This weekend I'm heading back to that marina where I compared the 16x and 18x over a month ago. I plan to duplicate that same shot, only this time with the 80-200 set at 80mm (which equals the 16x @ 88mm), just to see the difference. Like always, because I'm so full of......... love, I'll post the results :-)

Thanks again for lookin' out..