Zoom Lens Questions?

[Ted Ramasola]

Scot,

In my work, its not something i use all the time. the zoerk adapter sits in my cam case most of the time. The 35mm adapter though is always attached to my camera. BUT, when doing nature or tourism videos then this small handy adapter shines.

Nature and outdoors, sports, etc.

Bohol Island Tourism Video By Ted Ramasola On ExposureRoom

The butterflies and caterpillars is an example. And also those windsurfers where like 3000 meters away! They are shot with the 80-200 via zoerk onto the JVC. the rest where adapter footage and stock 16x.

It has its use in critical situations.

In the experimental side, the zoerk is also handy when you want to experiment with a 35mm relay to replace the 16x. Using lenses from 17mm to 50mm, I can try different combinations of 35mm + varying achromat power to get optimum GG image size on my several lens adapters.

Ted

[Jason Davis]

Scott, I am still learning myself, but from what I know, It has to do with the sensor being much smaller than 35mm film, the sensor only "sees" a small portion of the 35mm lens. If you want a better explaination or more info I would suggest searching through the other threads, as this has been talked about at some length. My interest is wildlife, so the application is great for getting nice closeups of subjects quite a distance away, but you must have a very sturdy tripod.

[Robert Rogoz]

Originally Posted by Jason Davis

I am using a JVC gy-hd100 and I am looking for a zoom lens to replace the standard 16x.
My thoughts are on the Sigma 120-300 f2.8, Sigma 100-300 f4, or the Sigma 70-200 f2.8.
I am confused, reading various threads. There is talk about these lenses not having an aperature ring, is this correct. If so what are my options? I will be shooting wildlife.

Jason, my response might sound snobbish to some, but don't waste your cash on Sigma. Simply there is no comparison between Nikon and Sigma. I had a chance to compare several photos taken with both at exactly same time and the difference is visible by naked eye. Sigma 100-300 F4 is far inferior to Nikon 80-200 F2.8. Even Sigma F2.8 is lesser of the lens, if you blow up your photo enough. My advice is also to locate a used lens, older style, produced in Japan. The reason is that the bayonet os made from metal alloy, not plastic.

[Brian Standing]

Originally Posted by Robert Rogoz

Jason, my response might sound snobbish to some, but don't waste your cash on Sigma. Simply there is no comparison between Nikon and Sigma. I had a chance to compare several photos taken with both at exactly same time and the difference is visible by naked eye. Sigma 100-300 F4 is far inferior to Nikon 80-200 F2.8. Even Sigma F2.8 is lesser of the lens, if you blow up your photo enough. My advice is also to locate a used lens, older style, produced in Japan. The reason is that the bayonet os made from metal alloy, not plastic.

A couple of things to keep in mind about using a SLR lens on a 1/3" chip video camera:

1. You're only using the very center of the lens, which is typically the most optically sharp, even with lower-cost lenses. Part of what you pay for in a Nikkor vs. a Sigma is edge to edge sharpness. This is the 7x crop factor mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

2. You're recording onto a lower resolution (1280x720 on a JVC) format than 35mm film or a DSLR chip.

Both of these things probably mean you probably won't notice much, if any optical difference between a Nikon and a Sigma. FWIW, I have both a Sigma and a Nikkor, and I can't really see any optical difference on my JVC HD100. There is, however, a notable difference in build quality: the Nikkor is heavier and has more metal parts.

Used SLR lenses are cheap enough that you can afford to experiment.

[Jason Davis]

Brian, I would have to agree with you. I know the sigmas are not quite as good, but optically from what I have seen and heard on this forum I would not be disappointed with a Sigma

[Robert Rogoz]

Originally Posted by Jason Davis

Brian, I would have to agree with you. I know the sigmas are not quite as good, but optically from what I have seen and heard on this forum I would not be disappointed with a Sigma

Jason, I think you'll better spend the cash on Nikon. The reason is you can stick it onto you DSLR body and use it for photo projects. If you buy new, the difference between the same models of Sigma and Nikon is only like 100-150 bucks. Nikon holds value for a reason- simply a better lens. So if you sell the lens later on you are going to get less cash for Sigma, making it much more costly product in a long run.

[Dave Tyrer]

The Nikon 80-200 even with a 1.4 teleconvertor would not have the reach of the Sigma 100-300 and purchasing a Nikon x1.4 adaptor would be an additional cost. On the other hand the combination of 80-200 with/without the TC would give a greater range of focal lengths to play with.

[Mat Thompson]

Having had a Sigma 100-300 for a year or so, I'd consider it more a 100-270. The last 30mm or so drops off in quality quite a bit. I'd always zoom in for focus then back things off a touch to get better IQ. Also bear in mind this is F4.

I now use the Nikon 80-200 F2.8. The 2.8 aperture has kept me from needing to gain things up on a few occasions, I'd also say it has the edge on IQ and as yet I've seen no drop off in this at the end of the zoom. Focusing is tough mind you. The sigma is better in this department with a huge manual ring!

[Dave Tyrer]

Originally Posted by Mat Thompson

Having had a Sigma 100-300 for a year or so, I'd consider it more a 100-270. The last 30mm or so drops off in quality quite a bit. I'd always zoom in for focus then back things off a touch to get better IQ. Also bear in mind this is F4.

I now use the Nikon 80-200 F2.8. The 2.8 aperture has kept me from needing to gain things up on a few occasions, I'd also say it has the edge on IQ and as yet I've seen no drop off in this at the end of the zoom. Focusing is tough mind you. The sigma is better in this department with a huge manual ring!

Mat does the 80-200 give you enough reach for Wildlife?

[Mat Thompson]

Hi Dave

Firstly 'wildlife' is a pretty wide ranging subject. Then depending on chosen subject it comes down to what you want from a sequence. The 80-200 will get you within a good 'mid shot' range of most birds if you have a good position, but it isn't going to give you a 'head close up' unless you get into a really great position (this is species dependant of course). It really comes down to field skill and knowledge of your particular subject. I'm learning to shoot with less focal length and improving my field skills and positioning on my subject because any amount of glass can't beat being closer to your subject. Also bear in mind that the more focal length you use the more the weather conditions will affect what you are doing, wind, heat shimmer etc. It also takes quite a bit of skill to start using such long lenses, finding subjects, panning and focussing.

Does this answer your question?

[Mat Thompson]

Hi Dave

Firstly 'wildlife' is a pretty wide ranging subject. Then depending on chosen subject it comes down to what you want from a sequence. The 80-200 will get you within a good 'mid shot' range of most birds if you have a good position, but it isn't going to give you a 'head close up' unless you get into a really great position (this is species dependant of course). It really comes down to field skill and knowledge of your particular subject. I'm learning to shoot with less focal length and improving my field skills and positioning on my subject because any amount of glass can't beat being closer to your subject. Also bear in mind that the more focal length you use the more the weather conditions will affect what you are doing, wind, heat shimmer etc. It also takes quite a bit of skill to start using such long lenses, finding subjects, panning and focussing.

Does this answer your question?

[Dave Tyrer]

Certainly does..cheers Mat