MTF adatper and Nikon lenses, Good? Depends upon lens. at DVinfo.net

Alex Humphrey · August 7th, 2009, 09:31 PM

Well I just got my new MTF Nikon G adapter to JVC mount today and did some quick tests with my Nikon/Nikkor lenses. Results are MORE extreme thatn I imagined.

Short story as follows:

1 The old 10-20 year old manual focus lenses are BETTER than I dared hoped.
2. The newer (below $500) Nikkor DX Digital "G" lenses for the digital D40-D90 stock lenses where worse than I imagined.

These newer stock Nikkor lenses I already knew where not the top quality glass that Nikon is known for. For the race to the bottom for consumer electronics, much has been sacrified on these lenses. I saw vignetting in my digital camera from these new cheap lenses that shouldn't be called Nikkor or even Nikon lenses. So I didn't have much hope for them on the MTF adapter. I did get the MTF adapter for my manual focus lenses and any future 35mm used lens that MIGHT be for sale cheap that didn't have the aperture ring.

I tested some of my lenses before the sun set. I ranked them in this surprising order for the "BUY list"

1. Nikon "E" Series 100mm Manual Focus lens.. (not the Nikkor 105 that is far superior) was awsome. One would expect the better Nikkor 105 to be EVEN BETTER! But I don't have one to test.... Very Little CA except at full wide aperture. Great lens combo. Keep an eye out for used Nikon 100 or better yet the Nikkor 105.
2. Nikon Nikkor 300mm Manual focus I had to stop it down to f11 to get rid of some CA in the really contrasty golden grass with the black background. It was obvsiously difficult to point at the subject I wanted and had to hunt a bit. It's like aiming your telescope with out a finder scope.

The other lenses I WOULDN'T get if you don't already have them, and DON'T waste your time or money on the Nikkor DX digital lenses under $300 AF lenses.

OK, moon should be rising soon, want to try the moon shots with the 100mm and 300mm tonight.

Shaun Roemich · August 8th, 2009, 01:50 PM

Thanks for posting Alex. Guess I'll start searching for ANCIENT used Nikon/Nikkor lenses...

Alex Humphrey · August 8th, 2009, 04:47 PM

Well the don't have to be ANCIENT. Current manual focus lenses or used ones up to 20 years old. The better AF are probably fine.. But the test on the new consumer DX $300 and below Nikkor lenses are definatly NOT up to par.

I was actually astonished at how BAD the new 55-200 AF VR lens was even in the viewfinder. The answer is of course.. "What did you expect for $200?"

The most popular lens from what I hear for this set up is the Nikkor 80-200 2.8 AF or MF lenses. $1,200 new for the AF. Probably the most usefull range. I will have some fun with the moon setting on the ocean this month though with my 300mm Nikkor 4.5 though.... aiming at the moon is difficult.. I can only imagine trying to find wildlife in the frame let alone tracking one.....

Alex Humphrey · August 8th, 2009, 06:13 PM

Just in case anyone wanted to know the FOV. Here is a thumb we all know.
Nikkor 300mm 4.5 MF lens at f11. I probably should have done it at f8, but oh well. Focused on infinity.

Alex Humphrey · September 5th, 2009, 12:12 AM

Well still doing 12 hour days, nearly midnight and I dragged the JVC HD110 outside, slapped the MTF adapter and the Nikkor 300mm.... just had to share.

Hmmm how do you white balance in moonlight?

Rather obvious I admit. I noticed Jupiter was only about 30 degrees over, so I slewed my JVC over and got some of Jupiter. Finding Jupiter in the viewfinder was difficult with a 300mm MTF 1/3" CCD by the way.... anyway I could. I set the max gain at 12 and low and behold I got the four major moons of Jupiter as well. Jupiter has a lot of CA at the moment. Dialing down my aperture brought it back to normal, but the moons disapeard. Just thought I would share an ODD thing to do with a video camera. Maybe get to the coast Monday morning and watch the Moon set on the ocean with this lens. That actually I hope will be impressive.

Tim Dashwood · September 5th, 2009, 01:21 AM

That's awesome. Tycho and Copernicus are so clear... and that's only a 300mm! If you had a 1000mm I wonder if you could see what's leftover from the lunar landers? ;) Apparently there isn't a telescope on earth powerful enough to see them. http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/...ar_lander.html

For those interested here's the identification of the mares and craters of the moon.
File:Moon names.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Steve Phillipps · September 5th, 2009, 01:53 AM

Good stuff Alex.
I tested some of my Nikons on an EX3 and also had surprising results. I've got the 105 f2.5, and as you say it is spectacular, one of the best Nikons, same goes for the 55mm f2.8 micro, probably one of the sharpest Nikons ever made. They both looked very good, but I was surprised to find that the stock lens on the EX3 was equally as good!
Another magnificent lens to look out for is the MF 180mm f2.8, it's super sharp and has lovely colour quality.
Great thing about all these old Nikons is that they can be picked up really cheap now.
Steve

Alex Humphrey · November 4th, 2009, 12:07 AM

Thought I would add a couple new pics. ONly wish Nikon made a motorized lens so I could do sports with a Nikkor zoom. oh well, maybe have to still get a 17x Fujinon or maybe a 2/3 Fujinon and adapter rings. I still wonder if there is a good 2/3 lens that could compare with these. I don't know 2/3 lenses at all to know WHICH lenses to look at and which ones to avoid. (the 2/3 equivelant of the 16x entry lens I mean. )

In the mean time, here are some things I WISH my Fujinon 16x could do at 70mm or 80mm at f4. oh well.

John McQuiston · November 7th, 2009, 10:22 AM

Alex, thank you for taking the time to share this info.

Can you say where you got your adapter? And did I read correctly in my research that you have to use a Nikon lens that has an external aperture ring? Is that why you need to use older lenses with the adapter?

Steve Phillipps · November 7th, 2009, 11:00 AM

Do a search and you'll find a lot of info on Nikon Adapters. Some of the latest ones will allow you to use modern lenses with no external aperture ring. MTF Services and Steve Shovlar make them, again search for their posts.
Steve

Tom Koveleskie · November 8th, 2009, 09:19 AM

What is the difference between the MTF adapter for 35mm lens and the other 35mm DOF adapters such as the Letus, SG Blade etc., as far as the look is concerned? What would the major reason be for choosing a MTF over say a Letus and visa versa?

Very interesting information on your MTF adapter setups. Thank you for it.

Steve Phillipps · November 8th, 2009, 09:24 AM

Completely different. The MTF etc. are just metal rings that allow the 35mm to physically mount to a camera with a diffeent fitting. The Letus etc. incorporate a ground glass the re-focusses the lens and preserves it depth of field (ie shallow) for more filmic look. So on a 1/3" camera like the JVC a 50mm Nikon stills lens will have an equivalent focal length of about 400mm, so long telephoto with the MTF, but through the Letus it'll still be 50mm so a standard lens.
Steve

Alex Humphrey · November 8th, 2009, 10:52 PM

think of the MTF option as an option for nature videography..... meaning 80-200mm focal length compared to the video lenses being 4.5 to 78mm or somewhere around there. I personally think the 100mm Nikon E is a nice lens, and if you have the money a 105 nikkor is a step up. thinking about a Nikkor 180mm next. The 300mm Nikkor (not sure if it's an ED or not) is less impressive optics, but still pretty good. Good for some wildlife video later this month I think.. or maybe get some surfing video in. Things like that. Not really for face shots and shallow depths of field, unless you can really put the person 30 from the camera and the background 100 feet away.

Shaun Roemich · November 9th, 2009, 12:10 AM

If this helps:

MTF:
The MTF adapts the MOUNT to accept Nikon SLR/dSLR lenses. The target image sensor remains 1/3" therefore retaining all the depth of field characteristics of a small sensor (ie. large depth of field compared to a larger sensor). A 100mm SLR/dSLR lens mounted on the MTF adaptor would have the same field of view and depth of field as a 100mm telephoto lens position on a 1/3" video lens (ie. fairly extreme telephoto)

DOF adaptors:
DOF adaptors allow mounting of SLR/dSLR lenses. The image from the lens is then focused on a plane internally which is LARGER than 1/3" and then "photographed" by the 1/3" sensor. Therefore the size on the image projected on the plane will have the subsequent field of view and depth of field characteristics of an imager the size of the focused image on the plane.

For comparison:
5mm is "normal" for a 1/3" sensor, wide for a 1/2" sensor, very wide for a 2/3" or S16 sensor, even wider for ciné 35 and ridiculously wide (non-existent?) for 35mm film (SLR)

EDIT: I MAY have gotten ciné 35 and SLR 35mm backwards. I can never remember...

Tom Koveleskie · November 9th, 2009, 10:57 AM

Thank you gentlemen. I understand the the difference now. I knew about the 35mm DOF adapters and basically how they work. My confusion was to whether the MTF would allow you to get the shallow DOF. I can see how this MTF adapter would be invaluable for shooting far subjects. You all cleared this up and I thank you for your time!

August 7th, 2009, 09:31 PM	#1
Alex Humphrey Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: california North and South Posts: 642	MTF adatper and Nikon lenses, sample images.. and tests Well I just got my new MTF Nikon G adapter to JVC mount today and did some quick tests with my Nikon/Nikkor lenses. Results are MORE extreme thatn I imagined. Short story as follows: 1 The old 10-20 year old manual focus lenses are BETTER than I dared hoped. 2. The newer (below $500) Nikkor DX Digital "G" lenses for the digital D40-D90 stock lenses where worse than I imagined. These newer stock Nikkor lenses I already knew where not the top quality glass that Nikon is known for. For the race to the bottom for consumer electronics, much has been sacrified on these lenses. I saw vignetting in my digital camera from these new cheap lenses that shouldn't be called Nikkor or even Nikon lenses. So I didn't have much hope for them on the MTF adapter. I did get the MTF adapter for my manual focus lenses and any future 35mm used lens that MIGHT be for sale cheap that didn't have the aperture ring. I tested some of my lenses before the sun set. I ranked them in this surprising order for the "BUY list" 1. Nikon "E" Series 100mm Manual Focus lens.. (not the Nikkor 105 that is far superior) was awsome. One would expect the better Nikkor 105 to be EVEN BETTER! But I don't have one to test.... Very Little CA except at full wide aperture. Great lens combo. Keep an eye out for used Nikon 100 or better yet the Nikkor 105. 2. Nikon Nikkor 300mm Manual focus I had to stop it down to f11 to get rid of some CA in the really contrasty golden grass with the black background. It was obvsiously difficult to point at the subject I wanted and had to hunt a bit. It's like aiming your telescope with out a finder scope. The other lenses I WOULDN'T get if you don't already have them, and DON'T waste your time or money on the Nikkor DX digital lenses under $300 AF lenses. OK, moon should be rising soon, want to try the moon shots with the 100mm and 300mm tonight. Attached Thumbnails Last edited by Alex Humphrey; August 8th, 2009 at 01:29 AM.

August 8th, 2009, 01:50 PM	#2
Shaun Roemich Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia (formerly Winnipeg, Manitoba) Canada Posts: 4,088	Thanks for posting Alex. Guess I'll start searching for ANCIENT used Nikon/Nikkor lenses... __________________ Shaun C. Roemich Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC - Videographer - Webcaster www.roaddogmedia.ca Blog: http://roaddogmedia.wordpress.com/

August 8th, 2009, 06:13 PM	#4
Alex Humphrey Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: california North and South Posts: 642	Moon shot Just in case anyone wanted to know the FOV. Here is a thumb we all know. Nikkor 300mm 4.5 MF lens at f11. I probably should have done it at f8, but oh well. Focused on infinity. Attached Thumbnails

September 5th, 2009, 12:12 AM	#5
Alex Humphrey Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: california North and South Posts: 642	the Moon Well still doing 12 hour days, nearly midnight and I dragged the JVC HD110 outside, slapped the MTF adapter and the Nikkor 300mm.... just had to share. Hmmm how do you white balance in moonlight? Rather obvious I admit. I noticed Jupiter was only about 30 degrees over, so I slewed my JVC over and got some of Jupiter. Finding Jupiter in the viewfinder was difficult with a 300mm MTF 1/3" CCD by the way.... anyway I could. I set the max gain at 12 and low and behold I got the four major moons of Jupiter as well. Jupiter has a lot of CA at the moment. Dialing down my aperture brought it back to normal, but the moons disapeard. Just thought I would share an ODD thing to do with a video camera. Maybe get to the coast Monday morning and watch the Moon set on the ocean with this lens. That actually I hope will be impressive. Attached Thumbnails

September 5th, 2009, 01:21 AM	#6
Tim Dashwood Wrangler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Toronto, ON, Canada Posts: 3,637	That's awesome. Tycho and Copernicus are so clear... and that's only a 300mm! If you had a 1000mm I wonder if you could see what's leftover from the lunar landers? ;) Apparently there isn't a telescope on earth powerful enough to see them. http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/...ar_lander.html For those interested here's the identification of the mares and craters of the moon. File:Moon names.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia __________________ Tim Dashwood

August 8th, 2009, 04:47 PM	#3
Alex Humphrey Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: california North and South Posts: 642	Well the don't have to be ANCIENT. Current manual focus lenses or used ones up to 20 years old. The better AF are probably fine.. But the test on the new consumer DX $300 and below Nikkor lenses are definatly NOT up to par. I was actually astonished at how BAD the new 55-200 AF VR lens was even in the viewfinder. The answer is of course.. "What did you expect for $200?" The most popular lens from what I hear for this set up is the Nikkor 80-200 2.8 AF or MF lenses. $1,200 new for the AF. Probably the most usefull range. I will have some fun with the moon setting on the ocean this month though with my 300mm Nikkor 4.5 though.... aiming at the moon is difficult.. I can only imagine trying to find wildlife in the frame let alone tracking one.....

September 5th, 2009, 01:53 AM	#7
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	Good stuff Alex. I tested some of my Nikons on an EX3 and also had surprising results. I've got the 105 f2.5, and as you say it is spectacular, one of the best Nikons, same goes for the 55mm f2.8 micro, probably one of the sharpest Nikons ever made. They both looked very good, but I was surprised to find that the stock lens on the EX3 was equally as good! Another magnificent lens to look out for is the MF 180mm f2.8, it's super sharp and has lovely colour quality. Great thing about all these old Nikons is that they can be picked up really cheap now. Steve

November 4th, 2009, 12:07 AM	#8
Alex Humphrey Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: california North and South Posts: 642	Thought I would add a couple new pics. ONly wish Nikon made a motorized lens so I could do sports with a Nikkor zoom. oh well, maybe have to still get a 17x Fujinon or maybe a 2/3 Fujinon and adapter rings. I still wonder if there is a good 2/3 lens that could compare with these. I don't know 2/3 lenses at all to know WHICH lenses to look at and which ones to avoid. (the 2/3 equivelant of the 16x entry lens I mean. ) In the mean time, here are some things I WISH my Fujinon 16x could do at 70mm or 80mm at f4. oh well. Attached Thumbnails

November 7th, 2009, 10:22 AM	#9
John McQuiston Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Tampa Bay, Florida Posts: 28	Alex, thank you for taking the time to share this info. Can you say where you got your adapter? And did I read correctly in my research that you have to use a Nikon lens that has an external aperture ring? Is that why you need to use older lenses with the adapter? __________________ www.Personal-Documentary.com

November 7th, 2009, 11:00 AM	#10
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	Do a search and you'll find a lot of info on Nikon Adapters. Some of the latest ones will allow you to use modern lenses with no external aperture ring. MTF Services and Steve Shovlar make them, again search for their posts. Steve

November 8th, 2009, 09:19 AM	#11
Tom Koveleskie Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: North Wales, Pennsylvania Posts: 76	What is the difference between the MTF adapter for 35mm lens and the other 35mm DOF adapters such as the Letus, SG Blade etc., as far as the look is concerned? What would the major reason be for choosing a MTF over say a Letus and visa versa? Very interesting information on your MTF adapter setups. Thank you for it.

November 8th, 2009, 09:24 AM	#12
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	Completely different. The MTF etc. are just metal rings that allow the 35mm to physically mount to a camera with a diffeent fitting. The Letus etc. incorporate a ground glass the re-focusses the lens and preserves it depth of field (ie shallow) for more filmic look. So on a 1/3" camera like the JVC a 50mm Nikon stills lens will have an equivalent focal length of about 400mm, so long telephoto with the MTF, but through the Letus it'll still be 50mm so a standard lens. Steve

November 8th, 2009, 10:52 PM	#13
Alex Humphrey Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: california North and South Posts: 642	think of the MTF option as an option for nature videography..... meaning 80-200mm focal length compared to the video lenses being 4.5 to 78mm or somewhere around there. I personally think the 100mm Nikon E is a nice lens, and if you have the money a 105 nikkor is a step up. thinking about a Nikkor 180mm next. The 300mm Nikkor (not sure if it's an ED or not) is less impressive optics, but still pretty good. Good for some wildlife video later this month I think.. or maybe get some surfing video in. Things like that. Not really for face shots and shallow depths of field, unless you can really put the person 30 from the camera and the background 100 feet away.

November 9th, 2009, 12:10 AM	#14
Shaun Roemich Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia (formerly Winnipeg, Manitoba) Canada Posts: 4,088	If this helps: MTF: The MTF adapts the MOUNT to accept Nikon SLR/dSLR lenses. The target image sensor remains 1/3" therefore retaining all the depth of field characteristics of a small sensor (ie. large depth of field compared to a larger sensor). A 100mm SLR/dSLR lens mounted on the MTF adaptor would have the same field of view and depth of field as a 100mm telephoto lens position on a 1/3" video lens (ie. fairly extreme telephoto) DOF adaptors: DOF adaptors allow mounting of SLR/dSLR lenses. The image from the lens is then focused on a plane internally which is LARGER than 1/3" and then "photographed" by the 1/3" sensor. Therefore the size on the image projected on the plane will have the subsequent field of view and depth of field characteristics of an imager the size of the focused image on the plane. For comparison: 5mm is "normal" for a 1/3" sensor, wide for a 1/2" sensor, very wide for a 2/3" or S16 sensor, even wider for ciné 35 and ridiculously wide (non-existent?) for 35mm film (SLR) EDIT: I MAY have gotten ciné 35 and SLR 35mm backwards. I can never remember... __________________ Shaun C. Roemich Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC - Videographer - Webcaster www.roaddogmedia.ca Blog: http://roaddogmedia.wordpress.com/ Last edited by Shaun Roemich; November 9th, 2009 at 11:05 AM.

November 9th, 2009, 10:57 AM	#15
Tom Koveleskie Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: North Wales, Pennsylvania Posts: 76	Thank you gentlemen. I understand the the difference now. I knew about the 35mm DOF adapters and basically how they work. My confusion was to whether the MTF would allow you to get the shallow DOF. I can see how this MTF adapter would be invaluable for shooting far subjects. You all cleared this up and I thank you for your time!