Picking Decent Stop-gap Zoom Lenses

[Leonard Levy]

As I understand it there is back focus adjustment on the F3 itself , but that won't make a varifocal still photography lens track focus through the zoom.

Question about the MTF Nikon adapter: When using old Nikon manual lenses with click f-stop settings, Does the mechanism for setting f-stops by-pass the clicks so you can get smooth iris changes. I think the fotodiox 4/3's adapter does that. If so it would be cool.

Lenny

[Ola Christoffersson]

Yes, it does. You can choose to use the aperture ring on the lens itself or the adapter if you need smooth exposure changes. OR you can declick you Nikon lenses. I did it at an authorised Nikon service center for €30 per lens incl. cleaning.

[Steve Strickle]

I've not seen anyone talk about the older Cooke 20-100 or Angenieux 17-102 zooms and where they fit into the pecking order. I understand the Angenieux is a superior glass to the Cooke.

How would either one stack-up against the Red 18-85? Nate, I'm conceding to your earlier notion that they are likely more glass than operator! ;-)

Thanks.

[Nate Weaver]

They are both solid choices

The 17-102 is a newer design (late 80s, early 90s), so it's slightly better in my opinion.

I still see 20-100s on shoots that could get anything they want! Same with 17-102, maybe to a lesser degree

[Steve Strickle]

That is good to know...thanks. How would they compare to the Red 18-85?
It bends one's mind wading through all these choices! ;-)

[Steve Kalle]

Here is a great read for those like me who are experienced with SLR lenses but not cine lenses.
LensRentals.com - Photo Lenses for Video

I might change my list to Nikon because these 3 are fast, sharp and parfocal:
17-35 2.8, 28-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 (original version, not the new one).

[Leonard Levy]

Thanks Didn't know the 17-35 and 28 -70 were parfocal. Those Nikon lenses are very good.

I have an 80-200 and despite seeing 2 lens markings for 80 and 200 on the barrell my tests with a 35mm adapter always showed it to be Parfocal. maybe it does lose focus but the adapter didn't have enough resolution to show it?

Hey I just did a search and found I was correct the 80-200 is parfocal and the 80mm marking is for infrared.

[Steve Kalle]

That's good to know.

To be completely honest, I never ever noticed any breathing with my Sony lenses on my A900: Sony G 70-200 2.8 and Zeiss 24-70 2.8. I would usually zoom all the way in to get perfect focus and then zoom out, and I never saw any focus issues. I also did this to adjust the backfocus settings in the camera which helped the 70-200 a lot with autofocused shots.

I will email Roger, the owner to get him to clarify some things. But, I think he didn't have the 80-200 on his list because they don't rent it anymore but B&H sells it.

I assume the VR on Nikon lenses doesn't work when used with any adapter because it requires power.

[Timur Civan]

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

They are both solid choices

The 17-102 is a newer design (late 80s, early 90s), so it's slightly better in my opinion.

I still see 20-100s on shoots that could get anything they want! Same with 17-102, maybe to a lesser degree

Also Consider the Cooke 18-100 T3 Varotal. I just invested in one. Its considered one of the finest zoom lenses ever made. Far superior to the Cooke 20-100 T3.1. It is more expensive than the 20-100 by about double, priced around $15-18,000. There are GREAT deals to be had on these lenses.

Angeniuex's are great and can be affordable. I opted for a Cooke only because my primes are Cooke's and i figured they would optically match easier and i can have them serviced at the same place in New Jersey, minutes away from me.

[Timur Civan]

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

I'm gonna make a bold, slightly obnoxious statement, and then I'm gonna backtrack, apologize, and explain.

The Red 18-85 is a better lens than you are cameraman, in all likelihood.

It's sharp throughout, solidly built, and 95% as good as an Optimo, ESPECIALLY if you've never used either, much less compared them critically on a projector.

Now for the apology. I don't really know anything about you, or your skills. But it is VERY much the sort of thing where, if you feel the need to ask, you haven't gotten to the point where you can tell the difference. So I apologize in advance if I misjudged where you're coming from experience-wise.

Now if you tell me you've used Ang Optimos, the 10-1HR, the 10-1HP, the OLD 10-1 coke bottle, the Zeiss Master zoom and tell me you like the Optimo because you like the way it flares when you shoot a 9-light down the barrel, then...maybe you have some perspective on where the Red lens is somewhat a lesser lens.

But I just made all that up, I don't REALLY know directly how it compares to those lenses, other than I know that it is pretty much just as sharp, except maybe on the edges at 2.8 and 18mm (I have used this Red lens AND Optimos, incidentally). That's it. It's a brand new design, made by a big Japanese lens company you've heard of (I won't say who, lest they come find me and beat me), and it's razor sharp.

The only shortcomings I can think of is that the front element is so big, some popular follow-focus units won't fit underneath the barrel (Arri FF4 comes to mind), so you need some less popular units (Willytec, O'Connor CF1) to make it work. Also, you would need a big honkin mattebox if you ever want to filter. Also, the focus marks are less than stellar. This would be an issue if you have a $600/day assistant cameraman who pulls focus THAT good while racecars zoom at you at 120mph as you shoot this years Pennzoil Indy car commercial. If it's just you twiddling a knob to make the image sharp, chances are you will never notice that there are no specific foot marks on the lens, just numbers.

One more thing. This is not a small lens. It's longer than the F3, weighs twice as much, would need 19mm or 15mm studio spaced rods (not the lightweight 15mm most small cameras use), and the built rig would weigh about 23 pounds (at least), upon which you might need a much bigger tripod head.

ALL that said, for the beginning S35mm shooter, this is a STELLAR lens, and a STELLAR value. Just don't go shooting million dollar commercials on it and you'll be fine. Frankly, I had no idea they were going for $6K from Red. I might pick one up eventually.

Aww nate......... i'm sad. ;)

Optically its a good lens at a great price, but like all things, you get what you pay for. Ergonomics are where this lens takes a hit. I had to shoot an entire commercial once with neither a mattebox or followfocus because of this lens' previously stated GARGANTUAN size and inability to use INDUSTRY STANDARD COMPONENTS .... Cough*** Cough*** ARRIFF4**** COUGH****. The production studio, a HUGE one in NYC, for some reason packaged all the wrong components with the lens and didn't have anything that was compatible. It was a Green screen shoot so it was no big deal, but had there been one focus pull we would have been done for. This is the problem with a one stop shop production studio providing the gear; there is no check out.... but if there is no checkout its supposed to freakin' work.

Its a good lens for an owner operator, but a miserable lens as a rental item. Last time i will ever order one.

[Nate Weaver]

I think I had been reading too much Reduser and had a real bug up my butt when I wrote that. That and I've been writing too many treatments so I'm typing faster and saying stupid stuff.

I still think it's a decent lens for an owner op who always gets an assistant to haul the whole rig around, AND doesn't mind you have to be careful with a mattebox and FF with it. Really sharp and consistent for $6K.

[David C. Williams]

And doesn't mind collimating it every time you look sideways at it :D

[Timur Civan]

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

I think I had been reading too much Reduser and had a real bug up my butt when I wrote that. That and I've been writing too many treatments so I'm typing faster and saying stupid stuff.

I still think it's a decent lens for an owner op who always gets an assistant to haul the whole rig around, AND doesn't mind you have to be careful with a mattebox and FF with it. Really sharp and consistent for $6K.

Seriously, for 6k its a great buy. Mainly cause its new and won't require maintenece for a while. I mean I can get a cooke cinetal 25-250 for 6k. But it will be basically a doorstop with a pl on it. Beaten to hell and back.

Of course if you take your glass seriosuly, the cooke cxx or the angenieux dp rouges are simply works of art.

[Peter Corbett]

Any opinions on the Nikon 35-70 and 28-70? Both seem pretty sharp. I hear the 35-70 is sharper, but the little bit of extra range on the 28-70 could be handy. BTW I just shot a background piece for a racing channel on the F3 and thought the 80-200 Nikon (bought new last week) and Tokina 11-16 looked amazing. I also bought a used 80-400 which I'm testing this weekend. It's lighter than the 80-200.

[Leonard Levy]

28-70 is fabulous as well as pretty much parfocal as is the 80 -200 (also fabulous. I agree the 11- 16 is great and so is the 17-35 (also parfocal). haven't tried the 17-55 or the 24 - 70