What's the facination w/ a set of Nikon lenses? at DVinfo.net

R.W. Swanson · May 15th, 2007, 04:36 PM

Please pardon my ignorance here, but when it comes to adaptors mounting on to camcorders, why do folks graviate towards Nikon lenes over say Canon lenses? Is it because the lenses sensor size is more compatible with 1/3 chip size sensor?

Thanks for clearing this up for me.

Chris Barcellos · May 15th, 2007, 05:29 PM

Nikon optics have been long accepted as among the best in 35mm photography, and that is carried over to the image it produces for adapter purposes. I think it is as simple as that. Canon has a good reputation too, but I have to say the putting the build of the one Canon I own against the 3 Nikons, results in a win for Nikon. But this is only anecdotal, and I am not saying that means anything....

Steve Rosen · May 15th, 2007, 05:34 PM

Most Canon FD lens will not stop down below full aperature unless attached to a Canon camera.. other than that, for use on a system that is projecting an image on a spinning groundglass, there isn't much difference.. I have both.. the thing I don't like about Nikkors is that they focus backwards compared to all other lenses (clockwise for infinety). Pentax or Minolta lenses would be fine too, but old used Nikkors are in abundance, cheap - at least here on the west coast of the US

Peter Moretti · May 17th, 2007, 03:45 PM

I would actually think Zeiss Planar T lenses would be most ideal for 35mm adapters. They are in the same price range of new Nikon/Canon lenses and have a Nikon mount, but most importantly, they are color matched (according to Zeiss).

So you can have a SET of lenses that all give the same color rendition. Acquiring a set of color matched Nikon or Canon lenses is a hit or miss (mostly miss) proposition from what I understand.

BTW, I have not used a 35mm adapter myself. This is just what I've gleaned from studying up on them.

HTH, and is accurate.

Mike Oveson · May 17th, 2007, 04:46 PM

Not to mention that Nikon has used the same mount for many, many years and so it is easy to build an adapter with an f-mount that can use old and new lenses. Plus they're cheap. :D

Chris Leong · May 18th, 2007, 09:12 AM

One more thing - actually, the main factor in my decision - the new Zeiss lenses made for Nikon mount.

And the same thing, but more. When I was earning my rent doing stills, I traveled and shot a lot. My senior partner ran Nikons and so I ran anything but. I started with screw mount Pentaxes, then Leicaflexes, then Canons, then Olympus OM...

Eventually I was still running them all, but also ran Nikons because of the sheer quantity of lenses and bodies available around the world at a decent (non collector's item) price.

Nowadays, I'm in film mainly, but I still retain my Leica M2, a set of medium format gear - and a full set of Nikons.

May 15th, 2007, 04:36 PM	#1
R.W. Swanson Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: los angeles Posts: 38	What's the facination w/ a set of Nikon lenses? Please pardon my ignorance here, but when it comes to adaptors mounting on to camcorders, why do folks graviate towards Nikon lenes over say Canon lenses? Is it because the lenses sensor size is more compatible with 1/3 chip size sensor? Thanks for clearing this up for me.

May 15th, 2007, 05:29 PM	#2
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	Nikon optics have been long accepted as among the best in 35mm photography, and that is carried over to the image it produces for adapter purposes. I think it is as simple as that. Canon has a good reputation too, but I have to say the putting the build of the one Canon I own against the 3 Nikons, results in a win for Nikon. But this is only anecdotal, and I am not saying that means anything.... __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

May 15th, 2007, 05:34 PM	#3
Steve Rosen Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Monterey, California Posts: 895	Most Canon FD lens will not stop down below full aperature unless attached to a Canon camera.. other than that, for use on a system that is projecting an image on a spinning groundglass, there isn't much difference.. I have both.. the thing I don't like about Nikkors is that they focus backwards compared to all other lenses (clockwise for infinety). Pentax or Minolta lenses would be fine too, but old used Nikkors are in abundance, cheap - at least here on the west coast of the US

May 17th, 2007, 03:45 PM	#4
Peter Moretti Trustee Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Sherman Oaks, CA Posts: 1,259	I would actually think Zeiss Planar T lenses would be most ideal for 35mm adapters. They are in the same price range of new Nikon/Canon lenses and have a Nikon mount, but most importantly, they are color matched (according to Zeiss). So you can have a SET of lenses that all give the same color rendition. Acquiring a set of color matched Nikon or Canon lenses is a hit or miss (mostly miss) proposition from what I understand. BTW, I have not used a 35mm adapter myself. This is just what I've gleaned from studying up on them. HTH, and is accurate.

May 17th, 2007, 04:46 PM	#5
Mike Oveson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Ogden, UT Posts: 349	Not to mention that Nikon has used the same mount for many, many years and so it is easy to build an adapter with an f-mount that can use old and new lenses. Plus they're cheap. :D

May 18th, 2007, 09:12 AM	#6
Chris Leong Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Los Angeles CA USA Posts: 507	One more thing - actually, the main factor in my decision - the new Zeiss lenses made for Nikon mount. And the same thing, but more. When I was earning my rent doing stills, I traveled and shot a lot. My senior partner ran Nikons and so I ran anything but. I started with screw mount Pentaxes, then Leicaflexes, then Canons, then Olympus OM... Eventually I was still running them all, but also ran Nikons because of the sheer quantity of lenses and bodies available around the world at a decent (non collector's item) price. Nowadays, I'm in film mainly, but I still retain my Leica M2, a set of medium format gear - and a full set of Nikons.