Need answer quick! Is the Nikon 80-200 2.8 D good for 35mm adaptors?

Also have that lens...got it used offa ebay for 80 bucks!

Works great with the Brevis, although its probably my least used zoom.
 
It's in pretty good condition, and the glass is perfect. Id say its a 7/10 due to some paint chipping on the body and etc. I think I just got lucky with an auction at the right time.
 
That's a great find Rob.

Ok, I'm now going to get the 17-35 2.8 but was reading reviews and some say it's soft at 2.8 to 4.5? Seems like there may be a decent number of faulty lenses with af problems too.

What's everyone's experience with the 17-35 2.8?
 
Whoops sorry I should have inspected the thread title a bit closer.

It's actually slow as hell 4.5 and looking back at my ebay totals I got it for 31 bucks! Not a bad price for the lens.
 
Awesome deal, even for the 4.5. Glad it's the 4.5, though. :-) Although I still got a decent deal on my 2.8 from KEH.
 
I've got the 17-35 f2.8 and the 80-200 f2.8 inbound so we can throw them up on the DSC labs charts and see how they do with the Brevis. We've got nothing here that's fast under 28mm, so I'm really looking forward to this glass.

We're doing a helicopter shoot tomorrow morning and that 17-35 sure would have been nice to use had it arrived today. As it is, we'll likely shoot bare EX1 as the distances are well beyond infinity for any 35mm lenses. The only reason I'd use an adapter for this work is to get some minty wides.
 
Got my 80-200 2.8 twist version a couple days ago. I got it off ebay and it's thankfully in beautiful condition.

My first thoughts on the lens are it's damn good! Definitely feels 'pro'.

However I was dissapointed with the amount of breathing (are all zooms like that?) and like someone else pointed out here, the focus throw is short. I've been using manual focus lenses til now so no doubt I'll get used to it before long. Hopefully get a follow focus soon too.

All in all it's definitely my favorite lens, though it's brother the 17-35 2.8 should be on my doorstep in a couple days...
 
glad to hear it turned out well :) there is always that 'worry' before a 2nd hand lens arrives. as for the breathing, what focal length and how much is 'bad' really depends on individuals. can only really be an issue on sudden pulls of enough distance, which aren't that common (in most shooting). i forgive my nikon though considering it's quality regardless of it's need for 'air' :)
 
Yeah it'd be pretty bad to pay a lot for a lens and get a dud.

I'd say the breathing isn't at all a dealbreaker a definite concern.
 
The 17-35mm f2.8 D is the sharpest lens I've ever testing on the Brevis flip rig. Simply outstanding. The 80-200 f2.8 constant aperture is also excellent with very low CA, excellent sharpness, and great bokeh. I'd recommend these lenses highly for the Brevis system. On both the 17-35mm f2.8 and the 80-200mm f2.8 we're getting usable frame widths at least 10% in excess of the 35mm SLR standard (using the XH-A1 and CF1Le today), even at 17mm. That's very, very cool :-)

My two reservations/cautions on the Nikon lenses:

Focus throw is short, but entirely usable. The focus feel is not as smooth as I'd like, but not a deal-breaker.
Breathing is there, but way, way less than the B4 Fujinon zoom lens on our HPX500. In other words, very good for an SLR lens.

We also tested a series of S16 PL mount lenses today in addition to the big Nikons. The clear favourites in the collection were without doubt the 28mm, 50mm and 85mm LOMO OCT 19 (35mm cinema) mount lenses we tested. They have extremely low breathing, precise focus, excellent sharpness, and something that three of us (including 2 experienced cinematographers) could only describe as an organic creamy bokeh. Piotr was so impressed with them that he's selected them from all the glass tested for his just funded (congrats Piotre) short film. Even the 28mm version (a T1.5) offered very impressive performance. It's not as sharp edge to edge as the Nikon 17-35mm zoom, but they still preferred it due to it's "feel". It was a very interesting but exhausting day of testing.
 
I agree Dennis, the bokeh on the 80-200 is stunning, that's why I love the lense so much. And now I'm really looking forward to the 17-35 after your review.
 
Got my 17-35 2.8 holy crap! Very, very nice lens. No breathing! I got mine off ebay in really great condition for AUS $745 that's about US $680, the focus motor is erratic (works on and off) but doesn't matter me I think I got a good deal, saved about $300 or more on what they usually go for. The book says closest focusing distance is 28cm but I'm sure it's even better than that, brilliant.

Anyone wondering if it's a worthwhile to get, answer is yes!
 
Last edited:
Yes, I've been wanting to trade my Nikkor 28-70mm F2.8 (mint condition) for a 17-35mm. It was great for stills, but now using for video, it's just not my cup of tea.
 
What is lens "breathing" ?

What are the problems of a non-internal focusing lens regarding a mattebox attachment?
 
"Breathing" is what happens when you change focus on lens and you see the objects in your frame either grow or shrink. This generally happens to some degree or another in most (all?) still lenses because they're designed for -- you guessed it -- still photography where such issues are never noticed. Actual cinema lenses are designed to eliminate breathing, which is just one of the reasons they're so flippin' expensive.

A non-internal focusing lens will move it's front element in and out as you focus, which can cause problems with a matte box if the lens hits your filters. Usually, you can position the lens to not do this, but some lenses may have such a long focus throw that it's unavoidable. Although I don't have any lenses that are that way. It's generally just something you have to be aware of and work around. Not that big of a deal. I'll now wait until someone for whom it is a big deal smacks me down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top