What are the 3 must have Nikon Lenses?

C

cb1

Member
I have a Letus extreme with a Nikon mount and want to buy 3 different lenses, but wanted to get your opinions on which 3 I should buy.
 
I would suggest a wide, normal and telephoto. Zeiss are probably the best nikon mounts, Nikkors are probably second best. Avoid DX type lenses as the image produced does not cover full frame and you can't easily control aperture. You will also loose light with an adaptor and will thank yourself for getting the fastest posible (2.8, 2.0, 1.8 or 1.4)

Zooms are nice for reframing without moving camera, but tend to breathe more when focusing than a prime lens. Also, you don't need anything auto in a lens for the Letus, go for a completely manual lens to save the most money.

I went for Nikkor primes: 24mm, 50mm and 135mm. If I need others for a specific project, I rent.


J
 
follow up on this thread. im also interested in the suggested lenses. Does anyone know the diff between the two pictures attached or shown below. This is the nikkon 50mmf/1.4

Link to B&H.. 2rd and 3th lens from the bottom up.
 

Attachments

  • Picture 6.jpg
    Picture 6.jpg
    15.7 KB · Views: 0
We shot a segment showing the Zeiss 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 100mm macro. We also demonstrate, with a direct comparison to a less expensive Nikon, how good the 50mm is with respect to contrast and sharpness. Check the "The Brevis MP.1 Zeiss Lens Review and EX1 FIX Test Footage", on our Video University. Your image FOV will be less on the Letus than in our comparison, but the lenses should perform pretty well on the adapter either way.

The Nikon 17-35 f2.8d zoom is an outstanding lens for wide angle work. That lens, and the Zeiss 50mm, and 85mm would by my pick for coverage if you had to pick only three.

Cheers,
Dennis.
 
on the letusEX and the SGpro, the difference between an f1.4 lens and a f2 lens is about 1/10th of a stop..... not a full stop.

so really buying an 85mm f1.4 over an 85mm f2.0 or 1.8 (the differnce between f1.8 and f2 is incalculable...) is only going to give you a barely perceptible brightness increase. not worth the money in my opinion.
 
i dig that.

the 50mm f2 AI is supposed to be the sharpest 50mm ever... cos it's got 6 aperture blades..
the 35mm f2 is just as sharp as the 35mm f1.4
i don't know much about the 85. but how much sharpness can we be talking about in 1080p? it's not 35mm film.

the only other reasons i can think of are the amount of aperture blades. the f/1.4 AIS models have more aperture blades than the slower lenses.
 
also the quality of the bokeh, You always want to stop down to at least F2.8 - F5.6 depending on the look you are going for. I refuse to shoot at 1.4 or even 2. i shoot at 2.8 only if i don't have enough light, but aim always for F4 ( best world between light loss, bokeh, and invisible GG )
 
jenningsp said:
i dig that.

the 50mm f2 AI is supposed to be the sharpest 50mm ever... cos it's got 6 aperture blades..
the 35mm f2 is just as sharp as the 35mm f1.4
i don't know much about the 85. but how much sharpness can we be talking about in 1080p? it's not 35mm film.

the only other reasons i can think of are the amount of aperture blades. the f/1.4 AIS models have more aperture blades than the slower lenses.
Click to expand...

Lenses tend to be at their best optical behavior at about 2 - 3 stops above their lowest aperture. The 35mm f2 doesn't come close to the 35mm 1.4. I bought both and kept one. And if I have to shoot at a 2.0 the 35 1.4 will run circles of confusion around the f2. Same goes for the 85mm.

As far as sharpness as it effects 1080p, the better the source your downsampling from the better the end image. The difference between the Nikon 2.8 zoom, especially the wide angle zoom, compared to the their manual primes of any price is quite dramatic even at 720p. I'd put them in the Zeiss ZF category.

FYI, number aperture blades are not the main factor affecting sharpness Design and quality of glass have a bigger impact. Count the blades in your Zeiss Super speeds Mk 2. Not that many.

If I had to choose three:
17-35mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 135 2.0.

Not all Nikon List

17-35mm 2.8 Nikon, 58mm Voightlander and 85mm Zeiss ZF

Overall, I rarely shoot below a 2.8. 2.0 when I'm desperate. 1.4 if there's a gun at my head.
 
Last edited:
PaPa said:
also the quality of the bokeh, You always want to stop down to at least F2.8 - F5.6 depending on the look you are going for. I refuse to shoot at 1.4 or even 2. i shoot at 2.8 only if i don't have enough light, but aim always for F4 ( best world between light loss, bokeh, and invisible GG )
Click to expand...

I was about to make a very similar comment. Everyone's very hung up on getting the f1.4's, but really how soft do you need your image to be? I tend to shoot everything between 2.8 and 5.6 as well. Also because of that I have the freedom to purchase a top quality f2.8 lens for a LOT less $ than the same quality f1.4. For example I have the Nikkor 85mm f2, I got it for a great price, and the image it creates is gorgeous, it's by far my favorite portrait lens as well when I do still photography, and again, much much cheaper than the brighter equivalent. Just some food for financial thought.

Three lenses? I'd say (on a similar note to others) an 85mm, a 50mm, and a wide, either 24 or 28mm, all three f2.8 or brighter if you can afford it.

Also down the line if you have the money a nice bright wide zoom is very convenient. Many here have the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8, fantastic lens. I have a slightly less costly cousin, Sigma's 20-40mm f2.8. Very convenient, and wide zooms are always nice and visually impressive to onlookers. :)
 
Last edited:
i know the number of aperture blades aren't the major and only determining factor of sharpness.. but specifically referring to the 50mm f2 AI, the reason it's so sharp is because it has an even number and so few.

i mentioned the f1.4 AIS series have more aperture blades (usually 9 but you have to check coz i've found some with 7) because some people are super super anal about how round their highlights look.

tim, you really believe that about the 35mm f1.4? i own one myself but have been looking to replace it with an f2. everything i've read says the 35mm f2 is just as sharp at f2 and even sharper at f4. i suppose this might be the whole small real element phenomena poking it's head in.

the 17-35mm is an amazing lens. but doesn't it have issues with the focus ring?

also you could buy an entire mint second hand nikkor f2 AI set for the same price...
24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 135.

in an ideal world where i was rich, i would probably get the 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4 85mm f1.4. all AI series.

that should/would be enough for most drama work. i have needed to go wider than 35 a fare few times for specific shots though... my 28mm f2.8 has saved me often enough to make me keep it.. but any wider than 35mm, in my opinion, starts to distort normal perspective. (working in 35mm still frame size)

really you'd want a 24mm or 28mm for those times you need to go super wide but a 35mm as your standard wide. but it all really depends on what you're shooting.

i just shot a medieval comedy where nearly everything the director wanted needed a 16mm lens for the perspective... suppose i needed the 17-35mm... damn. i'm going round in circles :)

i try to shoot at f2.8-4 inside and f4 outside. can't go past f4 on the sgpro for the GG will show up in blue skys and what not. i would shoot at 5.6 outside if there was no sky in shot.
 
Last edited:
jenningsp, you mention you cant shoot past an F4 outside using your adapter.
Shooting an F4 can you throw ND in front of the lens and not get the GG to show up..
or if the light hitting the back is darker than an F4 in any way shape or form does the GG show up?
 
rippie. i don't use external NDs. but i don't think it's about the amount of light, i think it's the angle of light. i just use the cameras NDs and iris to control light levels and the adapters taking lens to control DOF.
 
jenningsp said:
i know the number of aperture blades aren't the major and only determining factor of sharpness.. can't go past f4 on the sgpro for the GG will show up in blue skys and what not. i would shoot at 5.6 outside if there was no sky in shot.
Click to expand...

You got some good points about the 35 2.0. Once in the midrange stops the difference is indiscernable. It's those night exteriors or end of the day that I must venture to a 2.0 and that's when I need that 35mm 1.4.

Concerning the 17-35mm, the focus draw is tight but useable. For that reason, I tend to shoot it at a 4.0. Interesting note though, it is noticeably sharper than any of the primes in that range even when wide open to 2.8. When I do use it, I use the small Chrosziel FFocus gear. That helps alot with the tight focus draw. I have a 24mm 2.0 and it's nowhere in the same league in terms of contrast/sharpness/vignetting.

Regarding ND's, I have an HVX and I've always found the internal ND's to degrade the image. So I end up using external filters. Don't have that problem with the EX 1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top