AF-100 Lenses

G

greensviewposse

New member
I currently own 2 HMC-150’s with a redrock lens adapter. I am planning on purchasing the AF-100.
What 3 lenses would you recommend for the camera, those that have already played around with it?
 
I’m using Nikon 1.2 50mm, and some ebay bought cheaper lenses. I’d like to invest in much better glass. The 50mm is really nice, but the others are so so.
 
Probably another 50mm, a wide angle, 35mm, 85mm, 105mm, and 135mm. Deciding whether to stick with buying more nikon lenses or go with zeiss or something else. And we'd be doing anything from music videos, interviews, documentaries, web videos, etc...
 
What are you shooting - and what's your budget? (Otherwise it's a "How long is a string?" type of question...)

I wanted to cover a similar range of primes as you, so (accounting for crop factor) I decided to go with a Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 and Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8. These variable primes will cover the equivalent of 34-140mm. That's to get me started. My next choice is to get a Voigtlander Nokton 25mm f/0.95 for normal (when it's more widely available), and possibly the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for ultra-wide.
 
greensviewposse said:
I’m using Nikon 1.2 50mm, and some ebay bought cheaper lenses. I’d like to invest in much better glass. The 50mm is really nice, but the others are so so.
Click to expand...
Don't forget your 50 on a FF 35mm adapter was twice as wide as it's going to appear on the AF100. The closest equivalent would be the new cosina (Voigtlander)25mm f.95
 
optitek said:
Don't forget your 50 on a FF 35mm adapter was twice as wide as it's going to appear on the AF100. The closest equivalent would be the new cosina (Voigtlander)25mm f.95
Click to expand...

or any other 25mm, the volgtiander is getting a little too much hype IMO. .95 seems like a gimmick to me
 
Steve R said:
What are you shooting - and what's your budget? (Otherwise it's a "How long is a string?" type of question...)

I wanted to cover a similar range of primes as you, so (accounting for crop factor) I decided to go with a Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 and Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8. These variable primes will cover the equivalent of 34-140mm. That's to get me started. My next choice is to get a Voigtlander Nokton 25mm f/0.95 for normal (when it's more widely available), and possibly the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for ultra-wide.
Click to expand...

Was there any reason why you didn't get the nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 instead of the 17-35?
 
I'd get some wide Canon or Nikon primes and an adapter- great bang for the buck. Depends on your budget of course...

-Noah
 
eheath said:
or any other 25mm, the volgtiander is getting a little too much hype IMO. .95 seems like a gimmick to me
Click to expand...
No gimmicks remember Kubrick's"Barry Lyndon" was shot on f.7 or so NASA derived Zeisses. Is F.95 a catchy marketing? sure...
Is it really an F.95- only the manufacturer knows that- but I can actually measure it- done it many times on the bench...
 
Last edited:
I had a quick look at Panasonic lenses but what I saw had no manual focus marks and the audible clicking sound that some uses have posted put me off. I have used the 14-24 Nikon f2.8 and found it very sharp and easy to focus and zoom and I like having focus marks even if they are not entirely accurate I can still start in the ball park when working quickly. I have also used the 12-24 f4 and while lighter and cheaper found it not as easy to focus due to the small focus ring. The Nikon 24-70 f2.8 is similar in configuration to the 14-24 f2.8 and I would recommend. I have the Nikon 35mm f1.4 and a number of longer prime lenses but on the wider angle it is hard to get faster than f2.8 except for the Voigtlander 25mm f0.95. I have it on order and definitely will find it useful. I was filming in a low light event last night and while I have plenty of lights, setting them up would have drawn even more attention to my camera and possibly spoil the atmosphere for the client.
 
wbrock001 said:
Was there any reason why you didn't get the nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 instead of the 17-35?
Click to expand...
A few reasons:

- The 14-24mm is a G lens, so no aperture ring. I know that the Novoflex (which I have) can control aperture, but no way of knowing what stop you're on. (I had first settled on the 17-55mm G too, but changed my mind for this very reason). And sure, the Birger mount for Nikon may come out later this year, but I don't want to wait.

- The 17-35mm (with the aperture ring) is legendary among RED users, and it's a great future-proof buy if I move to an F35 or RED (or other unknown large-sensor camera) in the future.

- I would have no Normal 25mm (50mm eq.) with the gap between 24mm and 28mm (I know it's close, though).

- Also, if I was going to go with on G lens, I'd go with them all 'round: I'd pair the 14-24mm up with the 24-70mm for a better match.

- Cost: The 14-24mm is about $250 more than the 17-35mm.

- The Tokina is even wider, and can take filters.

But from what I understand the 14-24mm is a very, very good lens - and I probably would have tipped toward it if it had an aperture ring.
 
Last edited:
Steve R said:
A few reasons:

- The 14-24mm is a G lens, so no aperture ring. I know that the Novoflex (which I have) can control aperture, but no way of knowing what stop you're on. (I had first settled on the 17-55mm G too, but changed my mind for this very reason). And sure, the Birger mount for Nikon may come out later this year, but I don't want to wait.

- The 17-35mm (with the aperture ring) is legendary among RED users, and it's a great future-proof buy if I move to an F35 or RED (or other unknown large-sensor camera) in the future.

- I would have no Normal 25mm (50mm eq.) with the gap between 24mm and 28mm (I know it's close, though).

- Also, if I was going to go with on G lens, I'd go with them all 'round: I'd pair the 14-24mm up with the 24-70mm for a better match.

- Cost: The 14-24mm is about $250 more than the 17-35mm.

- The Tokina is even wider, and can take filters.

But from what I understand the 14-24mm is a very, very good lens - and I probably would have tipped toward it if it had an aperture ring.
Click to expand...

I am also interested in the Nikon 17-35 f2.8, I worry that 17mm is not going to be wide enough and so far have rented the 14-24 f2.8 off a friend. and often find 14mm useful. Do you find 17mm wide enough?
 
Shooter said:
Mine is wide enough when it works on the shot I am making ...and when it doesnt work....its not wide enough.
Click to expand...

Yes, I will probably go for the 14-24 f2.8 since I already have 24-70 f2.8 and that extra 4mm of (14mm as opposed to 17mm) can make a big difference when in a small space.
 
CineStill said:
Yes, I will probably go for the 14-24 f2.8 since I already have 24-70 f2.8 and that extra 4mm of (14mm as opposed to 17mm) can make a big difference when in a small space.
Click to expand...

Yeah but it just gets all distorted- why not tell the story creatively with a lens that isn't distorted? Do you really need to see head to toe in every shot?
 
heavyG said:
Yeah but it just gets all distorted- why not tell the story creatively with a lens that isn't distorted? Do you really need to see head to toe in every shot?
Click to expand...

No you are right, but I find the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 doesn't show too much distortion, possibly because it is a full frame still lens and the AF100 sensor is only capturing the sweet spot in the centre of the lens. I agree if I wanted only one general purpose lens then the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 DX would be the ideal all rounder, ( Maybe i'll buy one in the future). It is lighter and has a good usable range, but as I already have the 24-70 f2.8 the 14-24 f2.8 extends my wide angle capability for now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top