Best 17-50 or 24-70 2.8 zoom

B

Bucknfl

Well-known member
I'm trying to determine which 17-50 or 24-70 2.8 lense would be the best for the AF 100. I'm looking for the following criteria

constant 2.8 or faster
parafocal
smooth zoom
no iris glitches during zoom
smooth focus
sharp at all focal lengths and wide open

I'm currently have the tamron(nikon mt) 17-50 2.8, which is decent for the money, but the zoom is not smooth and has iris fluctuations in the zoom, focus is not smooth either, but it is parafocal. I have an older sigma(nikon mt) 50-150 2.8 which is absolutely fantastic which meets all of the criteria, so I need a wide angle partner. The 2.0 Olympus zooms not being parafocal are deal breakers.
 
I am a fan of the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8, tack sharp... but you get what you pay for. The Red Pro would be the way to go for what you need.
 
http://www.angenieux.com/zoom-lenses/index.php?txt=5 are the best, but you should specify a price range.

Yes the Tamron 17-50 non-VC (is yours VC or non?) is the same glass as the Red Pro Zoom that is being recommended here. I've not seen any iris fluctuations on the Tamron, and the focus action is very smooth and light (is something wrong with yours?). Getting a smooth zoom is tricky but can be done with some sort of zoom controller (a diy stick or more), but would be easier with the Red Pro version. All that said, I'd rather take any Angenieux over any of the other lenses mentioned here.
 
Last edited:
Will Turner said:
I thought the RED 17-50 was the same glass as the old non-VC tamron 17-50?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue which lens is or is not the basis for the Red 17-50.

But let me say this, I do own a Tokina 11-16mm zoom, as well as a Duclos 11-16mm zoom which started life as a Tokina, and while the optical quality is nearly identical, the mechanical aspects for cine use are completely different.
 
David W. Jones said:
But let me say this, I do own a Tokina 11-16mm zoom, as well as a Duclos 11-16mm zoom which started life as a Tokina, and while the optical quality is nearly identical, the mechanical aspects for cine use are completely different.
Click to expand...
I have a complete set of Duclos'd Zeiss ZF's, and a complete set of Compact Primes. Exact same glass, but the mechanical aspects of the CP's, for cine use, are vastly superior.

So whether the glass in the RPZ is a Tamron or not, doesn't make the Tamron the same lens. Just evaluate both of 'em and see which you prefer and if you can afford the more expensive one.
 
nothing said:
http://www.angenieux.com/zoom-lenses/index.php?txt=5 are the best, but you should specify a price range.

Yes the Tamron 17-50 non-VC (is yours VC or non?) is the same glass as the Red Pro Zoom that is being recommended here. I've not seen any iris fluctuations on the Tamron, and the focus action is very smooth and light (is something wrong with yours?). Getting a smooth zoom is tricky but can be done with some sort of zoom controller (a diy stick or more), but would be easier with the Red Pro version. All that said, I'd rather take any Angenieux over any of the other lenses mentioned here.
Click to expand...

I've got the non vc which is supposed to be the better lens. I don't know if there is actual problem with the lens but I can see iris fluctuations when I zoom the lens so I have been using it as a variable prime. My sigma 50-150 performs so well it feels like a cine lens and I was hoping to find another low cost wide angle still lense that would work equally as well. The red pro might be the only alternative. Thanks
 
Bucknfl said:
I don't know if there is actual problem with the lens but I can see iris fluctuations when I zoom...
Click to expand...

There may be something wrong with your lens, or it may be related to your adapter's iris control. I can tell you that there are no iris fluctuations when using this lens in native EF mount on a Canon body. Are you using a 4/3 to Nikon F adapter that controls aperture physically via the lever that sticks out the back of F mount lenses? I can imagine that causing some issues with certain lenses but have not experienced it myself, perhaps someone else has and can chime in. That is if you are interested in getting your current setup to work better, you may not be ;)

There are apparently a couple of versions of the Tamron 17-50 non-VC for the Nikon F mount, one with a focus motor and one without which relies on the screw drive from the body's focus motor. I wonder if there are any other differences. I see many negative comments about this lens from users with the Nikon mount version on another mount via an adapter, but many fewer complaints from those using the Canon mount version on a Canon.
 
Just ordered my RPZ 17-50. Can't wait to go pick it up in Irvine!!
Erik, are you using the full Tilta rig, or just the baseplate and rails?
 
Orlando McNulty said:
Just ordered my RPZ 17-50. Can't wait to go pick it up in Irvine!!
Erik, are you using the full Tilta rig, or just the baseplate and rails?
Click to expand...
NICE! You will love it.

I use the baseplate and handgrip. It comes with four rails. I also like the monitor arm. It comes with a rail mount that you can detach if you don’t want to mount it that way. Its a good articulating arm. I’m pretty happy with it. I try to keep it simple and it works well. The grips are heavy duty so I only use one on the right side and put my left had on the follow focus. This works well for me.
 
nothing said:
There may be something wrong with your lens, or it may be related to your adapter's iris control. I can tell you that there are no iris fluctuations when using this lens in native EF mount on a Canon body. Are you using a 4/3 to Nikon F adapter that controls aperture physically via the lever that sticks out the back of F mount lenses?

I'm using the adaptimax adpator that controls the iris with a long screw, it works flawlessly with my sigma 50-150. Does anyone know if the nikon lenses are parafocal 17-55, 24-70, 28-70?????????????????
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top