Documentary one lens: interviews, building tours, exterior shots of buildings in nyc

jimdmorrison said:
You've convinced me to spend the extra money on the Nikon. Does anyone have suggestions on where/which adapter?
Click to expand...

Jim- I can't go against any of the well thought out advice given here but, two things:

The Panasonic Lumix 14-140, as Barry kinda eludes to, covers a lot of bases . . . not a bad choice for somebody trying to get it going on one lens.
Secondly, if you're cash poor and going with a lens that requires an adapter you might do well to spend $25-30 for one of the lesser adapters now (instead of $300-400) and move into that category later?

Everybody likes what they've got (probably because it works for them). I'm just trying to factor in start-up/practical considerations.

Best.
 
In regards to the Nikon 17-55, is the Tamron 17-50 a worthy option as well?
Is there gonna be a significant difference between these two F2.8 constant aperture lenses that the AF100 will see?
 
Boncrek said:
In regards to the Nikon 17-55, is the Tamron 17-50 a worthy option as well?
Is there gonna be a significant difference between these two F2.8 constant aperture lenses that the AF100 will see?
Click to expand...

I think the difference will be very subtle. I'd also have a look at the tokina 16-50 2.8 as you'll want all the wide you can get.
Pentax also has a 16-50 which is what i use and I am very happy with it.
 
dregenthal said:
Jim- I can't go against any of the well thought out advice given here but, two things:

The Panasonic Lumix 14-140, as Barry kinda eludes to, covers a lot of bases . . . not a bad choice for somebody trying to get it going on one lens.
Secondly, if you're cash poor and going with a lens that requires an adapter you might do well to spend $25-30 for one of the lesser adapters now (instead of $300-400) and move into that category later?

Everybody likes what they've got (probably because it works for them). I'm just trying to factor in start-up/practical considerations.

Best.
Click to expand...

The 2 questions you need to ask yourself when considering the 14-140 are:

1. Do you need to zoom during a shot?
2. Do you need easily attainable shallow depth of field?

If you answered yes to either of those questions, then the 14-140 is not for you. I know that second question may be debatable. But my experience is that f2.8 is the sweet spot depth of filed wise when you are at 50mm or less.
 
You could probably get the 14-140 used on eBay and save a few bucks, there seem to be enough GH1/G2 users that don't like the lens that there is a resale market. Add a 28mm 2.8 and a 50mm 1.8 nikon and adaptor and you should be set for fairly cheap. You can get faster and more exotic lenses later as money comes in, but these will do the job and are affordable as they were once so common.
 
1. Nikon 17-55 f2.8
2. Sigma 18-50 f2.8
3. Tamron 17-50 f2.8
4. Pentax 16-50 f2.8

any of those will give you manual zoom, manual focus, constant aperture, as well as smooth aperture adjustment during shots. Those will offer the most flexibility as well as a decent aperture for low light.
Click to expand...

What's the focus direction on the Tamron? Is it the same as Nikon, or is it conventional? After too many years with Cooke and Angenieux, my mind won't adapt to Nikon focusing.
 
Mac said:
What's the focus direction on the Tamron? Is it the same as Nikon, or is it conventional? After too many years with Cooke and Angenieux, my mind won't adapt to Nikon focusing.
Click to expand...

Judging from the pictures on amazon: Nikon, pentax, tamron, tokina all focus in the same direction. The sigma lenses focus in the opposite direction of the nikons.
 
dregenthal said:
if you're cash poor and going with a lens that requires an adapter you might do well to spend $25-30 for one of the lesser adapters now (instead of $300-400) and move into that category later?
Click to expand...

I've read/heard some horror stories of people mashing up the contacts in their cameras/lenses with the cheaper adapters, this has really put me off even trying one - i've also heard of people generally just getting poor performance from them.

As for the 14-140, i'd say go for it, i've no complaints with mine. If you wanna cover all bases on minimal budget then you can do a lot worse than having that, and the lumix 20mm 1.7, without having to worry about adapters etc.
 
The Lumix 20mm 1.7 has been a great little addition to my Nikon zooms & primes. It gives you a great wide angle look, talks to the camera and is relatively inexpensive. It looks really goofy mounted on the camera but it is worth it.
 
chud said:
I've read/heard some horror stories of people mashing up the contacts in their cameras/lenses with the cheaper adapters, this has really put me off even trying one - i've also heard of people generally just getting poor performance from them.
Click to expand...

I've heard complaints as well but never had that or any other untoward experience . . . might be because I bought one (Rainbow) for each one of my Nikons, so I never have to remove them from the lens once attached the first time.
There's no visible evidence (on my AF-100) of any issue on the camera's contacts. I can't see how there would be as they're spring loaded and there's nothing in the adapter sticking out anywhere--it's pretty much a flush surface.
Anyhow as others, who presumably also own/tried these, have expressed concern I suppose it's not something to be overlooked.
My original response was keying in on the original posters financial reserves.
 
biginvegas said:
The Tokina 16-50 2:8 is half the price and weight of the Nikon and as good for video. $630- vs $1500. This from a someone with Nikon primes. I use the Novoflex adapter.
Tough to find now as it has been discontinued.
http://www.amazon.com/TOKINA-16-50M...GU3I/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1305017206&sr=8-4
Click to expand...

I had the Tokina 16-50 and returned it and got the Nikon. That particular Tokina telescopes in and out an insane amount. The Nikon only moves in and out about 3/4 of an inch.

I also use the Novoflex adapter.
 
Tokina 11-16mm $659
Tokina 16-50mm $659
=$1300
1 Nikon 17-55mm $1500

The Tokina does breath when zooming, what photo zoom does not. The Tokina's are half the weight. Try the Nikon on for size at your local dealer.
 
I found the 14-140 too slow, so I went with the Olympus 14-54 2.8-3.5. I picked up a used sigma 50-150 2.8 with a nikon mount and a adpatimax nikon plus mount and it was still less than half the price of an Olympus 35-100.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top