FS7: Fuiji vis Nikkor

M

morgan_moore

Major Contributor
I had the Mk18-55 in the studio to test on my Movi.

It could be most useful as that zoom range could work well when the rig is on a jib and FIZ needs remote controlling.

It works and Ill consider renting for the right jobs.

As an aside.. and the endless threads on the best handheld doc lens I did a little side by side with my $150 nikkor 28-85.

here is that side to side.. https://vimeo.com/330128797/3e79c91ccc

On the board there is a lot of snobbery over stills lenses which annoys me somewhat. Personally I think that most operators should start and learn vintage MF stills lenses and use them until they grow out of them.
 
I use stills lenses 95% of the time and rent cine lenses for the rest. I only rent cine lenses when the producer is young and wants to tell his mates he's using the same lenses they use on Game of Thrones or wants a cool shot for his Instagram feed.
 
^ and by "cool shot" - I'm assuming you mean a pic of the lens on your camera - perhaps with said producer also in the shot.
 
morgan_moore said:
I mean thinkgs like the canon fd50 at £45 - do you use any like that?
Click to expand...

Not anymore. I’ve been there though. In the days on lens adapters I had the cheapest set of lenses money couldn’t buy:-)

morgan_moore said:
BTW what did you think of the two lenses?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was interesting. Optically, there’s not much in it and one could argue there’s more character in the Nikkors or more sharpness in the Fuji etc.

Mid-range zooms are not my thing though, I own a 24-70mm Canon L but can’t remember the last time I used it, must have been five years ago or more. I’d much rather use a prime between 20mm and 135mm.
 
Looks fine to me MM. If the 28-85 suited what the job in hand required I wouldn't hesitate to use it on most jobs.

Chris Young
 
I have a slightly newer (AF-S) version of the Nikon 28-70 which is extremely sharp -- in fact I'll be using it for interviews tomorrow. On numerous occasions it's been used for the "B camera" angle in cases where the "A camera" was shooting with one of the (expensive) Fujinon Cabrios or Canon cine zooms - with no noticeable sharpness difference. As with your 28-85 the coating is an older design and thus lens flares can be an issue, so proper use of lens shade/flags/black wrap on barn doors/french flag are more critical than with some of my newer Sigma zooms or primes.
 
The trouble imo with af glass is that it’s just horrid to use.

I’ve pedalled through them all canon Nikon sigma etc

And I cycle back to the old shockers in the main
 
My A cam has a Canon 17-120 because I need the range and zoom servo + parfocal. But in a sit down I couldn’t care less about price/fanciness. Give me a 70-200 L and you’d never know the difference.
 
Newsguy said:
My A cam has a Canon 17-120 because I need the range and zoom servo + parfocal. But in a sit down I couldn’t care less about price/fanciness. Give me a 70-200 L and you’d never know the difference.
Click to expand...

Of course you would. The 70-200 has a gacky hang when you try and pull focus, its not manual.

The 35-135 nikon manual (£80) doesnt have a hang and would be better to pair with the 17-120 :)
 
Last edited:
I am still happy with the sony 18-105 and lens-correction software (in Davinci).
And I had the:
sony 100-400 4.5
canon 100-400 4.5-5.6

And I sold them. The Nikkor 50-300 does the job.
 
morgan_moore said:
Of course you would. The 70-200 has a gacky hang when you try and pull focus, its not manual.

The 35-135 nikon manual (£80) doesnt have a hang and would be better to pair with the 17-120 :)
Click to expand...

The Canon 70-200 L does focus manually and is "mechanically connected", not fly-by-wire, it just has a clutch mechanism so at the top and bottom it will "slip" and allow AF/MF when AF is engaged on a still camera. MY biggest issue with most modern Canon still lenses is no manual infinitely variable aperture control. Sometimes even those of us that own 17-120's and full sets of real cine primes still pull out the 70-200 for interviews.
 
Run&Gun said:
The Canon 70-200 L does focus manually and is "mechanically connected", not fly-by-wire, it just has a clutch mechanism so at the top and bottom it will "slip" and allow AF/MF when AF is engaged on a still camera. MY biggest issue with most modern Canon still lenses is no manual infinitely variable aperture control. Sometimes even those of us that own 17-120's and full sets of real cine primes still pull out the 70-200 for interviews.
Click to expand...

You might note from the first video I try to actually talk from experience. I shot the test above as I was worried that my old zoom was compromising my work and I should consider getting with the program and getting MK lenses*. If I make such a comment it is from experience.

I do know the canon 70-200 lens. We have three in the office. Ive used them on all sorts of jobs where kit was provided for me.


I find the canon AF glass to have a very small friction that needs to be 'broken' when turning the focus wheel. Its just different from a true old school manual stills lens which are very much up there (but not as good) as true cine glass when it comes to turning the focus wheel in a sensitive manner as may be required during an interview when the subject repositions.

Yes the canon 70-200 is an adequate lens but my suggestion is if you want a longer lens to go with your 17-120 there are better options at 20% of the cost. Canon FD Contax etc.

Clearly you have the budget as a 17-120 owner to get a couple of $100 lenses and give them a spin.

For example Ive found a canon FD 200 2.8 (would be 2 with a booster) that I want to buy just because I know it would be so nice (its $100).. even though I have many options in the 100- 200 zone.. nikkor 70-200 new style, nikor 100-300, nikkor 200 micro (wonderful) nikkor 180 2.8 (pretty great) nikkor 35-135 (not so good) FD 135, nikkor 135 etc.

These old lenses also offer a security that the AF lenses do not. Like the cine glass they have no electronics to fail. We have had problems with the canon 70-200 with IS mechanism failure. A failure that wont happen on a cine lens or an old stills lens.

I can imagine buying the sony 18-110 (or whatever it is) and being on location and getting some error due to contacts/firmware or suchlike and being completely stuck.

*my conclusion is that I will rent it where appropriate as some jobs need parfocal and full FIZ control.
 
Last edited:
Hey, Morgan, thanks for posting about the 28-85. I knew there was value in old primes but until now I had dismissed old zooms. A ratio of 3:1 and an f-stop around f/4 isn't bad, but it's outstanding when you consider the mechanics, price ($150), and weight (18 oz.).
 
Last edited:
combatentropy said:
Hey, Morgan, thanks for posting about the 28-85. I knew there was value in old primes but until now I had dismissed old zooms. A ratio of 3:1 and an f-stop around f/4 isn't bad, but it's outstanding when you consider the mechanics, price ($150), and weight (18 oz.).
Click to expand...

Well I got to this lens because it has the best story telling range (IMO) with real manual focus that is not a cine zoom.

My 35-70 (interview) and 50-300 (conference) zooms are cool too.

I don't like the old lenses that have the zoom and focus as one mechanism - (35-135 nikkor for example - a bit horrid!)

All these ranges are available in canon FD and/or contax if you don't like focussing the nikon 'wrong' way.

As for speed (Tstop) and mass - well the speed booster takes most of these to 2.8 or so but does add a bit of mass.
 
FYI the Canon 70-200 L has a shocking amount of variance from copy to copy - some are parfocal and some are not, among other variable characteristics. Back when we still shot Portlandia on EF glass we even went so far as to rate our 3 copies of this lens - one was awesome, one was so-so, and one flat-out sucked.
 
nothing said:
FYI the Canon 70-200 L has a shocking amount of variance from copy to copy - some are parfocal and some are not, among other variable characteristics. Back when we still shot Portlandia on EF glass we even went so far as to rate our 3 copies of this lens - one was awesome, one was so-so, and one flat-out sucked.
Click to expand...

I've heard numerous stories from still guys buying multiple copies of a lens so that they can 'cherry-pick' and they'll send the others back. I had an original 70--200 f/2.8LIS and was never impressed with it, even though still guys always raved about it(I bought it for stills). I must have had a sub-par copy(since sold to a friend). When I bought my vII, I must have gotten a great one right out of the gate, because it's been awesome since day one(again, bought it for stills).

We're not necessarily talking apples-to-apples here, because I'm talking about cine glass, but buying through a specialty dealer does have it's perks. My dealer QC's all of the glass(at least the cine glass) before it goes out to the customer, and they will kick it back if it doesn't check-out.
 
Well done comparison! something that actually shows the characteristics of the lens from a shooter's point of view and not just some pretty pictures of it and with it. Much respect for that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top