I have no clue what lenses to get for the FS100

[mandrean]

I have a budget of ~$4,000 to spend on lenses for the FS100, but I have no clue what to get really. Help me.

I need coverage from standard-wide to short tele. Will be used mostly for narrative shorts and music videos, but with occasional paid jobs like ENG and events.

My ideas are:

• Angenieux 20-120 f/2.6 T2.9 PL
• Nikon 17-35 f/2.8, 28-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8
• Zeiss ZF 18mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4

I can get the Angenieux for around $4,500, the Nikkor kit for around $3,000 and the ZF kit for $3,600.

I've heard the Nikon 17-35 is a good lens, but how about the other Nikkor ones? Breathing?

I heard something about the Zeiss 35/50/85 being overrated/overpriced?

Ideas?

 

[Lee Saxon]

I haven't used the Angenieux.

I wouldn't recommend the 17-35. I had one for years and hated every minute. Not very sharp and has about 2 nanometers of focus travel. Its replacement, the 14-24, is awesome (but sadly only practical for stills since it lacks an aperture ring).

The Zeiss 25, 28, & 50 f/1.4 suck. The 21, 50 f/2, & 100 are awesome and worth their price. The 18, 35 f/2, & 85 are pretty good but not worth their price. I haven't used the new 35 f/1.4

Older manual focus Nikons (called AI-s) are what you should really look into. Their focus movement is just as smooth as the ZFs, the optics are as good or in some cases better, and the price is far better.

I'd get a Zeiss ZF 21, Nikon 50 1.2 AI-s, Nikon 85 1.4 AI-s and I'm not sure which 35 (I haven't used the new Zeiss 35 1.4 or the Nikon AI-s 35 1.4).

 

[Rick Burnett]

I've been waiting on the Birger so I can use my EOS lenses. That said. this thread got me interested at looking at a few Nikon lenses for my FS100:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...enses-for-F3&p=2366395&viewfull=1#post2366395

 

[mandrean]

Thanks Lee. I'm all for getting Nikon glass if the results are as good as with Zeiss ones or even better.

Questions:

• How much would a kit of a wide (around 18mm), a 35, a 50 and a 85 Nikkor's run for on eBay?
  
• Is the image quality of the ZF 50 f/1.4 (and ZF 35 f/2 and ZF 85 f/1.4 for that matter) really that bad? PhotoZone.de gave them 4, 4 and 4.5 out of 5 stars in optical quality, respectively.

I've been waiting on the Birger so I can use my EOS lenses. That said. this thread got me interested at looking at a few Nikon lenses for my FS100:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...enses-for-F3&p=2366395&viewfull=1#post2366395

The same lenses I mentioned. I wonder if they are crap or not. Peoples opinions seem to go apart about those three Nikkor's.

 

[CinemaElectronika]

Thanks Lee. I'm all for getting Nikon glass if the results are as good as with Zeiss ones or even better.

Questions:

• How much would a kit of a wide (around 18mm), a 35, a 50 and a 85 Nikkor's run for on eBay?
  
• Is the image quality of the ZF 50 f/1.4 (and ZF 35 f/2 and ZF 85 f/1.4 for that matter) really that bad? PhotoZone.de gave them 4, 4 and 4.5 out of 5 stars in optical quality, respectively.

The same lenses I mentioned. I wonder if they are crap or not. Peoples opinions seem to go apart about those three Nikkor's.

You will hardly find Nikon primes better than any Zeiss ZF's... I do have the 21-28-35-50-85 set and use them on daily basis... Extremely sharp, more contrasty and better color matched at F4-5.6 that any AI or AIS Nikon prime, basically due to better glass, newer lens technology and built quality... all over from the insides to the outsides.

Those Nikon zoom lenses I mentioned, are really a wonderful set either... Also very sharp but never as any prime lens...

By the way, I find Nikon lenses a little softer and less contrasty than Zeiss ZF's...

Hope this helps...

H

 

[NeedCreative]

I have Zeiss ZF 35/2 and 50/1.4 as well. The 50 1.4 is definitely dreamy-soft wide open (for video that can be a good thing) but once stopped down a bit is every bit as sharp as a Canon 50/1.4. I've tested both and shot with both; the Canon is sharper wide open but matched well with the Zeiss stopped down say F2.8 and up. It's very good glass.

The 35/2 is even better... pretty sharp even wide open.

I also have a Tokina 11-16 F2.8 (Nikon mount w/G adapter), a Canon 100 F2.8L IS Macro (my best glass, quality wise), a Canon 24-105L F4 IS (mostly for stills), a Nikon AF 35-70 F2.8 (very nice and sharp, kind of clunky design), and a Nikon AI-S 24mm F2.8 classic which is also quite nice.

Of all I'd say the Canon glass is the best, followed closely by the Zeiss, then the Nikon (very close if not equal, but I like the Zeiss look), then the Tokina. That's purely subjective. All the glass is fantastic.

Of note - most cost effective were those older Nikon lenses. The 24 was $150 or so, the 35-70 was $450 (both used; the 25 AIS is still sold new, the 35-70 was discontinued earlier in the decade but was Nikon pro glass when it was out going for $700+ in the 90's). The Tokina was $650. The Zeiss are, new $750 and $1050 or so respectively. And the Canons were $1000 each, though street about $950 is closer.

SO - you can probably kit out the FS100 with an amazingly nice kit for little money if you stick to, say, Contax Zeiss primes and Nikon primes and some limited zooms for far less than you'd pay for modern Zeiss glass and Canon (or high end Nikon) glass.

 

[mandrean]

How do the older C/Y Zeiss primes compare to newer ZF Zeiss and Nikkor AI-s primes in IQ? I heard something about the ZF's being rehoused C/Y's, but I'm not sure.


Also, I'm just throwing something out here, but according to photozone.de the Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS HSM outperforms all Zeiss ZF primes at every focal length and pretty much every aperture in the MTF charts (both center and border sharpness, though not extreme corner sharpness): http://bit.ly/lvmX7c I'm not sure about CA/color/contrast etc. though. The Zeiss ones are probably superior.

The focus throw is microscopical, but it seems to be a pretty good zoom for the price? Aperture/OIS works with the LA-EA1 adapter.



One more thing. A Zeiss ZK or ZS prime should be as good as a ZF one right? Nothing differs except for the mount?

 

[Hobbes00]

I'm really interested in getting a decent zoom lens...anyone tried the canon 17-55 2.8 or nikon similar?
I use a canon 17-55 on my 60d, I feel thats an awesome focual range for handheld/general shooting

 

[mandrean]

According to LensTip's review of the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 it outperforms the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 in image resolution at all focal lengths. The 17-50's center sharpness is also on-par with the best prime lenses they've tested at every focal length. The corners are a bit softer though, but still. And the sharpness explodes at f/4. http://www.lenstip.com/256.4-Lens_review-Sigma_17-50_mm_f_2.8_EX_DC_OS_HSM_Image_resolution.html

I'm getting more and more interested in the Sigma's. People say that the RED 18-50 T3 and the newer/better 17-50 T3 PL zooms are just rehoused Sigma 18-50 and 17-50's with metal housing/gear/aperture ring/longer throw etc.

Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (Sony Mount) - $650 New
Sigma 17-50 OS HSM f/2.8 (Sony Mount) - $670 New
Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 - ~$1000 Used
Nikon F-to-Sony-E Adaptor - ~$30
Sony LA-EA1 Adaptor (Let's FS100 control aperture on Alpha lenses) - $160 New

= ~$2500

Not the 1st AC's dream when it comes to pulling focus. But you seem to get a lot of bang for the buck, considering lens reviews and that the Tokina and Sigma are rehoused to be used with high-end stuff like RED's.

 

[Lee Saxon]

How much would a kit of a wide (around 18mm), a 35, a 50 and a 85 Nikkor's run for on eBay?

It varies pretty widely on condition, but AI-s primes tend to be $300-$700 depending on the lens.

By the way I haven't used the 15, 18, 20, or 24 AI-s (which would be the wides you'd be considering), so I can't speak to them. That's why I suggested the Zeiss 21 which I do know is excellent.

The same lenses I mentioned. I wonder if they are crap or not. Peoples opinions seem to go apart about those three Nikkor's.

I'm not a fan of the 17-35, as I mentioned, but the other two are some of the sharpest zooms you can buy. BTW the 17-35 isn't BAD, just not up to the other two / not what I expected for the price.

 

[mandrean]

Thanks. Also, I read some of your older posts here on DVXUSER and I agree with you that some (maybe not all) cinema lenses are a big scam. Like the $4000 RED 18-50 which is a rehoused $400 Sigma.

I'm pretty sure I'm going Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8, Nikkor 80-200 ED f/2.8, Nikkor 50 f/1.2 AI-s and Nikkor 85 f/1.4 AI-s.

I think it seems like a good place to start. Indiefilmmaking on a budget. Not hollywood.

 

[eheath]

Thanks. Also, I read some of your older posts here on DVXUSER and I agree with you that some (maybe not all) cinema lenses are a big scam. Like the $4000 RED 18-50 which is a rehoused $400 Sigma.

I'm pretty sure I'm going Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8, Nikkor 80-200 ED f/2.8, Nikkor 50 f/1.2 AI-s and Nikkor 85 f/1.4 AI-s.

I think it seems like a good place to start. Indiefilmmaking on a budget. Not hollywood.

i was just about to come in here and tell you to get similar lenses. I think the tamron 17-50mm 2.8 nonvc is better than the sigma though. Also, a 28mm or 35mm f2 would be a nice addition to your primes. The 80-200 2.8 ed is a steal and the 11-16mm is a must for anyone who wants a rectangular wide angle lens.

 

[mandrean]

Thanks eheath. But are you sure the Tamron 17-50 non vc is better than the Sigma 17-50? We're talking the new, bigger, heavier, more expensive 17-50/2.8, which is praised in reviews everywhere. Not the older 18-50/2.8.

Also, take the build quality into account. I used to have the first generation Tamron 17-50/2.8 for my Canon DSLRs. Worst build quality ever encountered in any lens I've ever used. Ever. EVER.


Stuff that happened to my 1st gen non-vc Tamron 17-50 f/2.8:

• The rubber focus ring AND zoom ring both "expanded" and came of the whole lens (!) at about the same time, from regular use. I guess the glue Tamron uses is not very strong.
• The plastic zoom gears inside broke so I had to basically push or pull the lens barrel to zoom in or out. The ring would just spin around.
• I screwed in a filter which made the threads crack
• The crack later expanded so much that the front lens element became loose. It's basically screwed into the plastic

The Sigma 18-50, however, is a solid construction for it's price (Soft at f/2.8 though.) I've used it in a lot of run'n'gunning, both still and video. I've bumped into a lot of stuff. Even dropped it shorter distances a few times. Still going strong. Everything works as it should. The plastic body is much stronger than the Tamron. And the newer Sigma 17-50 is supposedly an improvement on every point except price and weight.

Also, I used to own a Tokina 12-24/4. Very solid construction for it's price. Felt like a tank at times. Sure, not a ZF or AI-s, but for the price? Damn.

Overall I'm very pleased with Sigma and Tokina. I feel I often get more than I "should" considering the price. But Tamron feels like junk. Like LEGO, rubber and glue.

 

[Cosimo Bullo]

How do the older C/Y Zeiss primes compare to newer ZF Zeiss and Nikkor AI-s primes in IQ? I heard something about the ZF's being rehoused C/Y's, but I'm not sure.


Also, I'm just throwing something out here, but according to photozone.de the Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS HSM outperforms all Zeiss ZF primes at every focal length and pretty much every aperture in the MTF charts (both center and border sharpness, though not extreme corner sharpness): http://bit.ly/lvmX7c I'm not sure about CA/color/contrast etc. though. The Zeiss ones are probably superior.

The focus throw is microscopical, but it seems to be a pretty good zoom for the price? Aperture/OIS works with the LA-EA1 adapter.



One more thing. A Zeiss ZK or ZS prime should be as good as a ZF one right? Nothing differs except for the mount?

Essentially the same glass.

 

[eheath]

Thanks eheath. But are you sure the Tamron 17-50 non vc is better than the Sigma 17-50? We're talking the new, bigger, heavier, more expensive 17-50/2.8, which is praised in reviews everywhere. Not the older 18-50/2.8.

Also, take the build quality into account. I used to have the first generation Tamron 17-50/2.8 for my Canon DSLRs. Worst build quality ever encountered in any lens I've ever used. Ever. EVER.


Stuff that happened to my 1st gen non-vc Tamron 17-50 f/2.8:

• The rubber focus ring AND zoom ring both "expanded" and came of the whole lens (!) at about the same time, from regular use. I guess the glue Tamron uses is not very strong.
• The plastic zoom gears inside broke so I had to basically push or pull the lens barrel to zoom in or out. The ring would just spin around.
• I screwed in a filter which made the threads crack
• The crack later expanded so much that the front lens element became loose. It's basically screwed into the plastic

The Sigma 18-50, however, is a solid construction for it's price (Soft at f/2.8 though.) I've used it in a lot of run'n'gunning, both still and video. I've bumped into a lot of stuff. Even dropped it shorter distances a few times. Still going strong. Everything works as it should. The plastic body is much stronger than the Tamron. And the newer Sigma 17-50 is supposedly an improvement on every point except price and weight.

Also, I used to own a Tokina 12-24/4. Very solid construction for it's price. Felt like a tank at times. Sure, not a ZF or AI-s, but for the price? Damn.

Overall I'm very pleased with Sigma and Tokina. I feel I often get more than I "should" considering the price. But Tamron feels like junk. Like LEGO, rubber and glue.

I've just heard many good things about it. It sounds like you have some bad personal experience, so if you want to go with the sigma thats cool, i havent heard much about it but im sure its a nice piece of glass at 600-700 bucks, but the tamron for like 350 seems like the best bang for the buck. But, you seem to have some budget to work with so the price might not be the problem, in which you should pick which ever lens better suits you.

 

[abasfly]

I would go with that budget for a definit system.
Tha leica R is really good for the price, long focus barrel, 100% metal, small breathing, ect.
I have leicaflex lenses that I declicked and have no regrets.

A good set for you is a
elmarit 19mm 2.8
elmarit 28mm 2.8
summicron 35mm 2.0
summicron 50mm 2.0
summicron 90mm 2.0
elmarit 135mm 2.8

 

[David W. Jones]

Something else to factor in to your budget are any needed accessories for your choice of lenses.
Lens mount adapters, especially high quality PL mounts add to your overall cost. Focus gears, follow focus, rail mounts and base plate, filters, lens support. An old Ekran 18mm lens that sells for $1950, quickly goes up in price once you make it useable on an FS100.

 

[mandrean]

I've just heard many good things about it. It sounds like you have some bad personal experience, so if you want to go with the sigma thats cool, i havent heard much about it but im sure its a nice piece of glass at 600-700 bucks, but the tamron for like 350 seems like the best bang for the buck. But, you seem to have some budget to work with so the price might not be the problem, in which you should pick which ever lens better suits you.

I do remember my Tamron 17-50 as sharper than my Sigma 18-50, but the build quality was awful. I will go for a Nikkor 17-35/2.8 or Sigma 17-50/2.8 for my FS100.

I would go with that budget for a definit system.
Tha leica R is really good for the price, long focus barrel, 100% metal, small breathing, ect.
I have leicaflex lenses that I declicked and have no regrets.

A good set for you is a
elmarit 19mm 2.8
elmarit 28mm 2.8
summicron 35mm 2.0
summicron 50mm 2.0
summicron 90mm 2.0
elmarit 135mm 2.8

I would looove some Leica glass. But money talks. Two-three lenses and the budget is gone.

Voigtlander M Series?

35mm F1.2
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...er_45BA236B_Nokton_35mm_f_1_2_Aspherical.html
50mm F1
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...der_BA247A_Voigtlander_Nokton_50mm_f_1_1.html
75mm f1.8
http://www.adorama.com/VT7518B.html

and for your wide
a Fast 18mm from Former Soviet Union
http://rafcamera.com/fast-ekran-18mm-lens-35oks7181-f14-t16-p-305.html

Thanks! Maybe the 35mm one.

Something else to factor in to your budget are any needed accessories for your choice of lenses.
Lens mount adapters, especially high quality PL mounts add to your overall cost. Focus gears, follow focus, rail mounts and base plate, filters, lens support. An old Ekran 18mm lens that sells for $1950, quickly goes up in price once you make it useable on an FS100.

I already have most stuff (rails/FF/baseplate etc.) I'm more concerned about lenses and adaptors on a ~$4K budget.

 

[mandrean]

So this is the final kit I settled with.

Samyang 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye (Nikon F mount)
Tokina 11-16/2.8 (Sony Alpha mount) + LA-EA1 adaptor
Nikon 17-35/2.8
Nikon 28-70/2.8
Nikon 80-200/2.8

Got all three Nikons in perfect condition (no marks or dust on the bodies nor their glass) with an old Nikon D100 body (lol) and a Lowepro bag which takes my 12 lenses, all for just $2700 on eBay. That's what the 17-35 and 28-70 run for together these days. So I kinda got the 80-200 + the other stuff for free. Plus I can sell the D100 in Sweden for for $600.

(Left to right: Meyer-Optik Görlitz 50mm f/1.8, Helios 44-2 58mm f/2, Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm f/1.8, Pentacon 28mm f/2.8, Pentax Takumar SMC 105mm f/2.8, Carl Zeiss Flektogon 35mm f/2.4, Samyang 8mm f/3.5, Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8, Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8, Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 and the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 with LA-EA1 adaptor on the camera.)

 

[MattDavis]

anyone tried the canon 17-55 2.8 or nikon similar?
I use a canon 17-55 on my 60d, I feel thats an awesome focual range for handheld/general shooting

I'm using the 17-55 f2.8 Nikkor, great 'standard' lens for tripod and - at a pinch - handheld, but will switch to my Canon 17-55 2.8 with IS as soon as the Birger mount is available. The Nikkors focus in the opposite direction to Canons and my EX1s, it doesn't have an iris ring, and the manual iris converters in mounts such as the MTS are SUPER-sensitive, I've accidentally brushed it reaching to pull focus (no FF) and lost the shot as it dips a couple of stops. Grrrr. Maybe that's just 'early days' fumbling, but irritating none the less.

Quality of the Nikkor is great with the FS100 and 1080p video. Contrast not up to exotic standards, but perfectly acceptable in most situations.

PS: Sorry - rather late arriving to the party. Nice collection! Lenses are like tattoos - get one, and you just have to add more.