New 16:9 Adapter for Nikon G Lenses

F

ftbt

Active member
For several years, the folks over at 16:9 have made the only adapter that allows the use of Nikon G lenses on EOS cameras. The trouble was that they were all hand-made in very small quantities, and the waiting time was literally months in order to get an adapter. Now, it seems that they have teamed-up with Novoflex from Germany (the Rolls Royce of adapter makers) to come up with a new model of the G to EOS adapter. They claim it will be readily available, and it comes in both chipped and unchipped flavors. See: http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/

I have used one of their original adapters with my Nikon 14-24 and 24-70 zooms. Nikon just released a 24/1.4 G lens, and I imagine that would be a killer lens as well to use on the 5D2. Maybe now it will be a bit easier to use those Nikon lenses.
 
If I was shooting Nikon for stills in the past and was moving over to the 5D for video, I would just sell my Nikon glass and buy Canon lenses. In my eyes Nikon and Canon are the two companies to consider for their clean sensors and great lineup of lenses. Why spend so much on an adapter?
 
egproductions said:
Why spend so much on an adapter?
Click to expand...

To use a Nikon G lens, like the highly-regarded 14-24. It makes sense if you shoot dual systems (like me) and already have Nikon G lenses (I have a 14-24 and 24-70 zoom ... they are wonderful lenses.) I certainly wouldn't go out and buy a 16:9 adapter without already having Nikon G lenses that I wanted to use on my 5D2.
 
Yeah, but why not just switch over to Canon entirely? You already own the best Canon still camera available in terms of image quality. Just sell your Nikon glass and get Canon equivalents....you might even wind up getting more for your lenses than you initally paid.
 
egproductions said:
Just sell your Nikon glass and get Canon equivalents....y
Click to expand...

Because I shoot with Zeiss ZF's and Nikon lenses, all of which work quite well for me on all 3 of my cameras: my D700, my 5D2 and 7D. (And because because I feel the Nikon 14-24 G is a world-class lens that has no Canon equivalent.)
 
My understanding of that lens is that it's not so user friendly and the front element is very exposed...definitly not meant as a workhorse lens (more for controlled situations) Granted the feel of a lens is subjective but in terms of sharpness or overall image quality, the image quality is marginally better when compared to a Canon 16-35L II. And to be honest, the difference in stopping the lens down a half a stop is going to make more of a difference than the image quality difference between these two lenses.

Don't get me started on Zeiss lenses, I see what their selling and to be honest, a price tag and visually appealing lens doesn't win me over.

It makes sense to have Nikon lenses if for some reason you need to have a Nikon body also but why not just shoot with 5D II..it has overall better image quality than the D700. You can even sell or trade your D700 and pick up another 5D so you can have two FF cameras on a shoot and all your footage will match.

I really have nothing against Nikon but for myself, I don't think it makes sense to try to have both unless you have all the lenses you want and you still have the money to spend on a pretty pricey adapter. By all means though if your gear inspires you and makes you more confident to make better pictures (which it definitely can) that's probably the best investment you can make.
 
Last edited:
egproductions said:
... By all means though if your gear inspires you and makes you more confident to make better pictures (which it definitely can) that's probably the best investment you can make.
Click to expand...

The front of the 14-24 is somewhat exposed and it does not accept screw in filters, but for video applications I use a matte box. There are other filtration alternatives for still work. Whether the sharpness and image quality of the 14-24 is only "marginally better" than the 16-35 II is subject to debate, (see: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_17mm/nikon1424_17mm1.html). I do know that the 14-24 lens is quite popular with the Red One crowd. Focus Optics modifies the lens for use with the Red, calls it "Ruby," and gets $10,500.00 for a copy. I guess if it is good enough for them ... Anyhow, I got my 14-24 way before the price increases, and it sees triple duty on my D700, 5D2, and 7D. A lot of bang for buck as far as I am concerned. Even though the lens is big, bulky and heavy, its image quality has never disappointed me.

All of my gear ... bodies and lenses ... are used for different purposes ... and when all is said and done ... when the dust clears and the smoke settles ... what really matters is that the clients are happy and my gear makes me money at the end of the day. That is what inspires me. And ... the best part is ... it all has been pretty much paid for several times over. So, use whatever tools work for you. I do.
 
egproductions said:
Yeah, but why not just switch over to Canon entirely? You already own the best Canon still camera available in terms of image quality. Just sell your Nikon glass and get Canon equivalents....you might even wind up getting more for your lenses than you initally paid.
Click to expand...


There are some lenses that Nikon make that Canon do not even come close to matching, especially at the wide end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top