Nikon 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX for af-100

cckid

cckid

Well-known member
Hi,

I am trying to find the best wide angle lense for this camera...has anyone tried this lens on the new af-101...obviously you would need an mtf or similar adapter...but otherwise it could definitely perform....maybe even better than tokina lense...what do you think?
 
cckid said:
Hi,

I am trying to find the best wide angle lense for this camera...has anyone tried this lens on the new af-101...obviously you would need an mtf or similar adapter...but otherwise it could definitely perform....maybe even better than tokina lense...what do you think?
Click to expand...

I just bought this lens a couple of weeks ago used from the Houston Camera Exchange. I tried the Tokina 11-16mm and 14-24mm F2.8 in store and choose the Nikon. There was not much distortion on Nikon. I'm going to buy the 24-70mm F2.8 next and then 70-200mm f2.8 as an alternative to 14-140mm Panasonic.

I'm using it with Novaflex Nikon to 4/3 adapter which has an iris ring. This is the same lens on Af100 Panasonic used in the 5D / AF100 Comparison Promo Footage .
 
Chance hi,

this is really interesting....if I understand correctly you have tried the nikon 12-24 lens and you've picked it up....since the crop on the dx format is 1.3...it makes the focal length almost the same on the micro 4/3 chip...effective should be something around 15-30 on the af-100....are my assumptions correct?
 
I am sort of confused. Wouldn't a 12-24 DX lens be the same (focally, at least) as any 12-24, or do DX lenses list their focal length in an unusual way?
 
I think he said the nikon 14-24 f/2.8 which is a flagship lens for nikon ~$1800. I'd love to see some footage and or hear more about your experiences using nikon and the novoflex? I was originally going to go birger and canon route, but am rethinking because of birger's recent timeline readjustment and that canon glass on any other platform requires an electronic adapter to be truly useable...where nikon fits on anything and can be iris adjusted.
 
You are correct. It behaves the same as any lens. Focal length stays the same no matter what. So it would have the same crop factor as all the others. So.... 2x

This 12-24 f4 lens is really good. But the 14-24 2.8 is a faster lens (also more expensive). The sigma 12-24 f4 many say is actually better than the Nikon 12-24.

Benjamin Eckstein said:
I am sort of confused. Wouldn't a 12-24 DX lens be the same (focally, at least) as any 12-24, or do DX lenses list their focal length in an unusual way?
Click to expand...
 
Hi,

Nikon 16-35mm f/4 AF-S....this one might also play fine...want to hear more on the nikon 12-24 f4 dx...it seems like a really good price performance....
wbrock001 I completely understand you...since I am going through the same thoughts as you on the subject of canon and the birger mount...but I guess april is not that far away and I still owe a couple of nice nikon lenses that could get me through april...
 
The Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 is very sharp. At the wider end the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is nice as well. These are both lenses that are often re-housed for cine use.
If it were me, I would pass on the slow f4.0

All the Best!

Dave
 
I agree with David. I have the 14-24 2.8 and it's fantastic, and the 11-16 f2.8 is also very good. I would definitely lean toward a 2.8 lens.

Bob

David W. Jones said:
The Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 is very sharp. At the wider end the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is nice as well. These are both lenses that are often re-housed for cine use.
If it were me, I would pass on the slow f4.0

All the Best!

Dave
Click to expand...
 
cckid said:
Chance hi,

this is really interesting....if I understand correctly you have tried the nikon 12-24 lens and you've picked it up....since the crop on the dx format is 1.3...it makes the focal length almost the same on the micro 4/3 chip...effective should be something around 15-30 on the af-100....are my assumptions correct?
Click to expand...

It's more like 28-48mm on the AF 100.
 
Hi,

I guess the nikon 17-35 2.8 is still a strong contender...since this a full frame lense...how would this conform in micro 4/3 terms...does anyone know exaclty?
 
Same theory as any lens regardless of full frame or not. :)

cckid said:
Hi,

I guess the nikon 17-35 2.8 is still a strong contender...since this a full frame lense...how would this conform in micro 4/3 terms...does anyone know exaclty?
Click to expand...
 
Flash forward to June 2011 and the birger is readily available and you have about $6500+ to invest in glass, would you go the nikon novoflex route, Sony zeiss novoflex, or canon birger route if you owned no other lenses that pushed you in one direction or the other?
 
wbrock001 said:
Flash forward to June 2011 and the birger is readily available and you have about $6500+ to invest in glass, would you go the nikon novoflex route, Sony zeiss novoflex, or canon birger route if you owned no other lenses that pushed you in one direction or the other?
Click to expand...

Used Cooke zoom.
 
David hi,

used, old cookes...the older the better...definetly worth considering owning
 
Yes a Cooke 18-100mm would be a nice addition if you need it.
I already have a good working collection of lenses for what I do, but every so often I get in the mood to buy lenses, or machine guns, or Ferraris. or other trinkets that won't get me into heaven.

All the Best!

Dave
 
wbrock001 said:
Flash forward to June 2011 and the birger is readily available and you have about $6500+ to invest in glass, would you go the nikon novoflex route, Sony zeiss novoflex, or canon birger route if you owned no other lenses that pushed you in one direction or the other?
Click to expand...

Really loving the 2 Olympus zooms I got, the 14-35 and 35-100 f2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top