Nikon 17-55 - can anyone answer a few questions about this with the Af100?

S

sparky33

Well-known member
I understand I'll need to pick up a Novoflex or other adapter to control the aperture, which is no big deal.
What I would like to know is this:

At any aperture settings are there any "iris glitches" when zooming?
How is the breathing with this lens on the Af100? Is the manual focus pretty good, and does it appear to zoom somewhat while focusing? The breathing and iris issues drive me nuts.

Also, I have read this is a varifocal lens and not parfocal, but at shorter or longer zooms is it at all parfocal?

Thanks so much,
Shawn
 
No iris glitches when zooming.

No breathing that I can detect.

I believe that this lens IS parfocal, but then I only grab the zoom when Iʻm not recording.
 
Hi Sparky,

My experiences of the lens are mostly as a still lens. I used this for many years as my main lens and found the range ideal. This did not translate as well to the AF100 as I found both the focus and zoom far from smooth in that application. Whilst it is possible that the lens focus ring on some copies out there are very smooth the nature of the zoom mechanism means that the there is a distinct notch when moving between focal lengths and for this reason I decided to sell it in favour of a Tokina 28-70. The Tokina does not have the infinite focus ring of the Nikon which makes it a better choice of using a follow focus. Of course it is a different focal length and I've not found an ideal zoom for below the 28 range bar the Tokina 11-16.

J
 
Just this morning received my 17-55. I'll be taking it out later to play but a quick review;

• Pleasure having 2.8 fixed. I've been dealing with the Oly 12-60 annoyances since I inherited the lens early summer. Thought I'd get over it, but didn't.
• Subtle, if any, breathing.
• Don't know if it's officially parfocal, but sure holds focus pretty good at both ends.
• As for zooms, the lens aren't designed for that. Given that, I think I could do a decent short push/pull with this lens. Let you know more after playing a bit though.
 
Last edited:
Sweet guys! Mine will be here Wednesday. I have (and I'm selling) an Olympus 14-35. While it is amazing wide open, if I set it to manual iris at f/2.8, I can zoom from 15-35mm but heaven forbid I zoom back in to 14mm - the iris flickers. Does weird things at F/4 as well. I think @ F/3.5 it flickers around the 27/28mm mark.
For me, F/2.8 is plenty fast. You want to hear something weird? I threw the Oly on my wife's Panasonic GF2, and there was no iris glitch anywhere, and yes, I had it in manual mode. Shrug.
 
Also, I almost bought a 28-70 Tokina Pro, but I didn't for two reasons:

1. It was reportedly soft @ F/2.8, and
2. 28mm (effective 56mm) at the wide end isn't wide enough for an all around lens. I'd rather lose 56-70mm than give up 17-28mm.
 
zentrumsounds said:
...I decided to sell it in favour of a Tokina 28-70. The Tokina does not have the infinite focus ring of the Nikon which makes it a better choice of using a follow focus. Of course it is a different focal length and I've not found an ideal zoom for below the 28 range bar the Tokina 11-16.
Click to expand...

I've found the Tokina AF 235 AT-X Pro 20-35mm f2.8 to be a good mate to the Tokina 28-70mm. It shares the same Tokina focus-clutch mechanism with hard stops at infinity and has an outer lens barrel that neither extends nor rotates:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/20-35mm-f28.htm
 
sparky33 said:
Also, I almost bought a 28-70 Tokina Pro, but I didn't for two reasons:

1. It was reportedly soft @ F/2.8, and
2. 28mm (effective 56mm) at the wide end isn't wide enough for an all around lens. I'd rather lose 56-70mm than give up 17-28mm.
Click to expand...

Have you considered the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8. I'm favoring that lens in this range:
1) full frame vs DX
2) price to performance looks great
 
reygun said:
Have you considered the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8. I'm favoring that lens in this range:
1) full frame vs DX
2) price to performance looks great
Click to expand...

Nah, not enough range for me. Rather get 17-55 F/2.8 and not change lenses all the time. I might even sell my 14-140 if the 17-55 works out, which will almost be an even swap price-wise.
 
sparky33 said:
Nah, not enough range for me. Rather get 17-55 F/2.8 and not change lenses all the time. I might even sell my 14-140 if the 17-55 works out, which will almost be an even swap price-wise.
Click to expand...

...not to mention, the Tokina is not enough NIKON for me. I used to have a bunch of Sigma lenses for casual photography use. When I tried them on my P&S Technik mini35, and then on the AF100, their inferiority became obvious. The Nikon 17-55 is a NIKON; need I say more?
 
reygun said:
This is a pretty good list of "known" parfocal lenses. Does it need to be updated? Have others found zooms that should also be on this list?
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/02/photo-lenses-for-video/4
Click to expand...

I have a Tamron 17-50 2.8, nikon mount, that is parafocal, but zoom and focus is not smooth, and iris glitch when zooming, breathes during focus but its sharp, priced under $500.00.

I have a Sigma 50-150 2.8, nikon mount, parafocal, descently smooth focus and zooming, no iris glitch, breathes when focus, sharp, discontinued but available used for about $650.00.
 
We have the 28-70 2.8 SV Pro (the so-called 2.6 but a Japanese market version) and it's ok as a variable prime (the version we got was a little worn - test first!) but we've been using the Nikon 17-55 2.8 DX for 3 months now and it's stellar (the single best thing we got for use with the AF100.)

The lens is solid, displays minimal breathing (and/or an acceptable amount), is parfocal and has the perfect amount of focus throw to be both quick and accurate in the shooting situations we seem to find ourselves in. Manual zooms with it looks quite good.

This piece of glass will outlive several camera bodies for sure and, considering the cost of some low-end cinema glass, I can't imagine having made a better choice.
 
Petros Kolyvas said:
We have the 28-70 2.8 SV Pro (the so-called 2.6 but a Japanese market version) and it's ok as a variable prime (the version we got was a little worn - test first!) but we've been using the Nikon 17-55 2.8 DX for 3 months now and it's stellar (the single best thing we got for use with the AF100.)

The lens is solid, displays minimal breathing (and/or an acceptable amount), is parfocal and has the perfect amount of focus throw to be both quick and accurate in the shooting situations we seem to find ourselves in. Manual zooms with it looks quite good.

This piece of glass will outlive several camera bodies for sure and, considering the cost of some low-end cinema glass, I can't imagine having made a better choice.
Click to expand...

From what I understand the SV version stands for 'Super Value' and was designed to compete with Sigma zooms, and is not of Angenieux design.
Good feedback on the 17-55.
 
Erik Naso said:
Correct.

I wrote a blog post on the Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 with more links for finding the right version.

http://eriknaso.com/reviews/the-journey-to-find-the-tokina-at-x-pro-28-70mm-f2-6-2-8/
Click to expand...

My bad, we have the "original" Pro (version 1) Japanese lens... I can't seem to get it straight - the lens was only used heavily for about a week before being replaced nearly permanently with the Nikon 17-55.

Either way, we have shot lots of varied content with the 17-55 from interviews to chroma key, to ENG-style/doco productions. There is often a caveat with certain pieces of equipment, the Nikon lens is not one of them; we used it again yesterday (I was not behind the camera) - and we're very happy with the images.

If there was one criticism of the Nikon, is that it suffers (almost imperceptibly in the real-world) from a very slight right/left image shift on quick focus reversals. Compared to every other stills-zooms-for-video lens we've used, it's the most well behaved of the lot - but it's still so good no one has ever noticed!
 
Last edited:
Just got the Angenieux designed Tokina At-X Pro 28-70 f/ 2.6-2.8.
Very well designed lens, beefy all metal construction, but could be a little difficult for video production as the manual focus has a very short throw, we'll see. I plan on using it run n gun style for an upcoming documentary.

It's par-focal and I like the DR, flare, color rendition and sharpness. Will probably live on my D300. Once I get an adapter, I'll play with it on the F3.

Straight out of camera @ 70mm (Nikon D300, saturation and contrast lowered):

_DSC8116.jpg
 

Attachments

  • _DSC8116 small.jpg
    _DSC8116 small.jpg
    135.5 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top