Nikon lens zoom for F3

macgregor

macgregor

Veteran
I´m looking for a decent f 2.8 mid range zoom that does something like 35-135mm but there isn´t really anything out there. The closest thing is the 24-120 f4, which is great because it has VR but I don´t need to go as wide as 24 and I´d rather have a 2.8 lens. Any ideas?
 
It is quite a hunt finding still photo zoom lenses for motion picture use. Constant aperture, internal focus and non extending zoom make up the wish list for those seeking the flexibility they may be used to in cinema or video glass. Those features really help with lighting or with on camera filtering via matte box. I would say that 2 out of 3 would be suitable. Watch out for flare and ghosting though. Here is what we found as options to get close to your goal of 35-135mm. We have used all of these.

Sigma 50-150 f 2.8 EX DC HSM (or HSM 2), this is a APS-C lens so what you see is what you expect when it comes to field of view. It is internal focus and internal zoom. Not as wide as you want to be, but it is a little longer. (used lens, out of production)

Tokina 28-80 f 2.8 AT-X 280 AF PRO, this is a Full Frame lens so field of view is similar to 42 to 120. Fixed length, internal focus zoom. Built like a tank. A little flare happy. Has a lot of range, very flexible. We used to keep this on the camera as our default lens when not using PL stuff. (used lens, out of production).

Tamron 28-105 f 2.8 SP AF (there is also a Manual Version). Internal focus but zoom extends a great deal. Optically very nice. But it isn't built tough. Great range. It is a full frame lens. FOV is 42 to 150+, but don't forget that depth of field feels right. (used lens, out of production).

The constant f4 24-120 Nikon you mentioned is pretty snazzy. Little slow. But rather have the fixed aperture than its 3.5 to 5.6 cousin. It does extend quite a bit with zoom but is internal focus. I used one briefly last weekend. Thinking of building some sort of "zoom tube" to allow use with a matte box. And its new!

Also have great things to say about the current Tamron 17-50 non VC lens. Fixed 2.8. Internal focus. The zoom extends, but it is a short and sturdy travel. In my experience, this lens has the greatest flare, ghosting and refraction resistance of any zoom lens outside of high end broadcast EFP zooms. (your mileage may vary). This is now our default lens. New, inexpensive and in my opinion outperforms the much higher cost Nikon 17-55 FOR VIDEO (if you are shooting stills for billboards or posters the nikon is a better choice only due to chroma aberration performance). However the Nikon does some neat tricks by extending its zoom long when set wide and by doing so within the confines of the lens shade which is fixed to the barrel.

Most everything else with greater range is not going to be fixed aperture and certainly won't have internal zoom travel. Exceptions being the 70-200 f 2.8 stuff . But that sounds like more range than it really feels like in use. As you dig into the past you will find stuff like the Nikon 35-135. No internal focus, extending zoom, not constant aperture. Cheap. Though like much of what you might find in the zoom history museum it isn't a good fit for video.

Hope that helps.
 
Nikon 17-55 2.8 works great for me. Very handy zoom range, with little extention. And great optics. A good allrounder for documentary stuff.
 
Unfortunately the closest F2.8 Nikon to your specs is the 28-70mm. It is the most used Nikon lens in my kit. Eariler in the year, I had to look hard to find one as a lot of new F3 owners were snapping up the few available on the used market. A 24 to 120mm would be ideal.
 
Also not impressed with the Red 18-50. I've used one a number of times on our F3. The only advantages over good still photo zooms are mechanical. That is a statement meant in comparison solely to still photo zooms as most EFP video zooms or cine zooms put the Red to shame mechanically.

It is light and small for solid PL mount hardware. It has a true adjustable aperture and long focus throw. It is well marked and geared. And it is technically an internal zoom which does not change physical lens length with zoom or focus. However, that is sort of a clever trick as it telescopes within its built in lens shade. It is sized right for APS-C and S35. Easy to mount and use.

Optically it is low contrast, prone to flare and refraction and is dull.

Many contemporary photo zooms produce better optical results for far less. The current non VC Tamron 17-50 is optically amazing and incredibly cheap. It is the most flare resistant zoom outside of the video variety. It is sharp. This is my new favorite zoom. Blows the doors off the Red 18-50. However mechanically it is limited by its lack of true manual aperture, short focus range and short zoom extension (which can be worked around).

The current Nikon 17-55 is also better optically than the Red and is hearty in construction.

Other folks say nice things about the sigma and cannon offerings in this range.

It comes down to usability vs picture quality.

If I was going out with a bunch of PL glass and needed a zoom I would rent the Red or better to avoid swapping mounts with lens.

A lot of the time we go out with cinematized photo primes and other photo zooms, so the Tamron we now own makes more sense. I feel it creates better images and is worth working around its mechanical limitations.

I would own the Nikon mount glass and rent better when needed. Although better is a cloudy term in this specific case.

The above is just my opinion.
 
Well thanks for the ideas.
- i will check the tokina 50-135, not a bad idea
- the 24-70 or 28-70 are way off from what I want
- for those asking about the origal red 17-50. It's ****. Period. Worst mechanics ever. Optically it's a sigma 17-50 that sells for... 700 bucks?
 
macgregor said:
Well thanks for the ideas.

- for those asking about the origal red 17-50. It's ****. Period. Worst mechanics ever. Optically it's a sigma 17-50 that sells for... 700 bucks?
Click to expand...

i remember the first time i saw the lens thrown on the camera... i asked if they could find something else to put on there almost immediately :P
it literally made me cringe a little. soft, dull, flat, and flares like a mofo. mechanics are all about luck of the draw. if you get "a good one" you won't have any issues, if you are unlucky you'll be sending it in for maintenance and repair on more than 1 occasion...
 
galustov said:
I guess Nikon 17 - 55 doesn't have an iris ring on it. I was going to buy Red 18 - 50.. Are they that bad??
Click to expand...

The Nikon 17-35mm AF-S F2.8 ED is one of the finest lenses Nikon has ever made and has an aperture ring. It doesn't go up to 50mm, but its a great lens for tight spaces despite its narrow zoom range.
 
Last edited:
Oops, apologies.

Btw not sure what people see on the 17-35. I sold mine because it wasn't sharp inthe edges. I bought the 14-24. That one was sharp even at wide apertures.
 
macgregor said:
Oops, apologies.

Btw not sure what people see on the 17-35. I sold mine because it wasn't sharp inthe edges. I bought the 14-24. That one was sharp even at wide apertures.
Click to expand...

I would even argue that the Nikon 24-70 is just as sharp as the 14-24. As close second is the Tokina 28-70 which I use a lot because of it being a parfocal lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top