Nikon to FS100 Lens Mount or Sony A Mount
- Thread starter MLCinema
- Start date
stancemedia
Carbonite Member
Just invested more money into Nikon personally. Purchased the 17-55mm f/2.8, will be using this adapter.
I'm hoping the Sony 16-50 with an LA-EA2 adapter will be great, however I tend to change bodies
from time to time and I just want glass that will transition with me. I know that the Nikon glass
will last me for as long as I'm doing this perhaps.
With that said I will be purchasing the Sony 16-50 possibly depending on it's reviews on the
22nd of this month. The AF alone is nice but again might not be as reliable as myself at times.
Could be good for certain shoots however.
All in all Nikon is future proofing Sony glass is really just sold at a loss down the road if changing
equipment. This is how I feel as I've done it already with Canon. Would go PL if I had the money to
be honest.
I'm hoping the Sony 16-50 with an LA-EA2 adapter will be great, however I tend to change bodies
from time to time and I just want glass that will transition with me. I know that the Nikon glass
will last me for as long as I'm doing this perhaps.
With that said I will be purchasing the Sony 16-50 possibly depending on it's reviews on the
22nd of this month. The AF alone is nice but again might not be as reliable as myself at times.
Could be good for certain shoots however.
All in all Nikon is future proofing Sony glass is really just sold at a loss down the road if changing
equipment. This is how I feel as I've done it already with Canon. Would go PL if I had the money to
be honest.
MattDavis
Well-known member
Like StanceMedia, I have the Nikkor 17-55/2.8 - but with the MTF adaptor.
I had the lens before the Video-DSLR thing took off, and have used it on a Canon T2i with 16x9 adaptor (manual iris), and whilst it has the 'widdershins' or 'maddeningly focuses the wrong way' Nikkor trait, it is an amazing bit of glass. Although I also have a Canon 17-55/2.8 which I hope to use with the Metabones adaptor, the Nikkor has a certain something that makes wonderful images. If I had my time again, I'd have got the Novoflex rather than the MTF, as its manual iris is a little fiddly.
I am a little leery of the Sony lenses. The AF of the kit lens is maddening - slow to react (sometimes it needs a trip to manual to get it half way there), eager to focus on backgrounds rather than foregrounds, and most damningly of all, no Manual override in auto mode. It's nice to have when waving the camera around, but I don't want to rely on it. Ever. BTW, the manual focus isn't manual, it's servo driven. And I do not wish to own another lens like it.
Another nail on Sony lenses: the FS100 can take pretty much any lens on the planet, and I'm keeping the glass AFTER the FS100 is retired, so there's the choice of EOS or Nikon. Nikkors will go on EOS bodies, but they focus the wrong way round, so I personally am sticking to EOS mount lenses. If I invested all that cash in Sony lenses, I'd have to sell that with the camera, they'd be devalued, and the next owner probably wouldn't want the Sony lenses.
IMHO of course. YMMV.
I had the lens before the Video-DSLR thing took off, and have used it on a Canon T2i with 16x9 adaptor (manual iris), and whilst it has the 'widdershins' or 'maddeningly focuses the wrong way' Nikkor trait, it is an amazing bit of glass. Although I also have a Canon 17-55/2.8 which I hope to use with the Metabones adaptor, the Nikkor has a certain something that makes wonderful images. If I had my time again, I'd have got the Novoflex rather than the MTF, as its manual iris is a little fiddly.
I am a little leery of the Sony lenses. The AF of the kit lens is maddening - slow to react (sometimes it needs a trip to manual to get it half way there), eager to focus on backgrounds rather than foregrounds, and most damningly of all, no Manual override in auto mode. It's nice to have when waving the camera around, but I don't want to rely on it. Ever. BTW, the manual focus isn't manual, it's servo driven. And I do not wish to own another lens like it.
Another nail on Sony lenses: the FS100 can take pretty much any lens on the planet, and I'm keeping the glass AFTER the FS100 is retired, so there's the choice of EOS or Nikon. Nikkors will go on EOS bodies, but they focus the wrong way round, so I personally am sticking to EOS mount lenses. If I invested all that cash in Sony lenses, I'd have to sell that with the camera, they'd be devalued, and the next owner probably wouldn't want the Sony lenses.
IMHO of course. YMMV.
Chris Johnston
Veteran
Like those above I've got a full set of Nik primes and novaflex adapters, but I also have 2 la-ea2s and sony a mount glass waiting on the firmware.
Again, like those above would recomend the nikon/novaflex route for continuity reasons.
@Matt
Matt what sony glass are you using and what camera. I ask because every video I've seen with the LA-EA2 and sony glass, the AF is VERY fast. (almost too fast?)
I believe (If I understood it correctly) the LA-EA2 aids in the AF process some how. (Not sure how that works but, I know they didn't put that mirror in there just to cut down the light)
Again, like those above would recomend the nikon/novaflex route for continuity reasons.
@Matt
Matt what sony glass are you using and what camera. I ask because every video I've seen with the LA-EA2 and sony glass, the AF is VERY fast. (almost too fast?)
I believe (If I understood it correctly) the LA-EA2 aids in the AF process some how. (Not sure how that works but, I know they didn't put that mirror in there just to cut down the light)
MattDavis
Well-known member
I'm using the Sony SEL-18200 (e-mount) straight onto the NEX-FS100. I've seen (but not properly played with) the range of 'Zeiss for Sony' E-mount lenses which seemed similar in feel. I guess the zippy-AF lenses are something completely different (if they work with an adaptor). Anyroadup, one AF lens is good enough for me. Just can't wait for the Metabones adaptor so I can use camera-powered IS lenses like the Canon 17-55, 24-105 and 80-200 as that's a real benefit, even on a tripod.
paulcurtis
Veteran
Until we get the new firmware we can't tell exactly how the Sony A Mount lenses will be on the FS100. I can say that on a NEX5 the AF is as fast as any dSLR. Whether AF is truly useful on the FS100 is debatable anyway.
My issue with the Canon lenses is that manual focus seems to be quite the afterthought (at least with the lenses i've owned) and that makes life very difficult. I had a 1755 f2.8 which was a wonderful lens quality wise (incredible actually), but the MF was unusably awful, such a short throw and very 'grindy'. I don't know about the other lenses (but the 1022 was similar as was the 50 f1.4).
The MF ring on the Sony/Zeiss alpha mount 2470 feel good, about 120 degrees of rotation and soft stops at the end (so you feel when you hit infinity/MFD but you can turn past so it won't cause any issue with shearing the lens mount off). I have a 1635 on the way too. The Sony/Zeiss are built like tanks too.
There are stacks of manual vintage lenses but very, very few decent fast zooms (f2.8 constant). Speed of modern zooms has been partly achieved through coating technology that simply wasn't around 10, 20 years ago.
The Sony/Zeiss also cut well with other Zeiss primes (manual contax are good), so there's a consistency there.
A downside about the Sony/Zeiss avenue is nothing with stabilisation in.
There's also Tamron, Sigma, Tokina too. I had some sigma primes that i liked but again MF was never a primary concern. I've heard varying reviews of the quality of the lenses too. Looking at samples of the famed tokina f2.6, i've not really fallen for the look - flarey and quite a lot of CA.
At the end of the day, focusing is paramount for us, so really any lens that will offer anything to help that has to have pride of place.
One aesthetic downside of modern fly-by-wire manual focus is that, being electronic, you can 'see' the smooth focus effect as you change. It's a different, more detached feeling to a human focus throw on a genuine manual prime.
cheers
Paul
My issue with the Canon lenses is that manual focus seems to be quite the afterthought (at least with the lenses i've owned) and that makes life very difficult. I had a 1755 f2.8 which was a wonderful lens quality wise (incredible actually), but the MF was unusably awful, such a short throw and very 'grindy'. I don't know about the other lenses (but the 1022 was similar as was the 50 f1.4).
The MF ring on the Sony/Zeiss alpha mount 2470 feel good, about 120 degrees of rotation and soft stops at the end (so you feel when you hit infinity/MFD but you can turn past so it won't cause any issue with shearing the lens mount off). I have a 1635 on the way too. The Sony/Zeiss are built like tanks too.
There are stacks of manual vintage lenses but very, very few decent fast zooms (f2.8 constant). Speed of modern zooms has been partly achieved through coating technology that simply wasn't around 10, 20 years ago.
The Sony/Zeiss also cut well with other Zeiss primes (manual contax are good), so there's a consistency there.
A downside about the Sony/Zeiss avenue is nothing with stabilisation in.
There's also Tamron, Sigma, Tokina too. I had some sigma primes that i liked but again MF was never a primary concern. I've heard varying reviews of the quality of the lenses too. Looking at samples of the famed tokina f2.6, i've not really fallen for the look - flarey and quite a lot of CA.
At the end of the day, focusing is paramount for us, so really any lens that will offer anything to help that has to have pride of place.
One aesthetic downside of modern fly-by-wire manual focus is that, being electronic, you can 'see' the smooth focus effect as you change. It's a different, more detached feeling to a human focus throw on a genuine manual prime.
cheers
Paul
