Old Manual Lens And New Ones...
- Thread starter Polanski
- Start date
Thomas Lew
Well-known member
Canon isn't good? I thought canon's lenses were better than Nikon's
:bath:
:bath:
I'm not going to say either way...(this is a widely disputed discussion). So you'll hear people SWEAR both ways, (Nikon sucks...Canon sucks...etc) ...whatever... I own both.
It is interesting to note that there are MANY adapters to put Nikon lenses on Canon cameras. But not very many the other way. I found this out when I bought a Iscorama lens with a Canon (EOS) mount and I needed an adapter for a Nikon camera. I figured there would be as many the other way...not so....
What does that mean? I'm not sure...but the fact is...there is more demand to use Nikon lenses on Canon cameras, than the other way around.
(...of course some will say...that's because Nikon cameras suck...duh....lame arguements on the way....I can hear them already.)
astigmatic
Well-known member
I thought that was because canon lenses don't work on nikons. My friend has a set of Canon L series that are just amazing.. but I don't like how the focus barrel doesn't hard stop at the focussing limits. Also I don't like that little display window that the distance marks hide behind. So that's why I'm going with old manual zeiss glass, they seem to be the only compatible slr glass that functions like my old Canon FD-L lenses.
What? You started an argument about Nikon and Canon. "I read here somewhere that canon aren't good".
I second that each brand is fine (between the major names, at least). As far Canon not working on Nikon, newer Canon lenses never have manual options. But I'd assume older ones adapt fine.
There is nothing wrong with Canon glass, and it's the only kind that will definitely work without any issues from auto functions on your camera. So my recommendation is to stick with them.
I second that each brand is fine (between the major names, at least). As far Canon not working on Nikon, newer Canon lenses never have manual options. But I'd assume older ones adapt fine.
There is nothing wrong with Canon glass, and it's the only kind that will definitely work without any issues from auto functions on your camera. So my recommendation is to stick with them.
Last edited:
In real world use, the difference between the best Nikon and Canon glass is probably negligible. I prefer Nikon glass myself, but that's probably just prejudiced on historical use.
In video SLR use, there's no way you would see any optical dffierence at all due to the pixel binning, compression, etc. (see all of Barry Green's posts on the matter).
In video SLR use, there's no way you would see any optical dffierence at all due to the pixel binning, compression, etc. (see all of Barry Green's posts on the matter).
ROCKMORE
Veteran
No argument here, Canon and Nikon lenses can both be excellent.
The most likely reason Nikon lenses are used on Canon EOS mounts, where the Canon lenses are NOT used on Nikon mounts is the flange length.
Nikon 46.5mm
Canon EOS 44mm
A 46.5mm flange length camera mount positions the 44mm flange length lens too far from the sensor or film to focus properly, not to mention the additional room needed for an adapter. (unless it used an additional rear lens element)
The Canon EOS mounts allows a generous 2.5mm to mount a Nikon adapter between lens and body.
The most likely reason Nikon lenses are used on Canon EOS mounts, where the Canon lenses are NOT used on Nikon mounts is the flange length.
Nikon 46.5mm
Canon EOS 44mm
A 46.5mm flange length camera mount positions the 44mm flange length lens too far from the sensor or film to focus properly, not to mention the additional room needed for an adapter. (unless it used an additional rear lens element)
The Canon EOS mounts allows a generous 2.5mm to mount a Nikon adapter between lens and body.
Last edited:
Michael Olsen
Veteran
Hi Polanski,
Ideal varies depending on application. There are certainly situations in which I would rather not have an old Nikon manual lens.
However, to directly answer your question I have to conform a recommendation to your stipulations:
- Modern Lens
- Prime Lens
- No Adapter
Nearly all modern photographic lenses are without a manual aperture control, and many do not have hard stops for the focus ring.
Nearly all prime lenses are of good quality.
Without an adapter, you will only be able to fit Canon EF or Canon EF-S mount lenses to the Canon EOS 7D.
So, the only lenses which fit your specifications are Canon lenses. Hence, they are the best. Within Canon lenses, the "L" lenses are generally considered to be the best - and the most expensive.
saneproductions
Veteran
The problems with investing tons of money in canon EF Lenses are lack of manual iris ring, shorter flange distance (harder to adapt to other systems like Red Scarlet etc later), and shorter focus throw on some models. The price of a 7D body is almost an expendable if you look at it in the long run vs. building out a nice set of primes (where 1 lens could cost as much as the body). Once you make that huge investment, you don't want to be left in the lurch when the next best thing comes along ie Scarlet or whatever Nikon, Panasonic and Sony come up with.
That said, you need to do what is right for you and is going to be realistic for your budget and your use. If you plan on doing a fair amount of stills shooting with some video (like me), Canon EF Lenses are a great option because of their advanced auto focus, image stabilization, and electronic iris control that supports more program modes.
Here are some nice and inexpensive Canon EF Lenses that would be good for stills and video. These two would probably cover most of your needs if you go this route (and you can always rent a specialty lens if you need something else for a specific purpose).
Canon EF 17-40 F4L $700 (I just bought this lens for myself and it is really nice. It is a bit slow for video work (but does work well), but it will be tough to find anything faster than F2.8 that is this wide (all 1.6x crop cameras have weak point of getting lenses wide enough). The Canon EF 16-35 F2.8 lens cost more than twice as much as this 17-40 and I couldn't justify the extra expense for 1 more stop (but my camera is for personal use and I have access to lots of video equipment if I want to make a short film)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/279582-USA/Canon_8806A002_EF_17_40mm_f_4L_USM.html
Canon EF 50 F1.4 $360 is also a great lens (acts like an 80mm lens on the 7D). You get very shallow DOF and all the electronics for not too much money.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12140-USA/Canon_2515A003_50mm_f_1_4_USM_Autofocus.html
From what I have read, one of the best setups is a nice set of Zeiss ZF series primes (Nikon Mount), these have nice long focus throws and manual aperature and that is one reason why many people swear by them (also great IQ, build quality etc). That said, I have seen Barry Green say that really expensive lenses for DSLR video on these cameras are not using even close to their full potential due to aliasing and other isssues. That doesn't mean that they are not a good investment in the long run but not necessary to get the best out of your 7D video mode. You could always get a basic set of old nikon primes (like 24, 35 and 50) for now and see what you need to grow into later.
Here is a sample set of Zeiss ZF Primes. On a 1.6x crop camera such as the 7D, you probably need a wider lens than the 25mm and the 85mm is not as important.
25mm Zeiss Wide Angle 25mm f/2.8 Distagon T* ZF Manual Focus Lens for Nikon SLR - Black $826*
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/472571-REG/Zeiss_1424_663_25mm_f_2_8_ZF_Lens.html
35mm Zeiss Wide Angle 35mm f/2 ZF Distagon T* Manual Focus Lens for Nikon SLR $826*
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/472572-REG/Zeiss_1424_661_35mm_f_2_ZF_Distagon.html
50mm Zeiss Normal 50mm f/1.4 ZF Planar T* Manual Focus Lens for Nikon SLR Cameras $550*
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/441695-REG/Zeiss_1405_174_50mm_f_1_4_ZF_Manual.html
85mm Zeiss Telephoto 85mm f/1.4 ZF Planar T* Manual Focus Lens for Nikon SLR $1033
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/441700-REG/Zeiss_1405_176_85mm_f_1_4_Planar_T_.html
* I reccomend photodiox adapters
Last edited:
astigmatic
Well-known member
they make zeiss in canon mounts now. I'd get those because they focus in the correct standard direction. Only downside is that they no longer have manual aperture control.
saneproductions
Veteran
I wouldn't get the zeiss lenses in canon mount because they don't have manual aperature contol and the shorter flange means they can't be adapted to as many other camera systems. You can get reversing gear follow focus to correct the focus direction to the standard cinema direction. Good point though.
The other thing I want to point out is that I wasn't reccomending that the OP go out and buy a set of Zeiss primes (unless they have lots of paying work to use them on), just wanted them to know that this kind of setup is a best case scenario for future proofing (but not a huge value in the images the 7D produces).
The other thing I want to point out is that I wasn't reccomending that the OP go out and buy a set of Zeiss primes (unless they have lots of paying work to use them on), just wanted them to know that this kind of setup is a best case scenario for future proofing (but not a huge value in the images the 7D produces).
Last edited:
ROCKMORE
Veteran
I'm from the manual focus world and ready to pick up a 7D or 5D. I've worked mostly with Arri film cameras and a variety of still gear from 4x5 view cameras to 6X7 medium format even years on an Oxberry if you know what that is.
I never realized Canon auto focus lenses have no aperture ring. I plan to use Zeiss, Nikon and Zuiko primes, but would like at least one Canon auto lens.
I agree with your point about investing in Canon EF lenses. Where does it end.
There will be many new HD camera body choices soon, as soon as next month. I spent the last few days researching Canon lenses to select one good wide zoom to add to the 7D and almost all of them are slow and have bad distortion at the wide end. It seems to be an accepted norm these days.
The Canon 10-22mm seems to have the least distortion, but I don't really know for sure. One thing I'm pretty sure of, is I will never be able to use it on any other camera.
I like the 7D, but I'm ready to pass on the entire format and go with a FF 5D. At least I will have all the manual lenses I need (with aperture rings) I also have a set of Pentax Takumar lenses from my 6x7 that produced amazing medium format negs. From my experience I think they will produce great HD images.
I just realized that saneproductions actually means more than I thought, Thanks for the dose of reality Mike.
Last edited:
saneproductions
Veteran
Lol! Happy to help. I don't pretend to be an expert on this subject, but I have been doing pro production for years so I have a practical streak. I have also done a lot of homework here and other places plus working a lot with some great local DPs who shoot 7d and 5d for really high end clients. It is really easy to point out things to other people but harder to be objective with your own purchases especially for business expenses that are cool toys too.
I still stand by my recc of the 17-40 F4L as a great general purpose lens with autofocus (af for stills). The handling alone is amazing. It is super nice to work with. I also borrowed the much more expensive 16-35 f2.8L and it is even nicer (but this lens is for personal use, so hard to justify twice as much money for 1 more stop). Yes it distorts a bit at 17mm but on a crop sensor camera, it isn't bad becuse you are only using the center or "best" part of the lens. It also distorts less at 20mm.
Go down to your local best buy and demo one if there is no camera store near you.
If you go th 5d route, you can get a deal that bundles the 24-105 F4L saves you $300-400 and is probably good enough to do anything you need (if a bit slow)
Last edited:
ROCKMORE
Veteran
Yeah an Oxberry is an animation stand with a 35mm camera that rides up and down a pair of steel tubes. They were originally used for 2d cell work in the beginning but we adapted motion control rigs plugged onto computers for effect projects way back in the 90s. Now I can do 1000 times more on my PC with 3Dmax. (and no 4am lab runs)
ROCKMORE
Veteran
The 17-40mm would be a good pick once I get past the other set up expenses, because I have no lenses wider that 24mm f2.8 (Except 35mm Cine lenses that won't cover the field)
The 24-105mm is a nice lens, but I have many other still camera zoom lenses. What I find is I'm usually at one end of the zoom or the other and seldom in the middle. In that respect I'm sacrificing lens speed and quality over a faster prime lens in the end for the convenience of not having to make a lens change.
Something I have also discovered about the nature of all these new zoom lenses being produced, is that they are not just slower. With most of them you also must stop down a few stops to get the edges in focus or eliminate uneven exposure across the field.
This may make them in "practical" use as much as 4 stops slower than a similar focal length prime lens to achieve the same quality result. (Each lens will perform differently of course.)
Maybe the higher end L class lens will have better wide open performance than the cheaper lenses, but at what cost. When you start spending as much as $1,000 to $2,000 a lens that can go a long way with good new or used primes.
Last edited:
saneproductions
Veteran
The one thing I think I want to reinforce is that the 24mm should be plenty wide enough if you went with the 5D instead. you may not need to buy any lenses in that case.
ROCKMORE
Veteran
That's my game plan. Just get the 5D body, use what I have and the camera can go to work and buy it's own lenses. I did see a 20mm f2.8 Nikon go for $360 on Ebay last week. That would complete my range.