Pick a lens...any lens...

NextWaveG

NextWaveG

Well-known member
So I'm still a ways off from having the funds for a FS100, but that can't keep me from planning.

I've been shooting on Canon DSLRs for awhile and have a good amount of L series glass. Only problem is my wife is a photographer so she won't be happy if I'm off using the Canon lenses all the time. So, I've been debating what kind of kit to invest in and I have a couple ideas.

Sony E Glass:
  • Sony 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3
  • Sony 16mm f/2.8
  • Sony 24mm f/1.8
  • Sony 30mm f/3.5
  • Sony 50mm f/1.8
Samyang/Rokinon:
  • 8mm f/4
  • 14mm f/2.8
  • 24mm f/1.4
  • 35mm f/1.4
  • 85mm f/1.4
...or either Canon FD or Nikon lenses.

I would like to use Sony where possible to have electronic control and AF and fill in the gaps with other lenses. Between Samyang/Rokinon, Canon FD and Nikon which would mix the best with Sony both optically and functionally i.e. focus direction?
 
You are used to canon glass, so turning for focus the cine way

Nikon go the other way

Id go for the kit lens plus some proper manual glass FD or Samyang Rokinon or COntax

S
 
I'm not the best source of insight for the FS100 just yet mine doesn't arrive till Tuesday however.
I keep the same thought process per camera body.

Manual lenses. In fact manual lenses that aren't specific to the camera body.

I've had my Zeiss C/Y set for awhile and it won't be useless regardless of the camera body.
The 25mm f/0.95 Voigtlander unfortunately was. It wasn't compatible moving on making
it a great decision at the time but not future proof.

So moving forward from DSLR's, AF100 now to the FS100. I will be using nothing but lenses
that can move forward. Camera bodies as you know change too quickly to pin yourself down.
I would believe Sony lenses are not a good investment. However the kit lens might be the one
exception.

Gives decent range, the camera can makeup for it being slow. Might be just the only Sony lens
you need to consider.

Now as for what lens is right for you I would consider a decent Nikon set. I've seen much of the
kit you use. I would assume one of your follow focuses would be reversible.
 
stancemedia said:
I'm not the best source of insight for the FS100 just yet mine doesn't arrive till Tuesday however.
I keep the same thought process per camera body.

Manual lenses. In fact manual lenses that aren't specific to the camera body.

I've had my Zeiss C/Y set for awhile and it won't be useless regardless of the camera body.
The 25mm f/0.95 Voigtlander unfortunately was. It wasn't compatible moving on making
it a great decision at the time but not future proof.

So moving forward from DSLR's, AF100 now to the FS100. I will be using nothing but lenses
that can move forward. Camera bodies as you know change too quickly to pin yourself down.
I would believe Sony lenses are not a good investment. However the kit lens might be the one
exception.

Gives decent range, the camera can makeup for it being slow. Might be just the only Sony lens
you need to consider.

Now as for what lens is right for you I would consider a decent Nikon set. I've seen much of the
kit you use. I would assume one of your follow focuses would be reversible.
Click to expand...

That is my concern with the Sony E lenses. It my understanding that the E mount is a great mount to adapt other lenses TO, because of the very short flange to focal plane distance, but I kind of wonder about adapting the E lenses to other cameras in the future. This has been one of my concerns since I started collecting glass for a Canon DSLR. I went with only a couple of Canon lenses and then got a set of manual Nikon primes and am now getting F mount zooms. Now, I did get the 16mm f2.8 Sony and am going to pick up the kit lens (I didn't get it when I got my camera). After that, I don't know. I am set for a while on glass with the Nikons. (Of course, one you start buying lenses it is hard to stop, but you know what I mean).
 
The Sony lenses listed, all except the 24mm are relatively inexpensive. That coupled with the option for AF makes me want to have at least the 16mm and 50mm in my kit regardless. I don't mind having duplicate focal lengths between Sony and Canon/Rokinon/Nikon if it is necessary when going manual with a follow focus. But if the Sonys work well with a FF, I'd just as soon "fill in the blanks" with the other lenses.

David G. Smith said:
...Now, I did get the 16mm f2.8 Sony and am going to pick up the kit lens (I didn't get it when I got my camera). After that, I don't know. I am set for a while on glass with the Nikons. (Of course, one you start buying lenses it is hard to stop, but you know what I mean).
Click to expand...

How does the Sony mix with the Nikons?
 
Have any of you guys used the nikkor 20mm or 24mm? I tried the 11-16mm tokina but it was a little too wide and there was just a little too much distortion for my taste.

Someone else also recommended the tamron 17-50 vc... but I had the 28-75 on my 5DII and it just felt flimsy and the IQ wasn't really that spectacular.

Why is finding an acceptable wide angle always so difficult -_-
 
NextWaveG said:
The Sony lenses listed, all except the 24mm are relatively inexpensive. That coupled with the option for AF makes me want to have at least the 16mm and 50mm in my kit regardless. I don't mind having duplicate focal lengths between Sony and Canon/Rokinon/Nikon if it is necessary when going manual with a follow focus. But if the Sonys work well with a FF, I'd just as soon "fill in the blanks" with the other lenses.



How does the Sony mix with the Nikons?
Click to expand...

They pretty inexpensive. I haven't had the 16mm very long and have not done a proper side by side test with my other lenses. From what I saw just shooting around the house, it does not look to be as sharp, but I want to really hold off on judging it until I can set down and set up some side by side tests. It is just so inexpensive, that I couldn't see not getting that one.

Michael Solomon said:
Have any of you guys used the nikkor 20mm or 24mm? I tried the 11-16mm tokina but it was a little too wide and there was just a little too much distortion for my taste.

Someone else also recommended the tamron 17-50 vc... but I had the 28-75 on my 5DII and it just felt flimsy and the IQ wasn't really that spectacular.

Why is finding an acceptable wide angle always so difficult -_-
Click to expand...

I have both a 20mm f2.8 AI Nikkor and a 24mm f2.8 pre-AI Nikkor. They are both very good lenses. I absolutely LOVE the 20mm. It has very little distortion. It is the most expensive Nikkor that I have gotten, at almost $300.00 or so used off of eBay. Of the Nikkors I have, I also have a 35mm f2.8 AI (My "Normal" lens on the FS100), a 50mm f1.4 pre-AI, a 100mm f2.8 Series E lenses and a 200mm f5.6 pre-AI "Q" lenses. All of the lenses, except the 200mm, which is pretty much garbage, are very good lenses.

Coming from Canon L glass, you may want to get a vintage lens and shoot with it for a while. They are not as sharp and "Snappy" as many modern lenses, which suits my aesthetic (and pocket book to be honest), but to each there own on that and some one used to L glass may want to check that out for themselves.
 
Michael Solomon said:
Have any of you guys used the nikkor 20mm or 24mm? I tried the 11-16mm tokina
Click to expand...

Those lenses are great value and excellent perforers for the price (getting more rare and costly)

Id get a 20 on the S35 chip

I got the nikkor 18 - its a load more expensive, but IMO the ideal FOV

S
 
I don't know about lenses mixing with the Sony E mount lenses, but I have been playing around with FD lenses since I got the FS100 (50mm,28mm,70-210mm) and they are brilliant, produce a great picture, but now I am wanting to go something a little more modern and I am going to try out the Zeiss ZF lenses.
 
Think I've narrowed it down between the nikkor 20mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 20mm f/1.8

Which ones do you guys think I should jump on? (sigma is nikon mount)
 
Michael Solomon said:
Think I've narrowed it down between the nikkor 20mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 20mm f/1.8

Which ones do you guys think I should jump on? (sigma is nikon mount)
Click to expand...

I can't speak on the Sigma, as I have never shot with one, but as I noted above. I love the Nikkor 20mm f2.8 lens. I think that is a wonderful focal length for the S35mm (APS-C) sensor size. It is plenty wide, without distortion, and the Nikkor's are of outstanding quality.
 
Stimga lenses the elements are coated in some dross that will scratch if you go within a mile of it

The electronics conk out after a year (not that you need them)

The focus throw is short and sickly

But 1.8 is a very nice look

An old nikkor can be sloppy or too tight in the throw, so you need to check them out very carefully before buying

Id get a Stigma if my budget stretched to throwing it away in 18months, else I stick with a nikkor that I bought from a physical shop having had a very close inspection

My main advice would be to the lens it in your hands and feel it before buying

That thought also brings another lens to the party the 19-35 Cosina .. it focuses 'nikon way' in nikon mount

Personally the copy I tried had a nasty break in the friction of the focus barrel due to backash .. but you could be lucky

also worth considering are wide zooms..
Tokina 16-50
Nikkor g 17-55
Stigma 17-50 (actually that felt quite nice but focuses the non nikon way so doesn match my primes)
The sony kit lens

S
 
Last edited:
Let me ask, has anyone tried the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 zoom? It looks like a great lens, but a tad pricey, for me, at about $1200.00 on the used market.
 
Michael Solomon said:
Have any of you guys used the nikkor 20mm or 24mm? I tried the 11-16mm tokina but it was a little too wide and there was just a little too much distortion for my taste.

Someone else also recommended the tamron 17-50 vc... but I had the 28-75 on my 5DII and it just felt flimsy and the IQ wasn't really that spectacular.

Why is finding an acceptable wide angle always so difficult -_-
Click to expand...

The Nikon 20mm is a good choice. I too have the Tokina 11-16, but rarely use it for the same reasons you note. I use the Nikon 20mm when I am in a tight spot and need to see as much as possible without distortion. It's a solid lens and what you'd expect in terms of build quality from Nikon.

I also have a GH2 and find the Nikon 20mm VERY useful when dealing with that camera's crop factor. You should definitely give it a look.

As for the Nikon 24mm, I've not used it. Between the 20mm and the 28mm (which I also have) I find that it's rare that I need a lens that falls between those two.
 
David G. Smith said:
Let me ask, has anyone tried the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 zoom? It looks like a great lens, but a tad pricey, for me, at about $1200.00 on the used market.
Click to expand...

I don't own the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8, but I've used it. It is super sharp. Build quality is fantastic. Built like a tank.

The downsides, though, may outweigh the positives: I may be mistaken, but if I remember correctly this lens is not parfocal, and it has a focus ring without hard stops.
 
By the way, for everyone on this thread wrestling with lens choices, I encourage you to look at lensrentals.com. Renting several lenses at the same time to compare before purchasing helped me make a lot of decisions about how to build out my collection.

I get no kickbacks from Lensrentals.com -- just a happy customer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top