Pick a lens...any lens...

P. Harrill said:

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.
Click to expand...

The 17-35 has hard stops

good bit of glass

focus travel can be unpleasant and a little short

proper aperture ring

covers full frame .. if you care

if some one gave me one I would use it .. a lot!

S
 
Michael Solomon said:
You all keep mentioning buying the nikkor used. If I wanted to get one new, anything wrong with doing that: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-20mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LEOC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321225027&sr=8-1

Yah, it's more expensive. At least this way I have the option to return it and I know that likely there won't be anything wrong with it.

Edit: side note, there should really be a stickied thread that lists all possible lens combos/recommendations with the fs100 =)
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with buying the lens new. It is more expensive, but you do save on that buying used pucker factor, ya know?
 
I didn't know Rokinon had a 24mm f/1.4 coming out. That's very interesting. I've been blown away by what I've seen from their 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 so far.

Those three fast primes, combined with the Sony 16mm pancake for the wide end would make for a very tidy (and crazy cheap) lens set.

I already have Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 and 80-200mm f/2.8 zooms, so between the lot of them there wouldn't be much you couldn't do (apart from accurate focus pulls :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG) )
 
morgan_moore said:
The 17-35 has hard stops

good bit of glass

focus travel can be unpleasant and a little short

proper aperture ring

covers full frame .. if you care

if some one gave me one I would use it .. a lot!

S
Click to expand...

I have owned a Nikon 17-35mm lens and used it with the RED one. I bought it because people raved about this lens, and being a beginner, I thought I would trust their reviews. The nice things about the lens is that it is built like a tank and the lens has a manual aperture so you don't have to worry about finding an adapter with an aperture control built in. For some reason, I was never satisfied with the sharpness of the lens. I don't know if this was a lens issue or a RED issue. As far as sharpness, I preferred the Tamron 17-50mm Canon 7D combo I purchased later. I do agree that for the price, this lens should be parafocal. Also, 17-35mm is not a long enough focal range for my purposes. I really would like to see a comparison between this lens and the Nikon 17-55mm on an FS100 if anyone out there has access to both.
 
The 17-35 was a panic from nikon to give users of the nikon d1 some sort of wide lens, its a refit of the (pointless) 20-35

I own and shoot with a 20-34 - its main attribute is the rear element does not scratch!

I dont think its worth the wedge now (17-35) - its not a RnG lens and is bettered by 18 primes for formal work

S
 
man.... the nikon 20mm f/2.8 and the sigma 20mm f/1.8 have both been sitting in my Amazon cart for 3 hours... Can't friggin pick between the two. ugggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top