Sharpest Nikons?
- Thread starter Nicky
- Start date
You mean the AF series?
From the reviews on B&H they sound to be overkill sharp for 1080p, nothing but good stuff... in my opinion (without having ever used them) the only downside seems to be that they are only 2.8f... so for low light stuff you would want to have a set of primes available... this means you now need double the budget for Nikon lenses as the 28-70mm + 80-200mm are about as much as three or four good primes
Tim Naylor
Veteran
They are significantly sharper than just about any still lens out. Their rez tests are on par with the Zeiss ZF's and in some cases supersede it. Also, their rez drop off at 2.8 is far better than my primes at 2.8. In short they're amazing. The big rub is the short focus draw. If you can find a machinist, tinker, etc who can fix that problem for a decent price (under 1500) you've got a revolution on your hands.
They are not overkill for 1080p. Like any oversampling situation, the better the source, the better the end result. If you had a still lens that only could resolve to 1080, it would look like crap compared to your pro Nikons, Canons, etc. Look up the tests I did a month ago and you'll see that the Nikon zoomz blow away my prize 85mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4 and 25mm 1.4.
It's like a 30 grand ENG or cine zoom will always look better than a sub 10 grand zoom on an SD camera.
They are not overkill for 1080p. Like any oversampling situation, the better the source, the better the end result. If you had a still lens that only could resolve to 1080, it would look like crap compared to your pro Nikons, Canons, etc. Look up the tests I did a month ago and you'll see that the Nikon zoomz blow away my prize 85mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4 and 25mm 1.4.
It's like a 30 grand ENG or cine zoom will always look better than a sub 10 grand zoom on an SD camera.
1. What is "Focus Draw"?
2. I meant "overkill" as in "great", I can understand how the better the optics the better the picture
in any situation really, but could you elaborate also on what you meant about oversampling situations?
3. Also I wonder how big of an impact will a Brevis/LetusEx + these 2.8f lenses will have on the amount
of light needed... I have the formula somewhere but I'd like to know how much the total loss would be from
someone else.
4. Could you provide links to these zooms just so I am sure I am looking at the same ones? I first looked at
the newest zooms but I am looking at some that look as they may be older models since they are less than
half the price and they seem to have almost nothing but great reviews too.
YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT THESE, RIGHT?
28-70mm - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/169589-GREY/Nikon_1961_Zoom_W_A_Telephoto_AF_S_Zoom.html
70-200mm - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/274780-USA/Nikon_2139_70_200mm_f_2_8D_VR_G_AFS.html
I WAS LOOKING AT THESE
35-70mm - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...&A=details&Q=&sku=36956&is=GREY#goto_itemInfo
70-200mm - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=124669&is=GREY
Also, I was considering the cheaper ones thinking that they might be a tad softer, but that is what I am going
for now anyway since I am looking for a slight softness for film look. But if I am going to get other more serious
side-effects then I might not want to look into them at all.
Sorry about the more basic questions as well as the others, but I am trying to read up on optics as much as
I can before I make my purchase decisions now that I might be getting an adapter and a set of glass. Just
so you can consider it if you get around to answering these questions: I am debating between getting
two zooms such as the 28-70mm and the 80-200mm or three or four faster primes for my HVX. Also, I am a
B-I-G fan of zooms for speed of production and the additional expressive possibilities of the countless
additional lengths. I am completely aware that the additional light needed from 1.8f to 2.8f is phenomenal,
and I do have exterior night shots in my short term future. Not wanting to have to rent primes is my dilemma.
Thanks
2. I meant "overkill" as in "great", I can understand how the better the optics the better the picture
in any situation really, but could you elaborate also on what you meant about oversampling situations?
3. Also I wonder how big of an impact will a Brevis/LetusEx + these 2.8f lenses will have on the amount
of light needed... I have the formula somewhere but I'd like to know how much the total loss would be from
someone else.
4. Could you provide links to these zooms just so I am sure I am looking at the same ones? I first looked at
the newest zooms but I am looking at some that look as they may be older models since they are less than
half the price and they seem to have almost nothing but great reviews too.
YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT THESE, RIGHT?
28-70mm - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/169589-GREY/Nikon_1961_Zoom_W_A_Telephoto_AF_S_Zoom.html
70-200mm - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/274780-USA/Nikon_2139_70_200mm_f_2_8D_VR_G_AFS.html
I WAS LOOKING AT THESE
35-70mm - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...&A=details&Q=&sku=36956&is=GREY#goto_itemInfo
70-200mm - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=124669&is=GREY
Also, I was considering the cheaper ones thinking that they might be a tad softer, but that is what I am going
for now anyway since I am looking for a slight softness for film look. But if I am going to get other more serious
side-effects then I might not want to look into them at all.
Sorry about the more basic questions as well as the others, but I am trying to read up on optics as much as
I can before I make my purchase decisions now that I might be getting an adapter and a set of glass. Just
so you can consider it if you get around to answering these questions: I am debating between getting
two zooms such as the 28-70mm and the 80-200mm or three or four faster primes for my HVX. Also, I am a
B-I-G fan of zooms for speed of production and the additional expressive possibilities of the countless
additional lengths. I am completely aware that the additional light needed from 1.8f to 2.8f is phenomenal,
and I do have exterior night shots in my short term future. Not wanting to have to rent primes is my dilemma.
Thanks
Last edited:
Tim Naylor
Veteran
1) Focus Draw. The distance on the barrel from the minimal focus distance to infinity. If it's real short, precise follow focus is difficult. If it's long, it's easier. Look at a Zeis PL mount lens, the focus marks go around the entire lens. On the Nikon Zooms, it takes half a turn or less to get to infinity. These lenses were designed with auto focus in mind even though the can be switched to manual. Unfortunately, precision in manual seems to be an aferthought. Not only is the draw short, but it has a slight amount of play (jiggle) before engaging. It's the one thing that prevents me from buying these lenses, despite their amazing sharpness.
2) Oversampling. ie) shooting HD and delivering on Digibeta for broadcast versus shooting on Digibeta and delivering on Digibeta. HD is "oversampling" meaning your sampling of data on the capture end is much higher than the downsampled delivery end. A dramatic example would be watching Lawrence of Arabia on VHS. It's quality is better than Clerks on HD DVD. One was shot in 70mm the other on 16mm.
My Nikon set far exceeds 1080 in terms of rez and I'd say the Nikon zooms exceed my primes by about 25 percent. The difference through my adaptor to 1080 is noticeable - dramatically. I also think the difference is exacerbated by the 35 adaptor's ground glass. Focus in its most basic (or microscopic level) is a function of contrast. Any diffusing element like a ground glass reduces contrast. Sharper lenses also have higher contrast (which is why they're sharper). The lower contrast older primes plus the ground glass, I believe, rather than merely add, multiply this low con effect, thereby making the inherent differences in focus between the two lenses more profound than if you compared the two on a still camera where no ground glass is in effect.
3. I rarely shoot below a 2.0. Focus and sharpness become dicey, especially with complicated blocking. 2.8 to 4.0, I quite like for bokeh and practical focus. At 2.0 with the LE you'll need at least 1200 HMI' Par for day interior if you like to light soft on an HVX. To be comfortable, 2.5k HMI's through silk would get you a solid 2.8 from 15 feet away. So light, or lack of it, is still an issue.
Wide open to 1.4 you'll lose about a stop and 1/3. At a 2.8 add two more stops.
4) http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nikkor / Nikon Lens Tests
This is a good link. I'm referring to the 70-200 and 17-35 2.8
Until you can figure out a practical way of following focus with these zooms (assuming your shooting drama), I'd stick with the primes. It doesn't matter how sharp a lens is if it's difficult to follow focus. Also, check out the new Voightlander 58mm 1.4. Legendary VL sharpness at wide open. And relatively cheap with decent focus draw. Other good buys are the Nikon 135mm 2.0. Long draw, sharp as hell. The Nikon 1.2 50mm though pricey has a nice fat barrel for focus as well as the 85mm 1.4.
2) Oversampling. ie) shooting HD and delivering on Digibeta for broadcast versus shooting on Digibeta and delivering on Digibeta. HD is "oversampling" meaning your sampling of data on the capture end is much higher than the downsampled delivery end. A dramatic example would be watching Lawrence of Arabia on VHS. It's quality is better than Clerks on HD DVD. One was shot in 70mm the other on 16mm.
My Nikon set far exceeds 1080 in terms of rez and I'd say the Nikon zooms exceed my primes by about 25 percent. The difference through my adaptor to 1080 is noticeable - dramatically. I also think the difference is exacerbated by the 35 adaptor's ground glass. Focus in its most basic (or microscopic level) is a function of contrast. Any diffusing element like a ground glass reduces contrast. Sharper lenses also have higher contrast (which is why they're sharper). The lower contrast older primes plus the ground glass, I believe, rather than merely add, multiply this low con effect, thereby making the inherent differences in focus between the two lenses more profound than if you compared the two on a still camera where no ground glass is in effect.
3. I rarely shoot below a 2.0. Focus and sharpness become dicey, especially with complicated blocking. 2.8 to 4.0, I quite like for bokeh and practical focus. At 2.0 with the LE you'll need at least 1200 HMI' Par for day interior if you like to light soft on an HVX. To be comfortable, 2.5k HMI's through silk would get you a solid 2.8 from 15 feet away. So light, or lack of it, is still an issue.
Wide open to 1.4 you'll lose about a stop and 1/3. At a 2.8 add two more stops.
4) http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nikkor / Nikon Lens Tests
This is a good link. I'm referring to the 70-200 and 17-35 2.8
Until you can figure out a practical way of following focus with these zooms (assuming your shooting drama), I'd stick with the primes. It doesn't matter how sharp a lens is if it's difficult to follow focus. Also, check out the new Voightlander 58mm 1.4. Legendary VL sharpness at wide open. And relatively cheap with decent focus draw. Other good buys are the Nikon 135mm 2.0. Long draw, sharp as hell. The Nikon 1.2 50mm though pricey has a nice fat barrel for focus as well as the 85mm 1.4.
Last edited:
Tim Naylor
Veteran
Did you read the part about how they suck for pulling focus?
Hey Tim! Thanks man,that was a VERY informative post!
I really appreciate you taking the time to lay all that stuff out for me.
1. This makes tons of sense, and it seems it is one of the many reasons why these nikons are not the end of all gear. Thanks for the explanation.
2. Got it, the more original resolution the better... always... I was just thinking about Blue Ray out yesterday as I was thinking about the CoC effect after an excellent explanation of it by Barry Green and I kept on ending up with the thought that the HVX is excellent for SD...
of course a 1080p Blue Ray would be better, but shooting 2k for 1080p would be a close approximation of the same benefits as 1080 for 480...
Also, just to make sure I understand, it sounds like you think the GG augments the effect of the loss of resolution (ctrast) that you may be getting from your glass. Right? So picking a good set of lenses when you are going to use a GG is that much more important.
3. I was liking the idea of being able to achieve lower than one inch DoF for those specialty shots but I would also shoot much more closed up... however I am also planning on getting the RedRock Follow and my DP has worked countless hours in Hollywood as a 1st AC... so when needed he would be able to do the job better than 99.9% of us here. Of course he might not want to pull every shot like I would want him to hehehe... I shoot with the HVX at 2.8f quite often, of course not the crazy blocking stuff but I tend to want to shoot 80% of my CU's as open and zoomed as possible without the adapter... so I really look forward to having similar or far shallower DoF and a much more pronounced brokeh with shorter lenses for stability issues!
Lights:
I have two FloLights Kinos, one is a 4 x 55W (about 1000w) and the other a 2 x 55W (~500W) then an Alzo 800 (semi-hard 800W), and I wasplanning on getting one of Richard's (CoolVideoLights.com) 575 HMI which puts out 2500W from a fresnel... Richard's HMI would have not only the highest output, but also would have the potential for the most focused beam...
From what you said it sounds like I'd have no problem shooting interior night stuff with an HVX + Brevis + 2.8f, unless we were talking about a plane hangar and really wide, hehehehe.... but for "normal" rooms I should be fine... no mansions in my sights as of yet so I think I am ok.
Now for exterior night stuff... it sounds like using a 2.8f would only allow me to shoot dark looking stuff and only from about 15feet... so far that's ok... I am looking for dark stuff in my ext night stuff... but renting/having 1.8f lenses would give me LOADS more to work with... two full stops.... isn't that needing only one fourth the light?
hummm.... I am getting that low-light anxiety attack again...
4. Visiting that page now
Thanks for your posts!
I really appreciate you taking the time to lay all that stuff out for me.
1. This makes tons of sense, and it seems it is one of the many reasons why these nikons are not the end of all gear. Thanks for the explanation.
2. Got it, the more original resolution the better... always... I was just thinking about Blue Ray out yesterday as I was thinking about the CoC effect after an excellent explanation of it by Barry Green and I kept on ending up with the thought that the HVX is excellent for SD...
of course a 1080p Blue Ray would be better, but shooting 2k for 1080p would be a close approximation of the same benefits as 1080 for 480...Also, just to make sure I understand, it sounds like you think the GG augments the effect of the loss of resolution (ctrast) that you may be getting from your glass. Right? So picking a good set of lenses when you are going to use a GG is that much more important.
3. I was liking the idea of being able to achieve lower than one inch DoF for those specialty shots but I would also shoot much more closed up... however I am also planning on getting the RedRock Follow and my DP has worked countless hours in Hollywood as a 1st AC... so when needed he would be able to do the job better than 99.9% of us here. Of course he might not want to pull every shot like I would want him to
hehehe... I shoot with the HVX at 2.8f quite often, of course not the crazy blocking stuff but I tend to want to shoot 80% of my CU's as open and zoomed as possible without the adapter... so I really look forward to having similar or far shallower DoF and a much more pronounced brokeh with shorter lenses for stability issues!Lights:
I have two FloLights Kinos, one is a 4 x 55W (about 1000w) and the other a 2 x 55W (~500W) then an Alzo 800 (semi-hard 800W), and I wasplanning on getting one of Richard's (CoolVideoLights.com) 575 HMI which puts out 2500W from a fresnel... Richard's HMI would have not only the highest output, but also would have the potential for the most focused beam...
From what you said it sounds like I'd have no problem shooting interior night stuff with an HVX + Brevis + 2.8f, unless we were talking about a plane hangar and really wide, hehehehe....
but for "normal" rooms I should be fine... no mansions in my sights as of yet so I think I am ok.Now for exterior night stuff... it sounds like using a 2.8f would only allow me to shoot dark looking stuff and only from about 15feet... so far that's ok... I am looking for dark stuff in my ext night stuff... but renting/having 1.8f lenses would give me LOADS more to work with... two full stops.... isn't that needing only one fourth the light?
hummm.... I am getting that low-light anxiety attack again...
4. Visiting that page now
Thanks for your posts!
you mean compared to actual motion picture lenses right?
BTW, holy molly! How did I not know about that B&H page?
Last edited:
Check this out:
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html
also Nikon's support line open 24/7: 800-645-6689
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html
also Nikon's support line open 24/7: 800-645-6689
Last edited:
Tim Naylor
Veteran
you mean compared to actual motion picture lenses right?
BTW, holy molly! How did I not know about that B&H page?
They suck compared to fully manual still lenses too. The 80-200 has about a 2" draw. Pathetic, even if you're doing stills. They make it short so they can have the fastest autofocus. Longer draw, slower auto. When will they realize we all don't do photo journalism. Oh well, Arri will be selling the cine converted version for perhaps, 40-50k is my guess.
Tim Naylor
Veteran
QUOTE:
[ 3. I was liking the idea of being able to achieve lower than one inch DoF for those specialty shots but I would also shoot much more closed up... however I am also planning on getting the RedRock Follow and my DP has worked countless hours in Hollywood as a 1st AC... so when needed he would be able to do the job better than 99.9% of us here. Of course he might not want to pull every shot like I would want him to hehehe... I shoot with the HVX at 2.8f quite often, of course not the crazy blocking stuff but I tend to want to shoot 80% of my CU's as open and zoomed as possible without the adapter... so I really look forward to having similar or far shallower DoF and a much more pronounced brokeh with shorter lenses for stability issues!]
END OF QUOTE:
It's not often in the cine world that we shoot wide open on 35mm. Focus becomes too critical and contrast begins to muddy up. You'll see quite a few people using cine zooms that open anywhere from 2.8 to 3.5.
re: FFocus
You may want read up on the SG's FF. One user claimed it's play was as tight as a Chrosziel. If that's true - then it's a bargain. Because still lenses have a smaller draw than cine lenses, your FF needs to be more precise. So far, the only one I've been satisfied with has been the Chrozsiel. I had a RR (latest version) and found the play to be too much aside from some other design flaws (difficult for right side, marker always bending). I auditioned a Petroff at Abel and found its build and precision quite pro at 1/3 less than than the Chrosz.
[ 3. I was liking the idea of being able to achieve lower than one inch DoF for those specialty shots but I would also shoot much more closed up... however I am also planning on getting the RedRock Follow and my DP has worked countless hours in Hollywood as a 1st AC... so when needed he would be able to do the job better than 99.9% of us here. Of course he might not want to pull every shot like I would want him to
hehehe... I shoot with the HVX at 2.8f quite often, of course not the crazy blocking stuff but I tend to want to shoot 80% of my CU's as open and zoomed as possible without the adapter... so I really look forward to having similar or far shallower DoF and a much more pronounced brokeh with shorter lenses for stability issues!]END OF QUOTE:
It's not often in the cine world that we shoot wide open on 35mm. Focus becomes too critical and contrast begins to muddy up. You'll see quite a few people using cine zooms that open anywhere from 2.8 to 3.5.
re: FFocus
You may want read up on the SG's FF. One user claimed it's play was as tight as a Chrosziel. If that's true - then it's a bargain. Because still lenses have a smaller draw than cine lenses, your FF needs to be more precise. So far, the only one I've been satisfied with has been the Chrozsiel. I had a RR (latest version) and found the play to be too much aside from some other design flaws (difficult for right side, marker always bending). I auditioned a Petroff at Abel and found its build and precision quite pro at 1/3 less than than the Chrosz.
Tim Naylor
Veteran
Check out KEH or Adorama. It took me a few days. KEH has great return policy too.