SLR zoom lenses for F3
- Thread starter binba
- Start date
LeavingTheCandy
Well-known member
Optitek: Any good information on how to get backfocus set on Nikkor lenses on F3? (if it's even possible?)
Thanks.
Thanks.
CinemaElectronika
Well-known member
Absolutely friendly. All of them are Inner-Focus lenses.
Nikkor 28-70 f2.8 IF-ED only gets bigger at 28mm when zooming... about +0.5"
All used with RRM Mattebox / Follow-Focus / Focus Rings with no problems.
Duke M.
Veteran
My Tokina zooms are mattebox friendly, but... are too soft at f2.8 for my taste, sometimes at f4. I'm trying to figure out if a $3k upgrade to the Nikkor zooms is worth it.
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Yes , Nikon's are much sharper at 2.8 I started with Tokinas and upgraded long ago. Big difference.
Absolutely possible, but not easy. this video should give you the idea, albeit on RedOne. Second half is where I show how to do it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogqcPdXoc3k
You have to be absolutely sure that the flange on the camera is perfect.
David W. Jones
Veteran
The Tokina 17-50 extends quite a bit when zooming. Not exactly what I would call matte box friendly.
powervideo
Well-known member
Unfortunately the Tokina 28-70 ATX is VERY soft wide open and what I'd call "glow-ey" or "bloom-ey". I bought it, used it on one job then sold it. it works at mid-range T-stops, but this is not useful for low DOF. Great mechanics for video, but I cannot see the same things that others on forum this rave about with this lens.
Last edited:
Duke M.
Veteran
Neither the 28-70mm ATX-Pro F2.8 nor the 80-200mm ATX-Pro F2.8 extend when zooming, so different animals. Not quite the same lens you guys are referring to (and maybe the Pro version is better).
The 28-70mm is supposedly built on Angenieux's old cinema design. At F5.6 both Tokina lenses are very sharp, but of course individual copies may vary. Not bad lenses, but if the Nikons are sharp a F2.8 then I'll aim for the three Nikon zoom set.
Last edited:
Tata Steva
Well-known member
Tokina ATX is 28-70 not 24-70, just to make it clear. I would add 20-35mm/2.8 to the matte box friendly line up.....
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
For fast running and gunning I also use a Nikon 18-200. Lots of disadvantages - not parfocal, the iris changes from 3.5 - 5.6, and there s more distortion, but its very sharp and it goes from 18-200 in one small package.
With an F3 the speed is not that big a deal and its still less DOF than a 2/3" camera. It's a pain to keep refocusing and changing iris, but when you need that kind of flexibility it does the trick.
With an F3 the speed is not that big a deal and its still less DOF than a 2/3" camera. It's a pain to keep refocusing and changing iris, but when you need that kind of flexibility it does the trick.
tankbullock
Active member
I went for the 35-70mm f2.8 Nikon instead of the 28-70 as 35mm is covered on the 17-35mm. It is a fair bit lighter than the 28 version yet every bit as sharp. I do however have a pro 1 version of the tokina pro on route which is supposedly the best one they made. I got it for a £100 so thought it was worth a look just to see how close it runs the nikon.
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Depends on how you are shooting. If you are using them as "variable primes" and have plenty of time to change lenses - fine and its a great price.
If you are using them for B roll and need to move fast then the widest range each lens can give you is a huge advantage. i've thought about getting a 17-55 but am tired of buying more lenses.
Tata Steva
Well-known member
I went from Tokina 20-35/2.8 to Nikon 17-35/2.8 (needed more wide...). Than from there to Nikon 17-55/2.8.... No regrets, even with huge sacrifice of not having a f-stop ring.... I know there is an adapter coming out from Optitek that will solve this issue (with more style than MTF that I am using now)... Greatly recommend the Nikon 17-55! Whatba piece of glass!
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Is the 17-55 parfocal and have you compared it carefully to the 17-35?
Seems to me I read reviews that said it wasn't quite as sharp as the 17-35 which is an amazing lens.
Seems to me I read reviews that said it wasn't quite as sharp as the 17-35 which is an amazing lens.
IMO Henry (CinemaElectronika) has nailed it on the head with the 3 Nikons. Such a set will cost about half as much as a Cooke ...or 8% of an Optimo. I also agree about minimizing tint and look differences by sticking to one brand.
My only concern is about those teeny focus windows. Is the manual focus in those lenses consistent enough to write/tape down witness marks on the barrel? Maybe not accurate to the mm but still better..? That's why one of my frontrunners was a Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD.
Unfortunately recent developments (different content bias, shrinking budgets) mean that after all my research, the F3 might get shelved in favor of a cheaper, run&gun-ish, and still very capable EX1R. I'm glad this turned into a useful thread, and hope to get my hands on an F3 soon.
My only concern is about those teeny focus windows. Is the manual focus in those lenses consistent enough to write/tape down witness marks on the barrel? Maybe not accurate to the mm but still better..? That's why one of my frontrunners was a Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD.
Unfortunately recent developments (different content bias, shrinking budgets) mean that after all my research, the F3 might get shelved in favor of a cheaper, run&gun-ish, and still very capable EX1R. I'm glad this turned into a useful thread, and hope to get my hands on an F3 soon.
Tata Steva
Well-known member
Did not compare the two... ' not one of the guys that shoot brick walls... I :2vrolijk_08: trust the brand... But, that is just me... I read numerous reports on the still side, how good is 17-55... 17-35 is a great lens (I had it long time ago when shooting film nikons), but I could not justify both zooms. Longer reach won... 17-35 is not parafocal. 17-55 is. At least two samples I tried on my F3...
Also the copy of 17-55 has much smoother zoom ring than the copy of 17-35 I had. The extra thing was that 17-55 was $300 cheaper at the end (both zooms bought used, in mint condition)...
Now, I still waiting for Birger and the famous adapter so I can utilize all my high speed Canon primes, but I guess nothing till Xmas...
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Interesting, my 17-35 is parfocal. ( minus a tiny drift at 30mm). I'll look for it used and perhaps try it. I understand wanting the reach.