I think you have that backwards. Nikon glass is the one that is different from Sony, Canon, PL, ENG, and almost every professional lens. I sold all my Nikon lenses for that very reason when I started using them for video, and realized that they turned the wrong way.
Yes, those exist, but not interested. For wildlife, sports, run & gun, I need my hand on the barrel of the lens for maximum control and finesse, not to mention making lens changes more difficult. I have no regrets dumping all my Nikon glass. If Nikon wants to do things backasswards, screw 'em.
To be clear, I was talking about the "zoom" direction, on the 35-150. Not the focus ring direction. The well known Nikon opposite focus was always a bug bear for those not muscle memory trained on Nikon lenses.
Whether it matters to anyone, I don't think, is the issue. I'm just stating the fact that a few news shooters have said to me that they like it that when they are hustling for shots and when they change lenses, that they don't make the mistake of zooming the wrong way. It's just nice when things are consistent. Some of us like that. Like, my wife drives a Japanese car and I drive a German designed car. I always have to be aware when driving hers that the wipers and indicators are on the opposite sides of the steering column, otherwise I can turn left or right with the wipers, not good! If I'm not mindful.
I used to use reverse gears with Nikon lenses, but it is a pain when you do a lens change to a non Nikon lens as you have two options, neither one is quick. Either change gears, the slowest, or change follow focus unit. Neither satisfactory if needing to operate fast. Modern zooms are getting so good that for most video work they are quicker to work with as they eliminate lens changes, the ingress of dust possibilities, and often they avoid having to rebalance tripods, gimbals etc. Plus, you have less to lug around, especially when flying.
he doesn't shoot video. he's a landscape photographer. I don't really care for his work, but he's probably forgotten more about optics than I know. anyway, I think you asked who the lens is for and there's your answer. more importantly, he claims it's a stellar performer. and he's quite obnoxious when it comes to lenses, as you can tell by his description of the GM 24-70. I guess that's the question for me -- not that I'm going to buy the lens anyway. But if it's a really beautiful lens then it's a prime plus.
Yes, not a video shooter. Got it.
Erm no. I shoot with primes. I could shoot with a 28-45. It's nearly 3 primes in 1. If the lens really compares favorably to the other lenses he mentions, then it's a lens for people who actually care about optical quality
I wasn't talking about you.
3 primes because it can do almost what a 24 can do, it can do a 35, and almost a 50. It would probably be close enough for me to use it instead of those 3.
That's what I figured, and it does not surprise me because it is what i would call a great example of an "almost" lens. It's almost a wide angle. It's almost a 50mm. It's almost fast enough. It's almost small and light enough. It's almost cheap enough. And it almost has a usable zoom range. But taken as a whole, I just don't understand why anyone would care about this middle of the road lens for shooting video -- regardless if its purported image quality, which I have no reason to doubt. If you gave me this lens for free I don't think it'd ever get used.
Come to think of it, I think you're pretty off-base here. This lens is a spiritual descendant to the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 APS-C lens. And that lens was legendary. It seemed like I was the only wedding videographer who didn't have one. (I didn't love the character, but it was certainly sharper wide open than most of its competitors and it filled a niche for APS-C/m43.) The caveats are that it had a slightly bigger focal length range and that there was less competition in the APS-C space. But there's no doubt that tons of videographers used it, basically as a prime with some wiggle room. No, it didn't have a big range. But it was fast and it had solid optics and coatings.
But it's not a 18-35mm, is it? That's my point. This lens is "almost" good enough it a lot of ways, but doesn't quite measure up when you look at all the shortcomings.
I have no interest in buying this lens. I'm just saying there's a case to be made for it.But it's not a 18-35mm, is it? That's my point. This lens is "almost" good enough it a lot of ways, but doesn't quite measure up when you look at all the shortcomings.
You know what your post sounds like? It sounds like me when I want to find a way to justify buying something I want, but don't really need. Keep squinting at the lens, running the scenarios over in your head, and looking at if from all sides, and you just might talk yourself into it if you try hard enough.
