I have a d750 and I am looking at getting some lenses to fill out my focal range a bit better. I have a few older Nikon 50mm lenses and I like them, pretty sharp, not a lot of focus breathing (that I can see), and relatively affordable. I'm currently looking at a 24mm f/2.8 ais, 35mm f/2 ais, and a Nikon 85mm f/2 ais. The lenses will mostly be used in lit talking head scenarios or outside b roll. But I do record the occasional wedding so what they look like wide open is something of importance but not necessarily key (I can handle slightly soft I just dislike large light fall off in the corners). I was just wondering if anyone has used these lenses on a full frame body for video. Or if you have any better suggestions that'd be awesome!
What is are some good older nikon primes?
- Thread starter HunterAK
- Start date
DPStewart
Veteran
The 28mm f/2.8 out performs the 24mm in almost every way. Especially in distortion.
That lens is one of the highest regarded of the Ai-S line.
I have the 28mm f.2.8 and 2 other 28mm lenses and I honestly don't know why I still have them, they NEVER get used since the Ai-S showed up.
I'm sure the 24mm is still great, I'm just a real stickler when it comes to distortion.
The 85mm Ai-S lenses are fantastic too.
And that 35mm f/2.0 will not disappoint.
Good choices.
That lens is one of the highest regarded of the Ai-S line.
I have the 28mm f.2.8 and 2 other 28mm lenses and I honestly don't know why I still have them, they NEVER get used since the Ai-S showed up.
I'm sure the 24mm is still great, I'm just a real stickler when it comes to distortion.
The 85mm Ai-S lenses are fantastic too.
And that 35mm f/2.0 will not disappoint.
Good choices.
That's good to know about the 24mm! I think I'll go with the 28 for sure then. Thanks!
Egg Born Son
Veteran
My Nikon prime set consists of the 20/3.5, 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/2, 105/2.5, 135/3.5 and 200/4. The 28mm 2.8 is one of the finest stills lenses I've used for video.
I use the 24mm to disturb: subtly enhance closeups of unhinged characters or to deliberately distort backgrounds for a sense of uneasiness. My 28mm is my go to wide. I use it constantly. When I just want to go wider because I'm in close quarters and can't move back far enough or just want to go really wide in a landscape or otherwise want the compression or other qualities of a wide, I use the 20mm. If you're just getting one wide then 28mm 2.8 hands down. My favourite Nikon of the lot.
For your purposes you want, nay, NEED either the 85mm f2 or the 105mm f2.5. They are both short teles - great portrait lenses with great bokeh. The 85mm will be excellent for your medium shots and head shots. The 105mm for close ups and portraits. Both will do great things for any wedding shots with predictable movement. Not so good for the more candid shots where people mill about unpredictably and you have to search for focus, depending on your skill level. Great for stills too. The 135mm is a decent lens but I only use it when the 105mm isn't long enough, it's that much better. I would recommend the 85mm first because it's a little more versatile but with your uses the longer focal lengths may be more useful if you can't get close enough to the action for your desired framing.
For the normal you've got a choice of 35mm or 50mm. Both will do the job, it just comes down to preference. The 35mm is a borderline wide but many people prefer the slightly wider characteristics of the 35mm as their default choice. They are the two easiest lenses to design and have traditionall been kit lenses or first additional lens purchased so all versions pretty much perform well and are cheap to acquire. You especially can't go wrong with a 50mm, even an E-series will perform great. No need to spend the extra to get the f1.2. It was only ever really purchased to win pissing contests. In your situation I'd personally round out a 3-lens set with an E-series 50mm 1.8 (can be had for under $100) to put the extra money into the pricey 28mm f2.8 and a 85mm or 105mm.
EDIT: missed you already had the 50mm. I'd get the wide and the short tele before looking at other focal lengths.
I use the 24mm to disturb: subtly enhance closeups of unhinged characters or to deliberately distort backgrounds for a sense of uneasiness. My 28mm is my go to wide. I use it constantly. When I just want to go wider because I'm in close quarters and can't move back far enough or just want to go really wide in a landscape or otherwise want the compression or other qualities of a wide, I use the 20mm. If you're just getting one wide then 28mm 2.8 hands down. My favourite Nikon of the lot.
For your purposes you want, nay, NEED either the 85mm f2 or the 105mm f2.5. They are both short teles - great portrait lenses with great bokeh. The 85mm will be excellent for your medium shots and head shots. The 105mm for close ups and portraits. Both will do great things for any wedding shots with predictable movement. Not so good for the more candid shots where people mill about unpredictably and you have to search for focus, depending on your skill level. Great for stills too. The 135mm is a decent lens but I only use it when the 105mm isn't long enough, it's that much better. I would recommend the 85mm first because it's a little more versatile but with your uses the longer focal lengths may be more useful if you can't get close enough to the action for your desired framing.
For the normal you've got a choice of 35mm or 50mm. Both will do the job, it just comes down to preference. The 35mm is a borderline wide but many people prefer the slightly wider characteristics of the 35mm as their default choice. They are the two easiest lenses to design and have traditionall been kit lenses or first additional lens purchased so all versions pretty much perform well and are cheap to acquire. You especially can't go wrong with a 50mm, even an E-series will perform great. No need to spend the extra to get the f1.2. It was only ever really purchased to win pissing contests. In your situation I'd personally round out a 3-lens set with an E-series 50mm 1.8 (can be had for under $100) to put the extra money into the pricey 28mm f2.8 and a 85mm or 105mm.
EDIT: missed you already had the 50mm. I'd get the wide and the short tele before looking at other focal lengths.
Last edited:
QuickHitRecord
Veteran
The 18/3.5 AI-S is also a keeper. Seems like it has less distortion than the 20mm(s).
That 28mm sounds like it will be a great lens definitely will be the first one I get. Then probably the 85. I really enjoyed the 50 on my DX body so that 85 should give me something similar in focal length! Also that's good to know about the 18mm. If I can finally justify a robin m that lens sounds like it would be great on it.
Imamacuser
Veteran
I like the Nikon D series lenses from the 90s because, they have AF which comes in handy for stills.
I have a 24mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.8 in the D series; the only downside is they don't have quite as long a focus throw as the AIS lenses.
I'm fond of my 35mm 2.8 Ai, but I think the AIS version has a little better optics.
For tighter shots, I actually use a Hasselblad 80mm 2.8, but for simplicity, you're probably better off with a Nikon 85mm AIS or D series lens.
I have a 24mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.8 in the D series; the only downside is they don't have quite as long a focus throw as the AIS lenses.
I'm fond of my 35mm 2.8 Ai, but I think the AIS version has a little better optics.
For tighter shots, I actually use a Hasselblad 80mm 2.8, but for simplicity, you're probably better off with a Nikon 85mm AIS or D series lens.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
My circa 1970s 85mm 1.8 Ai is on my cameras for almost every interview, it is a beautiful lens that I bought in almost new condition used a few years ago for $200.00. The 50mm 1.4 Ai-S is my go to for a bit wider interview. Both were cheap and continue to impress many years after I bought them. And I use them on the Canon C100 and C300 as well as on my Nikons for stills. Nikon manuals are a GREAT investment with huge return on the dollar as they can be used on almost any pro video camera on the market with the right adapters, the build quality is superb and the results look beautiful. Another bargain would be the 80-200 2.8, a big, heavy razor sharp lens that I have seen so much good work from.
Last edited:
ReelFilmGeek
Well-known member
What about the Nikon 28mm F2 compared to the F2.8?
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Optically, not that different. If you want the extra speed, the 2.0 weighs a few ounces more and you will pay double the price for AI and AiS versions over the 2.8. Modern video cameras look the same basically at ISO 850 versus ISO 1200 so it's up to you if you want to spend the money on the 2.0 version's extra speed. CA is about comparable, build quality will be excellent on either one. Here are the two for sale so you can compare. Do not buy the D version for video, they are generally junk in build quality in comparison to the AI and AiS versions. https://www.keh.com/search/list?n=147&category[]=Fixed+Focal+Length+Lenses%2C+Mfg&mfg[]=Nikon&mnt[]=69&fl[]=28mm (Copy and paste the whole URL)
ReelFilmGeek
Well-known member
hm cool. Yeah only reason I am debating on the extra stop of speed is the slightly more shallow depth of field as I like the look sometimes and would love to have the option.
Nikon 105mm f2.5 has an incredible look to it. Also the f2 versions of the 50mm and 85mm are fantastic.
My favorite relatively cheap glass is the Voightlander 40mm f2. This is a video screen grab with it on a D750. Also does a fantastic job with a SLR Magic Anamorphot in front of it. It's very small, has a buttery smooth focus ring, and is actually my ideal focal length.
My favorite relatively cheap glass is the Voightlander 40mm f2. This is a video screen grab with it on a D750. Also does a fantastic job with a SLR Magic Anamorphot in front of it. It's very small, has a buttery smooth focus ring, and is actually my ideal focal length.
Michael Carter
Veteran
Keep in mind regarding the 28mm - only the AIS version is holy-grail level. The AI and AF variants are just OK. The Series-E is pretty crappy.
I'm not sure, but I think the 28mm AIS 2.8 is a far better choice than the 2.0 - different optical formulas. The 2.8 AIS outperforms the similar Zeiss lens.
There are mentions above regarding using the 28 as a wide lens. On an APS-C sensor, it's more of a normal lens (and an excellent one at that). (My pref for video is APS-C; it's about the same as the super-35 format that, like, most every hollywood movie was shot on. I find the look of my glass is best at that sensor size for how I compose and what I want to see. Not nuts about full frame.)
The 85mm 1.8 AF has been mentioned - it's my #1 people/interview lens. Something about it is really magical.
The 105 is also a highly regarded lens. But, on a budget, the 100mm 2.8 Series E is a steal. Can be found around $100. Not a great pixel-peeping lens, but at F4 or so it's really got it going on, esp. as an APS-C lens. Great focus feel, great size and makes people look great - compact for a tele but a wide focus ring and not at all pancake-ey.
Best deal in a do-it-all zoom could be the 28-70 2.8. It's a massive lens but very well engineered. Many of them are developing S-motor issues, which doesn't mean a great deal for video use and can knock the price way down. I picked one up for about $700. It's on my camera a lot of the time, generally when the 85 isn't the big zoom is.
For wides on a budget, I'd probably take a good look at the Sigma 1.8 wide zoom or look into the Rokinon glass.
I'm not sure, but I think the 28mm AIS 2.8 is a far better choice than the 2.0 - different optical formulas. The 2.8 AIS outperforms the similar Zeiss lens.
There are mentions above regarding using the 28 as a wide lens. On an APS-C sensor, it's more of a normal lens (and an excellent one at that). (My pref for video is APS-C; it's about the same as the super-35 format that, like, most every hollywood movie was shot on. I find the look of my glass is best at that sensor size for how I compose and what I want to see. Not nuts about full frame.)
The 85mm 1.8 AF has been mentioned - it's my #1 people/interview lens. Something about it is really magical.
The 105 is also a highly regarded lens. But, on a budget, the 100mm 2.8 Series E is a steal. Can be found around $100. Not a great pixel-peeping lens, but at F4 or so it's really got it going on, esp. as an APS-C lens. Great focus feel, great size and makes people look great - compact for a tele but a wide focus ring and not at all pancake-ey.
Best deal in a do-it-all zoom could be the 28-70 2.8. It's a massive lens but very well engineered. Many of them are developing S-motor issues, which doesn't mean a great deal for video use and can knock the price way down. I picked one up for about $700. It's on my camera a lot of the time, generally when the 85 isn't the big zoom is.
For wides on a budget, I'd probably take a good look at the Sigma 1.8 wide zoom or look into the Rokinon glass.
The lens I most regret selling (other than my 35mm f/2.0 AI) is the superb Vivitar Seies 1 90mm f/2.5 macro, mid '70s vintage. Arguably one of the sharpest lenses ever for 35mm photography. Superior resolution, contrast and build quality. Expect to pay a premium price if you can find one.
Ken
Ken