Which lenses should I invest in (AF100 & beyond)

F

filmguy123

Veteran
I know this is a big question. But just wondering for some different perspective and opinion. I am new to the AF100 and the world of lenses, but it seems a lot of people love the Nikon Nikkors on their AF100 - as I understand, these are older, manual photo lenses and people are getting them used, second hand for cheap and adapting them for video purposes. It seems there are a few ways to go:

* Pickup old, secondhand lenses via Ebay for dirt cheap (Canon FDs, Nikon Nikkors, Minolta MD Rokkors) for use on AF100.
* Purchase specific MFT or FT lenses, but these will be limited to use with these camera types?
* Modern lenses, i.e. Canon ES or newer Nikons, won't work w/out an expensive adpator (redrock or upcoming birger) as they don't pass the electronics to control aperture?

If I am on a tight budget, where would I do best to invest in lenses? Any specific lens recommenations, or basically just look for Nikkors/Canon FDs/Rokkors with good specs? Should I invest much in MFT lenses or is that not very future proof? And as I understand, cinema lenses are really expensive still?

Will these old Nikkors/Rokkors/FDs work with future cinema camera systems (via adapter) most likely?

My current lens kit for my AF100 will be as follows:

FT to MFT adapter
Nikon adapter
Minolta MD adaptor

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 II Zuiko Digital Zoom Lens
Rokkor 50mm f/1.7 Prime Lens
Minolta MD (lower-end) 70-210 f/4.0-5.6 Zoom Lens

What should my next additions be?
Should I get a Canon FD mount?
Is it worthwhile in the long term to invest in the Voigtlander 0.95 MFT lens, or is that pretty much going to be an AF100 one-off?

Also - what would be a good affordable wide-angle and macro lens? I don't need a 7-14 zoom lens, I'd be happy with something just close to the 7mm on that lens for cheaper; and I'm not sure what to look for regarding the macro. I know "cheap" and "good" don't usually go together in the world of lenses but it does seem you can get some steals by purchasing old lenses secondhand, and at that, lenses that can be used far into the future even down the road if I swap out my AF100 and pick up a new camera? (with the right adpaters, of course?)
 
Walk before you start trying to run is my advice.

Start by knowing what you intend to do with them.

You need to focus on a simple basic kit of maybe 4-5 lenses ie. 25, 35, 50, 85, 105 ( all arguable but there abouts)

It is most convenient to have them all of the same brand and mount eg Nikkors, Canons

Do not disregard the condition factor of any lens you buy. Mechanically and optically they need to be in excellent condition. Buy cheap with due care and caution!

Now option 2... as a starter lens...this is actually a pretty good choice an wi get you up to speed on a lot of things to do with the AF100 as well as allow you to make some movies.

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 II Zuiko Digital Zoom Lens with FT to MFT Adapter
 
Thanks for the tips so far! That makes sense to have them all from the same manufacturer. I have purchased a used kit and my dad had some old lenses. So what I listed above, I have already (those 3 adaptors, the Olympus lens, and the two Minolta lenses). Wondering where would make the most sense to look at putting money into next, in the coming months (Nikkors?). I will be getting a running start with the AF100 as I have multiple shoots to use it on this month.
 
Just how many lenses do you think you actually need for the work you have for them?

Only you know what you need to do the jobs.

Lenses are not "brand names". They are optical tools ...and each has a look, purpose and function in your kit.

How and where to spend your money is impossible for us to guess at.
We have no idea what you have for your camera already. eg baseplates, mattebox, ff, batteries, chargers , cards, monitors, cables, head and Legs,

Buy the camera (body) for xxxx and then treble it is what I tell people .
 
I do a pretty good variety of work, and I do understand the different looks the lenses give. I know I want a wider lens, a macro lens, and probably a mid-to-long telephoto with better lowlight.

Guess I'm wondering with my current set of lenses what would be best to fill in the gaps with (bang-for-buck // relevant in future).

Also I should mention - I have everything in that kit EXCEPT the Minolta adapter. I assumed I'd get it because of the Minolta lenses... but looking on BHphoto I see two adapters, one at $100 and the other at $165... probably guessing people will steer me towards the $165 one. At that price point, it's about the same price as the two Minolta lenses I'm getting from my dad for free if I were to go on ebay and the same lenses he has! Makes me wonder - I got a Nikkon adapter included; perhaps I should just put the $160 towards Nikkor lenses instead of the Minolta adapter?
 
If you can afford them, Compact Primes CP.2

You can change out the lens mounts on them. Start with micro 4/3" then you can change them to EF or PL later.
 
filmguy123,
Here are 2 questions for you:

1. Are you getting the AF100 in order to get shallow depth of field? If so, your mid-range focal lengths (35 to 100) should all open up to at least f/2.8 or, better yet, f/2.0. The wide angles tend to have deep depth of field anyhow, so I wouldn't be as concerned about their max aperture. An extreme wide angle shot with shallow DOF would just look strange.

2. Do you need to work fast, yet want precise framing control? If so, a zoom lens would be helpful. Unfortunately, zooms with large apertures (held throughout the zoom range) are few and expensive.

If you answer YES to both questions, things get expensive. Maybe a combination of a fast zoom for the mid-range, then 2 or 3 prime lenses to fill out the focal lengths? I'm considering the AF100 for myself. I have several very old Nikkors for my F2 (which I haven't used in years). It sure would be nice to put them to use again, but I would also need a zoom for when I need to work quickly.

- Ken
 
Andrew, those CP .2's look awesome but they are definitely out of my current budget!

Ken, thanks for the great and detailed feedback. When you say my mid-range focal lengths (35 to 100), are you referring to 35-100 by FF35mm standards, or after the crop factor? What I mean is, if I have an 85mm that only opens to say 4.0 - that's actually 170mm after crop factor, so is that fine? Or should my 85mm (170mm) open to 2.8 or more? Also, I was concerned about max aperture on wider lens for the sake of low light more than DoF on the wide shots. I do a lot of indoor shooting.
 
filmguy,
I was referring to actual focal lengths. A lens on the AF100 covers about the same view as the same lens on a 35mm motion picture camera. (I was NOT referring to the equivalent lens on a 35mm full-frame still camera.)
I wasn't aware that your primary concern was low light shooting..... of course that would require fast lenses at all focal lengths. Too bad that most zoom lenses don't hold the same max aperture throughout the zoom range. Sounds like a collection of fast prime lenses would suit you best. Or do you need the fast-handling convenience of a zoom? I find that using a zoom is good if I have people standing around waiting for me to get the camera set up. (I tend to be fussy about framing.)
- Ken

P.S. -- If shallow DOF is not that important to you, take a look at the AG-HPX250. Users report that they can up the gain quite a bit with little increase in noise. And then increase brightness further in post (apparently due to the camera recording 10-bit data instead of 8-bit).
 
Last edited:
Nah shallow DoF is super important, that's why I'm getting the AF100. I just meant in the wide angle lens, I would still want a faster aperture if possible for indoor shots with lower light. Though I realize that may not be possible at a price point I can afford, unless there's a good 7-8mm vintage prime lens I could pickup? Nikkor or Rokkor?

Seems I am hearing good feedback on investing into vintage lenses that were built for still 35mm cameras, and I should be able to use them on future cinema systems with an adaptor? Out of curiosity, what is the advantage of true cinema lenses?
 
Usually, interchangeable zoom lenses for cinema maintain the same max aperture throughout the zoom range. I've noticed that's not true for permanently attached lenses. Other features of cinema lenses are geared focus rings, for attaching follow-focus controls, and more travel to the ring, to allow precise repeatable control. And if you get a set of "matched" prime lenses, they would have the same color and contrast characteristics.
- Ken
 
The Olympus Shooter mentions is a versatile lens, but doesn't have constant aperture, so as you use the longer end, you'll have to open up your iris.

Parfocal is desirable in zooms too- holds focus through the focal range of the lens, a benefit even if you're using it as a "variable prime" and not zooming.

A 7-8mm stills lens would be a fisheye, and even used, probably not that cheap.

I got a (new) Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and love it, don't know if it's out of your budget range.

In addition to ebay, try KEH.com for used lenses- they rate their lenses Ugly to Excellent. Happy lens shopping!
 
groveChuck said:
The Olympus Shooter mentions is a versatile lens, but doesn't have constant aperture, so as you use the longer end, you'll have to open up your iris.

Parfocal is desirable in zooms too- holds focus through the focal range of the lens, a benefit even if you're using it as a "variable prime" and not zooming.

A 7-8mm stills lens would be a fisheye, and even used, probably not that cheap.

I got a (new) Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and love it, don't know if it's out of your budget range.

In addition to ebay, try KEH.com for used lenses- they rate their lenses Ugly to Excellent. Happy lens shopping!
Click to expand...

Iris and aperture are different words for exactly the same thing, just so you know.
 
Will Turner said:
Iris and aperture are different words for exactly the same thing, just so you know.
Click to expand...
I do know. It's usually a matter of context, with the added specificity of iris usually being used in a video context (with both permanently mounted or changeable ENG lenses), and aperture in a film and stills sense, and perhaps a further interchangeablity of terms when still lenses are used on video cameras...

Though it would be quite unusual to tell a film DP or a still photographer to "iris" up or down...
 
The Tokina 11-16/2.8, & Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non-IS), provide the optics for two widely used PL lenses, the Duclos 11-16, & RED 17-50. They're both parfocal, & by zoom standards, fast, so would likely suit you well.
 
I have the Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non-IS) which is a very good lense for the money, its parafocal but their is a iris shift as you zoom thru the range even though its 2.8 thru out. The sigma 50-150 2.8 is also parafocal and its pretty smooth on the zoom and focus.
 
Hey filmguy. I can attest with the others that both the Tokina 11-16 and Tamron 17-50 are great lenses that cover a wide range for the money. In my experience though my Tamron does get a little soft around the edges as you creep towards wide open. That's not abnormal for a lot of lenses though. Your mileage may vary.

In regards to your Minolta lenses, I was in the same boat as you - got 2 from my dad's old camera and decided to give them a whirl. He had a 135mm that was kinda meh (the aperture blades were stuck in the open position), but his 45mm f2 is gravy. It's turned out to be one of my absolute favorite pieces of glass. I actually was able to find a RainbowImaging adaptor on eBay for Minolta MD that I just leave on the lens since it's my only usable piece of kit with that mount. I (and everyone else around here) usually advise against using the cheap adapters for glass, but since this particular adapter is just one solid piece of machined metal without an aperture adjustment ring or anything, it's held up remarkably well. If you're curious about experimenting with those Minoltas the $35 investment might be worth it to see if you want to invest further. My only word of warning is to inspect the mount when you get it and make absolutely certain there are no defects before trying to put it on the camera. It worked well for me, but we've all heard the horror stories of cheap mounts. You get what you pay for.

That said, I'd love to hear what you think of those Minoltas. I liked the other one so much I'm seriously considering building a secondary kit to complement my Nikkors. Anyway, happy shooting!

- Jon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top