Will someone please make a lens turret for the AF100?

A great cine zoom would indeed relieve all the desire for a turret. But we're in an odd place right now, where SLR primes can sometimes be plenty fine (like the ZF series) but all SLR zooms suck suck suck suck suck. Ugh, they're irritating. Blech. So I use primes more and more, and our lower-budget members don't have access to decent cine zooms so they're stuck with primes, and juggling primes is just so... "primetive". Heh.

I have really high hopes that Zeiss will make decent zooms in m43 mount. chrisccw gives a pretty good report on the Zeiss ZA lenses, even though the focus throw is short and you have to use one of those sliding-lever aperture-control adapters. I'm hoping native-mount would perform the way we want.

I can see some appeal to a turret. Then again, I'm old-school and still have a turret S16 filmo... but, also, on a practicality standpoint, it uses tiny little c-mount lenses (lenses that are maybe 1" in diameter or so). Hauling around three ZF's on a turret might be impractical...
 
Barry_Green said:
A great cine zoom would indeed relieve all the desire for a turret. But we're in an odd place right now, where SLR primes can sometimes be plenty fine (like the ZF series) but all SLR zooms suck suck suck suck suck. Ugh, they're irritating. Blech.
Click to expand...

Amen.
 
all SLR zooms suck suck suck suck suck. Ugh, they're irritating. Blech.
Click to expand...

All !

The only one I currently own that I find works pretty well is the Nikkor 17-35 f2.8. NOT perfect (as in a cine zoom) but perfectly workable in every other respect. (esp. as a variable prime). I have considered just about every still zoom lens ever made in a range up to 100mm. Choices are limited .

Wonder why lens manufacturers are so coy in letting us know what is on the drawing boards and coming up in the future. Cant think of a reason why they wouldnt. Their optic designs are their designs already so why not send a message out.

Example : Adobe were very clever in pre releasing info about CS5 and MPE. Seems to have worked very well for them and it was incredibly helpful to those considering the new version ( which of course required a processor upgrade and the option of a graphics board upgrade. So software and hadware investment that we could plan for almost one yewar ahead of time. Very cool thinking.
 
Yeah, I had one of those, but it didn't match any of my other glass, so I sent it on to a new home...

I picked up a PL-mount S16 lens for my S16 camera, it was a brand-new Angenieux 17.5-70, with an open f-stop of f/2.2. Think about that, it's almost the same range as the Red 18-85, it's 1/10th the weight, it's about 1/10th the size volumetrically, it's a short little three-and-a-half-inch lens, it's faster than the Red zoom, and it's less than 1/10th the price. Could it be... would it maybe... could it possibly work on the AF100? It's a Super16 lens, maybe it'll cover...

Nope. Drat. Would have been fun, but the dang AF100 sensor is just too big (which is, of course, it's whole point, but I thought it would have been great).

We'll find out what many of the lens manufacturers are up to, next month at NAB, and I'll certainly be putting in some requests for a decent low-cost cine-style zoom!
 
I think the idea of the turret is really interesting. The lenses that would make the most sense are the FT lenses, there may be enough space there for the turret without cutting into the AF100 body, and there are excellent choices of lenses there, and there will probably be more soon. And they are also small and light.

I think Nikon/Canon etc. 35mm lenses would be too clumsy.

I think the first run of 5 prototypes turrets could be done for under $10,000.00. Then it becomes a numbers game how many in each production run to figure out the cost, more units lower cost each.

Like I said I think this can be done, and it could make sense for the FT lenses. But I don't know if this would be popular enough. It might be intriguing if it was produced with the lenses included.

Any thoughts? If anyone wants to pool resources and ideas I am game. This could be a real fun project.

BTW, once the Birger adapter is out. I am planning on using my 24-70 f2.8 CanonL and 70-200 f2.8 Canon L and even the 100-400 f4-5.6 L as variable primes on the AF100. I like these lenses a lot as well as the Canon 14mm f2.8 L. These along with my Voightlander 25mm f.95 will be my main stable to start.

Now I do a lot of still shooting as well so this makes sense for me.

However the next lenses I buy for video will definitely be cine PL's, this just makes sense for future proofing. I think it is pretty clear that there will from now on be a lot of video cams with close to or S35 sensors.

But back to the turret idea. I have a CNC mill and a lathe myself, and a very good large machine shop just down the road. If anyone is interested in collaboration, let me know.
 
Brings back memories of using several different turret cameras over the years. My favorite was my Eclair CM3 which I purchased after a conversation with Haskell Wexler. I eventually had the turret modded by L.B. With 3 different mounts to accommodate all my lenses.

Flash forward to the AF100... Most of my commercial work is with prime lenses, as we are still waiting on the perfect zoom to allow fast shooting. But to be honest, I don't think I would enjoy the extra bulk/weight of mounting 3 lenses to the AF100. Not to mention any speed you might have gained by having the lenses pre-mounted would be offset by having to move the follow focus and reposition the matte box when turning the turret. What I would enjoy is an affordable 10-100mm T1.6 zoom with all rings geared.

All the Best!

Dave
 
What I would enjoy is an affordable 10-100mm T1.6 zoom with all rings geared.
Click to expand...

Me too, although T1.6 is way optimistic... I'd settle for T2 or even 2.8 - and that's "T" not "F", meaning actual light transmission.

Turrets are a pain, especially if you use filters with a matte box (the longer lenses need to be removed in order to slide the matte box back far enough). In fact, ironically, I still hold a 1969 patent for a stainless steel Rex mount plate for a Bolex that replaced the turret for use with heavy zooms.
 
Agree that the Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 does not suck - and is an awesome variable prime. Ditto for the Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8.

Incredible glass + Constant aperture + Aperture ring + Doesn't breath.

Also, a future-proof buy for use on other cameras, larger sensors etc.

Get them modded with large focus rings for long travel, and use a FF that flips - and you're all set. Best bang for the buck if you're looking for quality primes in the basic 35, 50, 85, 100 equivalent range. For wider, add the Tokina 11-16mm.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, now discontinued - but I picked up a new one on eBay.

At KEH: http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Autofocus-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-NA07999035252R?r=FE

Photozone test: http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikk...-af-s-28-70mm-f28-d-if-ed-review--test-report

KR test: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/2870afs.htm

Breathing test: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=9173

Also, see last post on this page re: breathing: http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13832&page=2

...and more discussion here: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20030&page=2

Wish it wasn't discontinued. I have a feeling it's going to become a collector's item, like the Nikkor f/1.4 28mm AF.

Also, note that there are rumblings that the excellent Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 is about to be discontinued as well.
 
IMHO, this pair of lenses is the best "bang for the buck" for quality / coverage / fixed aperture / physical aperture ring / non-breathing etc... for the AF-100. They don't hold zoom throughout the entire range, but do hold through certain key slices of the range.

I picked up the pair for about $2,400 new.

I would have liked a set of cinemized Zeiss ZF.2s (18, 25, 35, 50) - but that would have cost more than twice as much, and I can't afford them yet. Maybe those... or the Zeiss CP.2s... or the LWZ.2 some day.
 
IMHO, this pair of lenses is the best "bang for the buck" for quality / coverage / fixed aperture / physical aperture ring / non-breathing etc... for the AF-100.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Welcome to the 'We dont need no Turret Club'.
 
Primes are faster and generally breathe less. I'm still all about a turrent. In fact the idea of a turent with interchangeable mounts so you could set them all up differently like maybe one PL, one Nikon, and one Canon would be kind of cool.
 
Turrets are cool on bolex's because the lenses are small and c-mounts are a PITA, I can almost change nikon lens as fast as flipping a turret. Well maybe not quite, but not worth the hassle of carrying more lenses on the front. What would be cool is a dual position vertical turret like the Eclair NPR with PL mount in one place and and a universal mount on the top that would have inserts for the popular still mounts. It should be a rugged piece of kit that includes the baseplate rod support for the PL, possibly even an integrated top handle and secure mounting in the body top screws.

While this would surely be expensive, it would save a lot of time in rigging the camera on shoots that might use both PL and still glass.
 
I'm still waiting. I was shooting an opera performance at lincoln center the other day and the swap between my 10-20, 50, and 85 would have been a dream with a turret.... Anyone want to build one? It sounds like myself and a few others are interested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top