RED ONE and Nikon Lenses...

[Jarek Zabczynski]

I've read somewhere that using 35mm cam lenses on RED ONE doesn't work well. Something about the sensor size not matching up or whatever. I was thinking about a set of good Zeiss lenses for RED. I know the first thing people will say is "Rent good lenses" but I'm looking at options. I've seen these available from Zacuto...

http://store.zacuto.com/manufacturers.php?manufacturerid=24

How well would such lenses work with RED ONE? Any problems? How do they compare to RED PL lenses?

Also, it's just really nice to own if you can ya know?

Thanks!

[Joel Kaye]

Also, it's just really nice to own if you can ya know?


Check the lens forum here (where this thread belongs). The quick answer is a good $99 Nikon 50mm looks gorgeous on RED. The top end 35mm digital slrs deliver more resolution that RED. Any lens that looks great on the current top end DSLR will look great on RED.

[Brandon Fraley]

yeah, i'd do more research because i haven't heard from anyone so far that the images from good nikon glass have disappointed.

[Ken K]

I'm running the Zeiss ZF lenses (28mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4 and the 100mm f/2 macro) on the Nikon mount and it all looks great to me. I haven't had a chance to go out and get footage yet (backordered battery plate, NAB, on set all day, etc), but the sample footage I shot in my underlit apartment looked fine other than being too dark. These lenses were made to cover a larger area than the Red sensor, so you're definitely fine as far as sensor size is concerned. They're a little stiff on the focus, but that shouldn't be a problem for Viewfactor's FF.

I have all the parts needed now and the Red Drive is arriving next week, so I hope to put up some shots of the Oregon Coast next weekend. Expect a 28mm wide shot of the sunset, a 100mm macro shot of *something* and an 8mm Peleng fisheye shot of a cave or something.

[PMascetta]

May want to check out www.redrockmicro.com as well. I think they sell a full set of the same lenses. May be cheaper, and the follow focus that comes with it is really nice (have one myself) works with Red zooms as well.

[Steve Phillipps]

A theoretical issue is that if you use uses made for larger chip/film areas they won't be made to resolve as much detail as those for smaller chips, and 35mm SLR is larger than RED (I think). In practice I've not really noticed this, having used SLR lenses on Super 16 and Digibeta etc with good results. Another issue is with 3 chip CCD cameras as they take in a focus the light through the lens in a different way theoretically leading to issues. The RED is CMOS though so this doesn't apply. As has been pointed out DSLRs have more res than RED so the lenses should be upto it, and I've always thought that optical quality was even more important on stills as you're staring at the image for longer than a moving picture, and often through a loupe which magnifies any imperfections far more tha even an HD TV.
I'll be using my Nikons and long Canons!
Steve

[Ken K]

Keep in mind the Red sensor's size (24.4mm x 13.7mm) is roughly the same as the Nikon D2X (23.7 mm × 15.7 mm) and D300 (23.6mm x 15.8mm) and they are roughly around the 12MP range. Still photography's 35mm size (and the Nikon D3 sensor) is 36mm x 24mm. Motion picture Super 35mm at 1.85 is 24mm x 12.97mm.

Steve, are saying cheaper lenses made for smaller DX sized sensors will resolve more detail than FX/full-frame sized sensors? That's crazy talk! ;) Full-frame lenses work beautifully on smaller sensors. In fact, most of the time they work better due to the frame being in more of the central sweet spot rather than pushed out toward the edges.

The cheapest prices you'll find on the Zeiss ZF lenses are from Adorama, when they have them in stock. Short of them, I'd go with B&H. B&H used to be the same price as Adorama, but they raised them recently due to higher demand.

[Steve Phillipps]

Really talking about the difference between say 35mm and 16mm or 2/3". They are reasons (mostly beyond me I must confess) that lenses for 2/3" and more especially 1/3" chips need more resolving power than for larger sensors. I know it doesn't make sense, I'm not 100% convinced either, but theoretically the stock lens on a Canon XL-H1 1/3" camera will perform better on that camera than a 35mm Zeiss and Cooke lenses or the most expensive Nikon stills lenses.
BBC tech Alan Roberts has written extensively on this, again way beyond my comprehension!
Steve

[Steve Phillipps]

And actually Chazmo, by no means most full-frame Nikons work well on small sensor cameras, check out Bjorn Rorslett's very well-respected site for Nikon lens tests, there re many legendary Nikons which test poorly on DX DSLRs. I had a 500 f4P which was superb on my F5, but on my D200 it was awful. I was very surpised I must admit, but there you are.
Steve

[Steve Phillipps]

This is the technical note from guru Alan Roberts (in this case re JVC 1/3" cameras with Nikons):

JVC have adaptor rings to fit larger format lenses, particularly 1"/2 and 2"/3 format. BUT, you must beware of fitting odd lenses, because these adaptors have no glass, they are just adaptors. This means that even a top-notch HD lens may well look soft on it, simply because the lens is computed for a larger format. This camera has pixels spaced 3.33 microns apart while a 2"/3 HD camera has pixels at 5 microns. So, a 2"/3 HD lens like a Zeiss prime (4 micron disc of confusion) will probably be pretty good on the HD100, but any lesser lens (i.e. any zoom) is going to look a bit on the soft side. Bear in mind that the limiting resolution of the HD100 is 300 lines/mm, that should tell you what makes sense in terms of fitting other lenses (e.g. a 35mm still lens making that resolution would produce 10,800 lines/pic width, and I know of no lens that will do that). A decent 2"/3 SD tv lens will have a disc of confusion of 15 microns or so, so can produce only about 66 lines/mm, a lot less than the camera wants.

[PeterM]

In prinziple Steve is right.
Only for your reference.
The current active area of the Sensor is around 12.6mm *22mm
Fullformat (DSLR)Lenses.
A top grade fullformat lens normally give you real 20Mpixels resolution.
So you can say most older top glasses but def ALL new high end glasses for the fullformat DSLR like Nikon D3 will work fine on RED.
But a lot of glasses are not made for the ful resolution of an old 50 ASA film.
On the smaller sensor of the RED (you only use a part of the area of the lens) You will get less than 5Mpixel and thats def to less for the RED.

DX Format lenses.
APS or DX format lenses are normally design for an image circle 25mm
(fullformat 40mm) so this means they will cover the horizontal area of the RED sensor.
So high end DX lenses for eg designed for the D300 will work fine on the RED.
But don´t espect that a kit lens for a body lens kit for 1000 US$ will give you even the qulity for the DSLR and than def also NOT for the RED.
And yes Steve is right. A 1000 US$ DX lens is normally better than a 1000 US$ fullformat lens. There are two simple reasons.
1 The DX lens has often a newer design eg aspheric lens better optical glass.
2. Its simple more cheep to build a lens for a image circle of 25mm than one of 40mm. You need about 50% less optical glass for the same speed.

[albert rudnicki]

Personally I love the ZF Zeiss.
We shot a small test using two Reds; first one equipped with standard primes PL Zeiss, second with nikon ZF Zeiss (28, 50, 85)
They didn't only matched, but the Zf simply outperformed the older PL glass.

[Steve Phillipps]

Good news Albert, I certainly plan on using my Nikkors (17-35 f2.8, 55 and 105 macro, 180 f2.8) plus Canon 150-600, 300 and 800 on the RED. I think they just feel nicer than the Video lenses I've been using on HDCam./Varicam.
Steve

[Emanuel & Co]

This is the technical note from guru Alan Roberts (in this case re JVC 1/3" cameras with Nikons):

JVC have adaptor rings to fit larger format lenses, particularly 1"/2 and 2"/3 format. BUT, you must beware of fitting odd lenses, because these adaptors have no glass, they are just adaptors. This means that even a top-notch HD lens may well look soft on it, simply because the lens is computed for a larger format. This camera has pixels spaced 3.33 microns apart while a 2"/3 HD camera has pixels at 5 microns. So, a 2"/3 HD lens like a Zeiss prime (4 micron disc of confusion) will probably be pretty good on the HD100, but any lesser lens (i.e. any zoom) is going to look a bit on the soft side. Bear in mind that the limiting resolution of the HD100 is 300 lines/mm, that should tell you what makes sense in terms of fitting other lenses (e.g. a 35mm still lens making that resolution would produce 10,800 lines/pic width, and I know of no lens that will do that). A decent 2"/3 SD tv lens will have a disc of confusion of 15 microns or so, so can produce only about 66 lines/mm, a lot less than the camera wants.
Can you provide the link please?

Thanks.

[Steve Sanacore]

This is an old story for photographic lenses and a big surprise to me when I discovered it. The larger the format - the lower resolving power a lens needs. As I understood it, a 35mm camera lens needed way more resolving power than a 4x5 lens for the same detail on the final print or transparency.

The RED sensor seems perfectly suited to 35mm still camera lenses as far as resolution is concerned. Although many mediocre lenses will probably show defects which were well camouflaged by film emulsions.

[Steve Phillipps]

Here's the link http://forums.dvdoctor.net/archive/index.php/t-36611.html
Steve

[Cristina S]

By the way, can you also add the links for these ones?
Really talking about the difference between say 35mm and 16mm or 2/3". They are reasons (mostly beyond me I must confess) that lenses for 2/3" and more especially 1/3" chips need more resolving power than for larger sensors. I know it doesn't make sense, I'm not 100% convinced either, but theoretically the stock lens on a Canon XL-H1 1/3" camera will perform better on that camera than a 35mm Zeiss and Cooke lenses or the most expensive Nikon stills lenses.
BBC tech Alan Roberts has written extensively on this, again way beyond my comprehension!
Steve
And actually Chazmo, by no means most full-frame Nikons work well on small sensor cameras, check out Bjorn Rorslett's very well-respected site for Nikon lens tests, there re many legendary Nikons which test poorly on DX DSLRs. I had a 500 f4P which was superb on my F5, but on my D200 it was awful. I was very surpised I must admit, but there you are.
Steve

Thank you.

[Steve Phillipps]

Hi Cristina,
This is the Nikon review site http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
The other one is lost in the mists of time, but just expands on what Alan said in the other link. I'm still not that convinced that the theory holds up that well anyway to be honest. I was with Alan on an HD training course and we put my Canon 150-600 on a camera against a good HD zoom and you couldn't really see much difference.
As has been said, I think these 35mm stills lenses would be expected to do very well on RED as the sensor size is not far off 35mm and it's CMOS instead of CCD.
Best,
Steve

[Mennovandijk]

If you want to use a Nikon DX lens you should check if is has a manual aperture ring. I think all modern Nikon DX lenses have electronic apertures. This means that the aperture is standard at its smallest size (my 17-55 is at F22)
I hope you can adjust the aperture with the Berger mount or else these are not usable i think. :-(

Menno

[Anthony Gratl]

If you want to use a Nikon DX lens you should check if is has a manual aperture ring. I think all modern Nikon DX lenses have electronic apertures. This means that the aperture is standard at its smallest size (my 17-55 is at F22)
I hope you can adjust the aperture with the Berger mount or else these are not usable i think. :-(

Menno

Last I read on the Birger was that it would be able to work with the 'G' series of Nikons.

[william otto]

I own a nice set of vintage nikkors from the early 70's. Eventually would like to set them up for cine use.

But I have heard that there will be "back focus" issues with still lenses used for cine style shooting.

Supposedly, "there is too much slop inherent to the design. Intended more for eye-focus and less for tape-measured readings- making their markings inaccurate."

Has anyone experienced these issues that agrees or disagrees with this statement?

Any info would be appreciated.

[Joel Kaye]

I own a nice set of vintage nikkors from the early 70's. Eventually would like to set them up for cine use.

But I have heard that there will be "back focus" issues with still lenses used for cine style shooting.

Supposedly, "there is too much slop inherent to the design. Intended more for eye-focus and less for tape-measured readings- making their markings inaccurate."

Has anyone experienced these issues that agrees or disagrees with this statement?


Some zoom lenses my not hold focus through a zoom. Other than that backfocus can be adjusted - so I'm not sure backfocus problems exist. I suppose one lens to the next could be inconsistent.

I have seen lenses (new and old) that will cause the image to shift while focusing. You can simulate how a lens is going to work just by testing with your DSLR.

[M.Halsell]

This is so crazy that lenses from yester-year are getting a front and center attention again. Who woulda' thought!

[Joel Kaye]

This is so crazy that lenses from yester-year are getting a front and center attention again. Who woulda' thought!

Yeah, it's pretty cool. I'm guessing that the newest designs specifically made for DSLRS will outperform. The best of new canons and nikons will probably outperform many older PL Lenses.

[chuck colburn]

Many Arri 2C's and Bell & Howell Eyemos were converted to Nikon mount. They made decent images and were expendable for crash camera use.

[william otto]

Thanks for the info.

Anybody have nikkor glass footage out there?

[Rick Darge]

William, checkout the Footage field tests.. Some users have a little bit of footage on there.. I'll post some stuff soon as well

[william otto]

I will look at that. Thank you.

[paulzadie]

Is anyone familiar with the amount of breathing on the Zeiss ZF lenses? I know there will definitely be some breathing, but how well will rack focuses hold up? I am currently using Canon FD lenses with my Brevis 35 adapter, and the breathing is terrible. I am planning on upgrading to the Zeiss ZF lenses in hopes that they work well enough to use with a Red One when I get it.

[Michael Grugal]

Here is a link to different sets of Nikon speeds you can get from RP Lens

http://www.rplens.com/products.htm

[James Brundige]

I've had good results with a set of Nikons, though I always focus by eye.

[Leon Trinidad]

Quick Question, if I've read right, DX sized lenses that I use on my D300 will work right? Anybody try any of these lenses yet. I know most people have full frame sized nikons to use. Anybody have any experience using the DX type lenses?

I'd love to try this lens on it. http://www.adorama.com/TN1116NK.html

[Brandon Fraley]

you can't use DX lenses because they use an electronic iris you can't control from RED

[Steven Parker]

I own a nice set of vintage nikkors from the early 70's. Eventually would like to set them up for cine use.

But I have heard that there will be "back focus" issues with still lenses used for cine style shooting.

Supposedly, "there is too much slop inherent to the design. Intended more for eye-focus and less for tape-measured readings- making their markings inaccurate."

Has anyone experienced these issues that agrees or disagrees with this statement?

Any info would be appreciated.

While I haven't received my Red yet, I'm using (new) Nikkors on a shoot right now, with the Brevis35 adapter. Not a bad set-up, but not as robust as I'm used to.

But I do agree with the focusing issue: the barrel rotation on still lenses generally is extremely short so in some instances less than a quarter-turn of the follow-focus wheel throws focus from about 5 feet to infinity! In a feature-film environment, that's a very difficult scenario for the focus-puller when, for instance, you have a shot of a car driving away from camera, or you boom down from a wide establishing shot to a medium shot of an actor in the foreground. I've done a bit of run&gun shooting as well, and I am searching for focus a lot longer than I would on a cine lens, or even an HD lens. It's a demanding scenario when you have moving subjects.

And yes, many of these brand new Nikkors reveal inaccurate barrel markings - so "tape-measured readings" don't work: you have to take distance marks with eye-focus and mark up your FF wheel. It's not a back-focus issue as far as I can tell, just that sharp, acceptable focus shifts dramatically with only minor barrel adjustments.

Having said that, I can't wait to throw these lenses up on the Red! (I'm blessed with an excellent focus-puller....;)

[Ralph N Madison]

I read about the Nikon zooms in American Cinematographer (10/07). Oliver Wood had (I think) ARRI rehouse some for Bourne Ultimatum. Oliver talks about the great edge to edge sharpness and what great light weight lenses they are for hand held and steadicam.

I am an Indi film DP (always on a budget) and a steadicam op. With a Red comming well you get the drift.

I knew enough about lenses and optics to know I wanted someone else to select and modify the glass for my kit.

I searched the web. and found http://www.rplens.com/index.htm

I got a set of Nikon high speeds 24mm-f2.0, 35mm-f1.4, 50mm-f1.2, 85mm-f1.4, and a 80 to 200 f2.8 zoom from Peter Sensor.

The primes are very nice very sharp. The zoom is top notch. Peter was a pleasure to talk to. I learned a lot as he helped me get my kit together.

I am shooting a "New Orleans second line parade" over the weekend. I hope to post that video soon.

Here is something interesting from the BarTech manual. With the BFD "the smaller the range of travel of the motor, the more accurate the system becomes".

[Steve Phillipps]

Excellent link Ralph, looks like a really nice conversion job.
Steve

[william otto]

But I do agree with the focusing issue: the barrel rotation on still lenses generally is extremely short so in some instances less than a quarter-turn of the follow-focus wheel throws focus from about 5 feet to infinity!

I understand the Birger mount only works with the newer nikkors that are programed to communicate with the mount itself. But does the Birger follow
focus simulate the longer rotation of a true cine-type focus barrel?

This same question applies to a BarTech remote focus.

[donatello b]

from what i recall at the reduser NAB get together ...
the birger calibrates the focus to be one FULL turn on the birger focus wheel = so even if the canon lens focus is equal to only a 1/2 " from 1ft to infinity on the canon lens barrel that will be equal to one full turn on the birger focus wheel

[william otto]

Thanks for the info.

Will the Birger be able to calibrate a motorized gear (microforce) to work with the older nikkors with focus rings?

[Evin Grant]

Thanks for the info.

Will the Birger be able to calibrate a motorized gear (microforce) to work with the older nikkors with focus rings?

No but the Viewfactor Studios Imerio and Inclino will.

[jaadgy akanni]

No but the Viewfactor Studios Imerio and Inclino will.

The way I see it, if you really wanna be pimping with Nikon glass, you should have both the Birger mount and Viewfactor FF. That's what I'm gonna do. The price points are ridiculously generous; no reason to sacrifice one for the other.

[william otto]

Imerio and Inclino.

Got it. Thanks!

[Lauri Kettunen]

I have the Red Nikon mount and it's about 6-9 degrees out of position counter clockwise. The small knob with the spring is located about at 16 minutes in the dial. Anybody else have the same? Of course, in practice it does not matter much, only with lens hoods whose vertical peaks are longer than the horizontal ones.

[Jeremy Newmark]

The nikon mount can be rotated easily. It may be that when it was installed the orientation was not "correct". Some people have been installing the mount in the orientation that you describe yours in so that the focus and iris marks can be read from the operator side of the camera. When the mount is in the "correct" orientation the marks can only be read from the top. If you remove the 8 screws, you should be able to spin the mount to your desired postion.

[Lauri Kettunen]

The nikon mount can be rotated easily. ...

Jnewm, thanks, but it's not that trivial. This picture should explain the point better than words

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/3500_1210780883.jpg

[Jeremy Newmark]

That makes things much clearer. I obviously did not understand exactly what you were trying to explain. My apologies.

[Douglas Underdahl]

Yeah - it is out by the amount that Lauri shows. Not sure why I did it this way exactly, but I assume that it I was thinking that users would ultimately have 8 possible positions for the witness mark so it wasn't ultra important that it have any specific relation to the 8 holes in the mount, as long as there was ample room for the pin actuation mechanism to fit between two of the screws. Also, it didn't occur to me that the "tulip leaves" on the sunshades that come with some lenses would be referenced to the witness mark and be non-adjustable.

I think Lauri is right, that "in practise it does not matter much", especially if you use a matte box in place of the shade, or put your witness mark at 3 pm as is the custom of most 35mm movie cameras (which you can do with the shave-the-connector technique) in which case your shade leaves would really be out of vertical.

Just thinking about this, it also occurs to me that the leaves of the shades are set up for full 35mm 8 perf still frames, and that they could be longer and broader for use with the 35mm 4 perf RED format - might save you from lens flare once in a while over the original leaves.