Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 AFS (The one you've all been waiting for) Review

[Evin Grant]

Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 AF-S
http://www.keh.com/ProductImages/fullSize/NA07999038640.jpg

History:
The 17-35mm was introduced in 1999 as a replacement for the venerable but outdated 20-35mm AFD. The newer lens was one of the first to incorperate Nikons Silent wave focusing motor for faster autofocus operation. It was also one of Nikons first attempts to make a lens for digital as well as 35mm film cameras. It incorperates no less than 3 aspheric elements and 2 ED (Extra-low Dispersion) elements. Although quite a few lower end lenses use this technology now it was a big deal in 1999. The result is an optic that may be the best full coverage 35mm wide angle zoom ever designed! Most reviews but it barely behind the Zeiss 21mm and Leica 19mm as best wide lens period!

http://www.reduser.net/evin/Nikon17-35mmf2.8/Jpeg/nikon17-35MWf5.6.jpg

Performance:
What can I say, this lens is a real winner. It's resolution at infinity wide open matches the 24mm f2.8 and 35mm f2 and by f5.6 is probably better.
There is only a slight increase in micro-contrast from 2.8-5.6 where this lens really is at it's best. By f11 diffraction is starting to show but not in a very significant way. At 17mm f2.8 there is a slight torroidial (Doughnut shape) focus shift a bit off center. This is very subtle and probably due to the way the very complex aspherical elements are arranged. All things considered the images this lens delivers are just stunning, even wide open the lens easily resolves 4k+, in fact when you sharpen the f2.8 images just a bit you can't tell them apart from f5.6.

100% Crops converted in Adobe ACR +10 sharpening.
http://www.reduser.net/evin/Nikon17-35mmf2.8/Jpeg/WideSpread.jpg

The close focusing capability of this lens also makes it a very versitile option. It can focus to under 1ft making all sorts of interesting shots possible. There is a small amount of distorion but it is well controlled, straight lines render very well and chromatic abberations are almost non existant.
Flare is always an issue with zooms but the 17-35 does a great job of holding contrast and resisting ghosting.

http://www.reduser.net/evin/Nikon17-35mmf2.8/Jpeg/MediumSpread.jpg

Breathing:
This lens breathes the least of any still lens I've tried so far, in fact I'd say it's on par with most of the standard/super speed cinema lenses offered today.
http://www.reduser.net/evin/Nikon17-35mmf2.8/breathtest.gif

Bokeh:
Very nice, especially for a wide zoom.
http://www.reduser.net/evin/Nikon17-35mmf2.8/bokehtest.gif

Build quality/adaptability to cinema shooting:
This is one of the newer AF-S lenses so the focus ring can be turned outside of the focus range even though there is quite a bit more friction. A lens gear with built in hard stops (Zacuto) will solve this problem. It does not change shape when zooming or rotate the front element, perfeect for mattebox attachement. Otherwise the lens has an all metal, solid professional construction befitting it's photojournalist heratige. Sample variation and abuse do happen, buy from a reputable vendor that will accept returns. Some beat up lenses do underperform, if you can't return it, it's probably worth having Nikon repair/recalibrate it for you.

Application:
This is your swiss army knife, use it for wides, mediums, inserts, funny close ups anything in the wide to normal range.

Value:
Lets see I could buy an 18mm f3.5, a 20mm f2.8 and a f24mm f2.8 oops! I'm outta cash. Or I could get the same performance and 28mm & 35mm in one lens. Hmmmm. If all you have is a $1000 for a used lens kit the 17-35 and a 50mm f1.4 would be my suggestion.

Uncompressed Tiffs: (big 27Mb files, be patient)
http://www.reduser.net/evin/Nikon17-35mmf2.8/Tiffs/

[Rob Lohman]

Thanks Evin, but the Bokeh links seems to be Brokeh ;)

[Ken Corben]

NICE...thanks E!

"...easily resolves 4K." - In your opinion this means all the way through 4K Red RAW acquisition - Red workflow - to film out?

[Milan Nikolic]

Thanks Evin, this lens is to be my basic lens to start with until RED 300 arrives. And, yes Rob is right!

[Steve Gibby]

Thanks Evin...good stuff!

The RED 18-85mm and the Nikon 17-35mm will be the two zooms in regular use on my RED One cameras.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Evin, thanks...excellent done job. Also I am proud to have it in my Nikon F mount lenses for the RED ONE collection.

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/page2/page2.html

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/extras/Nikon_17-35.jpg

[Jaime Vallés]

Great review, Evin. Very encouraging! This will be my lens of choice, coupled with a 50mm. Few will ever know it was a still camera lens when they see the results.

And, yes, the Bokeh link doesn't work for me either.

[Evin Grant]

I haven't finished it yet, gotta shoot today, but I thought you guys would enjoy the majority of the review ASAP. I Should have the bokeh gif up tonight.

[Evin Grant]

NICE...thanks E!

"...easily resolves 4K." - In your opinion this means all the way through 4K Red RAW acquisition - Red workflow - to film out?

Well, most release prints have maybe 800-1000 lines by the time they are projected, although that's not an recording issue. What I mean is the images you rerord with this lens will be as sharp as the Mysterium sensor can resolve, whatever you do with it afterwards the lens will not be your limiting factor.:gun:

[Clayton Harper]

Thanks for your hard work on all these tests, Evin. I know I can speak for everyone here when I say you totally and completely rule.

I'll be picking this zoom up for sure.

Quick quetion: Does this lens change its overall physical length when zooming like you see with the less expensive still camera zooms?

[S. Um]

Thanks for the review Evin. For people on a budget, this lens was probably the only choice. Fortunately, it turned out to have great performance.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Great review, Evin! Seems to confirm everything I was thinking aobut this lens since I bought it a month ago. I'm planning to buy the RED zoom, but if my budget falls short before RED ships their zoom lens, then at least I know I have this one and it should work beautifully.

[David Nardini]

Quick quetion: Does this lens change its overall physical length when zooming like you see with the less expensive still camera zooms?

Nope, constant for both zooming & focus (+ no rotation of thread mount)

[Evin Grant]

I added that point to the review.

[Sean Carley]

My Nikkor 17-35mm arrived from KEH.com today. Tthanks to Evin for pointing out the deals over there.

[Evin Grant]

Most used lenses, even cinema ones will have some particulate matter in the optics, it's not an issue and you will never see the actual spots. In a worst case scenario a ton of dust or dirt will lower the lenses contrast a bit but a few floaters is normal and no big deal. If you have a Nikon DSLR or a Canon w/Adapter test it and see how it performs, element alignment is likely to be a much bigger deal than specks.

[chuck colburn]

Evin is right about internal dust on lenses. On zooms pay a bit more heed to the rear group (the collimating group) of optics, as larger bits here can sometimes image at the focal plane. Also on wide angle lenses be careful of scratches on the front element as they can cause flares in harsh lighting. More so at smaller f stops.

[Bruce Allen]

Awesome. Thank you again, Evin!

[chuck colburn]

Awsome lens for the buck. Some of the early ones had some QC problems so be careful with older stock. I'm sure a lot of you have seen these sites while making up your minds, but for those who haven't here are some other opinons.

http://www.nikonlinks.com/equipment_lenses_zoom-wide.htm

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/#

[Sam Druckerman]

Thanks Evin, for another excellent review.

Just wondering if you have a lens with dust issues.... How expensive is that type of repair?

[Jason Francois]

Thanks Evin for the enlightenment. As usual good stuff.

I do have one stupid question. I thought that AF lenses didn't allow appreture adjustments? How do you adjust on an AF lens other than setting it on a still body and then attaching it to the RED?

Sorry, if I'm missing something really simple.

J.

[Paul Hazlett]

we all appreciate the work your doing.

Now its time for me to try and corner the used nikon 17 35mm lens market.

[S. Um]

I thought that AF lenses didn't allow appreture adjustments? How do you adjust on an AF lens other than setting it on a still body and then attaching it to the RED?


Non-"G" Nikon lenses have aperture rings that you can adjust. Canon lenses don't.

[Don Woods]

Wow Evin thanks for the hard work on that one. Such a good lens.

[Jason Francois]

Non-"G" Nikon lenses have aperture rings that you can adjust. Canon lenses don't.


Thanks for that. I just continue to learn, now I've got to learn to earn. :)

[Evin Grant]

Thanks Evin, for another excellent review.

Just wondering if you have a lens with dust issues.... How expensive is that type of repair?

A CLA (clean, lubricate, adjust) is about $125.00.

[Billy Summers]

I'm sure everyone already has the answer to this question, but... How do you use follow-focus with a lens like this. Some sort of gear ring that attaches?

Thanks-


:detective2:

[Evin Grant]

Here ya go...
http://www.zacuto.com/Zip_Gears.htm
Or
http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.472981/it.A/id.200/.f

[Damien Molineaux]

Thanks Evin,
You convinced me. I just found one on eBay and went for it. I'll probably buy a good S16 zoom also for documentary work.
Cheers,
Damien

[Zane Roach]

Thanks Evin,

The breathing (or lack of) is fantastic.

You seem confident in the use of a geared follow focus, but have you checked for any "play" in the manual focus mechanism? If I can pull accurate and repeatable focus, I'm definitely picking one up.

Thanks again,
Zane

[Hrvoje Simic]

Thanks Evin. Great Job. We really appreciate it.


If I were you, guys,
I would wait with the follow focus purchase.

[Emanuel A.]

Thanks Evin...good stuff!

The RED 18-85mm and the Nikon 17-35mm will be the two zooms in regular use on my RED One cameras.Same here. Maybe coupled to a tele zoom one too.

And for sure with a Nikkor 50mm f1.4, as well. But this would/will be out of zoom range... :blush:

EDIT -- Thanks Evin for the review!

[Clayton Harper]

If I were you, guys,
I would wait with the follow focus purchase.

DO YOU KNOW A SECRET? :whistling:

[Evin Grant]

Thanks Evin,
You seem confident in the use of a geared follow focus, but have you checked for any "play" in the manual focus mechanism? If I can pull accurate and repeatable focus, I'm definitely picking one up.
Thanks again,
Zane

As long as you have hard stops it should be fine, I can't test this for sure without a FF but it certainly seems repeatable, the short throw focus is probably a bigger issue.

[Sean]

Learning something new every minute: can you tell me what you mean by "short throw focus"? I'm betting it means there's very little turn of the focus knob to achieve a rack focus (making for trickier subtle adjustments). But I just ain't sure.

[Gregory Karydis]

A CLA (clean, lubricate, adjust) is about $125.00.

heh, Nikon does that for free here.
Everyone come to Greece :matrix:

[Hrvoje Simic]

DO YOU KNOW A SECRET? :whistling:


:whistling:

[Clayton Harper]

Omen,

You just tell us how long to wait.

I am ready to see something in between the chrosziel 203 and the DV-oriented jobbers out there. Where is the Toyota Camry of follow focuses? WHERE!?! It's like there's either BMWs or Hyundais.

[creativeye]

I personally have owned this lens for about a year and use it regularly on my redrock micro and on my d80. it is to die for and a must in any kit. thanks to evin for the nice review, ive been trying to spread the word for quite some time hopefully his stamp of approval will do it for all of you :-)

i do offer it for rent in the los angeles area in case you guys wanted to test it out before purchasing it. http://ww.hidef-rentals.com

[Andrew M.]

Evin, did you test this lens mounted on RED?

One more lens novice question, I presume that AF doesn't work once mounted on RED, correct?

Andrew

[Evin Grant]

No, I tested this lens using a Nikon D2x which has an almost exactly matched sensor size and resolution as Red. The imagesa re slightly cropped to 4K and converted from RAW NEF files using Adobe camera RAW.
AF will not work with RED, although there is a third party working on an electronic ount that will give you motorized control over AF-S lenses.

[Andrew M.]

AF will not work with RED, although there is a third party working on an electronic ount that will give you motorized control over AF-S lenses.

Thanks! Grant.
Third party is working under the presumption that RED will have Nicon mount or it will be PL to Nicon adapter that they are working on?
Another words, should I look for PL to Nicon adapter now?
Andrew

[chuck colburn]

Thanks! Grant.
Third party is working under the presumption that RED will have Nicon mount or it will be PL to Nicon adapter that they are working on?
Another words, should I look for PL to Nicon adapter now?
Andrew

Hello Andrew,

Arri flange focal depth is 2.047" and Nikon ffd is 1.830". So while it may just be possible to fit a Pl camera mount (mayby) onto a Nikon camera mount, I don't think it would be wise. The reason the Pl mount was created was to provide a mount with more surface area and more secure clamping to accomadate the new and heavier primes and zooms that were being made. So I think that hanging a large steel mount with a four pound Zeiss speed prime on that little still camera mount which relies on spring loaded clamping action would not be too good. As for the oppisite configuration, that is physically not possible.

Chuck

[Andrew M.]

Chuck, Grant.
I was thinking to use Nicon lenses with RED so opposite configuration from your example.
Since RED will come (at first) with PL mount, looks like I have to convert original RED PL month to the Nicon mount on the RED camera.
Only then I will be able to mount Nicon lens on the RED.
Optionally I could wait for RED to come up with Nicon mount out of the box.

Andrew

[chuck colburn]

Chuck, Grant.
I was thinking to use Nicon lenses with RED so opposite configuration from your example.
Since RED will come (at first) with PL mount, looks like I have to convert original RED PL month to the Nicon mount on the RED camera.
Only then I will be able to mount Nicon lens on the RED.
Optionally I could wait for RED to come up with Nicon mount out of the box.

Andrew

Andrew,

You got it.

Chuck

[Andrew M.]

Andrew,

You got it.

Chuck

Chuck, do you know where can I get PL to Nicon mount, so I can mount Nicon lens on PL mount of RED camera?
any links?
Andrew

[chuck colburn]

Chuck, do you know where can I get PL to Nicon mount, so I can mount Nicon lens on PL mount of RED camera?
any links?
Andrew

Hi Andrew,

The way we use to refer to adapters was the lens mount first and the camera mount second. So what you are asking for would be a Nikon to PL adapter.
I'm pretty sure that can't be done as the Nikon ffd is less then the Arri ffd.

Chuck

[Andrew M.]

I see the ffd is different, Nikon is 44mm. PL has 52mm.
So the adapter have to have glass in it to correct for the difference between these two lenses. And here it goes one stop or two of light loss I think.

Andrew

[Evin Grant]

Red will be selling a Nikon mount for the Red one at the same time as the camera itself. There is no PL to Nikon mount adapter that can properly focus to infinity without internal optics (bad idea!).

[Andrew M.]

Red will be selling a Nikon mount for the Red one at the same time as the camera itself. There is no PL to Nikon mount adapter that can properly focus to infinity without internal optics (bad idea!).

Thanks! Evin.
Are you planning to test any Nicon telephoto zoom lenses as well, then?
I think we have to order RED with PL or Nicon, can you have both?

Andrew

[Cail Young]

I think we have to order RED with PL or Nicon, can you have both?

The lens mount itself is interchangeable; PL mount is the standard, and a Nikon mount will be available at launch.

[Evin Grant]

To be clear you get thhe PL with the camera and you will have to buy the Nikon separate.

[Evin Grant]

Bokeh test is up, sorry it's taken so long, been shooting for almost three weeks straight.

http://www.reduser.net/evin/Nikon17-35mmf2.8/bokehtest.gif

[Finner]

Thanks Evin,

That is one sweet lens overall. I had my mind only on PL mount cine lenses but you have made a really strong case for the nikons. I wonder how the nikons would fair in a head to head shoot out against some various cine models?

Again very interesting Evan, thanks for your effort on this.

[Jaime Vallés]

Nice bokeh! Thanks for all your hard work, Evin.

[Andrew M.]

"To be clear you get the PL with the camera and you will have to buy the Nikon separate."

Evin, any idea if Nicon will just go inside (on top) of PL mount or you have to remove PL mount and install Nicon mount instead?

BTW Nice bokeh!
Andrew

[J. Bernard Vallon]

My understanding is you remove the PL 'root mount' with an allan wrench and attach the nikon in the same way. I can't remember where i read that though.

[tj williams]

RED TEAM: Now selling a 300mm lens.....
My hope is you choose to re-body some 17 to 35s in long focus throw and PL mount!!!!! bet that would fly out the door....

[LighthouseMEdia]

What is the minimum focus distance of this lens? Does anybody know?

[Evin Grant]

Less than a foot! 11" to be exact.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

0.28M or 0.9ft for the focus distance, according to the users manual. :)

[Andrew M.]

Evin, how did you create these tif files from the test?
So far I was looking at these files on my 1920X1200 24” Dell screen and all was looking good.
However today I took few pictures of yours and I fed it in to my 52”Bravia so I wanted to see how it will look for the average HDTV viewer as a kind of RED camera shot that was paused and one paused frame is displayed on the HDTV screen at a time. It was not a pretty picture.
I went back to my Dell screen and I magnified your picture 200% so I got approximately the same size of the pixels as on my Bravia. The same thing popped up.
The left of the details is visibly greenish the right is reddish. The power cables hanging across the backyard (the out of the window shot) are digitized in to the very bad staircase effect. The little white roof above the window (inverted V shaped) across the backyard has clearly blue edge on the left side of it and the red edge on the right side.
Is this my tif reader doing it or your conversion of Nicon RAW to the tiff was not done in the best possible way.

BTW HDTV is fed via HDMI interface and DEL screen is fed via DVI

[Evin Grant]

First of all those Tiffs are 4K, so by blowing them up 200% you are seeing them at a distance no one will ever see them, essentially a foot or two from a 40' movie screen. Scale them to 1920x1080 for display on your Bravia and you will get an idea of what they looklike when displayed in HD. Your dell monitor is not any more res than your Bravia but will scale better, but just understand that at 200% (double native res) nothing looks good! Because every one image pixel is now being represented by two diplay pixels, hence stair-stepping off color crap.

[Andrew M.]

Evin, what I meant by 200% + scale up is that I did magnify your picture bit more then 2x times from what I have seen on the Dell screen that is 24” when whole your picture was seen entirely on the Dell 1920x1200 screen. I did change scale 10% +- trying to match pixel per pixel, because I was thinking that pixel scaling is not working properly. I even use two different tiff viewers and the same thing happened.

At the end I had one pixel from your tiff file represented by 1 pixel on the Dell screen exactly.

My Bravia is 52” so 52/24= 2.16
I was trying to match the size of Dell screen with the Bravia diagonal size by doing that.
Another words if my Dell screen would be 2.16 times bigger and had the same pixel size it would be not 1920x1200 screen but 4147x2332 watched from 2’ distance.
I am watching LCD TV from 5’-6’ distance and my Dell 24” screen from 2’
I agree no one is watching 52’ screen from 2’ distance but it is what actually happened when I magnify your picture on my Dell screen 2.16 times.

I have one question though, how did you get from Nicon RAW to the tiff?
Did you use Nicon utilities coming with the camera or something else?

[Evin Grant]

Adobe Camera Raw from Photoshop CS2. It's very hard to tell exactly what's going on in your display set up, but on my 30" apple cinema display the images look stunning, there are some small issues with the wide open shots as I stated in the review, but most of those will be hidden by the moving image. Other than that, I'm not sure whhat else I can do to help.

[Andrew M.]

Evin, these are cutouts at pixel per pixel mapping.
Do you see left edges with the bit of red and right with the bit of green?
I pull out my Cannon 100-400 and shoot the building 300 meters away at 400-f7.
Canon has sweet focus spot around 300 so 400 is the bad spot but I wanted to get this blue bar of the window and the white box there.
I see the same red/green smudging, though less pronounced and on top as on the bottom as well. Look at the top of the white container.
Left side of the blue strip is red and right is bit green. I wonder if it is debayer effect or something else. Now when I put it on the 52”screen I can see it. Maybe I am getting paranoid here. I guess it will be significant only for huge, cinema type, presentation.
Frankly speaking I wish my current HDTV movies would be as good as this.

I know it is only one pixel wide distortion, but one pixel out of two mean that 4k picture will be 2K one. I guess one more argument to shoot in 4K and downers to 2K for perfect picture. This statement is true only if it is not a lenses problem though.

BTW read this article, especially about color fringing and influence of it on green screen keying, maybe it will help you to figure out what is going on here.
I found a lot of good references on ISOE website.
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/DigiPrime-Artikel-KMu_SMPTE2002/$File/SMPTE2002_DigiPrime.pdf

Andrew

[Evin Grant]

All lenses display a bit of Chromatic Abberation but it is usually only visable in very high contrast areas (White trim over a dark background) most modern tele lenses control it quite well using ED and UD elements, wides have a much more diffucult time at it, the 17-35 does display some CA but controls it quite well. It is also easy to correct in processing by applying a small amount of color channel re-registation, it does not affect actual resolution so it will not render your 4k image 2K. And from the math 50% of 4k is actually 3K because 4K is 4x 2k not 2x.

Also, the mysterium sensor is an important factor, it may not have as much CA issues or it may have more, we'll have to wait and see.

[Andrew M.]

All lenses display a bit of Chromatic Abberation but it is usually only visable in very high contrast areas (White trim over a dark background) most modern tele lenses control it quite well using ED and UD elements, wides have a much more diffucult time at it, the 17-35 does display some CA but controls it quite well. It is also easy to correct in processing by applying a small amount of color channel re-registation, it does not affect actual resolution so it will not render your 4k image 2K. And from the math 50% of 4k is actually 3K because 4K is 4x 2k not 2x.

Also, the mysterium sensor is an important factor, it may not have as much CA issues or it may have more, we'll have to wait and see.

Thanks! Evin for patience, you calmed down my paranoidus greatus attack.
That is why zoom deals bit better with CA, also I was using f7 and you were f4 but this should affect only geometrical aberrations not CA I think.
Not bad shot as for 300 yards, if I did put my zoom on the tripod probably we could read what this person is drinking in this bed.

[chuck colburn]

Andrew,

It's just the other away around when you stop a lens down. (to a point)

Chuck

[Miguel "Macgregor" De Olaso]

Hi, i just went to buy this lense today and they told me it is not for sale anymore. Nikon only sells the 17-55 now, which is DX, so no iris ring anymore.

Is this information correct?

[Kenn Christenson]

Go to KEH.com. I just bought one from them. They should ship internationally.

[Dan Blanchett]

You can still find brand new ones from $1100 to $1500, or used <1000. If Keh comes up dry, just google the name. I saw this lens (new and used) on Amazon.com, digitalfotoclub.com, ebay and many other places.

[chuck colburn]

You might want to take care if buying used. There were quality control issues when the lens was introduced. Though from what I understand they were resolved fairly quick.

[Andrew M.]

Evin, are these tests by these guys any good?
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_1735_28/index.htm
Andrew

[steevo435]

Evin-
In your test, the image falls apart at F2.8. I mean, you can't separate the bricks in the building at 35mm @ F2.8, and the eye pics clearly lack resolution at F2.8. I don't understand how this lens can "easily resolve 4k+" if the images don't really hold up in these little stills....imagine those 2.8 shots on a 40 theatre screen...they would look really soft, don't you think?
I also think it will be difficult to consistently pull focus on these lenses...the optics aren't the issue with quality so much as the mechanicals.

[Evin Grant]

Evin, are these tests by these guys any good?
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_1735_28/index.htm
Andrew

I don't like MTFs there are no sample images in that test. It basically just tells you numbers and numbers don't get projected on movie screen.

[Evin Grant]

Evin-
In your test, the image falls apart at F2.8. I mean, you can't separate the bricks in the building at 35mm @ F2.8, and the eye pics clearly lack resolution at F2.8. I don't understand how this lens can "easily resolve 4k+" if the images don't really hold up in these little stills....imagine those 2.8 shots on a 40 theatre screen...they would look really soft, don't you think?
I also think it will be difficult to consistently pull focus on these lenses...the optics aren't the issue with quality so much as the mechanicals.

I don't think you understand the test, those are 100% crops. They would represent a very small section of the movie screen and so would not "Fall apart" as you say. And all lenses are softer wide open, but this lens is better than most wides and although you might see a slight diffrence on an identical shot to shot comparison you would not pick it up if you cut from a shot at f2.8 to a diffrent angle at f5.6.

[Andrew M.]

I don't like MTFs there are no sample images in that test. It basically just tells you numbers and numbers don't get projected on movie screen.

I usually look on the numbers first. MTF graphs for different f stops.
Then I look on the picture. Very unlikely that bad number lenses will perform good.
If I see that MTF drops sharply in the zone away from the center of the picture or below f5 then usually there will be problem ahead. If zoom do not perform at wide angle end, then I will try it anyway since it may work in 80% of the range very good.

Example is Canon EF-S 10-22mm works very well above 14.

Also 135 type lenses on S35 could perform exceptionally well since the sensor is two times smaller so you do not go all the way to the edge of the illumination circle of the lenses. Again it will be difficult to get 135 sensor size lenses for less then 18 mm fl so this way or the other we have to pay extra for 100 degree view lenses.
For fl of 20 to 80 there are plenty of lenses that perform more that sufficient for 4K sensor especially if lenses are for 135 sensor size.

[Evin Grant]

MTF numbers can point you in a direction but are rarely usefull for deciding between two pro quality optics. In most cases, unless there is a design or manufacturing flaw these lenses will perform well. It's the nuanced details in the real tests that make or break a lens.

[steevo435]

I'm sorry, I'm not a photoshop guy- what is a 100% crop?
Not to be nitpicky, but "all lenses are softer wide open" is not true, unless you're just talking about still photography lenses. The Zeiss Digiprimes are optimized to perform best wide open, and they do...they're beautiful!
"numbers don't get projected on movie screen." True, but if you look at the MTF data, you can determine the real sweet spot in any lens. If you look at those graphs from photozone, it seems like the real sweet spot in this lens is at F5.6....most lenses are optimized to be used 5.6-8, but it does vary. I'd think you'd want to know this before going out and shooting, especially with Red in 4k...you don't want the lens to be the limiting factor when you're trying to resolve a 4k image.

[Zane Roach]

Is anybody shooting wide open with the nikon 17-35 actually going to finish and that project in 4k? Seriously?

Nikons will be used in low budget stuff that gets finished in 1080p.

[Mike the beginner]

I usually look on the numbers first. MTF graphs for different f stops.
Then I look on the picture. Very unlikely that bad number lenses will perform good.
If I see that MTF drops sharply in the zone away from the center of the picture or below f5 then usually there will be problem ahead. If zoom do not perform at wide angle end, then I will try it anyway since it may work in 80% of the range very good.

Example is Canon EF-S 10-22mm works very well above 14.

Also 135 type lenses on S35 could perform exceptionally well since the sensor is two times smaller so you do not go all the way to the edge of the illumination circle of the lenses. Again it will be difficult to get 135 sensor size lenses for less then 18 mm fl so this way or the other we have to pay extra for 100 degree view lenses.
For fl of 20 to 80 there are plenty of lenses that perform more that sufficient for 4K sensor especially if lenses are for 135 sensor size.


Andrew, could you elaborate on this comment "Example is Canon EF-S 10-22mm works very well above 14."

I am considering this lens and so are other underwater guys along with the birger solution of flange mounts etc. It would be used wide open a lot. How does it perform wide open, is is too soft or what when at the 10-12mm range?

Thanks for any info from anyone on this particular lens:biggrin:


Mike the beginner

[Andrew M.]

Andrew, could you elaborate on this comment "Example is Canon EF-S 10-22mm works very well above 14."

I am considering this lens and so are other underwater guys along with the birger solution of flange mounts etc. It would be used wide open a lot. How does it perform wide open, is is too soft or what when at the 10-12mm range?

Thanks for any info from anyone on this particular lens:biggrin:


Mike the beginner

This lenses is giving to much of chromatic aberration, more then ¾ distance from the center out at 10mm. Up to 3 pixel distortion and it was at f8-11 so not a wide open.
When you look on the picture on the 30” screen it looks like a shot from the low end camera. Looks much better at 14mm setting, otherwise it is bit softer then Nicons in the same category.

Check new Canon lenses here:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=148&modelid=14907
Looks like more and more people are not happy with all these spherical and chromatic aberrations so Canon is doing something about it.
I think it is driven by the fact that we do not watch the pictures on 4X5 hard copy format anymore.
In most cases we use 20-30” screens to look at the pictures now.
Also the screens are wide screens now 60 deg instead 45 so it adds to the wide end.
At this size of the screen the lenses errors are clearly visible.
Send me your e-mail address and I will e-mail you shot from Canon 10-22 at 10mm settings.
Also they use newer glass and its combinations.
Look here for old new glass comparison.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml
And it is not the comparison of the new II just to be released.
If we have the same improvement from I to II then it is something worth checking.

I would like to see the crops of the edges of the picture not the centre.
Also winter pictures and high contrast shots are much better for evaluation.

Canon is coming with the new 22MP Ds model this year. They will have hell of the problem to offer any zoom lenses for it, both on the wide angle side and even the far zoom side. They better come up with some good zoom lenses for it, Even non zoom L series will not do here. I guess professional photographers will have to get Arri/PL to canon adapters for this new camera:-)

[Evin Grant]

I'm sorry, I'm not a photoshop guy- what is a 100% crop?
What that means is that the image is represtented 1:1, pixel to pixel on your computer screen, 100% magnification. You would need a 4k projection to a 40' screen and be just feet from it to replicate the same magnification.



Not to be nitpicky, but "all lenses are softer wide open" is not true, unless you're just talking about still photography lenses. The Zeiss Digiprimes are optimized to perform best wide open, and they do...they're beautiful!

The Digiprimes are indeed optimised for wide open, but all that means is that they resolve enough wide open that you can't see an improvement when stoped down, but it is there, to a point, if you could just get an imager with high enough resolution to see it. I'm sure most DPs would be very dissapointed if thier lenses got worse when they stopped them down.
(This is true with diffraction limiting but not useually till f11)


"numbers don't get projected on movie screen." True, but if you look at the MTF data, you can determine the real sweet spot in any lens. If you look at those graphs from photozone, it seems like the real sweet spot in this lens is at F5.6....most lenses are optimized to be used 5.6-8, but it does vary.

That's exactly what my test showed without having to resort to MTFs.


I'd think you'd want to know this before going out and shooting, especially with Red in 4k...you don't want the lens to be the limiting factor when you're trying to resolve a 4k image.
This particular lens will not be your limiting factor I assure you.

[steevo435]

That's exactly what my test showed without having to resort to MTFs.

Actually, you proved that the data from the MTF chart was correct :clown2:

Different strokes, right? If you didn't have time to test lenses before a shoot, you could at least refer to the data in a pinch. Film making is part art, part science. If we didn't have the pocket protector guys, we wouldn't know if our goal was 480, 1080, 2k, 4k or beyond!!!

[Steve Gibby]

Film making is part art, part science.

True...and so are the rest of the motion media family: digital cinema, television, and video.

[Corrado Silveri]

Many thanks Evin,
just finished to read this great (as usual) thread.
Just one clarification, all the pictures posted are NOT actually shot with a REDone, right?

Thanks again,
Corrado.

[Steve Gibby]

None of them were shot with RED One....he used a Nikon DSLR with a CMOS sensor similar in size and properties to that of RED One... a D2X I believe. IMO, his results should be very relative to frames we'll see out of RED One using a Nikon 17-35mm.

[Mike the beginner]

Originally Posted by Mike the beginner
Andrew, could you elaborate on this comment "Example is Canon EF-S 10-22mm works very well above 14."

I am considering this lens and so are other underwater guys along with the birger solution of flange mounts etc. It would be used wide open a lot. How does it perform wide open, is is too soft or what when at the 10-12mm range?

Thanks for any info from anyone on this particular lens

Mike the beginner



Andrew;23271]This lenses is giving to much of chromatic aberration, more then ¾ distance from the center out at 10mm. Up to 3 pixel distortion and it was at f8-11 so not a wide open.
When you look on the picture on the 30” screen it looks like a shot from the low end camera. Looks much better at 14mm setting, otherwise it is bit softer then Nicons in the same category.

Check new Canon lenses here:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=148&modelid=14907
Looks like more and more people are not happy with all these spherical and chromatic aberrations so Canon is doing something about it.
I think it is driven by the fact that we do not watch the pictures on 4X5 hard copy format anymore.
In most cases we use 20-30” screens to look at the pictures now.
Also the screens are wide screens now 60 deg instead 45 so it adds to the wide end.
At this size of the screen the lenses errors are clearly visible.
Send me your e-mail address and I will e-mail you shot from Canon 10-22 at 10mm settings.
Also they use newer glass and its combinations.
Look here for old new glass comparison.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml
And it is not the comparison of the new II just to be released.
If we have the same improvement from I to II then it is something worth checking.

I would like to see the crops of the edges of the picture not the centre.
Also winter pictures and high contrast shots are much better for evaluation.

Canon is coming with the new 22MP Ds model this year. They will have hell of the problem to offer any zoom lenses for it, both on the wide angle side and even the far zoom side. They better come up with some good zoom lenses for it, Even non zoom L series will not do here. I guess professional photographers will have to get Arri/PL to canon adapters for this new camera:

Thanks Andrew that it very useful information indeed. I shall look at the canon site and hopefully they might well come out with a new lens to go with the new camera, just hope it is a really wide angle zoom?

The specialised mount that Birger engineering are doing has got me interested. Also the underwater housings will have to be made (i imagine) to suit one particular lens and once the camera is out third parties will want to quickly make a housing for the red one. Current prices for a cine prime lens at 10mm is hugely expensive. Even if canon came out with a brilliant new still photo wide angle to go with their upcoming new camera it would still be massively cheaper than the existing cine lenses out here. Heres hoping a good solution comes out of it all. Thanks though for all the info Andrew it is greatly appreciated.

Mike the beginner

[John Godden]

Evin

Thanks for posting these comparison pics.

I owned a 17-35 for a while. GREAT lens for stopped down landscapes! The sharpness and low CA of this lens is renowned.

I haven't owned one but the 17-55 is supposed to be somewhat better wide open. ??? If you get a chance please post some pics of that lens.

Regards
JohnG

[number6]

Evin, am wondering if the 17-35 in the AF version will perform as well as the AF-s model? Am seeing some expanding price differentials between the AF-s model over the AF. Am wondering if since the RED will not utilize the auto-focus anyway, (at least, that's my understanding) why not buy the less expensive AF lens?

[Bruce Allen]

Number6, if you're thinking of getting a used 17-35, be sure to make extremely sure that the focusing is smooth. One of the rental 17-35s I used in my tests was pretty much impossible to focus - combination of short focus throw, jerky focusing action and lack of hard stops made it suck.

I didn't know there was an AF-only (not AF-S) model. Link please?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[number6]

Number6, if you're thinking of getting a used 17-35, be sure to make extremely sure that the focusing is smooth. One of the rental 17-35s I used in my tests was pretty much impossible to focus - combination of short focus throw, jerky focusing action and lack of hard stops made it suck.

I didn't know there was an AF-only (not AF-S) model. Link please?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Yikes! Bruce... I've looked at so many lenses since Jim Jannard has given us some sort of timetable that I'm not sure where I saw or even read about the 17-35mm AF. My recollection of it was that the AF was pretty much the same as the AF-s except that it didn't have the super quiet auto focus. I've seen some for sale at one or more places but I'm really not sure where. If, after my question gets answered, and I perhaps buy one, maybe my memory will unfail:bleh: Hah!

Seriously, I've checked all the windows I have open and even though I've got one open to the AF-s, I don't see one to the AF model. Appreciate your sharing your experience with the lens. Still, they are difficult to find new, and pretty expensive, too. But from some of the posts on this thread, it sounds like a pretty good first option for me.

But I'm wondering how much the Nikon mount will cost, and if we need to be in some lint free environment when we change the mount from PL to Nikon, (to protect the sensor) and perhaps even when we change lenses. I've been thinking about one of those heavy plastic see through zip-up clothes bags to put the camera in when making a lens change, and especially the more time-consuming mount change. Wonder if that could create a static electricity problem?

[Bruce Allen]

Judging by digital still cameras, I'm sure dust will be a problem with any lens change. If I were getting a Red, I'd definitely look at their zoom instead - I think it's worth it (better ergonomics, plus greater range means less lens changes). As a matter of fact, I'm even looking at the Red zoom or maybe used PL mount lenses for use with my HV20 + 35mm adapter! If only someone would lend me the PL mount to test...

Are you sure you're not getting confused between the 80-200 2.8, which has both AF and AF-S versions? It could be that the people selling used 17-35s are marking them as AF instead of AF-S by mistake?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[number6]

Judging by digital still cameras, I'm sure dust will be a problem with any lens change. If I were getting a Red, I'd definitely look at their zoom instead - I think it's worth it (better ergonomics, plus greater range means less lens changes). As a matter of fact, I'm even looking at the Red zoom or maybe used PL mount lenses for use with my HV20 + 35mm adapter! If only someone would lend me the PL mount to test...

Are you sure you're not getting confused between the 80-200 2.8, which has both AF and AF-S versions? It could be that the people selling used 17-35s are marking them as AF instead of AF-S by mistake?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Confused seems the right term. I've been back on ebay and I've seen lots of AF stuff but no AF 17-35mm stuff.

But anyway, what PL mount lenses are you looking at and in what price range? I would definitely go the Red Lens route if I could, but I can't. So I've got to find another (affordable) option. What do you see as a good manual focus option for 4k REDCODE RAW, either in the PL mount or Nikon?

[Bruce Allen]

Confused seems the right term. I've been back on ebay and I've seen lots of AF stuff but no AF 17-35mm stuff.

But anyway, what PL mount lenses are you looking at and in what price range? I would definitely go the Red Lens route if I could, but I can't. So I've got to find another (affordable) option. What do you see as a good manual focus option for 4k REDCODE RAW, either in the PL mount or Nikon?

A used Cooke, Zeiss or Angenieux. Or strike a deal with someone to borrow their lenses in exchange for Red use. Talk to local rental companies - will they let you use their lenses in exchange for them renting out your Red? Be careful, of course!

Be aware though that the Red lens seems good and shouldn't depreciate in value much. Although this is heresy I will suggest that in 5 years' time, it will definitely have depreciated less than the Red.

If you go with the Nikon, you absolutely need a follow focus with hard stops. Or a remote follow focus. Suddenly you are talking about quite a bit of cash (unless the upcoming RedRock remote does the trick) - definitely the difference between your Nikon and the Red zoom. On the other hand you then get a nice follow focus which also doesn't depreciate in value much.

Personally I am torn between these things right now, just with my HV20 + 35mm adapter. IE, get a cheap follow focus and the Red lens. Or the Nikon plus a Arri LFF-1! Bear in mind that this is for my own personal use when running around South Africa, or auditioning actors, etc. If I directed a feature or a music video with a budget (more likely) I would upgrade either the lens or the follow focus (whichever one I skimp on now). And definitely go to Red for A-camera ;)

By the way, I just bought the 80-200 AF-D new. It is being discontinued so I had to jump on it (can't afford the more expensive variants and also too scared to buy a used one after the focus ring troubles with the 17-35). I'll try to get it to Evin so that he can test it.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[number6]

A used Cooke, Zeiss or Angenieux. Or strike a deal with someone to borrow their lenses in exchange for Red use. Talk to local rental companies - will they let you use their lenses in exchange for them renting out your Red? Be careful, of course!

Small toun, no rentals available... doubt there's even an HVX in this ten camera toun.


Be aware though that the Red lens seems good and shouldn't depreciate in value much. Although this is heresy I will suggest that in 5 years' time, it will definitely have depreciated less than the Red.

Full agreement, but cash flow etc. etc. ad infinitum


If you go with the Nikon, you absolutely need a follow focus with hard stops. Or a remote follow focus. Suddenly you are talking about quite a bit of cash (unless the upcoming RedRock remote does the trick) - definitely the difference between your Nikon and the Red zoom. On the other hand you then get a nice follow focus which also doesn't depreciate in value much.

Will probably forego the follow focus and just go for high (or is it low, anyway, the depth of field one) fstop and zoom in a little closer than neutral with some variation and stay there on one camera, at least some of the time. Since almost everything will be shot outdoors with plenty of light, I'm guessing that will get me good recorded data, but will test early. There aren't too many close-up movement scenes that I envision so shouldn't need to worry about a "too shallow" dof for very many shots. With two cameras, I see one as most often stationary, with the other one shooting from a different angle or doing any high shots (from a 13' deer stand), or occasionally handheld. I'm not sure if I'm a fan of the overuse of handheld shots... Will experiment.


Personally I am torn between these things right now, just with my HV20 + 35mm adapter. IE, get a cheap follow focus and the Red lens. Or the Nikon plus a Arri LFF-1! Bear in mind that this is for my own personal use when running around South Africa, or auditioning actors, etc. If I directed a feature or a music video with a budget (more likely) I would upgrade either the lens or the follow focus (whichever one I skimp on now). And definitely go to Red for A-camera ;)
Not A-cameras?:wink:


By the way, I just bought the 80-200 AF-D new. It is being discontinued so I had to jump on it (can't afford the more expensive variants and also too scared to buy a used one after the focus ring troubles with the 17-35). I'll try to get it to Evin so that he can test it.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

AF-D 80-200? Well, we finally got back on topic. And that brings another question to mind... do I need to use the same brand of glass on both cameras? That is, will the shots look noticeably different if I use differnt lens brands?

[chuck colburn]

Why would you need a hard stop when using a follow focus unit ? The white disc that the 1st AC marks his/hers footage marks on would serve that purpose.

[Bruce Allen]

Chuck - the damn lens's focus ring doesn't stop turning when you hit infinity. Then when you turn it back the other way, it starts focusing back immediately. So if you focus it to infinity then turn a little more, you are screwed because then all of your marks are now off.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[chuck colburn]

Chuck - the damn lens's focus ring doesn't stop turning when you hit infinity. Then when you turn it back the other way, it starts focusing back immediately. So if you focus it to infinity then turn a little more, you are screwed because then all of your marks are now off.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Hi Bruce,
Something's goofy here. I understand the concept that the lens can focus pass infinity, (some cameramen like that and I use to set up lenses that would do just that) but when the lens was focused in the oppisite direction it would still hit infinity at a given point on the focus ring travel. The only thing that comes to mind is that the focus threads be they single or multi (helicoid) start have so much slop that they don't repeat when reversing direction. In which case it wouldn't matter if there was a hard stop. As I say I might be missing something, but damn if I can figure out what. lol

Chuck

[Bruce Allen]

Hi Bruce,
Something's goofy here. I understand the concept that the lens can focus pass infinity, (some cameramen like that and I use to set up lenses that would do just that) but when the lens was focused in the oppisite direction it would still hit infinity at a given point on the focus ring travel. The only thing that comes to mind is that the focus threads be they single or multi (helicoid) start have so much slop that they don't repeat when reversing direction. In which case it wouldn't matter if there was a hard stop. As I say I might be missing something, but damn if I can figure out what. lol

Chuck

Chuck, I guess I'll have to rent the lens again to clear this up ;) I just rented the 17--35 for two weekends for use with 35mm adapters and HD cameras and didn't have much time to use it. But to me it seemed like the focus ring just stops working once it hits infinity, until you start turning it the other way, when it starts focusing instantly. Now you have me doubting myself. I'll be really happy if I am wrong and there is actually a consistent relationship between focus ring and focus position! Then I could use the lens! Awesome!

Evin, maybe you can help? I hope I was wrong - the first 17-35 had such a gunky focus ring that it was impossible to use, so I only had access to a decent 17-35 for one weekend. It still felt like definitely the worst lens for focus usability out of everything I have used (35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2 & 1.4, 85mm 1.4 & 1.8, 105mm 2.0, 135mm 2.0, 180mm 2.8, 80-200 2.8 - all Nikons).

You can see 720p examples of the gunky lens (and many other lenses) here connected to Matt Garrett's Sgpro and HVX200 - I think we didn't include the rack focus test that week because it was just too horrible for words:
http://www.freshdv.com/2007/06/nikon-lens-tests-with-the-sgpro-35mm-adapter-and-hvx200.html

The next week, I got a cleaner 17-35 rental and connected it to my HV20 - that's a rack focus off of the barrel of the lens (there were difficulties connecting the RedRock follow focus to the SGpro Rev2 35mm adapter)
http://www.boacinema.com/projects/camera_tests/hv20/hv20_17_35_28_rack_test_cc_h264.mov

You can see why I am still rooting for this lens - optically it is super.

Cheers

Bruce
www.boacinema.com

[Evin Grant]

Chuck, what Bruce is talking about is a particual feature of AFS and Ultrasonic (Canon) focusing lenses. Because they need a totally free movement for Auto focus the manual focus ring is only connected by a friction drive system. This means that although the focus ring does indeed hit a "Soft" stop when you focus to Min. distance or infinity it is possible to turn the focus ring farther than either. In fact there is no final hard stop at all, you can, if you turn hard enough, rotate the focus ring a full 360º. On my sample the friction that ocours at those "Soft" stops is substantial enough that I doubt it will pose a problem for accidential focus errors, it's certainly much better than the HVX/DVX focus where it just keeps going with no discernable variation at all. However a good set of hard stops added to the focus ring will solve the problem once and for all.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Chuck, it's just the way this (and a few other similarly constructed still lenses) work. It's how the "gearing" works internally with the focus ring. You turn the ring, it adjusts the focus, but once you hit one end of the focus throw, the internal gearing stops. But the focus ring on the lens barrel can continue to travel loosely, spinning infinitely for that matter. Reverse direction and no matter how far you rotated past one end of the throw, the internal focus gearing immediately turns the other way until you either reverse directions or stop at the end of the focus throw, at which time the focus ring will spin infinitely in that direction too.

So to use a lens like the Nikon 17-35 with a follow focus, you need one with hard stops or gear rings you can place on the lens that have stop tabs. With Nikon lenses, all their Silent-Wave motor based lenses work this way. The same focus ring issues are present on my 105mm AF-SED-VR Micro as well.

Edit> Whoops that will teach me to start a reply and then do something else before I come back and finish. In the mean time Bruce and Evin both got to it. Heh.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Evin,

You're right that the soft stop is substantial in that you can feel it when turning the focus ring. But I'm wondering how this will translate to using the lens with a follow focus. ...If it will be as noticeable or not. The very short focus throw (1/4 turn of the barrel) makes for very sensitive adjustments too.

[chuck colburn]

OK, I get it now.
I thought the 17-35 was a full manual lens. So the passing of infinity allows the auto-focus to hunt around untill it finds infinity again without jamming up the focus motor. (I think). Makes me wonder why they even bother to put footage marks on the barrel. lol
Thanks all.

[Bruce Allen]

The footage marks are in a weird little window, I think?

So, basically, if you want to use the 17-35, you have to set the hard stop of your follow focus so that it stops just dead on or slightly before infinity, right? I mean if you stop just after infinity, then your focus marks are going to drift each time you focus past infinity, right?

Should be fine for me with my lil' HV20 + adapter. But for shooting at 4K? Maybe I am worrying about nothing though.

I must admit I'm surprised nobody has tried rehousing this lens for Cine use - it is SOO crisp, holds focus, etc. At 35mm it was leagues better than one of the old manual 35mm Nikon primes we tested.

EDIT: Evin, are you talking about putting something on the lens barrel / focus gear to stop from going too far? That would be cool and maybe cost-effective. I'd be down for a group buy if you need to get anything manufactured.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Jeff Kilgroe]

The footage marks are in a weird little window, I think?

Yep. marks in both meters and feet in a little window. They move in step with the focus ring until either end of the focus throw is hit. Once the ring turns past the soft-stop, the marks still hold with the gearing.

I'm also surprised I haven't seen a re-housed one mentioned somewhere. This lens is awesome. It performs better than Nikons primes within the same range. I have concerns about its focus behaviors with RED, but for still photography, it's one of my favorite lenses.

[number6]

I have concerns about its focus behaviors with RED, but for still photography, it's one of my favorite lenses.

Jeff, just to be clear, you are concerned only about the markings jiving with what you see in the view finder, not actually being able to get a good focus... right?

[Dan Blanchett]

I bought this lens new back in March before the announcement of RED primes and the 18-50 zoom. Now I am planning to buy the RED lenses and find myself the proud owner of a very nice still lens... Not sure if I want to keep it, rent it, sell it, etc. I was thinking about getting an HV20, rr adaptor and use this as very sweet pre-viz camera prior to my RED's arrival. Anyone else have a suggestion?

[Bruce Allen]

I bought this lens new back in March before the announcement of RED primes and the 18-50 zoom. Now I am planning to buy the RED lenses and find myself the proud owner of a very nice still lens... Not sure if I want to keep it, rent it, sell it, etc. I was thinking about getting an HV20, rr adaptor and use this as very sweet pre-viz camera prior to my RED's arrival. Anyone else have a suggestion?

17-35 works well with HV20 and 35mm adapter - see my above post for a video sample.

The rr adaptor has no hard stops, so it's not ideal unless we fix the hard stop problem some other way mechanically - see our above discussion.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Dan Blanchett]

Thanks Bruce. So you recommend the SGPro rev2 over other adapters?

[jaadgy akanni]

The rr adaptor has no hard stops, so it's not ideal unless we fix the hard stop problem some other way mechanically - see our above discussion.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Bruce, I don't quite understand-are you referring to the RR adapter or the RR FF?

[Bruce Allen]

Bruce, I don't quite understand-are you referring to the RR adapter or the RR FF?
RR FF, not 35mm adapter - I am an idiot.


Thanks Bruce. So you recommend the SGPro rev2 over other adapters?

Each has its own advantages and disadvantages.

The SGPro (now in Rev.3) is what I chose. It has a helluva long wait time - I ordered it a while ago and it's only coming in August. But it's easy to set up, edge-to-edge sharp and doesn't loose too much light. I want to order the PL mount - am trying to get Wayne to send me the mount to test. I'll buy it if it works but I've seen no footage so am not dumping 300 Pounds Sterling on it unless I can return it if I can't get it to work! Wayne? You listening? I've been testing your adapter for free and telling people about it! I'm sure I'll love your PL mount - just send it to me and I'll test every lens in Hollywood on it (including the Red Zoom ;)... if you want to, send Wayne an email and tell him you'll buy the PL mount version if you see good test results and maybe that will sway him.

The Brevis is available with less of a lead time, and is even brighter than the SGpro. It is the smallest and lightest of the bunch. The only problem is that most footage I've seen from it has had significant edge CA, but maybe that's because it's often tested on a Canon A1, which has CA issues. You also need specific diffusers for specific cameras, while the SGPro and RedRock diffusers seem to work well with all round. Supposedly it doesn't work so well with higher shutter speeds or a lens stopped down to f11 or so? But it's sharp, light and cool. Dennis, the guy in charge, is helpful and nice. If he sends me a PL mount version to test, maybe I will switch allegiances.

The RedRock is capable of excellent results and also available with less of a lead time. It seems seems a little more finicky to set up though. Some great-looking stuff have been shot on it - Illegal, for example. And you can get a nice package including their follow focus (which unfortunately needs hard stops for the 17-35). Plus it's often available as a rental, so you can have a spare pencilled in in case of emergency. On the negative side, in my tests it lost a stop more light. But the people behind it are responsive and cool and working on interesting things (cheap remote follow focus, Red-compatible mattebox). And I like their follow focus rings and lens supports - I'll probably buy those even though I'm going for a different 35mm adapter, and I'll be wanting a manual follow focus with hard stops.

I haven't checked out the Letus. Neither have I looked at any of the more expensive adapters. But as far as I'm concerned, if you want to go higher-end than the RedRock, Brevis or SGpro, then you are better off getting the Red.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[chuck colburn]

"RR FF, not 35mm adapter - I am an idiot."

There's only room for one idiot a day and I got there first. So just wait your turn in line.

[Bruce Allen]

"RR FF, not 35mm adapter - I am an idiot."

There's only room for one idiot a day and I got there first. So just wait your turn in line.

Bwahahaha!

Bruce

[Evin Grant]

EDIT: Evin, are you talking about putting something on the lens barrel / focus gear to stop from going too far? That would be cool and maybe cost-effective. I'd be down for a group buy if you need to get anything manufactured.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

I am, and Zacuto makes this product already, but I have some custom Delrin rings I bought off E-bay so I will most likely just use some epoxy or a screw or something. I'm going to be going without for the test on Gibby's #8 though. In most circumstances this lens will be shot at f4-f8 and given it's already wide nature it's DOF will cover most problems I can forsee at 4K. It's not a perfect solution, I have always stated that, but it's a hell of a bang optically for the buck. The trade off is obvious, the question is weather or not you are willing to work around it. Eventually I will be buying the Red 18-50 CF so I only have to worry about it for the time being.
http://www.zacuto.com/ZipGear_repeatable.jpg
http://www.zacuto.com/Zip_Gears.htm

[Bruce Allen]

I am, and Zacuto makes this product already, but I have some custom Delrin rings I bought off E-bay so I will most likely just use some epoxy or a screw or something. I'm going to be going without for the test on the 8th though. In most circumstances this lens will be shot at f4-f8 and given it's already wide nature it's DOF will cover most problems I can forsee at 4K. It's not a perfect solution, I have always stated that, but it's a hell of a bang optically for the buck. The trade off is obvious, the question is weather or not you are willing to work around it. Eventually I will be buying the Red 18-50 CF so I only have to worry about it for the time being.
http://www.zacuto.com/ZipGear_repeatable.jpg
http://www.zacuto.com/Zip_Gears.htm

Evin, thanks for the link to the Zacutos. I have some of their stuff actually for my HV20 handheld rig ;)

Are you talking about their zip gears with stops? I looked at those but while they solve the hard stop problem, I am not sure if they will solve the short focus throw problem as well as the RedRock. I'm looking forward to seeing what you do with the E-bay Delrins and epoxy!

What test on the 8th, by the way?

Cheers

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Evin Grant]

What test on the 8th, by the way?
Cheers
Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Sorry, my bad. I meant on the 8th camera, Gibby's #8.

[Dan Blanchett]

Each has its own advantages and disadvantages.
The SGPro (now in Rev.3) is what I chose.

Thanks for such a detailed response. :wink: Since this will be mostly a "play cam" until I get my RED in November, I am definitely going for what is cheaper and available now. Assuming I decide to keep the 17-35 and not sell it on ebay. So given the waiting list for a SGPro (Rev 3), maybe the RR is it.

[Bruce Allen]

Back on topic, Brian from RedRock confirmed in another thread that hard stops "are coming" for their follow focus. Wonder if that means a system similar to Zacuto's or not?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[chuck colburn]

Let me try this again. If it's already up here put me at the front of the idiot line (again). Larger lens gears OR smaller follow focus gears. And possibly putting a hard stop at the follow focus knob.

[Unwounded]

So from minimal focal distance to infinitey, how many degrees of rotation do you actually have on the lens? also, could someone describe the markings on the focus (are they in 3" or 6" incriments for the first couple of feet our are they all in whole feet or what?).

[Jeff Kilgroe]

So from minimal focal distance to infinitey, how many degrees of rotation do you actually have on the lens? also, could someone describe the markings on the focus (are they in 3" or 6" incriments for the first couple of feet our are they all in whole feet or what?).

It's 1/4 turn of the barrel for the full focus range, or 90 degrees. Very short.

m and ft markings are essentially worthless on this lens. They serve little more than an optical indicator of about where the lens might happen to be focused. Or it just tells you if your at or close to infinity. At the one end of the dial you have infinity. And that's with the focus ring turned all the way right (if you're looking down at the marks with the lens pointed away from you. Turning the lens to the left reveals the following marks:

ft - 3 2 1.5 1.25 1
m - 1 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.35 0.28

So it's not all that informative or useful with those minimum focus designations. But with such a short focus throw, I'm not sure what else they could've done. I don't really understand the very short throw... Other silent-wave lenses like the 85mm f1.4, have much greater travel for the focus ring and better markings.

[Unwounded]

So if you can't rely on the markings how are you gonna judge accurate focus? Close only counts in horse shoes and handgrenades and probably not as much in 4K. Great optics are nice but accurate focus is pretty swell too :)

[Jeff Kilgroe]

So if you can't rely on the markings how are you gonna judge accurate focus? Close only counts in horse shoes and handgrenades and probably not as much in 4K. Great optics are nice but accurate focus is pretty swell too :)

Good question. I'm thinking with a larger gear ring to add more finesse to a follow focus, you just have to map out your focus points and mark them on the FF dial. Or focus by eye, watching the EVF/monitor and hope you're good enough or hope that the RED's focus assist can help.

But you just asked the $6500 question... And my bet is that this lens is going to be painfully difficult to use in most situations. So I'm planning to spend the extra $6500 for the 18-50mm RED zoom. Not all RED users are going to want or be able to do that though.

[Finner]

So if you can't rely on the markings how are you gonna judge accurate focus? Close only counts in horse shoes and handgrenades and probably not as much in 4K. Great optics are nice but accurate focus is pretty swell too :)


Exactly!!!

Thats why I see shooting with this lens on a red being like hunting bear with a BB gun. I just don't see either person being to happy with the end results.

[Unwounded]

hmmm......relying on focus assist and a small monitor. I sure wouldn't wanna be there for the screening of the dailies on a big screen with the producer that day :) I mean OK, buy the cheap lens but then have to go out and buy(rent) the really expensive big sony crt or get the nice Red lens and buy the smaller cheaper panasonic 17". It seems like maybe the saving wouldn't really be as much in terms of the bigger picture. It's a shame that switching from PL to nikon mount isn't just a simple adapter. It'd be nice if you could use the red 18-50 as you're primary and be able to quickly change to some nikon primes when appropriate. It'd give you a lot of flexibility and still come in well below 10K (which is quite a savings over the 20k for the red primes). (Also wonder how colors would track from red to nikon).

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I'm interested to see how color will differ between RED lenses an Nikkors. If the RED lenses turn out to be what I'm hoping (a great lens for a great price) then I will get the 18-50 as well as the 50-150. I'm thinking of getting some Nikon primes re-mounted to PL so I don't have to swap lens mounts very often or at all. The re-mounting is expensive though, not as bad as completely re-housing the lens elements, but it could be several hundred to $1K per lens. Still cheaper than the RED prime set though. OTOH, the RED prime set still may be a bargain, even at $20K.

[ZzzZZz...]

For your information, the 20-35mm is just as good, except for the last 3mm of course. It is much cheaper, and it takes a full turn to focus from one feet to infinity...

[Jeff Kilgroe]

For your information, the 20-35mm is just as good, except for the last 3mm of course. It is much cheaper, and it takes a full turn to focus from one feet to infinity...

If you can find one... The 20-35mm has been discontinued and replaced by the 17-35mm. In some ways it's the nicer lens, especially for use with 35mm adapters and RED. Because it doesn't have the Silent Wave motor and it has a much longer focus throw. Could be a real good lens if you find one on eBay or from a used gear dealer like KEH.

There is also an all-manual version of the 20-35mm, but it's usually more expensive.

[ZzzZZz...]

Personally I would be very interested in a review of the Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8.
I think I would be using that much more often than the 17-35, in spite of the "cropfactor".

[chuck colburn]

Personally I would be very interested in a review of the Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8.
I think I would be using that much more often than the 17-35, in spite of the "cropfactor".

Here's one, there are more.

http://www.nelsontan.com/reviews/afs/AFS2870test.html

[ZzzZZz...]

thanks for the link... too bad those tokinas don´t have an aperture ring... otherwise the 16-50mm would be a good alternative to the 17-35mmm

[Evin Grant]

Remember, there will be a Nikon electronic mount as well.

[ZzzZZz...]

Yes... I crave for more news from erik. If the nikon mount is as good as I expect I might consider going for the 18-200mm nikon as an allround lens + a nice set of fast primes for shallow dof, nice bokeh... etc. fancy pants stuff.
The new 18-200mm ( 27-300mm - 35mm equivalent) has VR, which is a big deal! Imagine what a PL lense with that type of technology would cost. :bye2:

[ZzzZZz...]

http://nikonimaging.com/global/technology/vr/index.htm

[cckid]

Evin hi,



Remember, there will be a Nikon electronic mount as well.


What do you mean exactly by that? Would it mean that I would be able to normally use also my new af-s vr nikkor micro 105/2.8g if/ed lense that doesn't have an aperture ring such as my other nikon d-series lenses?

[PaulClements]

Evin hi,

What do you mean exactly by that? Would it mean that I would be able to normally use also my new af-s vr nikkor micro 105/2.8g if/ed lense that doesn't have an aperture ring such as my other nikon d-series lenses?

Birger who is producing the Canon EOS mount will also be producing a Nikon version that will allow you to control the nikon lenses in automatic mode. So yes your nikkor lens would work fine on it as far as I know.

[Zane Roach]

Points on the Nikon mount, to quote Birger:

"When our Nikon mount comes out you will need to have AF-S lenses to get focus control. and D or G lenses to get iris control."

That's AF-S, not AF for focus control which rules out a lot of lenses (especially primes), but good news for focusing the Nikon 17-35.

[viperstarpoint9]

I have a 18-20mm for my sony alpha and it is just about the only lens i need for my camera. I think that an 18-200mm lens is a good jumping off point for any camera setup still or video.

[cckid]

Birger who is producing the Canon EOS mount will also be producing a Nikon version that will allow you to control the nikon lenses in automatic mode. So yes your nikkor lens would work fine on it as far as I know.

That's good news...since I really love my nikon micro 105/2.8g if/ef and I wouldn't want to trade just to get the ring aperture d version of it...otherwise I look forward to use my other nikon lenses on red (17-35/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 80-200/2.8)....I think with some additional focus ring I am set to go....and of course a red one
would be fine too...

[HD Hildebrand]

It sure would be good if the Briger Nikon mount was ready when the Red comes out. Will it replace the Red's PL to Nikon adapter, or just an addition to the Nikon mount?

[Evin Grant]

Red is making a dedicated "cold" manual mount, as I've stated in other threads it is impossible to make a Nikon to PL adapter without teleconvrting optics because of the different flange focal distances. But I too hope the Birger "hot" Nikon mount will be available.

[David Nardini]

Hello all,
I've been hanging onto my 17-35 (I switched to Canon a while back). Now that Birger have come up with an EOS mount for the RED I'm happy to sell this lens.
So, before I stick her on eBay, perhaps one of you might like to consider & if interested, send me a PM.
Regards,

[Michael Hastings]

Red is making a dedicated "cold" manual mount, as I've stated in other threads it is impossible to make a Nikon to PL adapter without teleconvrting optics because of the different flange focal distances. But I too hope the Birger "hot" Nikon mount will be available.

I will be using the birger Canon mount for access to the ef-s 10-22 for underwater. I thought a lot of the Nikon lenses you were recommending were the older manual lenses and wondered your opinion on using those with a nikon adapter on the birger canon. Any suggestions on a good nikon to canon eos adapter? Which of the manual nikons that you reviewed do you think just don't have the same quality/focus throw/price point in the Canon eos line? How critical is it for color matching to use all of the same brand?

I sold my 20d canon but my thought is to buy a 30d or XTi and the 10-22 plus one long canon IS zoom for dual duty RED and stills. But I would like your opinion on mid focal lengths and primes. Would the Nikons with an adapter be a better option in your humble opinion. The 10-22 really looks like the best option for us UWs so I don't see the point in getting the Nikon mount in either RED or Birger, but adapters are pretty inexpensive.

Here's your original list for nikons:

Nikon standard speed manual prime set
18mm f3.5 $349
24mm f2.8 $165
35mm f2.0 $149
50mm f1.8 $62
85mm f2.0 $149
135mm f2.8 $119
Total $993

Nikon Speed prime set
20mm f2.8 $237
28mm f2.0 $167
50mm f1.4 $76
85mm f1.4 $429
Total $909

[David Nardini]

Any suggestions on a good nikon to canon eos adapter?

Novoflex is one that I use (http://www.camerahacker.com/Novoflex/EOSNIK.shtml) but there are many variants (eg : do a search on eBay). As you say, so long as you are happy with manual operation, many Nikkors (and other brands) can be mounted on the Birger RED/EOS mount ;-)

Cheers,

[Bruce Allen]

With the new 14-24 2.8 and 24-70 2.8 Nikon lenses, perhaps we should warn people to wait until those ones have been checked out before rushing into getting this lens?

That is, if they can wait? New lenses are only coming out in November, right?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Leon Trinidad]

www.kenrockwell.com has some insight on the new 14-24mm lens.

[owencareyjones]

Evin,

I have been using the following Nikon lenses with a Redrock M2 attached to a Sony V1E HDV camera and am now planning to use them with my RED camera when it arrives. Do you think I should also get the 17-35mm AFS lens or are the ones I have enough for most purposes. The lenses I have are:

Nikon 28mm f3.5
Nikon 35mm f2.8
Nikon 50mm f1.4
Nikon 135mm f2.8

I also have two zoom lenses but these are not Nikon lenses (although they have Nikon mounts) and I'm guessing that they are not as good quality? They are also quite awkward to use because they move in and out quite a long way as you zoom.

Sigma 27mm - 70mm f2.8
Vivitar 70 - 210mm f2.8 - f4.0

I would really appreciate your recommendations.

Owen

[Steve Sanacore]

Has anyone tested this lens on the Red? It's Canon's answer to their new 21MP body soon to be released. A new version of the 16-35mm 2.8 that seems to be much better than the old version. So far it seems to hold up very well against my Leica 19 2.8 in my informal tests.

Could it be better than the Nikon 17-35 2.8?

[RED,BLUE&GREEN]

Why does all the test at 2.8 look like poor focus or not sharp???
Is the camera bad at 2.8 or the lens?????

I shoot at 2.8 or below all the time....I hope not!!!!!......back to the Drawing board????

[Steve Sanacore]

I get the feeling that many of the future RED users and owners just don't see the big picture (no pun intended), when it comes to optics.

Would you go on a job with a Genesis or D20 or Dalsa and try and use cheap non-motion picture lenses on the cameras?

I don't think of this camera as an expensive Panasonic or Sony... I think of it as a digital Arri BODY at a 90% discount :-)

I think many people have been fooled by all the pro-sumer HD cameras with built in lenses that do a fabulous job for the prices.

I am curious how my Canon, Leica and Nikon lenses will perform and look forward to testing them, but for my work until proven different will be Zeiss master primes, Cooke or RED lenses if they are as good, (and I hope they are).

Mismatched optics on the best camera will just give you 10MP of junk. So be careful.

Just my 2 cents.

[RED,BLUE&GREEN]

Evin: What about the out of focus problem with f2.8??? Is it the camera or lens that has a problem? I shoot at f2.8 all the time!!!

[David Mullen ASC]

It's quite common for lenses to be softer when shot wide-open. Most zooms in particular are sharper when stopped down a little.

The general rule is that a lens is sharpest two-stops closed down from wide-open. That's not an absolute rule though, and some lenses don't degrade as much at wide-open as others, but very few don't get better if stopped down a little.

So in general if you like to shoot at f/2.8, then use an f/2.0 lens at least so you can stop down to f/2.8. And use a good prime instead of a zoom for maximum sharpness/contrast.

Even an expensive Angenieux Optimo zoom shot wide-open at T/2.8 is going to be a little softer than at T/4 or T/5.6.

[donatello b]

"Would you go on a job with a Genesis or D20 or Dalsa and try and use cheap non-motion picture lenses on the cameras? "

well if one had the budget for those camera's one probably would not use still lens - though it could be a choice .. what you're missing is that on a budget that could afford the above camera's and RED is the camera of choice for that project one would rent cine lens ...
however some are not going to be working on high end projects ... for low budget projects i would think that using a RED 4k with still lens would out perform most digital camera's not listed above ... still lens have been used for years in motion pictures ... minolta 17-35, canon 17-35 , nikon 80-200 & 24-70 have been rehoused for cine camera's - the breathing remains the same ..many 200 - 1200 still lens are used every day in the film business ....
if you look at the test that have been done already between all the different lens you'll find there is not a day-night difference between them - infact you'll find they are very close .. for some the difference between a 50k lens and a 5k lens is about 45k and worth every $$ and for some the 45K difference will buy a complete RED with lens , sticks, computer etc ....
many REDs will not be shooting projects that are going to be shown on a 50ft screen ....
quality still lens are not junk ...

[Steve Sanacore]

As an owner of sets of Canon, Leica and Nikon lenses, I really hope they work well on RED.

But until the user field tests are in and evaluated, I just can't depend on it being a solution - so I may seem pessimistic.

[Mark Crabtree]

The Red is just a DSLR with high FPS capability. If still lenses work for still cameras they will work for the Red camera. It's just important to pick the best lenses and get this whole custom mount thing working properly. When the Birger mount comes out you are going to be seeing a lot of great shots with still lenses. But you will probably see bad shots with still lenses too, because of many factors, the lens used, how it was used, etc. Hasn't anyone ever seen bad footage in a movie shot with cine lenses?

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm just surprised that someone is surprised that the zoom lens image got softer when opened-up all the way. I see that effect all the time, even on expensive zoom lenses (except maybe the new Zeiss Master Zoom, which is a monster in size & weight).

I sometimes use it as a form of diffusion even, knowing that the zoom lens will get a little softer when I open it up all the way. For example, even the Panavision Digital Primo 8-72mm zoom, which is T/2.1, is better if shot at T/2.8, but on a close-up, I sometimes go to T/2.1 for a little softening effect.

[Sean]

I'm just surprised that someone is surprised that the zoom lens image got softer when opened-up all the way. I see that effect all the time, even on expensive zoom lenses (except maybe the new Zeiss Master Zoom, which is a monster in size & weight).

I sometimes use it as a form of diffusion even, knowing that the zoom lens will get a little softer when I open it up all the way. For example, even the Panavision Digital Primo 8-72mm zoom, which is T/2.1, is better if shot at T/2.8, but on a close-up, I sometimes go to T/2.1 for a little softening effect.

That's very interesting to know.

[Joel Kaye]

The Red is just a DSLR with high FPS capability. If still lenses work for still cameras they will work for the Red camera.

Right. And when you consider RED has a crop factor of about 1.5 that means it's going to be shooting through the sweet spot of any full frame 35mm SLR lens. So vignetting and edge distortion should be minimized.

Now I'm not saying these will look as good as the top end lenses when projected at 4K... but they should look good. The real issues are if the focus mechanism is smooth and repeatable and how much breathing is there. So we may spend a bunch of time testing, or buying/selling lenses. Primes will probably be the best.

You can always rent the big guns for bigger projects.

[jaadgy akanni]

Right. And when you consider RED has a crop factor of about 1.5 that means it's going to be shooting through the sweet spot of any full frame 35mm SLR lens. So vignetting and edge distortion should be minimized.

Now I'm not saying these will look as good as the top end lenses when projected at 4K... but they should look good. The real issues are if the focus mechanism is smooth and repeatable and how much breathing is there. So we may spend a bunch of time testing, or buying/selling lenses. Primes will probably be the best.

You can always rent the big guns for bigger projects.

Don't forget that Birger and ViewFactorStudios are working on breathing compensation as well, so that should minimize, if not eliminate that problem.

[David Mullen ASC]

The problem with still camera lenses, particularly zooms, is not so much sharpness as it is mechanics, how rugged and reliable is the particular lens, plus how it focuses, zooms, etc. in the middle of a shot (not so much of an issue with a still image.) And how easy is it to read the focus & f-stop marks, etc. For example, if you had to pull focus from 6' 5" to 6' 9", could you even get close to finding that on a lens barrel, or are the 6' and 7' marks right next to each other.

[Steve Sherrick]

David,

My plan is to rent the lenses that are appropriate for each job. But I do want to have my own personal set of lenses for going out and capturing stock footage when inspiration hits, or last minute jobs that don't have time to rent things. With so many options out there for lenses, if you had to choose one lens that would be good for general purpose use with the Red what would you go with? My original plan was to go with the Red 18-50 which at $6500 seemed like a good deal, but now there has been some questions about the optics. Then I was thinking about the Nikon 17-35 but I'd have to modify it to work more like a cine lens. Any other lenses on the used market that you think would work well for me? I'm trying to stay under $10K for the lens(es) that I will own.
Thanks,
Steve

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm not a buyer, just a renter, so I'm the wrong person to ask, but it seems to me that the RED zoom lens is a good bargain if you're on a budget, plus I don't see why it would be any worse than a still camera zoom in quality if that's what you're considering.

I'm not suggesting that your still lenses won't work either, just that optics are not the only thing to watch out for. I'd feel safer using still camera primes because they have simpler mechanics, though a zoom does make focusing easier.

Most 35mm cine zooms are much larger & heavier than you may want to deal with. But some people here have been looking into getting a used 18-100mm or 20-100mm Cooke zooms, for example.

[Steve Sherrick]

Thanks David. I haven't ruled out the Red lens, just trying to get my hands on one before buying anything. That lens makes a lot of sense for me for a couple of reasons.

1. Price. If it is sharp, has minimal breathing, and accurate markings then this fits right into the budget range I was hoping to be in.

2. It's a cine ready lens as opposed to the still lenses which will need some tweaks to make them work cine style.

I'm going to try and arrange to see a Red 18-50 in action and see if it works for me.

Thanks for taking the time.

Steve

[Joe Vinson]

If anyone's interested in purchasing one, I'm selling mine (like new condition) for about $80 less than the B&H price, shipping included.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=10073
PM me for details if you're interested.

[Rick Darge]

So anyone out there using the 17-35 on the Red with favorable results?

[Steve Sherrick]

Just picked mine up today and will shoot another round of tests this week with my Nikons. I'm holding out hope that these will be what I use for a certain level of project, and will rent cine glass when needed. I have put together quite a kit for far less than I would have had to spend with cine glass, knowing the limitations and embracing them. But they won't be for every situation. I'll post results when I have them.

[Rick Darge]

I just rented a 17-35 for a few hours. After those few hours, I bought the zoom from some guy on craigslist for $1200

Anyone out there that has the Nikon adapter, needs to get this lens. Its amazing on the Red camera.. sure the focus throw is really small and the iris has hard clicks, but for $1000-$1500, you cannot go wrong with this lens on your Red.. Optically, it looks as good as my 18-50 Red zoom

[Steve Sherrick]

Yep, just shot some stuff today. Really great lens. Loving all of my Nikons.

[Rick Darge]

Steve, do your Nikons, namely the 17-35, shift around by a few mm if you twist the lens barrel? Mine does but its not affecting picture.

[Steve Sherrick]

haven't noticed that. I bought mine new so not sure if that is a factor.

[James Brundige]

So anyone out there using the 17-35 on the Red with favorable results?

Very good results. And it's light, which is great for my nature work. It's a great rig for working solo. Not good for an AC working with a tape measure.