PL mount Nikkor 17-35mm T2.8 - Do you want one?

[sbaechler]

Hi

I was talking to the lens tech at our rental house. A few years ago he rehoused a Nikkor 17-35mm Zoom for use with 35mm cameras. The lens is very nice. The focus gear has been reversed so it is correct for PL and there are precision markings for focus, zoom and f-stop. The focus rotation is about 120°. Personally I think this should be more. Maybe he can improve that.

You can read more about the photo-version of the lens here (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=676).

I asked him if he would make a small series and he was seriously considering it. If there are enough people interested he would make a small series. The more units the lower the price.

This poll is to see if there are enough people interested in buying one if Megarent would make them.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I would be interested if the price is right... However, I have to say that the RED 18-50 is as good or better than what we'll probably get with the re-housed 17-35.

But let's see who is interested and how much.

[Steve Sherrick]

Questions:
1. How much?
2. Turnaround time?
3. How big is it when rehoused?
4. Hard stops?

Steve

[sbaechler]

The price depends heavily on the number of lenses. I've asked him to calculate a target price for a series of 50 lenses. I will have that next week.

I don't know about turnaround time. The original lens took one year to make but now all the calculations are done. But be aware that this is still a rental house and he also has to take care of the cameras that go out. So if there are less shoots on film he will have more time to make lenses...

The lens is about the same size as the original 18-35. Just wider because of the mount and gear. It's quite a bit larger than the RED 18-55 but it is still a very compact zoom compared to other 35mm zoom lenses.

It doens't have hard stops. The whole iris gear had to be custom made because on the original lens it is controlled by a motor.

[Finner]

interested in prices when they come. Hard stops in the rehouse are a must

[Shawn Nelson]

Wouldn't it have to be significantly cheaper than the Red Zoom for this to be worth it? It has half the focal range, is not faster, and yet is bigger. It seems it'd need to be $4500 USD or below to be worth it. Otherwise, why bother?

[Finner]

Red lens does not hold focus through the zoom range. Hence why there is no hard focus marks on the lens.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Nikkor 17-35mm T2.8 is the best between 20-22mm, to go wider betweem 18 and 20 you get a bit (or a lot in 4K) of CA and distortion.

Just print a sample in Super A3 format on glossy photo paper and then you can see all bad stuff clearly.

Between 24-35 you can find MUCH MUCH better primes from Nikon, Leica, Zeiss, Canon or even Sigma.

[sbaechler]

interested in prices when they come. Hard stops in the rehouse are a must

What do you mean by hard stops?

[Finner]

It doens't have hard stops. The whole iris gear had to be custom made because on the original lens it is controlled by a motor.


Hard stops in the rehouse are a must


What do you mean by hard stops?

Are we having the same conversation? I don't know how to be more clear then this. I am not trying to be a jerk so please don't take it that way I just do not know what you are having trouble understanding.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Red lens does not hold focus through the zoom range. Hence why there is no hard focus marks on the lens.

The Nikon 17-35 doesn't hold focus through the zoom range either. It drifts slightly, but enough to notice, especially at 4K.


Wouldn't it have to be significantly cheaper than the Red Zoom for this to be worth it? It has half the focal range, is not faster, and yet is bigger. It seems it'd need to be $4500 USD or below to be worth it. Otherwise, why bother?

I agree. I would think 2800 Euro is about the upper limit for a lens like this (that would be a bit under $4200). Any more than that and you may as well just buy the RED 18-50.

And yes, the barrel rotations would ideally be converted to operate the same direction as cine lenses. Hard stops (like Finner said) and a longer throw are a must for the focus ring. Those two factors are the reasons I want to see this lens re-housed. Without those, I may as well just use it with a RED or Birger Nikon mount and move on with my life... If I even decide I want to swap mounts just for that lens when I could use the RED 18-50 or rent something phenomenal like the Arri LWZ 15.5-45.

[Steve Sherrick]

And yes, the barrel rotations would ideally be converted to operate the same direction as cine lenses. Hard stops (like Finner said) and a longer throw are a must for the focus ring. Those two factors are the reasons I want to see this lens re-housed. Without those, I may as well just use it with a RED or Birger Nikon mount and move on with my life... If I even decide I want to swap mounts just for that lens when I could use the RED 18-50 or rent something phenomenal like the Arri LWZ 15.5-45.

Exactly!

[donatello b]

perhaps the lens to compare this to would be the century 17-35mm at 15k.
i believe years ago they used a minolta lens and now in past few years a canon to convert ..
i've seen the lens and the mechanics are excellent. it holds focus zooming and i didn't see any breathing in the 4ft -50ft range ..didn't see any in the 20-infinity either .. it feels solid ..IMO better built conversion then red 18-50 and it cost 8500 so i better get something for the extra $$ ..however i can't say one has a better image ...

[sbaechler]

The lens has a geared iris ring like an Ultra Prime or S4. Focus and zoom rings are geared as well.
The iris is marked in 1/3 f-stop increments and focus has little lines, too if you mean this by hard stops.

[Fredrik Callinggard]

The Nikon 17-35 doesn't hold focus through the zoom range either. It drifts slightly, but enough to notice, especially at 4K.

I've actually had a conversation with a lens technician who said that it would be quite noticeable and thought that the lens would be an excellent vari-prime, but not a good zoom. Myself I don't know enough about Nikon glass.

fred

[sbaechler]

Wouldn't it have to be significantly cheaper than the Red Zoom for this to be worth it? It has half the focal range, is not faster, and yet is bigger. It seems it'd need to be $4500 USD or below to be worth it. Otherwise, why bother?

Sigma makes an 18-50mm f/2.8 photo zoom for 389$. The Nikon 17-35mm 2.8 is 1530$. Photographers buy the Nikon and you see why if you look at the images.

If you just want a cheap lens then go with the Red zoom. This lens is for DPs who would buy the Nikon photo lens instead of the cheaper Sigma.

[Finner]

The lens has a geared iris ring like an Ultra Prime or S4. Focus and zoom rings are geared as well.
The iris is marked in 1/3 f-stop increments and focus has little lines, too if you mean this by hard stops.

The focus on the still 17-35 does not have hard stops. What this means is that when you hit infinity at the end of the focus travel or minimum focus at the other end the focus will stop there but the barrel continues to spin. This is unacceptable for cine use because if you go past either the close or far focus ends with a follow focus and it keeps spinning your marks on the FF disc will no longer line up.

[sbaechler]

The focus on the still 17-35 does not have hard stops. What this means is that when you hit infinity at the end of the focus travel or minimum focus at the other end the focus will stop there but the barrel continues to spin. This is unacceptable for cine use because if you go past either the close or far focus ends with a follow focus and it keeps spinning your marks on the FF disc will no longer line up.

In that case the focus barrel has hard stops. As far as I could see the focus rotation is about twice the original rotation. Which is still not much between 1m and infinity. Maybe there is room to increase the focus rotation further.

[Matt Uhry]

the 17-35 is nice but kind of old news... Can your guy take a look at the 14-24 f2.8 ? That would rock, and not compete with any other existing rehoused lenses...

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Sanjin Jukic]

"The Nikon 14-24mm is a G lens, meaning Nikon removed the aperture ring to save costs."

And to install a new aperture ring in the rehoused lens would cost more that US $ 5.000.

The price could be minimum about 10K.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/14-24mm/images/14-24mm-no-aperture-ring.jpg
Look ma - no aperture ring!

LINK>>> (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/14-24mm.htm)

[Matt Uhry]

"The Nikon 14-24mm is a G lens, meaning Nikon removed the aperture ring to save costs."

And to install a new aperture ring in the rehoused lens would cost more that US $ 5.000.

The price could be minimum about 10K.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/14-24mm/images/14-24mm-no-aperture-ring.jpg
Look ma - no aperture ring!

LINK>>> (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/14-24mm.htm)

That's the point Sanjin, Once you chop up the back of the lens you need to move the iris ring anyway. Not that huge an additional cost, certainly not "oh my god $5000" - if it's too expensive for you don't get it. Any stills zoom lens that's nicely re-mounted and rehoused is going to cost $5000-20,000

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Sanjin Jukic]

That's the point Sanjin, Once you chop up the back of the lens you need to move the iris ring anyway. Not that huge an additional cost, certainly not "oh my god $5000" - if it's too expensive for you don't get it. Any stills zoom lens that's nicely re-mounted and rehoused is going to cost $5000-20,000

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

Yes Matt,

and we know that the price between 10K-20K for the lightweight zoom in that class is a still bargain.

[Evin Grant]

At this point maybe it's time to think about a 2nd Red with a dedicated Birger Nikon mount. I just got the new 24-70 f2.8 AF-S lens with my D3 and OMFG!
It bests the old 28-70 in every possible way and the 28-70 was phenomenal.
For $23,000 you could have a dedicated Red for Nikon AFS and the 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm VR all T3 and all spectacular lenses that quite honestly would give Daren's LWZ a run for it's money, especially wide open.

[sbaechler]

"The Nikon 14-24mm is a G lens, meaning Nikon removed the aperture ring to save costs."


When you rehouse the lens you have to make a new aperture ring anyway. On the 17-35 the aperture is controlled by electronics as well and had to be remade.

[Shawn Bannon]

Red lens does not hold focus through the zoom range. Hence why there is no hard focus marks on the lens.

wow, I had no idea of this. this means that the footage markings on the lens barrel are different at different focal lengths on the 18-50?

[Jeff Kilgroe]

When you rehouse the lens you have to make a new aperture ring anyway. On the 17-35 the aperture is controlled by electronics as well and had to be remade.

The 17-35 has a manual aperture mechanism as well, so at least most of what is needed should already be there. Or it should be quite a bit easier to adapt it than a G series lens.

[Poi Boy]

For me the conversion would have to be less than 5K euro including the cost of the lens to make sense.
Aloha
-A

[Fredrik Callinggard]

For me the conversion would have to be less than 5K euro including the cost of the lens to make sense.
Aloha
-A

Why? It would theoretically by better then a RED lens? You paid $6500 for that.

(the RED is believed to be re-housed out of a sigma for $389 and the Nikon is $1700)


fred

[Poi Boy]

Why? It would theoretically by better then a RED lens? You paid $6500 for that.

(the RED is believed to be re-housed out of a sigma for $389 and the Nikon is $1700)


fred

I have both lenses, the red lens is way better overall. Also you don't know that it is a $389 sigma. If Sigma does make it though, I'm sure there is more to it than just their $389 model.
Aloha
-A

[Poi Boy]

Also a better range on the red.
-A

[Finner]

Poi I would bet my cooke up against your red 18-50 that the red lens is indeed a sigma 18-50 stills lens. I have compared the sigma and the red lens and they are 100% the same lens only the red has been rehoused.

Care to put your lens up and take that bet?

[Poi Boy]

It may very well be, I didn't say it wasn't, just that we don't know for sure. Regardless, I own both and stand by my statement. So, Fin baby, you have taken the two apart have you ?
-A

[Fredrik Callinggard]

It may very well be, I didn't say it wasn't, just that we don't know for sure. Regardless, I own both and stand by my statement. So, Fin baby, you have taken the two apart have you ?
-A

Don't really need to as it peeks out when you zoom :innocent:

[Poi Boy]

it's just uncircumcised.
-A

[Fredrik Callinggard]

it's just uncircumcised.
-A

LOL - You're a true comedian Poi Boy :biggrin:

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Why? It would theoretically by better then a RED lens? You paid $6500 for that.

Would it be better?

I own the Nikon 17-35 and it's a great lens... IMO, it isn't all that much better optically (or even better at all) than the RED 18-50. The RED 18-50 obviously makes compromises to reach its price point. But my complaints with it are not about the quality of its optics. Like you said, in theory it would be better. I don't think we'll get better optical performance out of it and the rest of the mechanics would have to be better than what RED is offering with their lenses for me to consider this conversion.

In terms of price, if the re-housed Nikon isn't about the same price or a bit lower than the RED lens, it better have some good reasons to justify the higher cost. It's already lacking in focal range, the difference between 17mm and 18mm on the low end is trivial, they're about the same speed (f2.8 ~ T3), RED lens is readily available and has a warranty.


(the RED is believed to be re-housed out of a sigma for $389 and the Nikon is $1700)

I suppose no one will know for sure until someone cuts open a RED lens... But I have serious doubts about any "re-housing". That makes no sense, IMO. I wish people would quit throwing that around until someone can prove it. However, I'm fully willing to believe it's likely RED is using Sigma's 18-50 glass elements and some internal components for the construction of their lenses. I just don't see them ordering truck-loads of Sigma lenses and then delivering them to someone for the lenses to get butchered and rebuilt. Much easier ways to handle something like that when we're talking about a product of which several thousand will be produced.

[marasco ivan]

look here:nikon 17-35 rehoused
http://www.vantage-film.com/file/pdf/equipment_18.pdf

[chuck colburn]

How can a f2.8 lens turn into a T2.8 lens? Someone is stretching the truth here.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

How can a f2.8 lens turn into a T2.8 lens?

easy...

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/535_1204269923.jpg

Their "T" stop scale is the same 2.8, 4, 5.6.. as on the Nikkor "F" scale... Makes you wonder about the quality of the rest of the conversion. Oh well, it's a rental.

[OptiCine]

So, Fin baby, you have taken the two apart have you ?-A
I have. I'll just say it is NOT a rehouse, but much more simple than most people are speculating.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Something about Nikon's 17-35mm f/2.8 CA and purple fringing at wide open (17mm) that I was talking before:

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/Nikon17-35mm@17mm.jpg
Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 at wide open 17mm.

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/Nikon17-35mm-purpleF.jpg
Detail from the tree blown up 500%.

[Mark Andersen]

I would be interested if the price is right... However, I have to say that the RED 18-50 is as good or better than what we'll probably get with the re-housed 17-35.

But let's see who is interested and how much.

My Red 18-50 isn't very sharp at all when compared to my Zeiss standard primes, but then again primes should be sharper. However, the difference was quite noticable.

[Mark Andersen]

The purple (blue) fringing is common (with digital capture) in high contrast areas of the frame, the sharper the lens the worse it appears. It also tends to be a much bigger problem near the edges of the frame. It has to do with pixel interpolation, or so I have been led to understand.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Whatever, but it's not good especially if you blow up for 4K projection.

[martinnoweck]

Hi Simon,

any news / conclusions?

kind regards,
martin

[sbaechler]

Hi

I was talking to the Lens tech again. He had time to look into the conversion in detail. He said that it was so much work that even for a small series it would be about 10'000 € (inclunding the lens). So I guess the conversion just became less interesting for most people.

Although the lens has an iris ring it is linked electronically only. So you have to remake the iris movement from scratch.

I noticed that Vantage changed their design on their converted lens. It's now very similiar to the Megarent lens.

Simon

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I'm still very curious to see if one of these Nikkors rehoused. But have to say that at 10K euro (roughly $16K USD) they don't make a whole lot of sense. :(

[Evin Grant]

A better choice now would be the new 14-24mm anyways. It may be the best super wide angle zoom ever!

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html

[Sanjin Jukic]

An old known link,

and waiting for 16:9's Nikon G to Canon EF adaptor/Lever-Operated Version (http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/)

to use manual aperture control with Nikon 14-24mm on RED.

[Matthew Duclos]

Maybe I'm thinking of a different application or maybe this has already been covered... But I'm fairly certain that Century Optics converted a 17-35mm still lens (rehoused and PL mounted) several years ago. And as I recall, the final product was less than perfect. The lens displayed a severe image shift while reversing zoom direction and did not repeat focus accurately. This was mostly due to the origin of the lens. A proper conversion is certainly possible. As with most of the discussions on this forum, it comes down to preference and budget. In the end, you get what you pay for.

[Poi Boy]

" In the end, you get what you pay for."[/QUOTE]

I think if you paid 10K euros for a converted 17/35 you would be getting a very bad value.
-A

[Matthew Duclos]

"

I think if you paid 10K euros for a converted 17/35 you would be getting a very bad value.
-A

I believe you can pick up a used Century 17-35mm for a little under $10k USD.

[Poi Boy]

If you could get one for $5K US that would be sort of worth while. Although if the Birger mount can deliver on its promise it would be silly to pay even 5K for the century.
Aloha
-A

[martinnoweck]

I talked to Vantage today, they told me they did a 17-35 rehouse to PL, but just for their own rental purposes and other rental houses. They are not doing them at the moment, maybe in the next two years and the price would be around 12.000,- Euros.

regards,
martin

[chuck colburn]

I talked to Vantage today, they told me they did a 17-35 rehouse to PL, but just for their own rental purposes and other rental houses. They are not doing them at the moment, maybe in the next two years and the price would be around 12.000,- Euros.

regards,
martin

12,000 EUROS!

Jeeze Peeze, for that I could buy a mill, lathe and surface grinder and make any damn thing I wanted to. lol