Need bridge Nikon zoom advice

[Martin Weiss]

Looks like our Red will arrive before any of the Canon mounts are shipping, which again means that I won't be able yet to use the lovely Contax lenses that await our camera, which again means I have to get one Nikon lens (or Tamron, or Sigma, or you-name-it) to bridge the time.

Basically I need a Nikon zoom lens, that covers at least something widish up to something longish, i.e. 18-85mm. Which zoom can you recommend - it does not have to be the best performing in the world, just something to get me started on the RED, without raising any frustration. A must is the ability to set the f-stop manually, which probably kills any of the super 18-2x0mm lenses. Alternatively 2 or 3 fixed lenses.

Thanks for any input.

(If anyone wants to sell their RED zoom for a very, ahem, competitive price, let me know :) )

[Nils J. Nesse]

If you need "widish to logish" in one lens, the older Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4 might be the best choice.

There is also the Nikon-mount Angenieux 28-70 f/2.6, for about $1000 on ebay. But 28 is not very widish on the Red.

If you are willing to switch between 2 lenses, the 17-35/2.8 and the 80-200/2.8 are a better solution. (If you can't afford to buy them, you can rent mine )

[Brandon Fraley]

I personally think that 28-70 is a very usable range for standard dramatic work. Until a few days ago, all I had was a single 28-70mm Sigma that cost about $120 and I used that for months PRETTY happily. And I could also switch to 2k if I needed something longer.

[Martin Weiss]

Thanks, Nils & Brandon, great advice!

Brandon, would that be the Sigma 2.8 Ai-S? There seems to be quite a few different ones, some of them not having manual iris.

If renting for an unknown period (until either Alesniak or Erik ships, or the IMS warranty gets resolved) is cheaper than buying an o.k.ish lens, I would definitely be interested... (tongue in cheek and all)

[Brandon Fraley]

Brandon, would that be the Sigma 2.8 Ai-S? There seems to be quite a few different ones, some of them not having manual iris.

I honestly don't know. It has a manual iris and is not an auto focus lens. I've since replaced it with a used 28-70 Nikkor. It's undoubtedly better glass, but also 10x the price.

Actually, do you want my Sigma?

[martinnoweck]

hi martin,

if you want to have something "widish" i would go for the nikon 17-35 / 2.8 - you can set the aperture manually, just the focus throw is a little painful because it has no hard stops due the autofocus of the lens.

regards,
martin

[Sanjin Jukic]

Marin,

take Doug's Nikon F/G mount and go for AF-S Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED VR

(It's replaced an entire bag of lenses. It's small, fun, flexible, sharp and fast.{K.R.}) or even Sigma in the same range.

[Martin Weiss]

Ahhh... too much choice already. :)

Seriously, thanks for all the info, greatly appreciated.

Think I will take up Brandon's offer. I feel so cheap, lol. If after a month there is still no Canon or IMS mount around, I'll pick up either the superzoom or the two Nikkor zooms.