Nikon 24 mm f 2.8 lens with EX3
 

I have the chance to get a 24 mm f 2.8 lens for using with my EX3 (adaptimax adapter ?)... never used before a photo lens with a video camera, so any comment about it or recommendation from the experts would be greatly apreciated...

kind regards

Why bother with it?
It won't add anything to the range of your current lens and probably won't be any sharper. It will give you the same area of view as 24mm on your current lens.
Long lenses can be spectacular with that adapter but a wide angle IMHO is pointless.

As Leonard above has said, A wide angle lens is not much use. Much better to use the Sony EX3 stock lens to cover this range. The Adaptimax comes into its own for Macro and Telephoto.

First lens to use for longer telephoto than on the stock lens is the 85mm prime and anything longer.

For macro the 55, 60 and 105mm Nikon Micro lenses work a treat. For some test footage click on the link in my sig.

sony ex3 and Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 lens
 

has anyone used the ex3/adaptimax and the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 lens for portraits/interviews? I imagine with the the 5.4 magnification it would make a great 91.8 - 189mm lens with a really shallow depth of field similar to the canon 5d and a 100mm/200mm f2.8 lens? anyone got any footage?

Is there distortion in the images produced because it's a wide angle lens? I own an ex1 and a canon 5d - I love and am frustrated by them both because the ex1 has a brilliant ability to control everything but lacks depth of field - canon 5d has depth of field but lacks the strengths of the ex1.... have tried the letus route but not happy with the size the ex1 becomes with adapter, rods and lens etc...

Yes, I have tried the 18-105 Nikkor and it doesn't work that well. I found severe colour aberrations when using wide angle lenses, the left side has a purple cast and the right side a green cast. I can only think that the colours do not meet correctly on the EX3 sensor.

I have a large range of prime Nikkor lenses, the minimum focal length that produces excellent results is the 85mm Nikkor - the Sony stock lens lens has an equivalent range of approx 28mm to 80mm. The only other exception is the 55mm Micro Nikkor lens, this is superb for close up work.

I have Steve's Adaptimax adapter and it is a well built piece of kit that will enable you to expand the EX3 cameras capabilities at a modest cost.

Hi Kathleen, I own that Nikon lens and I'd never consider using it on an EX3. There would be absolutely no benefit at all. As Steve said, a Nikon lens must be at least 85mm to provide any advantage over the stock EX3 lens.

And if you did use a lens longer than 85mm, you probably would not have a room big enough (so you get back far enough) to use it to shoot interviews. The Adaptimax is really only designed to be used as a super-telephoto outdoors. For that, it is perfect.

FYI, I have no trouble getting shallow depth-of-field with the EX1 and EX3 on interviews. It's all about lighting, the right f-stop, and positioning the camera and subject. I am not interested in DoF that is so shallow the person's eyes are in focus and their ears and tip of the nose are soft. No thanks. :-)

"I am not interested in DoF that is so shallow the person's eyes are in focus and their ears and tip of the nose are soft. No thanks. :-)"

I have just been watching a documentary on the BBC (Horizon) which made very heavy use of the limited DOF effect. The effect wore thin after three minutes and became a distraction after that, fortunately there was enough interest in the program content to keep me watching.

I think this shallow DOF is rapidly seeing the end of its time, especially when we become bombarded with Canon 5D footage exploiting this novelty.

The EX1/EX3 zoom is better than Nikon's top fixed focal length lenses even on an EX1?

I used to own a RedRockMicro M2 adapter used with a Sony Z1U, but the results were quite poor at wider apertures. I always blamed the achromat used in the adapter as the softness at the edges was poor.

I've never compared the Nikon glass to the EX glass to see which is better. What difference does it make? The EX lens looks fantastic, and the two types of lenses are meant for totally different purposes. If the Nikon was better, it would be by a very very slim margin.

The comments I've made are strictly about focal length. If you want to get into other factors like the Nikon not having servo zoom, no steady-shot, no auto-iris function, no auto-focus, more challenging to manual focus, etc. then the EX3 lens wins on those accounts by a landslide.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying not to use Nikon lenses (my company sells the Adaptimax) I'm just saying they are the wrong tool to choose for focal lengths under 85mm.

thanks guys for your replies... I wasn't expecting that the wide angle would be any good, just hoping! do you know of any samples of the ex3/55mm micro?

I really like shallow depth of field. I have been using it photographically for years to create my own style and when I moved into video, I found the lack of it frustrating! Doug, I have your lighting interviews dvd and it's great. I agree you can get shallow DOF if you've got enough room but usually with my interviews I don't. I appreciate that a lot of people think DOF is a novelty but I just want to be able to incorporate ALL possibilities into my way of working.

Kathleen,

The Horizon program I was watching last night had a lot of shallow DOF shots, on the whole they were very good. The one thing which struck me was that all these shots looked like they were created in a video editing application, i.e. in post production. The effect was very realistic.

In my opinion, creating this effect on the time line would seem a much better option than shooting the same using shallow depth of field lenses or apertures. At least you can control the amount you want and place the focus where you want it.

Take a look at the Horizon documentary, it will be on iPlayer

BBC iPlayer - Horizon: 2009-2010: Pill Poppers

Just in case you need some inspiration, here is a superbly filmed documentary on Leopards, some of the best filming I have seen in a long time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...cret_Leopards/

(Only people in the UK will be able to view iPlayer and the programs are only available for about 30 days)

Try comparing the EX at full zoom and then compare the same result from a Nikkor 85mm or 80mm setting on the 80-200mm Nikkor zoom. The Nikon lenses have chromatic aberations well under control. However, as you go on to say, there are plenty of other factors to take into consideration.

The Ex lens is a superb allrounder which is capable of producing stunning quality at all zoom settings.

I was channel hopping last night and came across this. The bit I saw was a shocker with a software vignette applied very heavily during an interview. It was akin to looking through the bottom of a jam jar!

I then put a Doctor Who DVD on from 1973. The image quality was many times better and didn't suffer from over grading or bad vignettes! Make of that what you will........

It wasn't the best I know, but it could be a starting point for anyone who wants this effect

hi vincent (pill poppers) it looks like they are using a lens baby or a lens baby (like) filter. good to use that occasionally but not all the time! I've been learning how to create shift tilt lens affects post production and that looks like a very similar technique. it's a bit too over produced for my taste though and very time consuming. I like DOF to be more subtle...just like secret leopards! thanks for the inspiration. all in all I guess if you want a particular look, there are always ways to get it!