Which still (SLR) lenses are you using with the Mini35

Jim Giberti · January 27th, 2004, 08:10 PM

<<Having shot Nikons for a few years, I just thought I'd mention; I got a Tamron lens a couple of years ago but thought the image quality compared to the comparable Nikon/Nikor was dismal. They are cheaper than the Nikons but not worth the savings in my (eversohumble) >>

As I mentioned, I didn't like the lens by comparison to the best Nikons, after working with it. I had a few opportunities to compare them in studio and location work. Also, there are Tamron Lenses and their are good Tamron lenses. This 28-105 f/2.8 is their upper range lens and much nicer than their less expensive glass.

The exact came could be said if you had compared it with one of the cheaper Nikons, of which there are many.

The bottom line is, if you're spending $8500 for an optical DV adapter, don't cheap out on the glass...especially if you're using still primes.

In fact, I've got some interesting and challenging shoots coming up in the coming weeks/months that are going to require me to mix XL1s footage and Mini35. I'm going to start another thread on that.

John Francis · January 28th, 2004, 01:07 PM

Nikon primes: 24mm 2.0, 35mm 1.4, 50 mm 1.2, 85mm 1.4, 180mm 2.8
I picked those up after reading posts from Jim and never turned back!

Jim Giberti · January 28th, 2004, 05:43 PM

<<Nikon primes: 24mm 2.0, 35mm 1.4, 50 mm 1.2, 85mm 1.4, 180mm 2.8
I picked those up after reading posts from Jim and never turned back!>>

Hey John, good to hear I'm a positive influence <g>. How do you like them? Did you get them all new? Don't the 85 and 180 give beautiful images?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

January 27th, 2004, 08:10 PM	#16
Jim Giberti Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bethel, VT Posts: 824	<<Having shot Nikons for a few years, I just thought I'd mention; I got a Tamron lens a couple of years ago but thought the image quality compared to the comparable Nikon/Nikor was dismal. They are cheaper than the Nikons but not worth the savings in my (eversohumble) >> As I mentioned, I didn't like the lens by comparison to the best Nikons, after working with it. I had a few opportunities to compare them in studio and location work. Also, there are Tamron Lenses and their are good Tamron lenses. This 28-105 f/2.8 is their upper range lens and much nicer than their less expensive glass. The exact came could be said if you had compared it with one of the cheaper Nikons, of which there are many. The bottom line is, if you're spending $8500 for an optical DV adapter, don't cheap out on the glass...especially if you're using still primes. In fact, I've got some interesting and challenging shoots coming up in the coming weeks/months that are going to require me to mix XL1s footage and Mini35. I'm going to start another thread on that.

January 28th, 2004, 01:07 PM	#17
John Francis Tourist Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 3	Nikon primes: 24mm 2.0, 35mm 1.4, 50 mm 1.2, 85mm 1.4, 180mm 2.8 I picked those up after reading posts from Jim and never turned back!

January 28th, 2004, 05:43 PM	#18
Jim Giberti Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bethel, VT Posts: 824	<<Nikon primes: 24mm 2.0, 35mm 1.4, 50 mm 1.2, 85mm 1.4, 180mm 2.8 I picked those up after reading posts from Jim and never turned back!>> Hey John, good to hear I'm a positive influence <g>. How do you like them? Did you get them all new? Don't the 85 and 180 give beautiful images?