I am using a JVC gy-hd100 and I am looking for a zoom lens to replace the standard 16x.
My thoughts are on the Sigma 120-300 f2.8, Sigma 100-300 f4, or the Sigma 70-200 f2.8.
I am confused, reading various threads. There is talk about these lenses not having an aperature ring, is this correct. If so what are my options? I will be shooting wildlife.

Moved from UWOL to ProHD.

Jason,

Go for nikons. I have a 80-200 f2.8 and is amazing in shooting nature. A guy here, Eric Gulbransen uses the same plus a 80-300 and has done great nature shots with it. Try to do a search on him here and you can view his samples.

By the way, i guess by now you know you need a third party adapter to use these. Which one are you using? I have the Zoerk.

Ted

Thanks Ted, I may have to look into a nikon lens. I had heard great things about the Sigma lens and I know Per Johan is using a 70-200 Sigma with great results that I have seen. I havent purchased the adapter yet, but I am going to get the MTF.

I have several Sigmas in my arsenal too Jason. I use them for my wide shots.
They are good and cheaper, and the models i use have aperture rings.

You may want to consider getting used nikons on keh.com if you're on a budget.

Some of the newer lenses that Nikon and Sigma brought out do not have aperture rings so cannot be used. But, there are older models out there that do. I have the new Sigma 70-200 which is of similar quality to the Nikon but would have to buy an older lens to use with a video cam. The Nikon 80-200 is a really good model.

Some of the newer lenses that Nikon and Sigma brought out do not have aperture rings so cannot be used. But, there are older models out there that do. I have the new Sigma 70-200 which is of similar quality to the Nikon but would have to buy an older lens to use with a video cam. The Nikon 80-200 is a really good model.

This is correct. Most of the newer digital lenses don't have aperture rings (the camera itself has the aperture), and newer versions are sometimes denoted with a "G" (if they're Nikkor).

On a side note, how are you connecting the lens to the camera? What adapter?

Is the Nikon 80-200 still sharp when used with a x1.4 extender?

Is the Nikon 80-200 still sharp when used with a x1.4 extender?

Dave,

Do you mean putting an extender on the 80-200 then onto the mtf/zoerk then onto the jvc? or in general terms as when its used on a dslr?
Because when you put the nikon, any slr lens for that matter, onto the jvc via mtf/zoerk adapter it effectively increases its focal length by, uh if my memory is right, about 8x.

Ted

Hi guys

I have a number of Canon DSLR lenses.

Does anyone make adapters to run these on the JVCs?

Scott, I plan on using the MTF adapter, which gives apox. 7.2 magnification

thanks for all the help, after doing a bit more research I am now in search of some older lenses. Does anyone know if the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is a new lens and there is no older option for this one??

thanks for all the help, after doing a bit more research I am now in search of some older lenses. Does anyone know if the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is a new lens and there is no older option for this one??

Hi Jason,

I'm wondering if I have the calculation of that adapter MTF correct. If the magnification is 7.2x then the lens would effectively be a 864-2160mm? Am I missing something?

Also, how much did that adapter run you?

Hi Scott, your calculations are correct, I have not purchased yet, but it is in the works. Runs just over $400 shipped from Mike Tappa of MTF Services in London. I am currently looking for a lens or two then will purchase the adapter. There are also a couple other options out there, another is from a company called Zoerk JVC GY-HD200 Lens adapter comparison - Zoerk VS MTF (http://www.reelsense.net/HD-200/JVC-Nikon_Adapters/NikonAdapterCOMPR-2.html)

Hi Scott, your calculations are correct, I have not purchased yet, but it is in the works. Runs just over $400 shipped from Mike Tappa of MTF Services in London. I am currently looking for a lens or two then will purchase the adapter. There are also a couple other options out there, another is from a company called Zoerk JVC GY-HD200 Lens adapter comparison - Zoerk VS MTF (http://www.reelsense.net/HD-200/JVC-Nikon_Adapters/NikonAdapterCOMPR-2.html)

Can you explain the reason for such a huge zoom? I don't understand how that adapter can be useable. Is it for documentary type things? For narrative I can't see using anything with that high a focal length, even 200mm (normal, no magnification) would seem high to me.

Scot,

In my work, its not something i use all the time. the zoerk adapter sits in my cam case most of the time. The 35mm adapter though is always attached to my camera. BUT, when doing nature or tourism videos then this small handy adapter shines.

Nature and outdoors, sports, etc.

Bohol Island Tourism Video By Ted Ramasola On ExposureRoom (http://exposureroom.com/members/teddybear.aspx/assets/5396510c18984902b5097f1be5acad44/)

The butterflies and caterpillars is an example. And also those windsurfers where like 3000 meters away! They are shot with the 80-200 via zoerk onto the JVC. the rest where adapter footage and stock 16x.

It has its use in critical situations.

In the experimental side, the zoerk is also handy when you want to experiment with a 35mm relay to replace the 16x. Using lenses from 17mm to 50mm, I can try different combinations of 35mm + varying achromat power to get optimum GG image size on my several lens adapters.

Ted

Scott, I am still learning myself, but from what I know, It has to do with the sensor being much smaller than 35mm film, the sensor only "sees" a small portion of the 35mm lens. If you want a better explaination or more info I would suggest searching through the other threads, as this has been talked about at some length. My interest is wildlife, so the application is great for getting nice closeups of subjects quite a distance away, but you must have a very sturdy tripod.

I am using a JVC gy-hd100 and I am looking for a zoom lens to replace the standard 16x.
My thoughts are on the Sigma 120-300 f2.8, Sigma 100-300 f4, or the Sigma 70-200 f2.8.
I am confused, reading various threads. There is talk about these lenses not having an aperature ring, is this correct. If so what are my options? I will be shooting wildlife.
Jason, my response might sound snobbish to some, but don't waste your cash on Sigma. Simply there is no comparison between Nikon and Sigma. I had a chance to compare several photos taken with both at exactly same time and the difference is visible by naked eye. Sigma 100-300 F4 is far inferior to Nikon 80-200 F2.8. Even Sigma F2.8 is lesser of the lens, if you blow up your photo enough. My advice is also to locate a used lens, older style, produced in Japan. The reason is that the bayonet os made from metal alloy, not plastic.

Jason, my response might sound snobbish to some, but don't waste your cash on Sigma. Simply there is no comparison between Nikon and Sigma. I had a chance to compare several photos taken with both at exactly same time and the difference is visible by naked eye. Sigma 100-300 F4 is far inferior to Nikon 80-200 F2.8. Even Sigma F2.8 is lesser of the lens, if you blow up your photo enough. My advice is also to locate a used lens, older style, produced in Japan. The reason is that the bayonet os made from metal alloy, not plastic.

A couple of things to keep in mind about using a SLR lens on a 1/3" chip video camera:

1. You're only using the very center of the lens, which is typically the most optically sharp, even with lower-cost lenses. Part of what you pay for in a Nikkor vs. a Sigma is edge to edge sharpness. This is the 7x crop factor mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

2. You're recording onto a lower resolution (1280x720 on a JVC) format than 35mm film or a DSLR chip.

Both of these things probably mean you probably won't notice much, if any optical difference between a Nikon and a Sigma. FWIW, I have both a Sigma and a Nikkor, and I can't really see any optical difference on my JVC HD100. There is, however, a notable difference in build quality: the Nikkor is heavier and has more metal parts.

Used SLR lenses are cheap enough that you can afford to experiment.

Brian, I would have to agree with you. I know the sigmas are not quite as good, but optically from what I have seen and heard on this forum I would not be disappointed with a Sigma

Brian, I would have to agree with you. I know the sigmas are not quite as good, but optically from what I have seen and heard on this forum I would not be disappointed with a Sigma
Jason, I think you'll better spend the cash on Nikon. The reason is you can stick it onto you DSLR body and use it for photo projects. If you buy new, the difference between the same models of Sigma and Nikon is only like 100-150 bucks. Nikon holds value for a reason- simply a better lens. So if you sell the lens later on you are going to get less cash for Sigma, making it much more costly product in a long run.

The Nikon 80-200 even with a 1.4 teleconvertor would not have the reach of the Sigma 100-300 and purchasing a Nikon x1.4 adaptor would be an additional cost. On the other hand the combination of 80-200 with/without the TC would give a greater range of focal lengths to play with.

Having had a Sigma 100-300 for a year or so, I'd consider it more a 100-270. The last 30mm or so drops off in quality quite a bit. I'd always zoom in for focus then back things off a touch to get better IQ. Also bear in mind this is F4.

I now use the Nikon 80-200 F2.8. The 2.8 aperture has kept me from needing to gain things up on a few occasions, I'd also say it has the edge on IQ and as yet I've seen no drop off in this at the end of the zoom. Focusing is tough mind you. The sigma is better in this department with a huge manual ring!

Having had a Sigma 100-300 for a year or so, I'd consider it more a 100-270. The last 30mm or so drops off in quality quite a bit. I'd always zoom in for focus then back things off a touch to get better IQ. Also bear in mind this is F4.

I now use the Nikon 80-200 F2.8. The 2.8 aperture has kept me from needing to gain things up on a few occasions, I'd also say it has the edge on IQ and as yet I've seen no drop off in this at the end of the zoom. Focusing is tough mind you. The sigma is better in this department with a huge manual ring!


Mat does the 80-200 give you enough reach for Wildlife?

Hi Dave

Firstly 'wildlife' is a pretty wide ranging subject. Then depending on chosen subject it comes down to what you want from a sequence. The 80-200 will get you within a good 'mid shot' range of most birds if you have a good position, but it isn't going to give you a 'head close up' unless you get into a really great position (this is species dependant of course). It really comes down to field skill and knowledge of your particular subject. I'm learning to shoot with less focal length and improving my field skills and positioning on my subject because any amount of glass can't beat being closer to your subject. Also bear in mind that the more focal length you use the more the weather conditions will affect what you are doing, wind, heat shimmer etc. It also takes quite a bit of skill to start using such long lenses, finding subjects, panning and focussing.

Does this answer your question?

Hi Dave

Firstly 'wildlife' is a pretty wide ranging subject. Then depending on chosen subject it comes down to what you want from a sequence. The 80-200 will get you within a good 'mid shot' range of most birds if you have a good position, but it isn't going to give you a 'head close up' unless you get into a really great position (this is species dependant of course). It really comes down to field skill and knowledge of your particular subject. I'm learning to shoot with less focal length and improving my field skills and positioning on my subject because any amount of glass can't beat being closer to your subject. Also bear in mind that the more focal length you use the more the weather conditions will affect what you are doing, wind, heat shimmer etc. It also takes quite a bit of skill to start using such long lenses, finding subjects, panning and focussing.

Does this answer your question?

Certainly does..cheers Mat