Lenses for EX3
 

What Telephoto lenses are available for the EX3. I have a Nikon telezoom, but it's a pain to keep changing between that and the stock lens. To get even more reach I would need to go to the Nikon 600mm. Is there a long 1/2 or 2/3 lens that would suit wildlife, with a built in extender. I'm just looking at options.

Thanks

The Fujinon 18x5.5 with 2x extender is your best choice if you want to keep one lens on your camera all the time.
FUJIFILM USA FUJINON |
$17K

But even at full-zoom, with the extender, it won't get you any closer than a 200mm Nikon.

Thanks..Doug...I just saw the price of that. The Nikon 600 suddenly isn't looking that bad.

Just be aware that you will need a rock solid tripod when using lenses over 300mm the slightest puff of wind will cause camera shake. I find it almost impossible to use my 500mm Nikkor lens take a look at the long lens shots on this video - I was using a sturdy tripod too.

Sony EX3 Nikon mount

You are getting into fairly seriously big magnification though so a little wobble is excusable. What tripod head did you use? I've used a Canon 150-600 on the EX3 (briefly) and found it OK if not too windy on my O'Connor 2060 (but that is a 9kg head!).
Steve

Not really. Maybe "understandable", but not excusable. There is not a single 500mm shot in Vincent's demonstration that could be used for anything except breaking news.

Please don't take offense, Vincent, because I know you were just demonstrating the challenges of big lenses. I know you were not trying to present those shots as being pretty pictures. :-)

Vincent's demonstration is a perfect illustration of how too much of a good thing isn't so good. At some point you have to back off and admit you don't have the right tripod, the weather conditions are too windy, etc. and NOT shoot.

Wobble is understandable, but not excusable in a finished production unless it is a really important news event or something like that.

I use a 300mm Nikon with an Adaptimax on my EX3 and it is rock-solid with my O'Connor 1030B head -- even for smooth panning and tilting. But I have no desire to go with bigger lenes unless I want to lock the shot down and don't move the camera.

Yes, you're right, much better choice of word.
Steve

The 500mm is an amazing lens, although I have never used it that much, even for still photography. Yes, I know my tripod is due for an upgrade and I will probably spend my profits in the next few weeks on a better one. I will publish a "more creative" and colour graded video in due course and illustrate what does work with each of the prime lenses.

btw. all the Nikkor lenses used were the old series. Optically they are superb and work a treat with both the Adaptimax and Mike Tapas lens adaptors. The best bit is that no-one wants the older manual lenses anymore so you can pick them up for a song. The 500mm reflex Nikkor cost me £200 (about $328).

Definitely true Vincent, and there are some real gems in there - 55 micro, 180 f2.8, 300 f2.8, 50-300 f4.5, 400 f3.5, 600 f5.6, all are cracking lenses and ridiculously cheap - seen 300 f2.8 at £300-400 before now and for optics and build quality they don't get much better than that.
Steve

I love my 1030B too, and it's probably ideal for the smaller cameras, but there is no doubt (and no surprise I suppose) that the 2060 is far more stable with bigger rigs, I notice it immediately.
Steve

I have had my collection of Nikkor lenses (16 in all) for a number of years. I was tempted to part exchange the lot a few years back, but was offered such a poor price for them. Needless to say I turned it down and they have just sat in my office doing nothing, until I purchased the EX3. Now I have a great collection that have a second life.

Shown here is the 200mm f4 Nikkor lens with a haggard looking owner

Vincent, that 200mm f/4 looks a lot lighter than my 80-200 f/2.8
Being a prime, it's probably sharper, too.
I'm going to have to find one of those. Nice.

I'd go for a 180mm f2.8, it's beyond amazing optically!
Steve

Doug,

I also have the same 80 - 200mm 2.8 Nikkor, and yes the 200mm f4 lens is a lot lighter, and sharper. Call me old fashioned or what, but the older series of Nikon lenses were built like tanks - they probably used the same metals too.

As well as a decent tripod you also need to do something about the small tripod mount. A DM reinforcing plate or similar is essential along with support rails for the lens.

The range of supplied lense of PMW EX3
 

I am new to this camera lense world but I have a PMW EX3 and planning to buy one wide convetor, may be I will by from century optics(#0HD-75CV-EX3) I am also thinking of buying a reasonable tele lense .i dont know if I buy AF NIKKOR 80-200mm f/2.8D how much i will be benefited, I mean what is the supplied 14x lesnse's capecity in terms of mm ?

Hi Ramji,
if you use the 80-200mm 2.8 ( a great lens by the way) with a camera adaptor like the Adaptimax, the range of your lens would be 432-1080mm. Far more telephoto than the standard EX3 lens. The magnification is X5.4 meaning it's great for wildlife and getting shots where being up close isn't a wise move. (man eating tigers, rioting, war zones etc)

Hope that helps.

Ramji

This was taken with the 80-200 f2.8 and extension tubes so it's good for close-up also. I think it's a very nice sharp zoom.

Dragonfly

.

Thank you so much for the response steve and dave .Do you suggest any good wide lense for PMW Ex3?

Zoom understanding
 

How much longer or shorter is the 500mm Nikkor lens to a standard 20x video lens?

SEASTAGE — Boston Video Production | Non-Profit & Corporate Promo Videos

The mm is always the same for any chip/film size. So on the Canon XL the 20x goes to about 100mm or so, so the 500mm is 5x stronger.
Steve

The Fuji W/A that is made with the EX lens mount is an excellent choice. Has all the features of the standard lens.

Zeiss planar series
 

I like to shoot wildlife films with the EX3 and the Zeiss Planar series. Example: Makro-Planar T* 2/100, good optical resolution and f 2.0

Very limited reach with 100mm though - good luck with lions and bears at that range!
Steve

I am also very happy with my 80-200/2.8 and consider the quality al least as good as the EX3 standard lens, if not better. Hardly see any difference in quality with primes like 400/3.5. Some other good news: I also own a TC-14B nikon teleconverter. This once was the prime x1.4 converter for Nikon's prime tele lenses. This converter also works with the 80-200 and turns it into a 112-280 of good quality. Note: the 14B is not the same as the 14A. I believe there was a big difference in price and quality.

Dave

Anything I should look out for in shopping for extension tubes? Found a set on e-bay for $10.

How did you get the dragonfly to pose for you? Nice work.

Ed

And is (relatively) extremely cheap too.
Steve

It's not a quality thing as such - the TC14a was made for lenses less than 300mm, the TC14b for those over 300mm.
Steve

I stated in this thread that the 80-200mm f/2.8 is very good as well. However, at wide apartures the image is quite a bit softer than with my 300mm f/4. I wonder how the 180mm f/2.8 compares to the 80-200 f/2.8, in terms of picture quality. Steve, can you shine a light on that, or does someone else have a side by side experience/comparison?

QUOTE: I stated in this thread that the 80-200mm f/2.8 is very good as well. However, at wide apartures the image is quite a bit softer than with my 300mm f/4.

I agree 100%. I have both of those lenses and the 300mm looks sharper and has better contrast. I think it's the contrast that I notice the most.
Sorry, can't answer your question about the 180mm.