Using fixed focus Nikon or Zoom lens? | Thread profile

Hi (I've briefly done a search for this but could't see anything relevant) Is there a qualitative difference between using a fixed focus Nikon lens with the Mini35 compared to a zoom lens Nikon? I notice that most folks here seem to stock up on a range of focal length lenses instead of using a zoom that would cover all the focal lengths. Also, is there a recommended minimum lens F number for...

I think Neil Young said it best: " 'Prime lenses are better' bumper stickers should be issued"

I can't tell if John Benton is joking, but I'll bite. I just took delivery of a RedRock M2 with a Nikon F mount and have quite a few Nikon lenses in my collection. I don't really see the shipped assembly being adequate for mounting anything the size of a Nikon 70-200mm VR zoom, let alone a 200mm f2 , 300mm f/2.8 or 400mm f/2.8 prime. I think the short answer to your question is ...

Gints, thanks very much for the detailed info, sounds like I need to consider a fixed focal length solution.

Greg, I would definitly reccomend picking up your Nikon lenses via ebay or the used section on Bhphoto.com can have some. Breating is always said to be an issue with these still photo lenses, but I have never had a big problem with any of the super speed Nikon primes. -David Frank

Quote: Originally Posted by Greg Quinn Gints, thanks very much for the detailed info, sounds like I need to consider a fixed focal length solution. You're on your way. Though, I have to say that the very fast Nikon lenses aren't particularly cheap, with a 28mm f/1.4 around $2000 , the 85mm f/1.4 around $900 , the 105mm f/2 DC ~$...

Why not use a zoom lens with the Mini35? I was thinking of getting one for obvious reasons that I can't get with prime, such as zooming and push and pull shots.

Quote: Originally Posted by Brian Duke Why not use a zoom lens with the Mini35? Zoom lenses aren't very fast... and those that are fast are expensive and heavy.

So true. My Nikkor 17-35 2.8 ED lens cost close to $2000 and weighs a ton. I've never seen a sharper lens though, not even in a fixed length. Many people share my observations about this particular lens. Otherwise, I would get a set of primes for this application, especially in the longer focal lengths.

Quote: Originally Posted by Joe Winchester So true. My Nikkor 17-35 2.8 ED lens cost close to $2000 and weighs a ton. I've never seen a sharper lens though, not even in a fixed length. Many people share my observations about this particular lens. Otherwise, I would get a set of primes for this application, especially in the longer focal lengths....