(Relatively) Inexpensive F-mount Lenses To Adapt?

[BlueBomberTurbo]

I have the 70-300 AFP DX and a nice 55-200 VR II, the collapsing one. it is a nice compact lens and works very well on N1 cameras. I used it for several years before getting the 70-300 and within the same range they are equals. I was never willing to spend what it takes to get the 70-300 CX. I see there is an excellent + rated one on KEH right now for $844.39 but that's too much to pay IMO.

Yeah, well over my budget. This is my fun kit, and shelling out that much isn't fun.

I totally forgot about the VR II version of the 55-200! I had the original non-VR when I had my first J5 and it was decent, but the AF was pretty slow and plodding. Missing VR was an issue in all but good lighting, too. I also had the 55-300 VR, but that wasn't great, either. Especially the rotating focus ring. Now I might pick the VR II up, along with the AF-P, for an even more compact setup when I don't need such excessive reach.

 

[BlueBomberTurbo]

Remember that focal length is focal length independent of format (CX, DX, FX). If you have an FX lens that gives you 1:1 it will also give you 1:1 mounted on a DX or CX body. It just seems like it is giving more magnification because you are seeing the smaller area of the small sensor just as you get by cropping the FX image.

Focal length is one thing, but magnification is another. Remember lens macro magnification is based on sensor/film size the lens is built for. So 1:1 on FX would fill the frame shooting an object that's 36x24mm. Now drop that FX lens on Nikon 1, and you get a big crop into that photo (13x9mm), essentially going to 2.7:1 well beyond the 1:1 the lens was meant to capture. Same goes in the opposite direction, where the 40/2.8 can roughly fill the FX frame up close when stopped down, but won't get you to the same 1:1 since it's made for DX. You'll only be able to get about half as close as far as what the sensor sees.

Of course, this makes more sense with similar MP cameras, where cropping FX to match CX will get you a very soft, low res image. I'll be using the 40 on all 3 formats via adapter, so I'll get to witness this (and probably post about it) first hand.

I'm not sure which 70-300 you are talking about here. There are definitely people here who use the CX 70-300 on a V3, including me. But I can't speak to the DX 70-300 as I've not paid close attention to the bodies users have mentioned.

Always the DX VR one. This is all meant to be a low budget kit for me, and the CX version still commands a high price used. Even more than the Sigma 150-600 C I used to have!

I don't have any idea of how you can get a fast wide lens for the N1 cameras by adapting a larger format lens. 17mm with the 2.7x factor makes it act like a 46mm so it does nothing that the CX 10/2.8 already does.

Well, what I'm looking for in that combo is reach with a faster lens and stabilization. 46-135 is a very useful range for me, so it's definitely worth investigating. I actually had that same lens over a decade ago, but was never able to dial in AF Fine Tune enough to get it to focus properly at all focal lengths. Fortunately, mirrorless doesn't have that issue!

 

[RichDitch]

Yeah, I guess I'll have to wait and see what kinds of situations I end up shooting in with the 40, in order to see if I need the 35/1.8 or even the 30/1.4. I don't usually shoot indoors much, but when I do, I usually prefer a 35 in FF terms (roughly 13mm CX). Nothing like that out there, though.

If you can find one at an affordable price the is always the Nikon 1 6.7-13 f/3.5-5.6 (18-35 full frame equivalent). Yes, it is a slow lens, but if your subject is mostly stationary it can be hand held at remarkably slow shutter speeds. One of our friends from DPR produced excellent shots hand holding his 6.7-13 at 1/4 second. And why not go with the CX 10/2.8?

 

[Box Man]

Yeah, I guess I'll have to wait and see what kinds of situations I end up shooting in with the 40, in order to see if I need the 35/1.8 or even the 30/1.4. I don't usually shoot indoors much, but when I do, I usually prefer a 35 in FF terms (roughly 13mm CX). Nothing like that out there, though.

There might be a solution to your troubles! Did you know that the native N1 6.7-13mm at the long end, 13mm, is roughly a 35mm FF equivalent? The image stabilization is more than adequate for most low light situations, too. I own this lens and have shot in very low light plenty of times with some success.

 

[BlueBomberTurbo]

If you can find one at an affordable price the is always the Nikon 1 6.7-13 f/3.5-5.6 (18-35 full frame equivalent). Yes, it is a slow lens, but if your subject is mostly stationary it can be hand held at remarkably slow shutter speeds. One of our friends from DPR produced excellent shots hand holding his 6.7-13 at 1/4 second. And why not go with the CX 10/2.8?

Yup, the UWA zoom is definitely on my list, if I can find a cheap one. Was also thinking of trying to adapt an UWA manual prime from another mount via some DIY hacking. Something to keep me busy on rainy days. I just need something in the 18-20mm FF range (6.5-7.5 CX) to make me happy, and being fast is even better. Seems like there are a lot of fast DX fisheyes in that range, along with a more expensive Laowa.

And I have a 10/2.8, though it's decentered. Bought it first because it's so compact. Last on my list to replace ATM, since I have other lenses coming in soon. Next is the 70-300 AF-P DX VR and possibly the 18.5/1.8, and then the 10/2.8 replacement.

 

[BlueBomberTurbo]

There might be a solution to your troubles! Did you know that the native N1 6.7-13mm at the long end, 13mm, is roughly a 35mm FF equivalent? The image stabilization is more than adequate for most low light situations, too. I own this lens and have shot in very low light plenty of times with some success.

Yup, but the price is keeping me away. Lots of other things I want to buy before I get that. Guessing my limit for items for this system is about $175. The only thing that's exceeded that so far is the body itself.

 

[Box Man]

Yup, but the price is keeping me away. Lots of other things I want to buy before I get that. Guessing my limit for items for this system is about $175. The only thing that's exceeded that so far is the body itself.

Well, if you can get yourself a used copy in decent condition then you might be happy with the output of the 6.7-13mm. I am more than happy with mine.

I don't know if this is a great example, but it's one I could find quickly at 13mm in a pretty dim setting.

• NIKON CORPORATION - NIKON 1 V1
• 1 NIKKOR VR 6.7-13mm f/3.5-5.6
• 13.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/6 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• ISO 3200