[Jewelltrail]

Marc Sabatella: It's possible you're getting confused by the multiple meanings of "MF". Lots of DSLR owners use manual focus lenses and refer to them as MF lenses. Relatively few, however, use medium format lenses (also referred to as MF by the few who do use them). So it's possible you've seen references to people using MF lenses and incorrectly assumed they were talking about medium format?

Yes, a good point--which is why I try to use MF to denote Medium Format only when I feel the context is clear.

[hangu]

Third Myth: Manual focus is inferior to Auto focus. There is a small minority of the shooters out there who actually prefer shooting MF over AF--believe it or not. I am not trying to say there is no place for AF in my shooting; rather, I am trying to say I prefer manual focus over auto focus. I truly relish in the fact that I, and not the technology, am responsible for the focus of my shot.
Fourth Myth: Auto metering is superior to manual metering. Again for the same reason laid out in the 3rd myth, I prefer manual metering. I love spinning the K20 wheels and adjusting the focus ring--it brings much more meaning to my shooting than does simply pushing a button. Can anyone else out there relate to this? Sure, if I did this for a living, with a paying customer as a boss, I would have to accommodate. But that is just it--I do it for love. For this reason, i do not think, even if I got good enough, I would ever do this for a living--that would ruin it for sure.
Fifth Myth: Adapter shooting is inferior: Why is the Takumar Club the most popular club here???

I shoot exclusively with manual focus lenses, I'm proud to say that the only AF lens I own is the kit lens and that's been shelved permanently.

Thank you for the beautiful photos and explanations, seems like our thinking is not dissimilar. I want to shoot medium format lenses simply because I can, as long as the image quality is superior to 35mm lenses, which your photos have proven to be the case.

It's possible you're getting confused by the multiple meanings of "MF". Lots of DSLR owners use manual focus lenses and refer to them as MF lenses. Relatively few, however, use medium format lenses (also referred to as MF by the few who do use them). So it's possible you've seen references to people using MF lenses and incorrectly assumed they were talking about medium format?

Hah, I can see at least one poster on this thread who has fallen victim to this ambiguity, but what makes you think that I have the two confused?

[Jewelltrail]

hangu: I want to shoot medium format lenses simply because I can...........

If you go for it, then watch Ebay. carefully. It has been a long time since I bought lenses there, but a year or two back you could easily snag a 67 lens for under a $100. However, recently, things have changed in the lens arena, and I'm not sure how the Medium Format market has been affected.

Still, even on your luckiest days, there are some MF lenses you will not get cheap--obviously. For example, the 45mm is in high demand and fetches big bucks. And the longer, ED glass as well.

But the 165mm 2.8 is still readily available--I do not think its price has risen much.

[Pentaxor]

there are just too many great 35mm lens options that it won't make sense putting or buying an MF (medium format) lens to a Pentax APS-C dslr. although surely there are great MF lenses out there, but some of those great MF lenses are rare or can be expensive. thus buying a 35mm lens would be much more logical choice. an MF adapter would be hard to find and pricey as well. an M42 adapter for a lot of M42 35mm lenses is cheap and easy to find. and there are lots of nice and cheap Taks and other 3rd party 35mm lenses available.

lastly, it would be pointless to use an MF on any APS-C dslr due to crop factor. the main idea of having an MF lens is for a wider perspective (FOV), DOF and far better resolution due to lens and camera capability, which you can't do on an existing APS-C camera. if you really want to make the best out of an MF lens and fully utilize it, buy an MF body. you don't buy a lens that you can only use 50% or less of it's capability.

---

Last edited by Pentaxor; 05-05-2010 at 08:06 AM.

[danielausparis]

there are just too many great 35mm lens options that it won't make sense putting or buying an MF (medium format) lens to a Pentax APS-C dslr. although surely there are great MF lenses out there, but some of those great MF lenses are rare or can be expensive. thus buying a 35mm lens would be much more logical choice. an MF adapter would be hard to find and pricey as well. an M42 adapter for a lot of M42 35mm lenses is cheap and easy to find. and there are lots of nice and cheap Taks and other 3rd party 35mm lenses available.

lastly, it would be pointless to use an MF on any APS-C dslr due to crop factor. the main idea of having an MF lens is for a wider perspective, DOF and far better resolution due to lens and camera capability, which you can't do on an existing APS-C camera. if you really want to make the best out of an MF lens and fully utilize it, buy an MF body. you don't buy a lens that you can only use 50% or less of it's capability.

- Was'nt JewellTrail's demonstration convincing enough with respect to quality and budget?
- I feel much more pragmatic than you, dear Pentaxor... if a lens solution with technology XY satisfies me in terms of quality and cost, I see no reason not to adopt it.
- I don't understand why MF should by nature have wider perspective or better DOF? Those are related to focal length...

[Jewelltrail]

Pentaxor:there are just too many great 35mm lens options that it won't make sense putting or buying an MF (medium format) lens to a Pentax APS-C dslr. although surely there are great MF lenses out there, but some of those great MF lenses are rare or can be expensive. thus buying a 35mm lens would be much more logical choice. an MF adapter would be hard to find and pricey as well. an M42 adapter for a lot of M42 35mm lenses is cheap and easy to find. and there are lots of nice and cheap Taks and other 3rd party 35mm lenses available.

lastly, it would be pointless to use an MF on any APS-C dslr due to crop factor. the main idea of having an MF lens is for a wider perspective, DOF and far better resolution due to lens and camera capability, which you can't do on an existing APS-C camera. if you really want to make the best out of an MF lens and fully utilize it, buy an MF body. you don't buy a lens that you can only use 50% or less of it's capability.

I disagree, it can make a lot of sense--did you read my first post???. Please re-read my first post in this thread! Comparing my MF 330mm to my K300 f 4, I'll summarize why once again--very briefly.

Focal length= +1 to Medium Format lens 330mm over K 300mm f4
TRi-pod mount= +1 to 330mm Medium Format lens over K 300 f4
Iq & Sharpness= +1 to 330mm Medium Format lens over K 300 f 4
Close Focus= +1 to 330mm Medium Format over K 300 f4
Cost=+1 to MF over over K300 f4
Weight= +1 to MF 330 over K 300 f4
Speed= + 1 to K300 f4--which isn't very impressive wide open anyway

I'll take the Medium Format, $100 lens over the K300 f4 any day of the week.


Finally, it is amazing how much better CA control is with the Medium Format setup when compared with the K 300 f4--like night and day.

[Pentaxor]

- Was'nt JewellTrail's demonstration convincing enough with respect to quality and budget?
- I feel much more pragmatic than you, dear Pentaxor... if a lens solution with technology XY satisfies me in terms of quality and cost, I see no reason not to adopt it.
- I don't understand why MF should by nature have wider perspective or better DOF? Those are related to focal length...

No, because I also consider the sensor (quality and size) difference between an MF camera to that of a current APS-C one. I didn't specifically mentioned sensor, but I think my point was clear enough to say that an MF camera's rendering would certainly be on a different league to that of an APS-C one.


you are partially correct about the FOV and DOF with relations to focal length, but had you seen the image difference between a 50/2.8 MF lens to that of an 50/1.4 FA/DA lens, not to mention the possible rendered IQ? remember that focal length equivalence may be able to display the same wider FOV, but does it display the same magnified equivalence of such focal length equivalent.

my only issue regarding this matter is that an MF lens would just be better off on an MF camera. as far as practicality of use and costs goes. and yes, I'm also including the new Pentax MF lenses which I believe won't be cheap at all.

[Pentaxor]

I disagree, it can make a lot of sense--did you read my first post???. Please re-read my first post in this thread! Comparing my MF 330mm to my K300 f 4, I'll summarize why once again--very briefly.

Focal length= +1 to Medium Format lens 330mm over K 300mm f4
TRi-pod mount= +1 to 330mm Medium Format lens over K 300 f4
Iq & Sharpness= +1 to 330mm Medium Format lens over K 300 f 4
Close Focus= +1 to 330mm Medium Format over K 300 f4
Cost=+1 to MF over over K300 f4
Weight= +1 to MF 330 over K 300 f4
Speed= + 1 to K300 f4--which isn't very impressive wide open anyway

I'll take the Medium Format, $100 lens over the K300 f4 any day of the week.


Finally, it is amazing how much better CA control is with the Medium Format setup when compared with the K 300 f4--like night and day.

the K300/4 is not the only FF/APS-C lens available. and it's neither better than the other 300mm around. nor does all FF/APS-C lenses are bigger, heavier, expensive, MFD, inferior IQ, limited focal range option (supply) and slower.

also I mentioned the FOV, DOF, and IQ difference as well.

my point is simple. an MF lens, especially the new ones (not cheap) from Pentax would be better for use on an MF camera. and I think we can agree on that?

[pacerr]

Just curious . . . they're more expensive . . .

Here's one example of results with a Mamiya M645 150/3.5 lens on a DIY PK adapter I fabricated about a month ago.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/96854-diy-mami...s-adapter.html

Shot hand held with a K200D @ ISO 200 with very minimal sharpening to accommodate cropping and resized. The used lens cost $65 + shipping last year (eBay) and the adapter was built from the scrap bin at no cost.

Since I have the Mamiya 645 lenses anyway(45, 55, 80, 110, 150 and extension rings), there's no reason not to experiment with them on the DSLR. The economy of digital processing allows me to play with them far more than if I was using film.

The results are very similar to many of my Super Tak primes (perhaps even a little over saturated) and focus and exposure techniques are identical.

The IQ approaches that from my Tamron SP 180/2.5. The lens weighs a third less and cost about 1/6th as much less. (No, I'm not inclined to sell the Tammy, it's a fantastic lens.)

AFAIC, many of the older manual focus, MF lenses are the best bargains on the market today for those willing to forgo auto focus -- and even better if you already have medium format gear on the shelf.

H2

A future project will be to fabricate a shift mount to take advantage of the image circle of the medium format lenses which is a whole 'nuther reason to use 'em. [Image circle may be what the OP was referring to? ]

[krb]

there are just too many great 35mm lens options that it won't make sense putting or buying an MF (medium format) lens to a Pentax APS-C dslr. although surely there are great MF lenses out there, but some of those great MF lenses are rare or can be expensive. thus buying a 35mm lens would be much more logical choice. an MF adapter would be hard to find and pricey as well. an M42 adapter for a lot of M42 35mm lenses is cheap and easy to find. and there are lots of nice and cheap Taks and other 3rd party 35mm lenses available.

WTF are you talking about? Yes, some of the MF lenses are rare/expensive. When that is the case you don't buy them. Some MF lenses offer a better value than 35mm lenses and that's when the MF lens makes more sense.

lastly, it would be pointless to use an MF on any APS-C dslr due to crop factor. the main idea of having an MF lens is for a wider perspective, DOF and far better resolution due to lens and camera capability, which you can't do on an existing APS-C camera. if you really want to make the best out of an MF lens and fully utilize it, buy an MF body. you don't buy a lens that you can only use 50% or less of it's capability.

Again, WTF are you talking about? MF lenses don't give have a different DOF or perspective than any other lens. Medium format cameras offer those advantages but a 50mm lens is always a 50mm lens. And buying a MF camera to get those perspective and DOF advantages means you get double duty out of the MF lenses and they make even more sense.

[Pentaxor]

WTF are you talking about? Yes, some of the MF lenses are rare/expensive. When that is the case you don't buy them. Some MF lenses offer a better value than 35mm lenses and that's when the MF lens makes more sense.

Again, WTF are you talking about? MF lenses don't give have a different DOF or perspective than any other lens. Medium format cameras offer those advantages but a 50mm lens is always a 50mm lens. And buying a MF camera to get those perspective and DOF advantages means you get double duty out of the MF lenses and they make even more sense.

read my post again and the succeeding posts as well carefully so that you will have a much clearer understanding of WTF I'm talking about. I'm not clueless, nor is my English is.

[Pentaxor]

to those who just butted in, a 50mm lens will always be a 50mm lens. of course. but a 50mm lens on an MF camera, FF camera and APS-C camera will have or show a different FOV due to sensor cropping. which hence, show or display less field of view due to camera's limitation. so people result to focal length equivalence inorder to show a somewhat similar FOV. but does a 35mm which have an equivalent FOV value of a 50mm lens, have the same focal length magnification (subject closeness) value? surely not, and that is what I was talking about. the focal length equivalence. and this is exactly another point why an MF lens is much more ideal to be used on an MF body.

[danielausparis]

nor does all FF/APS-C lenses are bigger, heavier, expensive, MFD, inferior IQ, limited focal range option (supply) and slower.

It's the third time I read this sentence and still do not understand it. What has 'supply' to do with focal range? Has anybody in this thread said that APS-C are bigger? Or the contrary?
English is not my mothertongue, and I am completely confused now... I can't follow any more.

[Pentaxor]

It's the third time I read this sentence and still do not understand it. What has 'supply' to do with focal range? Has anybody in this thread said that APS-C are bigger? Or the contrary?
English is not my mothertongue, and I am completely confused now... I can't follow any more.

I'll make it simple for you.

Me prefer use MF lens on MF body.

got it?

then think what the advantages an MF lens (example 50mm) would be on an MF body as compared to MF lens (50mm) on APS-C body. not that difficult to understand.

[xGene]

I'll make it simple for you.

Me prefer use MF lens on MF body.

got it?

then think what the advantages an MF lens (example 50mm) would be on an MF body as compared to MF lens (50mm) on APS-C body. not that difficult to understand.

Why the condescending tone? He just said English is not his first language. Give the guy a break! Or is it becuase he doesn't have as many posts as you??? If you feel you are repeating yourself or it's not worth repeating, just don't.
xGene