[paperbag846]

while new computer designed lenses can meet different requirements, that does not make them automatically better

I didn't say that! In fact I said quite the opposite. Besides the designs for the requirements of the day do not matter here, we are discussing their utility on DSLRs. I said that they add a whole new flavor you cannot get with modern lenses.

Why so argumentative? I don't think you are really reading what I am writing.

[MRRiley]

except that many AF lenses have either very short focus throws which make accuracy difficult, or the focusing collar is in an out of the way place, because it does not disengage in AF mode and is placed where it is least likely to find your hand. These two issues make for somewhat difficult MF when using an AF lens. unfortunately in many cases you can't have it all.

I'll give you all of those points Lowell. Some throws are too short... Some are even too long (the Bigma for instance)... The focus collars can be poorly placed or designed or the lens can't be manually adjusted in AF (except Pentax... YAY) making fine tuning difficult. But push come to shove... you can turn off the AF and work with the lenses qwirks and get the job done.

[MRRiley]

I didn't say that! In fact I said quite the opposite. Besides the designs for the requirements of the day do not matter here, we are discussing their utility on DSLRs. I said that they add a whole new flavor you cannot get with modern lenses.

Why so argumentative? I don't think you are really reading what I am writing.

From a Moderator's POV... relax a little... I don't think Lowell is being argumentative. I think y'all are just talking a little past each other from slightly different angles...

Peace... K?

[Ira]

All of this talk has prompted me to do my daily "m42 Takumar" eBay search.

My wife's been in a good mood, and my birthday is coming up!

[paperbag846]

Peace... K?

Agreed .

[Hannican]

One of my favorite shots ever came from a fully manual M lens (M 200 f/4):
http://www.chayacitra.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Joshua-Tree-National-Park-6.jpg

Here's the rest of the Trip Report from that particular visit to Joshua Tree: Camping in Joshua Tree National Park - Trip Reports & Photography

That was probably the most interesting Photographic experiences of my life.

[Mike Cash]

All of this talk has prompted me to do my daily "m42 Takumar" eBay search.

My wife's been in a good mood, and my birthday is coming up!

Remember when that combination meant looking forward to sex?

[knyghtfall]

I totally agree with you about focus error. I miss more shots due to AF error than MF error. Nevertheless, I can get some satisfaction from modern lenses.

I stand corrected Frankly, I am on MF most of the time and i wouldn't really know the difference in my MF focusing error rate for MF and that of the lens' AF. The only condition where I really miss AF is in low light conditions with a wide angle lens (e.g. shooting a night market with a 20mm lens, handheld, with the aperture maximised to make full use of available light - which results in narrower DOF) - can't focus well in those conditions.

But this thread's not really a AF vs. MF debate - I would say that its more of the joy of using old MF lenses, which i have long found a great joy that you can't get from modern lenses. There's just something abt using an MF lens with a buttery smooth focusing ring, watching the image sharpen in the viewfinder, and clicking one the focus is nailed. Pure joy. That's one thing I often find neglected - when ppl praise lenses they usually talk abt the IQ, but the ergonomics of the lens is very impt to me for getting great shots. Other than the ease of use, in a way I guess it adds to the 'wow factor' of the lens - when you feel good abt it, you take better pictures!

[HGMonaro]

I am a new convert to AF lenses. Never had one until buying a K10D in 2007 for a 3mth trip. The K10D had trouble focusing in some specific scenarios but now with a K7 strapped to the back of my 16-45/4 I'm a happy chappy! I bought a 180mm Sigma macro (MF) and have been manually focusing that but keep thinking how AF even on that type of lens would be handy! And this is coming from someone who uses a Large Format and Medium Format cameras. Recently I had my Nikon FM2n out to use up some slide film and I discovered why manually focusing such a unit was easy (and a joy even!). The viewfinder is so bright and the focus aids so obvious (I do have a split image screen in the K10D but haven't used that and the Sigma enough to form an opinion). Occasionally I browse the eBay listings here (in Oz) for cheap manual 50mm's (and I'd be happy with a f1.7) just to give one a try but haven't found the bargain I need to make the plunge... hopefully I'll spy one at a garage sale for $5 one day!

[JeffJS]

I use both but I like to have options. What Don't like are superzooms and tend to prefer shorter ones like the DA12-24. My true taste however is for prime lenses. It just happens that more of them are available for film types than digital (DA Limiteds aside).

[Mike Cash]

That's such an absurdly low error rate (2 out of 700 vs. 4 out of 700, assuming a half/half mixture) so as to effectively not matter.

The point was not that the AF yielded twice as many out of focus shots. The point was that with a good setup, practice and diligence it is far from being a given that MF is going to result in lots of out of focus photos.

Especially since the shooting situations were clearly different between the two lenses, otherwise you would not have switched lenses.

Since it is so clear that the situations were different, would you care to tell us what the differences were?

[myeates]

Hi another question for you knowledgeable folk, how difficult is it using the old lenses K stuff on the K5 or K7, what are the problems doing so? is the focus difficult to achieve? and do you have to set up the camera in some way to make it work, I only ask as I would like to buy a couple of smc lenses one the 50mm 1.7 and the other the 28mm 2.8

regards


Martin

[paperbag846]

The point was not that the AF yielded twice as many out of focus shots.

Actually those figures lie well within a margin of error (scientifically speaking) and I think it would be more appropriate to say that, for you, there is no practical difference in the number of keepers. However, I'm assuming you were sitting far enough away from the dancers that your DOF was pretty large and focusing would be easier than in other fast-moving situations.

They both have their place, and it's not easy for a budding photographer to get as good at manual focusing as one of these super-fast AF systems with short focus throws. However, in other situations it might make no difference, so it would be best to select the lens with the proper specs and IQ, regardless of focusing.

In sum, I really think it's best to have both - and be prepared to spend a long time taking crappy pictures if you are new to manual focusing because it is not nearly as easy for a newbie as it is for a lot of veterans!

IMHO though, manual focusing is more fun. I was never into guns (firing ranges, skeet shooting etc) but I get that sort of "thrill" when a fleeting moment passes and you have to aim, focus, and fire before the moment is gone.

[Mike Cash]

For most of the show I shot with one elbow on the stage.

[robbiec]

I would not say strictly manual lens on a dslr body. This time last year I would have been completely manual, Super Takumars, Ks & Ms. I have a mixture at the moment, 2 Ks, 2 FAs & 2 DA zooms which I need for extra reach either end. Generally I pick what I want to use for the day, mount that and fall into that lenses zone. When I have a K mounted focussing then becomes second nature and you know exactly how to frame your shot. The FAs I sometimes flick to MF just because its nice to do so, fingertip focussing, the DAs, well zoom in or out to frame the shot and let the camera's AF earn its keep. I am expecting a K-5 to be delivered on Monday and a Katz Eye for that later on. I am a bit apprehensive about the lower magnification on the K-5s viewfinder compared to the K20D but I assume I'll adjust eventually. As to difficulty focussing the Ks, a 55 f/1.8 @ f/1.8 is relatively easy, a 50 f/1.2 @ f/1.2 is a different animal altogether. I'm getting better though