[stevebrot]

It will be able to track a mosquito in flight at 18mm.

18mm focal length at 100 meters!


Steve

[Alex645]

This summer I got the Samyang 135mm F2 ED UMC with manual focus and I LOVE it! Now I want the 35mm F1.4 AS UMC... (Lens Buying Addiction never quits)

I figure, why not? Pentax AF may never equal C and I almost always shoot center spot anyway.

The advantage of a manual focus lens:
a) The long focus throw allows more precise manual focusing.
b) Quieter.
c) Camera battery life.
d) Simple preference of deciding the focus instead of AF.

On this final point, it's the same reason I still prefer and drive a manual transmission car. I simply prefer to stroke the gears myself than the convenience of an auto transmission.

Honestly I am somewhat surprised there is still a market and manufactures for these lenses, but it shows we are not alone in our preference for manuals.

[dave_roe]

Nothing wrong with manual focus. Having purchased a few lenses that are only manual focus it is nice to get back to basics.

[GUB]

With AF you use your skills and concentration to get the camera settings to focus on your subject.
In MF you use your skills and concentration to focus on the subject.
Your choice but I know which one is closer to the pure art of observation that is photography..

[heinamj]

I suspect because every shot has to be more carefully considered you end up with better images. It's hard to do spray and pray with manual focussing.

I think you've got a point here... I enjoy the thoughtfulness of MF.
But when I'm shooting live music on stage with the MF 135 (206 on crop) I'll sometimes let fly at about 4-5 fps to increase odds of an in focus good shot.

[luftfluss]

That's an impressive collection, all Pentax?

Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 300mm f/2.8 LD IF - 360B

Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 400mm f/4 LD IF - 65B

SMC Pentax 500mm F4.5




I also have Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 80-200mm f2.8 LD BBAR MC (30A) , SMC Pentax-A 400mm F5.6 , SMC Pentax 135-600mm F6.7

And a few others... plus, I have all 4 of the A Series teleconverters. I am almost literally drowning in good-quality legacy telephoto glass.

[heinamj]

I am almost literally drowning in good-quality legacy telephoto glass.

I'LL SAVE YOU!
I'm DMing my address where you can send some of them so you can breathe...

[luftfluss]

I'LL SAVE YOU!
I'm DMing my address where you can send some of them so you can breathe...

That is very kind of you, but I've never been one to shirk a burden or ask another to suffer in my place...

Seriously, that's what happens... the lenses are good and it can be very satisfying to focus manually, so one ends up with a collection.

[normhead]

With AF you use your skills and concentration to get the camera settings to focus on your subject.

Quickly and efficiently. You use your skills to track and frame, while letting the camera handle focus, when you can't do both at the same time.

In MF you use your skills and concentration to focus on the subject..

Unless of course you miss focus, which is jus as possible with M as with AF?

Your choice but I know which one is closer to the pure art of observation that is photography..

Oh please, I see things in AF images I didn't even know were there when I was focusing.

Like seeds dropped by a nuthatch


You guys make it sound like all you shoot is stationary objects.
There is one reason for using an MF lens for action, wildlife or any ming object, you can' afford AF or don't wish to pay the price.

Just to prove my point, how many of you own AF lenses and only use them in MF? Because if MF is so much better, people would do that. MY Tamron SP AF 300 ED{IF] has the sweetest manual focus action you'll ever find, yet because of the nature of having to pre-focus with the F 1.7x AF adapter, I often forgo the 1.7 reach with partial AF for the 1.4 TC with full AF when the subjects are moving a lot.

There are many times when I use my D FA 100macro in MF, but that doesn't stop me from using AF when appropriate. The difference between AF an MF is, with an MF lens, you don't have AF when it's appropriate.

Like many things, MF lenses vs AF/MF lenses is more about the money than anything else.

[luftfluss]

I mostly agree with Norm. If I had the opportunity to shoot fast-moving critters on a regular basis, I would likely bite the bullet and buy a modern AF telephoto lens. The critters-in-motion I photograph are usually fairly large and don't move too quickly, and they move in predictable fashion.

[MossyRocks]

The 35mm is a Sigma ART killer.Also their 24mm f/1.4 is a marvel, and their 20mm f/1.8. And their 16mm f/2. And definitely the 85mm f/1.4.

Don't tempt me. I just recently got the 135/2 UMC and do lots of astro shooting where manual focusing is where it is at.

[Liney]

One of the reasons I have stuck with Pentax is because I can still use the lenses I bought back in the mid-80's when I had my P-30. As I no longer use that body, I find that I can only use manual focusing on some of the older lenses. Since that time I have picked up a couple of lenses that pre-date autofocus, so I am more than happy to use manual focus.

[noelpolar]

To live a life without being nuts from time to time.... is well..... just nuts!

Anyway.... we all know true nuts is having more then ten 50mm lenses.

[heinamj]

I think manual focus primes is part of the appeal of shooting with Pentax. You got it with rokinon, one of the main affordable options to shoot current optical designs in a lens housing that work with legacy film cameras.

I agree Pete, if I had the budget I'd gladly spend 2x, 4x or more for top quality AF glass. But, I'm very thankful to be able to get top quality IQ even if the lower price includes MF in the cost... and then I can use it on my film bodies too.

[ZombieArmy]

Honestly I am somewhat surprised there is still a market and manufactures for these lenses, but it shows we are not alone in our preference for manuals.

Manual lenses just let smaller brands compete I think, especially on price.