Who else uses MF lenses for your "Main Squeeze"?

seacapt · 06-16-2009, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Igilligan

Since you seem to like old zooms there is one I got for almost nuthing that has blown me away from day 1... that is the Tamron adaptal 103a 80-210 F3.8...
l

Hi Gus,
Got it , love it . goes everywhere with me! Other than something ex long that really pulls my trigger I'm pretty well set for zooms now so it's time to fill in the primes and that niche is probably gonna be all MF and possibly in a large way M42 so I'm seriously considering that Tair 135 you speak so highly of.

Last edited by seacapt; 06-16-2009 at 08:08 PM.

augustmoon · 06-16-2009, 09:38 AM

AF has its place and is invaluable for certain circumstances, but the rest can be aptly handled via MF.

There are some real MF gems out there that far surpass the AF versions. The beauty of Pentax, is that you always get focus confirmation, metering, and at least the green button for even the oldest most primitive fully manual lenses.

**Canada_Rockies** · 06-16-2009, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by augustmoon

AF has its place and is invaluable for certain circumstances, but the rest can be aptly handled via MF.

There are some real MF gems out there that far surpass the AF versions. The beauty of Pentax, is that you always get focus confirmation, metering, and at least the green button for even the oldest most primitive fully manual lenses.

Not to mention snap-in-focus/catch-in-focus with any K mount manual focus lens. I use this extensively with my two M series lenses. With the macro it is the best thing going for catching butterflies and such. Set the camera to AF.S, set the exposure, hold down the shutter release all the way, keep the centre AF point on the target. "Click!" Got it.

Marc Sabatella · 06-16-2009, 09:52 AM

FWIW, my zooms are all AF, and I am unlikely to buy a manual zooms for three reasons:

1. The whole point of a zoom for me is the extra convenience that occasionally comes in handy; if I'm buying a lens for convenience, that doesn't seem like a time to give up AF.
2. SR focal length has to either be compromised upon or changed every time you zoom, further reducing the convenience.
3. Zoom technology has improved a lot over the years (meaning many older ones are not very good, although *some* of course are).

My primes, on the other hand, are mostly MF. Not because I have any illusions that they are *better* than modern equivalents, but simply because they are cheaper. But my AF primes are both DA Limiteds (40 & 70) - known for especially fast AF, but more importantly, they also feature qick shift, allowing me to manually focus them with ease as well (despite the funky focus ring on the 40).

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 06-17-2009 at 01:15 PM.

8540tomg · 06-16-2009, 04:17 PM

In my own case I waited a long time before going digital. I already had a number of really good manual Pentax primes (see signature) and staying with Pentax was a no brainer for me. I’m glad I did. I only have one AF lens – the Pentax DA 70/2.4 I got when I purchased the K10. The addition of the Katz Eye screen made focusing a cinch. I shoot manual almost all the time and only pull out the DA 70 when I get lazy.

Does this mean I won’t ever buy any more AF lenses? Not at all. There are many AF Pentax primes I hope to add as time and money permits. The FA 31, DA 14 and DA* 300 come to mind. Till then the “old glass” still delivers remarkable images if I do my job right.

Tom G

Mr. The Guy · 06-16-2009, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by seacapt

My question is this ; who else prefers high quality old tech glass to consumer grade new stuff.

I only buy digital lenses for my digital camera because I'm too lazy to carry old, oversized metal and am a firm believer in buying components that are properly 'matched.' But, I would never use a lens not a Limited; without QSF, that I use alot. Does that count?

jocko_nc · 06-16-2009, 09:51 PM

Looking at my "keeper" photos, both on the K100D and now the K20D, it seems that most have come from the SMC A 35-105 with a polarizer. Don't know why that is, the photos are just more compelling in color and detail.

séamuis · 06-17-2009, 03:22 AM

Originally posted by Mr. The Guy

I only buy digital lenses for my digital camera because I'm too lazy to carry old, oversized metal and am a firm believer in buying components that are properly 'matched.' But, I would never use a lens not a Limited; without QSF, that I use alot. Does that count?

no. no, it does not.

knochelbiter · 06-17-2009, 11:38 AM

My travel/all-round kit is a Pelican waterproof case with my Takumar 400/5.6, 200/3.5, 105/2.8, 50/1.4, and 28/3.5, as well as a couple of extension rings for macro and lessening the min. focus distance of the longer lenses... Total weight, around 20 lbs, more or less.

That's the direction I went right after buying the camera, and there is nothing about those lenses, or using MF primes as my primary kit that I don't like... for indoors shots I MF, for street shots and landscapes I use the HF point and don't focus. Seems like using MF for tele shots is almost faster than AF...

Having said all that, I used my girlfriend's 50-135* last weekend for wedding portraits, and WOW.

That's the sort of task that I just don't think I'd be up to doing with the Takumars unless I had hands of lightning and nerves of steel...

kuuan · 06-17-2009, 01:01 PM

on the rare occasions I mount my only AF lens taking photos just becomes boring as compared to when I am using my MF lenses.
True, I do miss focus more often than I wished for, but old lenses have 'character' which make photos taken with the modern AF lens look sterile.

**ChrisPlatt** · 06-26-2009, 05:40 PM

Zooms make you lazy. Rather than walk to compose your shot, one tends to zoom for framing, with little regard for the effect of focal length.

Using zooms I eventually realized that I usually shot at one extreme or the other, seldom using anything in between.
My solution was easy: Get fixed focal length lenses. Better optical quality, faster speed and lighter weight sweeten the deal.

Chris

**Canada_Rockies** · 06-26-2009, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by ChrisPlatt

Zooms make you lazy. Rather than walk to compose your shot, one tends to zoom for framing, with little regard for the effect of focal length.

Using zooms I eventually realized that I usually shot at one extreme or the other, seldom using anything in between.
My solution was easy: Get fixed focal length lenses. Better optical quality, faster speed and lighter weight sweeten the deal.

Chris

One can, however, train oneself to use the zoom capability of a lens to good effect. Change position slightly, change the zoom wider, then go closer, change the zoom narrower and back up a bit. The focal length of a lens combined with the position and framing are the same. With my 16-50, I can have 19mm if it gives me the subject size, perspective and framing that I want - or 17.87mm if that is better.

One can use a zoom lens in lazy fashion, true, but one can also use it for creative perspective control.

nanok · 06-27-2009, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by ChrisPlatt

Zooms make you lazy. Rather than walk to compose your shot, one tends to zoom for framing, with little regard for the effect of focal length.

that's simply wrong, if i had a dolar every time i heard that.. walking to frame is fundamentally wrong, focal length has no effect whatsoever on anything else but framing (and dof, but not the point right now). a zoom is good because, as albert pointed out, it allows you to frame precisely what you want from where you want it, because perspective is given by your distance to the subject: if you walk to change your framing, you will also change perspective, and most probably the angle of view as well, so you are changing too many parameters to be in control. one should choose the distance first (for the wanted perspective), the angle (and thus point to shoot from) next, and the lens focal length after all this.

maybe i'm an old timer, but it's just the way i understand things, fwiw

Quote:

Using zooms I eventually realized that I usually shot at one extreme or the other, seldom using anything in between.
My solution was easy: Get fixed focal length lenses. Better optical quality, faster speed and lighter weight sweeten the deal.

Chris

interestingly, i have realized something similar, though not exactly (i do use stuff in between), what i don't notice though when i make this assesment is that the zoom allows me to frame precisely, yeah, it was a "30-ish focal length", but choosing 27 instead of 31 allowed me to frame exactly how i wanted.

funny enough, though, i prefer fixed focal lengths myself

("old timer" again, i guess)

**ChrisPlatt** · 07-04-2009, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by nanok

...focal length has no effect whatsoever on anything else but framing (and dof, but not the point right now)...

Wikipedia: Perspective distortion in photography

Mike Cash · 07-04-2009, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Mr. The Guy

I only buy digital lenses for my digital camera because I'm too lazy to carry old, oversized metal and am a firm believer in buying components that are properly 'matched.' But, I would never use a lens not a Limited; without QSF, that I use alot. Does that count?

You insult your own intelligence by even asking. Of course it doesn't.

If someone asked, "Does anyone here ride a horse to work?" would you answer back "I have genuine leather seat covers in my car. Does that count?"

People would scratch their heads wondering if you're really so obtuse as to think it would count or are just starved for human interaction.

06-16-2009, 09:38 AM	#32
augustmoon Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Toronto, San Diego, Seattle Posts: 455	Absolutely AF has its place and is invaluable for certain circumstances, but the rest can be aptly handled via MF. There are some real MF gems out there that far surpass the AF versions. The beauty of Pentax, is that you always get focus confirmation, metering, and at least the green button for even the oldest most primitive fully manual lenses.

06-16-2009, 06:50 PM	#36
Mr. The Guy Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Vilcabamba, Loja Posts: 216	QSF Manual Focus Originally posted by seacapt My question is this ; who else prefers high quality old tech glass to consumer grade new stuff. I only buy digital lenses for my digital camera because I'm too lazy to carry old, oversized metal and am a firm believer in buying components that are properly 'matched.' But, I would never use a lens not a Limited; without QSF, that I use alot. Does that count?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sports "Highside Exit" took 1st Place in DPReview "Missed It by THAT much, Part 1" Challenge	MRRiley	Post Your Photos!	27	02-21-2010 08:26 PM
For Sale - Sold: 2 18-55mm kit lenses ("L" and "AL II" version)	dgaies	Sold Items	5	12-28-2009 07:58 AM
Original "K" and "M" lenses	wlank	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	08-31-2008 11:00 AM
"Hunger for a DA50-135?" or "The DA50-135 as a bird lens!" or "Iron age birds?"	Douglas_of_Sweden	Post Your Photos!	4	08-13-2008 06:09 AM
Looking for a new "main" lens for my istDs	Karl Inge S	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	36	12-13-2007 01:38 AM

06-16-2009, 09:23 AM	#31
seacapt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: North Carolina , USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,271 Original Poster	Originally posted by Igilligan Since you seem to like old zooms there is one I got for almost nuthing that has blown me away from day 1... that is the Tamron adaptal 103a 80-210 F3.8... l Hi Gus, Got it , love it . goes everywhere with me! Other than something ex long that really pulls my trigger I'm pretty well set for zooms now so it's time to fill in the primes and that niche is probably gonna be all MF and possibly in a large way M42 so I'm seriously considering that Tair 135 you speak so highly of. Last edited by seacapt; 06-16-2009 at 08:08 PM.

06-16-2009, 09:41 AM	#33
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by augustmoon AF has its place and is invaluable for certain circumstances, but the rest can be aptly handled via MF. There are some real MF gems out there that far surpass the AF versions. The beauty of Pentax, is that you always get focus confirmation, metering, and at least the green button for even the oldest most primitive fully manual lenses. Not to mention snap-in-focus/catch-in-focus with any K mount manual focus lens. I use this extensively with my two M series lenses. With the macro it is the best thing going for catching butterflies and such. Set the camera to AF.S, set the exposure, hold down the shutter release all the way, keep the centre AF point on the target. "Click!" Got it.

06-16-2009, 09:52 AM	#34
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	FWIW, my zooms are all AF, and I am unlikely to buy a manual zooms for three reasons: 1. The whole point of a zoom for me is the extra convenience that occasionally comes in handy; if I'm buying a lens for convenience, that doesn't seem like a time to give up AF. 2. SR focal length has to either be compromised upon or changed every time you zoom, further reducing the convenience. 3. Zoom technology has improved a lot over the years (meaning many older ones are not very good, although some of course are). My primes, on the other hand, are mostly MF. Not because I have any illusions that they are better than modern equivalents, but simply because they are cheaper. But my AF primes are both DA Limiteds (40 & 70) - known for especially fast AF, but more importantly, they also feature qick shift, allowing me to manually focus them with ease as well (despite the funky focus ring on the 40). Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 06-17-2009 at 01:15 PM.

06-16-2009, 04:17 PM	#35
8540tomg Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,461	In my own case I waited a long time before going digital. I already had a number of really good manual Pentax primes (see signature) and staying with Pentax was a no brainer for me. I’m glad I did. I only have one AF lens – the Pentax DA 70/2.4 I got when I purchased the K10. The addition of the Katz Eye screen made focusing a cinch. I shoot manual almost all the time and only pull out the DA 70 when I get lazy. Does this mean I won’t ever buy any more AF lenses? Not at all. There are many AF Pentax primes I hope to add as time and money permits. The FA 31, DA 14 and DA* 300 come to mind. Till then the “old glass” still delivers remarkable images if I do my job right. Tom G

06-16-2009, 09:51 PM	#37
jocko_nc Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: NC USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 251	Looking at my "keeper" photos, both on the K100D and now the K20D, it seems that most have come from the SMC A 35-105 with a polarizer. Don't know why that is, the photos are just more compelling in color and detail.

06-17-2009, 03:22 AM	#38
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by Mr. The Guy I only buy digital lenses for my digital camera because I'm too lazy to carry old, oversized metal and am a firm believer in buying components that are properly 'matched.' But, I would never use a lens not a Limited; without QSF, that I use alot. Does that count? no. no, it does not.

06-17-2009, 11:38 AM	#39
knochelbiter Forum Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Vancouver, BC. Posts: 89	My travel/all-round kit is a Pelican waterproof case with my Takumar 400/5.6, 200/3.5, 105/2.8, 50/1.4, and 28/3.5, as well as a couple of extension rings for macro and lessening the min. focus distance of the longer lenses... Total weight, around 20 lbs, more or less. That's the direction I went right after buying the camera, and there is nothing about those lenses, or using MF primes as my primary kit that I don't like... for indoors shots I MF, for street shots and landscapes I use the HF point and don't focus. Seems like using MF for tele shots is almost faster than AF... Having said all that, I used my girlfriend's 50-135* last weekend for wedding portraits, and WOW. That's the sort of task that I just don't think I'd be up to doing with the Takumars unless I had hands of lightning and nerves of steel...

06-17-2009, 01:01 PM	#40
kuuan Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Austria Photos: Gallery Posts: 405	on the rare occasions I mount my only AF lens taking photos just becomes boring as compared to when I am using my MF lenses. True, I do miss focus more often than I wished for, but old lenses have 'character' which make photos taken with the modern AF lens look sterile.

06-26-2009, 05:40 PM	#41
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,696	Zooms make you lazy. Rather than walk to compose your shot, one tends to zoom for framing, with little regard for the effect of focal length. Using zooms I eventually realized that I usually shot at one extreme or the other, seldom using anything in between. My solution was easy: Get fixed focal length lenses. Better optical quality, faster speed and lighter weight sweeten the deal. Chris

06-26-2009, 06:33 PM	#42
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by ChrisPlatt Zooms make you lazy. Rather than walk to compose your shot, one tends to zoom for framing, with little regard for the effect of focal length. Using zooms I eventually realized that I usually shot at one extreme or the other, seldom using anything in between. My solution was easy: Get fixed focal length lenses. Better optical quality, faster speed and lighter weight sweeten the deal. Chris One can, however, train oneself to use the zoom capability of a lens to good effect. Change position slightly, change the zoom wider, then go closer, change the zoom narrower and back up a bit. The focal length of a lens combined with the position and framing are the same. With my 16-50, I can have 19mm if it gives me the subject size, perspective and framing that I want - or 17.87mm if that is better. One can use a zoom lens in lazy fashion, true, but one can also use it for creative perspective control.

06-27-2009, 12:23 AM	#43
nanok Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 969	Originally posted by ChrisPlatt Zooms make you lazy. Rather than walk to compose your shot, one tends to zoom for framing, with little regard for the effect of focal length. that's simply wrong, if i had a dolar every time i heard that.. walking to frame is fundamentally wrong, focal length has no effect whatsoever on anything else but framing (and dof, but not the point right now). a zoom is good because, as albert pointed out, it allows you to frame precisely what you want from where you want it, because perspective is given by your distance to the subject: if you walk to change your framing, you will also change perspective, and most probably the angle of view as well, so you are changing too many parameters to be in control. one should choose the distance first (for the wanted perspective), the angle (and thus point to shoot from) next, and the lens focal length after all this. maybe i'm an old timer, but it's just the way i understand things, fwiw Quote: Using zooms I eventually realized that I usually shot at one extreme or the other, seldom using anything in between. My solution was easy: Get fixed focal length lenses. Better optical quality, faster speed and lighter weight sweeten the deal. Chris interestingly, i have realized something similar, though not exactly (i do use stuff in between), what i don't notice though when i make this assesment is that the zoom allows me to frame precisely, yeah, it was a "30-ish focal length", but choosing 27 instead of 31 allowed me to frame exactly how i wanted. funny enough, though, i prefer fixed focal lengths myself ("old timer" again, i guess)

07-04-2009, 01:35 PM	#44
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,696	Originally posted by nanok ...focal length has no effect whatsoever on anything else but framing (and dof, but not the point right now)... Wikipedia: Perspective distortion in photography

07-04-2009, 02:08 PM	#45
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by Mr. The Guy I only buy digital lenses for my digital camera because I'm too lazy to carry old, oversized metal and am a firm believer in buying components that are properly 'matched.' But, I would never use a lens not a Limited; without QSF, that I use alot. Does that count? You insult your own intelligence by even asking. Of course it doesn't. If someone asked, "Does anyone here ride a horse to work?" would you answer back "I have genuine leather seat covers in my car. Does that count?" People would scratch their heads wondering if you're really so obtuse as to think it would count or are just starved for human interaction.