[larryinlc]

I must be odd. No matter how hard I try, I cannot keep my fingers off the focus ring. But, since just about all the macro shots I take are of stationary objects in a controlled environment, I can manual focus to my hearts content. Actually, I take a group of ten shots at various focus points and apertures and pick which result I like best. Watches don't move so it's manual focus for me all the time.

Larry

[Votesh]

Personally, I prefer using MF for macro and my only macro lens at the moment is MF only. However, I wouldn't mind having AF available. I've been shooting fast moving bugs a lot lately and it would be helpful for getting close to proper focus, at which point I could fine tune with MF.

[bdery]

AF macros might appear worse at distances because their focus rings need to move very little to shift the focus a lot. However, they are definitely very good; I have the FA50 Macro and have little desire to buy an F1.4.

MF options have somewhat better manual focusing and perhaps better build (however my lens has rolled on the concrete with no problems), but an AF macro might be cheaper if you save the cost of buying the FA50/1.4.

Not really true... My (and yours) FA 50 macro has about 270 degrees of throw, as much or more than any MF ma ro lens.

[jslifoaw]

Not really true... My (and yours) FA 50 macro has about 270 degrees of throw, as much or more than any MF ma ro lens.

Yes, I agree (I sold an A50 macro and it behaved similarly). The main issue is at normal distances (>3m), where you need to turn the ring very little to shift the focus even by several metres, and the AF may not be up to that precise of a task, whereas with your fingers, you usually (but not always) have a bit more control

[K-9]

I think you should e-mail Carl Zeiss and tell him to stop making lenses immediately

.

And Voigtlander.

That could be; I don't have experience with those particular lenses. The newer ones may have addressed whatever issues the F series had. But FWIW, Yoshihiko Takinami's resolution tests show the FA50/2.8 macro to be the sharpest of all the tested 50's, and that does pretty well match what most other people report. And these tests are done at portrait distances, more or less. Similar story when people have compared the FA or D-FA 100 macro against other 100's - the macro usually wins in sharpness by a pretty substantial margin. But it wouldn't surprise me that the FA*85 would be even better - it's a "*", after all, and all else equal, you'll get more sharpness from slightly closer at a slightly shorter focal length than conversely.

What's funny is Takinami never tested the F 50mm f1.4 on his site, and photodo never tested the FA 50mm 2.8 macro on it's site. There's nothing to compare the two. Photozone doesn't test much of the old lenses, and they still haven't tested the 55mm f1.4. We really need someone to really test all the 50's and let them duke it out. The F 50 1.4 is the sharpest 50 I've used by Pentax. It's MTF tests are in the top 3 of all Photodo's lens test, any brand. Actually, the F 50mm 2.8 macro got the same score.