[creampuff]

I would think my Super Takumar 1.4 50mm would be decent glass.

Nah, it's junk... you need to change your frame of reference to modern lenses... AF helps you to shoot quicker, allows you to shoot one handed, less fiddling to manual focus and you're likely to catch more "decisive moments" that happen suddenly.

[RioRico]

Nah, it's junk... you need to change your frame of reference to modern lenses... AF helps you to shoot quicker, allows you to shoot one handed, less fiddling to manual focus and you're likely to catch more "decisive moments" that happen suddenly.

You omitted the smiley.

Are quicker, one-handed photos better than more-considered shots? Does the AF system always focus on the spot the togger wants? How did generations of MF shooters manage to capture decisive moments? HINT: f/8 and be there. There's also the matter of possession, ie, the OP already possesses the lens. That's a big plus!

[creampuff]

You omitted the smiley.

Are quicker, one-handed photos better than more-considered shots?

Not necessarily, it depends on the subject, but that is an option available with AF and a pretty useful option at that. And one can shoot wonderful images one-handed especially with image stabilization being the norm.

Does the AF system always focus on the spot the togger wants?

That's why all modern cameras allow the user to choose an AF point...

How did generations of MF shooters manage to capture decisive moments? HINT: f/8 and be there.

Guesstimating focus and relying on dof by stopping down or setting the hyperfocal distance to get a reasonably sharp image is certainly a way of shooting but there will be situations this might not work well. And what if the photographer wanted to shoot at large apertures with narrower dof?

There's also the matter of possession, ie, the OP already possesses the lens. That's a big plus!

Of course any lens is better than no lens but let's get real, a modern AF lens allows full functionality (use of every exposure mode), quicker handling and faster operation that will be able to exploit the full capability of the camera. As an extreme example, you'll likely get more keepers by using an AF lens shooting a high fps sequential shots of a moving subject in variable lighting condition (moving focus, variable exposure) than with a MF lens.

[Tony3d]

I honestly don't think that the glass of the Super takunars is worse image quality wise than alot of the modern lens, and probably better than some.

[RioRico]

creampuff,
I could (but won't) nitpick here. (Like, picking focus points whilst shooting one-handed is tricky.) I'm quite aware of the performance possibilities of AF and MF lenses. The OP asked about 'pod use and expressed concern about metering with an MFL. Didn't ask for lens recommendations, so I didn't offer any. Yes, a FA50/1.4 would be a splendid addition, but the SuperTak is quite serviceable, and is an acknowledged classic. Tony should have fun with it in Italy.

[Jasvox]

I travel through and photograph in Italy on a regular basis all year long and never once have I used a tripod or monopod as it just isn't feasible for me to carry one around. In the past 6-8 years, I can count probably on one hand how many times I wished I had had either for shooting. Travel light and with the K-5's higher iso capabilities, you should be fine in 95% of any shooting situations.

Jason

[jerm1386]

Not necessarily, it depends on the subject, but that is an option available with AF and a pretty useful option at that. And one can shoot wonderful images one-handed especially with image stabilization being the norm.

That's why all modern cameras allow the user to choose an AF point...

Guesstimating focus and relying on dof by stopping down or setting the hyperfocal distance to get a reasonably sharp image is certainly a way of shooting but there will be situations this might not work well. And what if the photographer wanted to shoot at large apertures with narrower dof?

Of course any lens is better than no lens but let's get real, a modern AF lens allows full functionality (use of every exposure mode), quicker handling and faster operation that will be able to exploit the full capability of the camera. As an extreme example, you'll likely get more keepers by using an AF lens shooting a high fps sequential shots of a moving subject in variable lighting condition (moving focus, variable exposure) than with a MF lens.

It sounds like you believe he will primarily be shooting sports and trying to catch car accidents while they're happening while he's there for which I agree AF would be more ideal. However I think an MF lens is a fine tool to take on a vacation where you mostly shoot static objects. also, it's a few stops faster than any other lens he has, helping him get those 1600 shots in low light. Think about application before disparaging an entire technique, since really the most important part of the camera is the operator.

[Byrd-2020]

.... let's get real, a modern AF lens allows full functionality (use of every exposure mode), quicker handling and faster operation that will be able to exploit the full capability of the camera. As an extreme example, you'll likely get more keepers by using an AF lens shooting a high fps sequential shots of a moving subject in variable lighting condition (moving focus, variable exposure) than with a MF lens.

Three comments;

First, generally speaking, I have a much higher 'keeper rate' using manual focus over autofocus. (The exception is, of course, things like "shooting sports and trying to catch car accidents.") I have caught far more 'decisive moments' with manual focus as well.

Second, having myself just returned from Italy a few weeks ago, some of my best shots were made with a high speed 50mm (Zeiss) manual focus lens. I took three lenses along; but the 50mm was the most used and the most appreciated.

Third, I think a 50mm SuperTak can more than hold its own against the 'modern' af lenses that Creampuff loves so much.