|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-01-2012, 12:11 PM
|
| |
I don't follow. From what I read here the consensus is m over AF . Unless you mean the general photographers not answering here.[/QUOTE]
Various of us need and use different tools for different purposes. If I were a paparazzo or wedding togger or PJ or field-sports shooter or otherwise recording action, and I got paid for it, I'd want the fastest, most agile AFs available. For other specialized work, I'd want specialized workhorse gear. Those are just bread-n-butter issues. But most of us here, those with time for these forums, have other needs and desires, often constrained by budget and unconstrained by time. We're the MF crowd.
I have a travel scenario: When moving around, I depend on the DA18-250 and Tamron 10-24 and FA50/1.4. When I get somewhere, I wander with those general lenses for a day, scoping-out the possibilities. Then I use various old MF primes to go beyond the travel kit's capabilities. And I'll spend a day or two maybe with just a clutch of 50s for probing various possibilities: K50/1.2, CZJ Tessar 50/2.8 (12 iris blades), MacroTak 50/4(1x), Chinon 55/1.8, Helios-44 58/2 -- each has its own flavor. Or I'll go Teutonic and use only German glass for a day, Meyers and Ennas at 35-50-100-135-180-240mm. I have time and space to explore.
But if I was working, I'd probably depend on Tamrons: 10-24, 28-75, 70-200, the workhorses.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
12-31-2011, 07:55 PM
|
| |
I grew up manually. Never had autofocus till I was almost 55 years old. But for my first dSLR (the K20D) I started with only AF lenses: DA10-17, DA18-250, FA50/1.4. I've since bought a few more AF zooms (no primes): Tamron 10-24, DA18-55, F35-70, FA100-300, a half-dozen others including the monstrous Lil'Bigma 170-500. But the vast bulk of my glass pile is MF.
One reason is cost (I'm a cheap bastard). My database tells my that currently, my average AF lens cost US$278 and my average MF lens cost US$20 shipped. So that's US$258 per lens for an AF screw. Whew! And F- and FA-type lenses aren't getting any cheaper.
But the main reason is character. The older lenses each have their own flavor that's distinct, not homogenized like over-corrected modern glass. And some old glass just hasn't been replicated by newer designs. AFAIK nothing new can match the performance of the K50/1.2, the Schneider Betavaron, or a Petzval-formula projector lens.
I won't consider coolness or bragging rights; not my style. But odd lenses sure are fun!
So there's cost, character, and coolness, the pros of old glass.
The cons? They're slightly more work to use than new AF lenses. Different skill-sets and reaction-times are needed. And modern zooms (especially ultrawides) just beat the pants off old designs. Nothing vintage comes close to the performance of my Tamron 10-24, DA10-17, DA18-250 -- nothing. Nothing comparable existed back in the day. These are UWA's glory days.
Demand for MFLs does not seem to be diminishing. Get'em while you can!
|
