cputeq wrote:
Shooting a nice manual focus lens is like driving a nice manual transmission car. You don't use it for the convenience but rather the experience of something different with a finely-crafted machine.
I guess...I enjoy driving manual tranny.
Not so much manual focus lenses when I the vf sucks, and I can't hit a damn thing.
I just don't see the point, and yes I know there are some canon mf offerings. They are also lenses that are intended to be used in situations where you have plenty of time to shoot and play around with it.
There are those who don't have any problem with view finders and manual focusing.
Modern AF lenses which have a short focus throw,aren't as user friendly as MF lenses with longer focus throw.
Typically when manually focusing,it's easier to use a MF lens.
If all one has with them are AF lenses,there are still times that require manual focus.
So it's best to keep one's manual focus skills sharp,even with AF lenses...
To keep shooting speed up,use trap focus as a starting point and fine focus from there,if needed.
Generally speaking, AF is usually "good enough" in most circumstances but it is by no means as consistently accurate as manual focusing with live view. If I actually take the time to set up on a tripod, why would I not want to take an extra few seconds to manual focus and make sure I have the most accurate focus possible?
In circumstances where the absolute best possible image sharpness is more important to the photographer than being able to quickly lock focus on a target (i.e. the target market for Zeiss lenses) then a lens that is designed purposefully to have good manual focusing action is certainly desirable.
Yea and one more thing, AF even tho its slower is actually usually more accurate on mirrorless cameras (I guess cause theres a lot less things that needs to be aligned and linked together). Wierd huh?
I would suggest for anyone who wants to experiment with how much autofocus varies, get a nice flat wall or something so there's no question where the AF point is and a wide aperture prime (f/1.8 is probably enough). Spin the focus ring to infinity and let the camera autofocus. Spin the focus ring to close up and let the camera autofocus. You'll rarely get exactly the same focus plane. Do the same thing multiple times in Live View and for most of us, it will be more accurate.
Don't get me wrong, I use AF most of the time cause I'm old and lazy and it's almost always good enough. But if I need critical focus when the depth of field is narrow, it's live view every time for me.
Live view is almost always more accurate, with af than af through the. Vf. I cannot recall what someone told me, like it's phase af detection or some crap.
I'd be interested in seeing fully manual focus wedding, like the entire wedding, from pre ceremony to post dances, the whole gallery.
In all seriousness, aside from jobs where you've got all of the time in the world (tse market), I have no idea how you guys can have the patience for manual focus.
RobertLynn wrote:
Live view is almost always more accurate, with af than af through the. Vf. I cannot recall what someone told me, like it's phase af detection or some crap.
I'd be interested in seeing fully manual focus wedding, like the entire wedding, from pre ceremony to post dances, the whole gallery.
In all seriousness, aside from jobs where you've got all of the time in the world (tse market), I have no idea how you guys can have the patience for manual focus.
Robert it's actually not that difficult to MF if you put in some time.....once you master the technique MF'ing through the VF you can be just as efficient as AF (and more creative) when shooting objects that are not moving quickly. You won't be shooting BIF or action (although you can if you're up for a challenge) but you can shoot a wedding with practice. I often MF my AF lenses to focus on objects that are not covered by AF points, ESPECIALLY when using the great 5D/5D2 AF system...
If you haven't learned MF, you are limiting your photography.
RobertLynn wrote:
In all seriousness, aside from jobs where you've got all of the time in the world (tse market), I have no idea how you guys can have the patience for manual focus.
For some of us, it's not a job. Since photography is a hobby for me, I'm not under time pressure or pre-determined requirements for ``must-get'' shots. I can take my time and enjoy what I'm doing.
That said, I don't feel that manual focus has particularly slowed me down much compared to when I shot with all AF lenses. I usually spend a lot more time planning and framing shots than the last couple seconds needed to tweak the focus. Add in not needing to fiddle with focus point selection or wait for a confused AF system to rack the lens all the way to MFD and back, and I'm often able to shoot much more confidently at the moment I "see" the shot I want. I will be continuously, subconsciously pre-focusing the lens to approximately the right position much more ``intelligently'' than an AF system would do, so I'm rarely caught off-guard by my camera.
RobertLynn wrote:
Live view is almost always more accurate, with af than af through the. Vf. I cannot recall what someone told me, like it's phase af detection or some crap.
I'd be interested in seeing fully manual focus wedding, like the entire wedding, from pre ceremony to post dances, the whole gallery.
In all seriousness, aside from jobs where you've got all of the time in the world (tse market), I have no idea how you guys can have the patience for manual focus.
While I realize we live in a world where the emphasis is all on getting things done fast and instant gratification, patience has been a hallmark of photography since its beginnings. Like the landscape photographer who has the patience to stand out in the field waiting for the right light. Or the urban photographer taking long exposures of city scenes at night. Or the studio photographer who spends a bunch of time arranging the lighting on his subjects until its right. Or the macro photographer setting up caerfully to to get a very detailed shot. Or any photographer who has ever taken the time to set up a tripod, for that matter.
You recognize it is silly of course to suggest that a modern wedding photographer would shoot an entire wedding using manual focus (although in very rare cases I've heard it rumored some still do). But it is equally silly to assume that all photography demands the kind of instant focusing that wedding photography does. I have a friend who is an excellent wedding photographer and of course uses all the typical DSLR gear. But that doesn't stop him from shooting the occasional portrait or engagement photo with a 4x5 (and for really special clients an 8x10...I'm not kidding).
Why do so many photographers have such patience in today's world of autofocus? Because patience can produce great photographs.
RobertLynn wrote:
I'd be interested in seeing fully manual focus wedding, like the entire wedding, from pre ceremony to post dances, the whole gallery.
I'm no pro, but have shot a fair few events with MF only glass (24TSE II + Zeiss glass), including a wedding. It is possible.
Dec 15, 2011 at 07:10 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Lars Johnsson wrote:
There are probably a lot more weddings that have been shot with MF gear than with AF gear
Believe it or not, there was a time before AF and somehow weddings were STILL shot, quite successfully even.
Friend of mine did 50-100 weddings a year with his manual film gear, and somehow not only survived but actually made some really nice large prints from the resulting negs too... crazy stuff!
Quick testing shows I'm getting moiré/de-mosaicing artifacts from wide open on my 5D: a very sharp lens indeed, and with wonderful color and smooth bokeh too. Definitely a keeper.
Glad you like it Michael. And being as that lens was trained in the South it's probably having a little cold weather shock. Good to hear it's holding up OK :-)
mpmendenhall wrote:
My early Christmas-present-to-self arrived today.
Quick testing shows I'm getting moiré/de-mosaicing artifacts from wide open on my 5D: a very sharp lens indeed, and with wonderful color and smooth bokeh too. Definitely a keeper.
I was wondering if anyone would notice
No, I'm out of town for research work --- the snow is in Los Alamos, NM, which has had several inches on the ground for the past couple weeks, and just got a new ~4" overnight.
pingflood wrote:
Believe it or not, there was a time before AF and somehow weddings were STILL shot, quite successfully even.
Friend of mine did 50-100 weddings a year with his manual film gear, and somehow not only survived but actually made some really nice large prints from the resulting negs too... crazy stuff!
No kidding... I never knew. I thought cameras were invented by Ashton kutcher and all had autofocus.
I had no ideal about the origins of photography. I also just found out they tore down the Berlin wall.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
There are probably a lot more weddings that have been shot with MF gear than with AF gear Lars Johnsson wrote:
There are probably a lot more weddings that have been shot with MF gear than with AF gear
I dot know about that. It may have already changed, depending on the number of weddings now and people shooting them.
While I'm not saying that it's impossible to shoot a whole wedding in manual focus, I don't truly believe the number of keepers will be the same.
Like i said before, I think my frustration comes from my inability to shoot mf. No lens in my bag has a focus ring like a specific mf lens.
I just can't see the cost justification (ts e not withstanding) of the high price of these mf only lenses. I know the optics are excellent but it would seem that the costs should be lower out of production costs.
