It is easy to make that shot with an MF lens, just use the left hand as well. You surely don't believe that he is stopping himself from falling with his left hand?
I am not saying that MF is *required*, nor am I saying that *all* shots can be done with MF, simply that the vast majority can be, which includes most of the shots where people say that AF is *required*. We got lazy somewhere along the way. Note that I am not even including the scenarios in which AF actually gets in the way, such as when the AF system refuses to lock onto the right AF point, or when the selected AF point is in the wrong part of a frame while you are trying to quickly make a shot. MF certainly has its place, and I use it almost (but not quite) exclusively.
carstenw wrote:
I am not saying that MF is *required*, nor am I saying that *all* shots can be done with MF, simply that the vast majority can be, which includes most of the shots where people say that AF is *required*.
That's certainly a different tune - as per usual, given your condition, you've probably already forgotten what you wrote - but i'll remind you:
"I firmly believe that people make their best work when working under tight, well understood constraints"
and
"I have seen very, very, very few amazing shots which relied on perfect AF for their success."
Both of these statements are so over the top that their author is to be completely disregarded.
carstenw wrote:
And finally: put some photos on this forum, instead of just arguing pointlessly like a day-1 newb with a chip on his shoulder. All of this isn't about the discussions, it is about the photography. Or?
carstenw wrote:
I guess your reading comprehension is as strong as your ability to put together a coherent argument. Where do I say the various things you have claimed I said?
this thread, page 30, #7
you may need a prescription, i wasn't joking about you possibly having a condition if i'm having to remind you what you wrote.
Apologize for not reading all posts so while I am ON Topic I dont follow current nuances in the discussions.
With that said I am bewildered by these two lenses. Focal lengths roughly the same as existing Zeiss FE's, one slightly faster and one slightly slower.
And now, with example shots available, character/drawing style or whatever to call it dont impress much either.
Most exciting coming lens is still the FE 16-35, and I suppose - though I hope not - that it could be a disappointment cornerwise.
On the upside Zeiss tells us about forthcoming other focal lengths. But why not start with a 28, or 21 or a 85? Or all three before what's now to come that is already more or less existing capabilities.
ecarlino wrote:
Jackson - try making this shot MF: one handed
You are either very inexperienced or simply trolling. This is an ultra-wide photo with deep DoF - a.k.a. the best-case scenario for MF. It seems you are wowed by the one-handed aspect, yet many of us used to or still do take photos with MF one-handed. I've taken photos hanging with one hand of the side of trucks going down dirt roads with my X-700 with longer focal length lenses. It would have been easier & faster with AF, but certainly not impossible without.
akuba wrote:
You are either very inexperienced or simply trolling. This is an ultra-wide photo with deep DoF - a.k.a. the best-case scenario for MF. It seems you are wowed by the one-handed aspect, yet many of us used to or still do take photos with MF one-handed. I've taken photos hanging with one hand of the side of trucks going down dirt roads with my X-700 with longer focal length lenses. It would have been easier & faster with AF, but certainly not impossible without.
Good grief, he asked for an example and i found something in 1 second - my point is not to make a point only to suggest that he can't possibly be correct because he always makes his statements with such global/universal emphasis.
As I said previously, I'm interested in getting some MF lenses so I don't have a bone in the fight either way. Just simply supporting the idea that there is not one way to do things.
wfrank wrote:
Apologize for not reading all posts so while I am ON Topic I dont follow current nuances in the discussions.
With that said I am bewildered by these two lenses. Focal lengths roughly the same as existing Zeiss FE's, one slightly faster and one slightly slower.
And now, with example shots available, character/drawing style or whatever to call it dont impress much either.
Most exciting coming lens is still the FE 16-35, and I suppose - though I hope not - that it could be a disappointment cornerwise.
On the upside Zeiss tells us about forthcoming other focal lengths. But why not start with a 28, or 21 or a 85? Or all three before what's now to come that is already more or less existing capabilities. ...Show more →
Yes, sorry for losing my temper there, back on track.
I think that the Zeiss 50/2 Loxia might be a very nice lens... The boke is better than the ZM50. I will still be waiting to see how it compares to my ZF.2 50 Planar before making any decisions, but I am cautiously optimistic. I am more skeptical about the 35/2.
I hope that the promised 16-35/4 will be good, but to be honest, I would prefer a couple of nice primes. I find that I make better shots when I use primes. It somehow "focuses" my vision a bit, and I find more good motives. The CV12 I recently picked seems to be a winner (for me; it isn't perfect), so something in the 21-24 range would be good.
ecarlino wrote:
Jackson - try making this shot MF: one handed
Easy, depth of field is huge when using a fisheye lens, and McNally knows exactly how far the [static] subject will be away from him, simply set the focus distance before you lean back.
This argument seems a bit pointless, there are times when AF is very effective, and there are times when manual focus offers more control, and there are times when either can be used.
More importantly there are people who prefer manaul focus lenses, this is called a "market" and Zeiss make lenses that cater for this market. That's really all there is to it.
I am seriously encouraged by the comparison of ZM 35 f:2.0 corner crops Vs Loxia 35 posted on Diglloyd's blog. This shows what I hoped for, to wit that Zeiss have not just re-housed existing lenses. The Biogon 35 was awful on my A7R, and we all put it down to lens construction, based on Nasse's paper, but it seems that there is more to it (or more Touit, if you prefer) than that. This firmly suggests that a Loxia 18 f:4.0 could happen, and that great things could be expected from it...
carstenw wrote:
Yes, sorry for losing my temper there, back on track.
I think that the Zeiss 50/2 Loxia might be a very nice lens... The boke is better than the ZM50. I will still be waiting to see how it compares to my ZF.2 50 Planar before making any decisions, but I am cautiously optimistic. I am more skeptical about the 35/2.
I hope that the promised 16-35/4 will be good, but to be honest, I would prefer a couple of nice primes. I find that I make better shots when I use primes. It somehow "focuses" my vision a bit, and I find more good motives. The CV12 I recently picked seems to be a winner (for me; it isn't perfect), so something in the 21-24 range would be good....Show more →
Well I aint no police :-)
The CV12 seem much better than the CV15 which I have. The 50 might be good or even very good, but then the 55/1.8 is close to stellar. And faster. So I dont get it.
I too prefer primes but for WA I could definitely live with a slow versatile zoom for "my kind" of landcaping which isnt very serious but always stopped down. That's why I want good corners.
philber wrote:
I am seriously encouraged by the comparison of ZM 35 f:2.0 corner crops Vs Loxia 35 posted on Diglloyd's blog. This shows what I hoped for, to wit that Zeiss have not just re-housed existing lenses. The Biogon 35 was awful on my A7R, and we all put it down to lens construction, based on Nasse's paper, but it seems that there is more to it (or more Touit, if you prefer) than that. This firmly suggests that a Loxia 18 f:4.0 could happen, and that great things could be expected from it...
Hey Philippe. Sry for my ignorance, but have you tried the FE 35/2.8? It is very sharp, perhaps no heart-warming bokeh but very capable stopped down. AF too which isnt always a bad thing :-)
wfrank wrote:
The CV12 seem much better than the CV15 which I have. The 50 might be good or even very good, but then the 55/1.8 is close to stellar. And faster. So I dont get it.
I too prefer primes but for WA I could definitely live with a slow versatile zoom for "my kind" of landcaping which isnt very serious but always stopped down. That's why I want good corners.
The CV12 was also better on the Leica M8, IIRC, and the FF Ms as well. It is quite a bit more expensive though, and it does still need a profile for best results, but at least it is reasonably sharp into the corners.
If the 50/2 Loxia is as good as I hope, then it will just give those who prefer MF another choice. I am not sure if I would switch or not, but I am not sad to see it on the market.
If the 50 f/2 is close to as good as the 55 f/1.8, I'd switch. Here's why:
- it's smaller (size is more important to me than weight)
- it has a mechanical manual focus ring
- icing on the cake is the build quality which seems higher
