p.2 #1 · Anyone walk about with the Voigt pancakes on their X bodies?
akfujishooter wrote:
That's quality feedback! I figured a wider lens would be much easier to nail focus quickly. I have the Thypoch 28 and chasing my 4 year old with it at wider apertures isn't the easiest at times. ~42mm isn't TOO tight, but I'm sure 28 equiv would be much much easier. I also got the Thypoch specifically for it's wide open characteristics, so I don't like shooting it stopped down haha. Something like the Voigt, I think I'd be much more apt to do so. Insanely fun lens and has made me want to shoot manual lenses day to day....Show more →
Had the Voigt 40mm f1.2 for my Sony A7CR body and tried to use it for portraits wide open. Way too difficult and my hit rate was miserable as the DOF is so tight. Got the Batis 40mm instead, it being a f2 lens, and the hit rate went way up. Really fast apertures and MF lenses are not a recipe for kids photography.
p.2 #2 · Anyone walk about with the Voigt pancakes on their X bodies?
SpecFoto wrote:
Had the Voigt 40mm f1.2 for my Sony A7CR body and tried to use it for portraits wide open. Way too difficult and my hit rate was miserable as the DOF is so tight. Got the Batis 40mm instead, it being a f2 lens, and the hit rate went way up. Really fast apertures and MF lenses are not a recipe for kids photography.
Haha I've made it work with varied levels of success. It's been a challenge, but having more fun with it than my AF lenses lately, really. If focus is a little bit off, so what, not the end of the world haha. BUT. Something wider is definitely appealing at times!
p.2 #3 · Anyone walk about with the Voigt pancakes on their X bodies?
I have owned most of the Voigtlander X mount lenses. I have bought, then sold, then bought again because I really like the results.. very sharp but not clinical, rich colors, fluid contrast.. not easy to put into words, but you get the idea.
Without a doubt, the manual focus requires more attention than autofocus, but that is fine with me, it slows the process down a bit and I end up with 'better' photos as far as I am concerned. However, autofocus certainly does help if your street photography involves moving subjects. .
50 years ago I started out in photography looking at upside down objects with a cloth over my head with a 4x5 film camera. So.. using a 5.79 mb EVF with a center blow up ... coupled with a distance scale is a piece of cake for me.
Presently using the 35 f 2 APO macro and the 27 f 2.0 Ultron.
Rick
X-H2VOIGTLANDER ULTRON 27mm F2 lens27mmf/6.41/250s200 ISO0.0 EV
X-T4VOIGTLANDER ULTRON 27mm F2 lens27mmf/4.51/400s200 ISO0.0 EV
X-T4VOIGTLANDER ULTRON 27mm F2 lens27mmf/9.01/250s200 ISO0.0 EV
p.2 #4 · Anyone walk about with the Voigt pancakes on their X bodies?
RickPerry wrote:
Without a doubt, the manual focus requires more attention than autofocus, but that is fine with me, it slows the process down a bit and I end up with 'better' photos as far as I am concerned.
As a person who worked for yeas in a manual focus environment — and who still chooses to do so for landscape photography — I’ve never understood that notion that MF is better because “it slows the process down.”
You can work at whatever pace you wish with lenses that have AF. Turn off AF and focus manually when and if you need ot, and use it when that is beneficial.
And if you want to slow down, you don’t need a lens that forces you to work more slowly. You can just… work more slowly. ;-)
p.2 #5 · Anyone walk about with the Voigt pancakes on their X bodies?
Yes, gdMitchell, You are correct.
With an autofocus lens, you can always focus manually if you choose. However, a Voigtlander manual focus is not focus by wire, a big difference. It manipulates the focus in a smooth even flow as opposed to the often jerky step motion of an autofocus lens.
I will rephrase to: The Voigtlander manual focus is a true manual focus lens, that, imo, enhances the photographic experience. Btw.. Often I will set up for a zone focus that is instant. Plus, when adjusting f stop, you see the actual depth of field.
More importantly, imo, the Voigtlander lenses render the scene with a film-like quality that is more pleasing to MY eyes.
Rick
X-T4VOIGTLANDER MACRO APO-ULTRON 35mm F2 lens35mmf/8.01/200s200 ISO0.0 EV
p.2 #6 · Anyone walk about with the Voigt pancakes on their X bodies?
RickPerry wrote:
Yes, gdMitchell, You are correct.
With an autofocus lens, you can always focus manually if you choose. However, a Voigtlander manual focus is not focus by wire, a big difference. It manipulates the focus in a smooth even flow as opposed to the often jerky step motion of an autofocus lens.
I will rephrase to: The Voigtlander manual focus is a true manual focus lens, that, imo, enhances the photographic experience. Btw.. Often I will set up for a zone focus that is instant. Plus, when adjusting f stop, you see the actual depth of field.
More importantly, imo, the Voigtlander lenses render the scene with a film-like quality that is more pleasing to MY eyes.
I’m aware the fact that there are analog (what you call “true manual focus”) and digital (what you call “focus by wire”) manual focus mechanisms. I’ve used and currently use both. Both types are “true manual focus” lenses.
A lot of your perspective seems to rely on hyperbolic descriptions (“jerky sep motion,” of supposed problems with the digital MF systems that don’t correspond to the actual experience. I’d encourage you to actually try manually focusing some of the Fujifilm lenses — you’ll see that there is no “jerky step motion.”
The zone focus point is a red herring. You can do that with the Fujifilm lenses, too, if you prefer. Set the focus and turn off AF. There’s a switch for that. (I would only rarely use zone focus these days. That pre was fine in the pre-AF era when it was the only option in those situations where things like split prism MF were too slow, so we accepted the less sharp images that resulted and limited ourselves to relatively smaller prints that we expect to be able to make today.)
At one point, as a person who used to do the f/8 hyperfocal thing on true MF-only cameras and who now uses AF-equipped cameras. This was maybe a decade ago when my Fujifilm x-trans camera’s AF was very slow. (I was using the XE1 at the time.) So I switched off AF while doing some street photography and tried the old zone focus approach and then compared that performance against what I got with AF.
Both have their downsides. It always (whether manual or auto) takes more time to focus than to not focus, so clearly zone focus wins on speed. However, zone focus, pretty much by definition, loses on accuracy. If you will only view your photographs rather small — back in the zone focus era we rarely printed larger than 8x10 — then it can be good enough, though clearly far below current standards for accuracy and sharpness. But if you are concerned about sharpness and the potential to make larger prints…then the AF option gets you there.
I decided, after trying it out, that I got more usable photographs with AF than with MF and zone focusing.
You are, of course, free to work in whatever way you think best. But having used both systems… I want both options on my lenses and it is hard for me to imagine that the difference in the feel of the MF process is worth handicapping myself.
p.2 #7 · Anyone walk about with the Voigt pancakes on their X bodies?
gdanmitchell wrote:
I’d encourage you to actually try manually focusing some of the Fujifilm lenses — you’ll see that there is no “jerky step motion.”
I've tried MF with lots of different Fujifilm lenses. Every single one of them is noticeably jerky when manually focusing, even the XF 14mm with the clutch focus. Oddly the Sigma lenses for X mount focus more smoothly in manual mode in my experience.
