Just curious...why does everyone else use alternative glass on their cameras? IQ? "Character"?, Just to be different? I've really enjoyed using my old MF lenses on my 10D for a while, partly for all of the above reasons. Just wondering why everyone else does . I like my L lenses, but my old manual primes just bring some character to the table they seem to lack.
for me, it is about image quality. i find in many cases, especially on the wide end, that the alt lenses provide much improved IQ. the nice thing about the canon is we can pick and choose the best lens at each focal length, be it a canon, zeiss or even a nikon.
jonboring wrote:
for me, it is about image quality. i find in many cases, especially on the wide end, that the alt lenses provide much improved IQ. the nice thing about the canon is we can pick and choose the best lens at each focal length, be it a canon, zeiss or even a nikon.
This and that they cost less than the Canon equivalent counterparts.
A bit from Chris, a bit from John, it's about fun and superb image quality for me.
Much of the photography that I personally find worth doing is slow and deliberate (i.e. on tripod, still subjects, etc.), and often not benefited at all by AF. Fiddling with manual aperture and focus rings is fun and, when you nail a shot, so so much more gratifying than taking the same pic with AF.
The money thing isn't really part of it for me. I've spent more money experimenting than I would have had I just gone with whatever Canon offered at a particular focal length and max aperture. It seems with alternative lenses I'm always buying, selling, looking to buy, or looking to sell.
Edited by StevenPA on Sep 07, 2007 at 11:04 PM GMT
I love the feel of a good manual focus lens. I had never liked AF in the past and never really found it faster to use as I found myself always centering the subject, locking AF and then recomposing. Much faster to compose anywhere in the frame with a good viewfinder/manual system for me. I also find that with a completely manual working process, I tend to think more about each and every shot. Image quality wise, I like having the option to shoot various brand lenses which have a very distinct character or fingerprint as regards color, contrast, bokeh, sharpness, etc. I can't think of one canon lens I have tried or used yet which I prefer over the alternative version as regards character but I have not tried them all yet.
ditto everyone's very astute comments...MF focus is easy thru the bright 10D VF (and I'm gathering will be as well on the 40D) even stopped down a click or two (offsetting the manual aperture operation), and I find the color character of nikkors very pleasing...
in my case, I had all these nikkors from my film days and couldn't let them go...wellllll, I did let the 35/2 and 58/1.4 go because the Canons (35/2 and 50/1.8 mkI) are just fine and I'm not against using Canons on my 10D...once discovering that I could more effectively use my nikkors on my $400 Canon (and NOT any Nikon short of the D200/300) I fleabayed a 300/4.5 nikkor for only $60 shipped, and as most other MF nikkors can be gotten for under $100, these high IQ lenses (esp on 1.6x bods) are even more the bargain...I'm more than happy going from Nikon to Canon bod which btw I prefer in size and ergonomics...
Image quality, size and weight (lighter is better) or because Canon doesn't offer the equivalent. That is why I end up keeping so few alternate lenses, because the image quality is rarely substantially better than the Canon offerings.
ditto everyone's very astute comments...MF focus is easy thru the bright 10D VF (and I'm gathering will be as well on the 40D) even stopped down a click or two (offsetting the manual aperture operation), and I find the color character of nikkors very pleasing...
in my case, I had all these nikkors from my film days and couldn't let them go...wellllll, I did let the 35/2 and 58/1.4 go because the Canons (35/2 and 50/1.8 mkI) are just fine and I'm not against using Canons on my 10D...once discovering that I could more effectively use my nikkors on my $400 Canon (and NOT any Nikon short of the D200/300) I fleabayed a 300/4.5 nikkor for only $60 shipped, and as most other MF nikkors can be gotten for under $100, these high IQ lenses (esp on 1.6x bods) are even more the bargain...I'm more than happy going from Nikon to Canon bod which btw I prefer in size and ergonomics...
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I love the feel of a good manual focus lens. I had never liked AF in the past and never really found it faster to use as I found myself always centering the subject, locking AF and then recomposing. Much faster to compose anywhere in the frame with a good viewfinder/manual system for me. I also find that with a completely manual working process, I tend to think more about each and every shot.
This is a big part of it for me as well...by slowing the whole process down, I've found that I tend to take better pictures just because I have to take my time. With a nice AF lens and program mode, it's easy to get into "spray and pray" mode...and hope you get a few keepers out of the 800 shots you took . My keeper/toss rate is higher when I'm shooting fully manual I think. OTOH, there are some situations when you just have to have AI servo, but for me that isn't all that often anymore.
Price mainly, when you are on a tight budget and want a quality 300mm f/2.8, the nikkor ais is pretty much the only option. The lens was fantastic and at $600 was a fraction of the $3500+ canon. Sacrificing autofocus meant a lot of missed shots, especially with moving subjects and less than optimal lighting. In the end, there are truly few lenses worth sacrificing AF for because any incremental increase in sharpness is nullified by inability to precisely hit focus. Unless you are shooting still lifes or landscapes at infinity, it's simply too stressful to do a paid shoot wedding/fashion/pr with manual focus lenses. Even 1D series viewfinders are insufficient for my eyes. Alternative lenses are more of novelty. I used the nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AIS for a while because it was an inexpensive alternative to the rare noctilux and canon f/1, and it was incredibly fun, less expensive than the canon 50mm f/1.4 and just had a different "look" than canon lenses. I use the nikon 85mm PC because the canon equivalent is mf as well, and I found the nikkor to be sharper, focuses closer and renders more pleasing OOF areas.
Price, novelty, or superiority. All in all, Canon's top offerings are hard to beat, and it's a law of diminishing returns. Even their weakness in wide angles has been addressed somewhat as Husband's (Mark) tests show to my eyes, that the canon 16-35mm mkII is remarkably good for a zoom, and compares serviceably to a Leica prime that is many times more expensive. With the versatility of AF, ability to use filters, and ability to zoom, it's quite compelling. Would I like to see better corners? YES. But I'd rather wait for the mkIII than buy the leica, at this point. Better yet, I'd like the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 to live up to its mtf and basically blow everybody away because it looks pretty darn spectacular. Maybe time for a switch to nikon....
pookipichu wrote:
In the end, there are truly few lenses worth sacrificing AF for because any incremental increase in sharpness is nullified by inability to precisely hit focus. Unless you are shooting still lifes or landscapes at infinity, it's simply too stressful to do a paid shoot wedding/fashion/pr with manual focus lenses.
Not to criticize your comment but out of curiousity, how were pros shooting weddings, fashion, pr with manual lenses in the past before the advent of AF? Is it just a whole different ball game now with greater expectations? Or is it just a matter of quantity over quality?
I like shooting manual focus because I'm not a pro and it forces me to think more about what I am doing as many others here have said. I went through L zooms, canon primes, and find I'm quite happy with my zeiss and Oly manual focus lenses. I feel like I'm learning more and the experience is much more satisfying.
Kuan wrote:
Not to criticize your comment but out of curiousity, how were pros shooting weddings, fashion, pr with manual lenses in the past before the advent of AF? Is it just a whole different ball game now with greater expectations? Or is it just a matter of quantity over quality?
Cheers all.
Like many here, I like experimenting with alternative lenses; however, I think the point the OP was trying to make is that it is tougher and less efficient today, to use MF lenses on AF bodies, not to say that it can't be done.
It is tougher to use MF lenses today because 1) we have to use adapters, and not all adapters work well; 2) have to manually focus, and DSLR screens are not optimized for MF; 3) metering can be thrown off if we start using non-manufacturer focusing screens. In the "old" MF days, one used a camera "system"; lens and camera from the same manufacturer, optimized for MF.
I think the other point the OP was trying to make is that as a professional, why subject yourself to the stress and risk of delivering less than desirable results when AF can deliver a higher probability of success with a lot less effort.
pookipichu wrote:
In the end, there are truly few lenses worth sacrificing AF for because any incremental increase in sharpness is nullified by inability to precisely hit focus. Unless you are shooting still lifes or landscapes at infinity, it's simply too stressful to do a paid shoot wedding/fashion/pr with manual focus lenses.
This depends a lot on the photographer. I use a mix of AF and MF lenses for this type of work and I do not find it stressful at all. After getting the 5D and Ee-S, my keeper rate with MF is more than sufficient.
So, for me, the focus thing is basically a non-issue. This makes the image quality, added character, much lower cost (generally speaking), and wonderful build quality of MF extremely attractive.
ldminoc wrote:
It is tougher to use MF lenses today because 1) we have to use adapters, and not all adapters work well; 2) have to manually focus, and DSLR screens are not optimized for MF; 3) metering can be thrown off if we start using non-manufacturer focusing screens. In the "old" MF days, one used a camera "system"; lens and camera from the same manufacturer, optimized for MF.
Decent adapters on a 5D with an Ee-S screen solves all three of those issues.
cogitech wrote:
Decent adapters on a 5D with an Ee-S screen solves all three of those issues.
Ideally at some point I'd like to upgrade to a 1Ds, and get the Canon cross split prism/microprism screen. MF on the 10D screen is kind of a struggle for me...at least after using SLRs from the 1960s & 70s. It works ok, but a screen designed for MF is soooo much easier to get it spot on. Going from a '60s Pentax to the 10D is like going from IMAX to a 19" TV .
Kuan wrote:
Not to criticize your comment but out of curiousity, how were pros shooting weddings, fashion, pr with manual lenses in the past before the advent of AF? Is it just a whole different ball game now with greater expectations? Or is it just a matter of quantity over quality?
I like shooting manual focus because I'm not a pro and it forces me to think more about what I am doing as many others here have said. I went through L zooms, canon primes, and find I'm quite happy with my zeiss and Oly manual focus lenses. I feel like I'm learning more and the experience is much more satisfying.
No worries, my comment is about my personal experience and so while someone else may have a different experience, I wouldn't interpret that as criticism. In other words, ymmv.
I've got a limited amount of time to work on my paid shoots, there is always almost a time crunch, rushing to some location, setting up, wardobe changes, makeup changes. I can't afford to miss the shot, and that is much more likely with manual focus because of my eyes. I just don't see that well, and the viewfinder is not big enough or bright enough for me. I can't redo the shots, because the location is booked for a certain period, wardrobe has already changed or makeup has changed or lighting has changed if I am shooting outside. Or worse, if the lighting is poor, manual focusing is a nightmare for me. If the light is too dark, I can't see the fine details enough to make sure I have critical focus wide open. Or if it is too bright, I am squinting. Toss in moving performers, models or whatever and I just can't beat ai servo for keeper rate.
Of course professionals have used manual focus through the decades, people also used to walk hundreds of miles to get to places. If I'm shooting still life, with a tripod and good lighting, sure manual focus is fine. Sort of like walking down the block on a nice day. How many sports shooters use manual focus? How many wedding photographers use manual focus while they're following the bride or trying to capture the bustle of the wedding. One misfocus and the cake being smeared on the bride's nose is over. It's not impossible to capture moment with manual focus as I am sure there are many that could do it. But for me, no. Too risky. My AF is much more reliable. I've used many different mf lenses. My miss rate with the 50mm f/1.2 was pretty substantial. Less so with the Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 but I still wouldn't trust it for a client. I do think expectations run high. People want a contact sheet full of photos they can use. Even AF is highly imperfect and people are disappointed when they love the thumbnail but the photo is not usable because the focus is off.
During a stressful job, manual focus would only add to my stress. And that answers the poster's question on why I personally use alternative lenses and conversely why I don't.
Edited by pookipichu on Sep 07, 2007 at 08:53 PM GMT
1. Resolution (the need to sharpen at 1/2 - 2/3rds the level needed for EF glass).
2. Color (as remembered vs. over-the top greens & reds)
3. 3D effect from some top CZ, Leica glass
4. QC (too many bum copies of so-called (and costly) modern 'pro' AF glass out there.
5. Construction quality (metal vs. plastic, smoooooooth focus, no wiggles & wobbles.)
6. Cost/quality equation of so-called 'old' glass in many cases
7. CHOICE beyond EF & Sigma - Nikon, Carl Zeiss, Leica, OM, Hassy, Mamiya 645 and on and on and on. I picked my sensor (currently 5D) now I can pick almost whatever lens I want to couple to it.
8. "...back (or front) focus..." - what's that?
9. For the shooting pace/pleasure that comes with using quality MF glass.
10. Cause I made the mistake of trying a CZ 28/2.8 on a whim and looking at the resulting image....
Image quality (color/contrast/resolution): Canon is good, but some of these alternative lenses are better. Of couse, image quality is subjective. For me, the alternative lenses I use are superior to the canon counterparts. And yes... I am a sucker for the "zeiss" look/micro-contrast
Size: Canon lenses are big and heavy (in most cases). Alternatives are smaller - critical if you are travelling.
Cost: In most cases, my alternative lenses cost as much or more than the canon comparable lens. So I would not call cost an advantage for me.
AF is not an issue with some of the alternative lenses - so I prefer these over the manual focus / step down metering. That and the fact that adding adapters is a hassle for me. So I tend to stay away from these. AF is important for me - especially when you don't have the time to manually focus or your subject isn't willing to stand still for a second.
Alternative lenses have some advantages over the canon (OEM) counterparts. But sometimes, the OEM lenses just are as good as alternative. Only way to figure out if the alternative is better or the OEM lens is better is actually go through the process of spending the $$$, cry or rejoice, and then decide which one works better for you.
. I like my L lenses, but my old manual primes just bring some character to the table they seem to lack.