Just be careful playing with 'alternative' glass . . . switching back to L glass can be disappointing.
Some of us ended up with Canon simply because with adapters it takes a variety of mounts. (C/Y film user). I find M/F to be satisfactory (ee-s on 5d) but stop-down metering is annoying. Now Nikon+Zeiss ZF looks interesting . . . .
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.
My dad was one of those guys 40 years ago, he explained it this way --- F16 and the biggest battery pack you could handle to power the flash I sold some of his Graflex gear on Ebay a couple years ago and the one flash add a battery box almost as large a car battery! It probably weighed 10 pounds or more when loaded.
1. Lighter and smaller super wide aperture lenses than canonīs Ls.
2. The slower process makes me more aware of the decisions, especially composition.
3. I like manual focusing, and the older manual lenses have much nicer and smoother manual focus rings.
4. I like stop down metering. I can instantly set the f stop to the most visually appealing setting.
5. I am also starting to enjoy the street shooting idea of preseting everything, incl focus and fstop and shoot based on a pre-set range of focus area. In my opinion this only really works on MF lenses because AF lenses have a tendency to creep more over time, while MF have tighter focus rings and donīt really creep.
Right now I have a Nikkor 85 f1.4 on my 5D Perfect mix of size and aperture and quality. Sharp and very little color fringing.
1. Wide angle image quality is better (particularly edges)
2. Lenses are lighter and more compact
3. For landscape photography I use manual focusing all the time
B Landau wrote:
2. Lenses are lighter and more compact
Compact maybe, but like-for-like the old all-metal construction is heavier than the modern plastic equivalent. I'll take metal over plastic any day of the week though
B Landau wrote:
1. Wide angle image quality is better (particularly edges)
2. Lenses are lighter and more compact
3. For landscape photography I use manual focusing all the time
I tried some shooting with my 28 and 35mm primes recently...couldn't get accurate focus to save my life. The screen in the 10D seems hard to use for MF the close you get to infinity. Or maybe it's just that I'm trying to focus on things that are farther away (and harder to see). Seems much easier to focus up close. Now, where did that microprism go...
foxbat wrote:
Compact maybe, but like-for-like the old all-metal construction is heavier than the modern plastic equivalent. I'll take metal over plastic any day of the week though
The build quality of a lot of older lenses is waaay better than most lenses made today...one of the reasons I like them.
I use a 28-70L as my general use zoom, and it's spent a lot of time hanging off my 10D. I spent the last couple of weeks with various Super Taks stuck on it, and I just put the 28-70 back on yesterday. Man...I forgot what hog that thing is! All my older primes a much smaller and lighter than that thing. Ok, well the 400mm Spiratone is a lot longer, but it still weighs less . I think the only one I have that is heavier is my MTO 1000mm mirror lens. Now, THERE's a hog.
P.S. you should see the Hasselblad Planar CF 80/2.8 that I'm trying to graft onto a Pentacon 6 to EOS tilt adapter - it'll be great (if it stays on the adapter).
JC. does your Pentacon adapter have shift and tilt ability and is there a tripod mount on it?
I use a mirex with hasselblad lenses and they are very solid performers. the 50 is almost as sharp as a 35mm standart lens, the 80 is also very nice.
My Pentacon 6 (P6) adapter has only tilt, and it doesn't have a tripod mount. I posted a shot of it on Medium format to EF mount t/s adapter?.
I also have a Mamiya 645 shift adapter with P6 and Hasselblad to M645 adapters, and I'm staring to get some good results from them, but I haven't had much time recently to do any serious work with them.
I recently got a Hasselblad extension tube that I hoped to use for parts to replace the P6 mount on my P6 to EOS tilt adapter, but it won't be so simple, and so I might try the Mirex that you mentioned. I have CF versions of the Hasselblad 50/4 and 80/2.8, and also Zeiss Jena Pentacon 6 Flektogon 50/4 and Distagon 80/2.8. I suspect the Hassys will give better results on the M645 shift adapter, and if they do, I'll get the Mirex T&S adapter, and sell off the Pentacon 6 lenses. I've also been trying to get a Schneider-K Xenotar MF 80/2.8 (Exakta 66 = Pentacon 6), but they're scarce and expensive, although they have new ones at B&H for $800US.
Regardless, I'll keep the M645 shift adapter for use with a Mamiya 645 C 35/3.5 N. I'd like to compare this Mamiya with a SMC Pentax-A 645 35/3.5, but unless I can get the Pentax on a shift adapter, it's not worthwhile for me, as there are many other great options for a "straight-up" f = 35mm lens on a 5D.
I sold some of his Graflex gear on Ebay a couple years ago and the one flash add a battery box almost as large a car battery! It probably weighed 10 pounds or more when loaded.