drive_75 wrote:
Why do I need focus breathing? Please excuse my ignorance.
Focus breathing is an apparent change of the field of view as you move focus from near to far or vice versa. I notice that the field of view tends to expand near infinity focus and shrink toward minimum focus distance. Most of my primes tend to exhibit the behavior save for the 300 f/4.5.
Focus breathing is typically an unattractive lens effect in movie-making. Most movie lenses don't have this effect and I think most photographic still lenses do.
Next time you get a chance, set your camera on a tripod and try moving the focus from one end to another and watching for the objects on the edges of the frame and you should see what I"m talking about.
kakomu wrote:
Next time you get a chance, set your camera on a tripod and try moving the focus from one end to another and watching for the objects on the edges of the frame and you should see what I"m talking about.
This is what I did, and I can confirm that the Samyang 85 has none.
cogitech wrote:
This is what I did, and I can confirm that the Samyang 85 has none.
I work in the film business, I know what you mean. But I concur with Cogitech, the Rokinon I have does not do this, it is an excellent lens, and has excellent bokeh. I don't need to defend the lens, I may sell it (I know I will be sorry) as I just don't shoot at 85 much, not a portrait shooter. Samyang has done an amazing job coming this close to the 85L at 7 times its price. I know it is hard to believe, but this company, IMO, has come the closest to any company ever in matching L glass at a fraction of the price. I've shot and owned Tamron, Tokina, Sigma and have to say the Samyang/Rokinon is the best I have shot with. In the alt category I also have a C/Y 35-70 3.4 that the Samyang matches in quality. Give credit where credit is due. And I hope the 35 comes along soon, now that is a focal length that I need more, and I will be first in line if they offer it.
cogitech wrote:
This is what I did, and I can confirm that the Samyang 85 has none.
That's good to know. I checked a few other lenses of mine. My Nikon 50mm primes all have it. The EF 100 f/2 has some, but has the least amount that I can tell.
Nonetheless, I wish I had held off on the 100 f/2 until after I got into manual focus, because then I would own the 85 f/1.4. However, my 100 f/2 fulfills that focal length area for me and produces wonderful results (in my opinion, at least). So, I won't bother.
However, I'll reiterate my excitement over a cheap 14mm f/2.8. Can't wait for that. And I guess I won't have to purchase a Nikon 35 f/1.4 Ai-S if Samyang is releasing one
markle wrote:
not really: using the 85 in MF may be cute and everything for the first 15 minutes, but after that it's not gonna be fun (at all)
Been using MF with a 50mm, 135mm, 180mm and 300mm lens. It's my preferred method of shooting. It makes photography more fun for me and ultimately gives me more control. This added control makes everything that much more satisfying.
kakomu wrote:
Been using MF with a 50mm, 135mm, 180mm and 300mm lens. It's my preferred method of shooting. It makes photography more fun for me and ultimately gives me more control. This added control makes everything that much more satisfying.
+ 1,000,000
AF is infinitely annoying once you get good at MF.
>>AF is infinitely annoying once you get good at MF.
I think it matters a lot what you are shooting... people didnt go from years of shooting MF to AF because they were all idiots... good MF lenses can be a joy for certain shooting, but definitely not everything.
mh2000 wrote:
>>AF is infinitely annoying once you get good at MF.
I think it matters a lot what you are shooting... people didnt go from years of shooting MF to AF because they were all idiots... good MF lenses can be a joy for certain shooting, but definitely not everything.
Right. Not all of them were idiots, but if you don't shoot sports or dog agility or BIF, then AF is annoying as shit. YMMV.
If you dont have much experience with MF, the real advantage is that *you* are the one focusing and you know what an eye is. The camera just has a focus patch and might just see a cheek or something in the focus patch that is at a slightly different distance than the eye that you want the camera to focus on. AF accels when speed is of great importance.
drive_75 wrote:
I agree about the 14mm lens. I was concern about manually focusing the 85mm at such a small DOF. I like all my pictures to be sharp on the eyes. I am considering the 14mm Samyang too when it comes out(depend on the review).
markle wrote:
let's see.. I shoot products in regular basis, on a tripod, 1DsII and 85 1.2, 200 items average, 4 shots each and if I had to manual focus all the shots then I'd move to another line of business
A lot of the people who shoot products shoot with T/S lenses or Medium Format, both of which are frequently manual focus.
markle wrote:
what kind of shots do you have in mind to use MF?
flowers?
People in downtown Chicago. Cats in a shelter. Ducks. Other fast moving objects, etc. It's not like I have an innate skill to shoot or track dynamic objects with a MF lens. It just takes a little practice and some patience and it's not particularly difficult either.
markle wrote:
us?
who's us?
the "many" thingy doesn't really work here as I assure you that many more use AF cameras, many many more than that "many" of yours
bbelieve me
A large quantity (probably the majority) of the people in the Alt glass forum shoot with manual focus lenses. A large quantity of medium format shooters use MF and anyone who shoots with large format uses manual focus. Let's not forget people who still use Canon FD cameras or Nikon F3 or earlier cameras or any rangefinder camera.
Moreover, it's understandable that most people use AF. It's easier and doesn't require nearly the effort as manually focusing which makes it more accessible.
However, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Just because MF isn't your cup of tea doesn't mean you have to disparage it. The same reasons are used time and again about MF. While AF is nice, it hinders your ability to compose, being stuck with the center point or cruddy outside points or having to spend a lot of money on a 1 series body hinders the ability to compose a shot with something in focus outside of the center of the frame.
On top of which, there's a sense of accomplishment that comes with manually focusing. AF on a DSLR is so easy, anyone can do it. You can point and mindlessly click until your card is full. With manual focus, you actually have to concentrate on what you're shooting. This concentration yields less pictures overall (unless you're machine gunning it), but probably increases the keepers dramatically. Also, when you focus on the focus (har har) and you're free to compose outside of the center of the frame, you feel as though you have a greater hand in the creation of these photographs.
Manually focusing has often caused me to slow down and make far more interesting photographs than I would have made otherwise with an AF lens.
markle wrote:
let's see.. I shoot products in regular basis, on a tripod, 1DsII and 85 1.2, 200 items average, 4 shots each and if I had to manual focus all the shots then I'd move to another line of business
what kind of shots do you have in mind to use MF?
flowers?
My wife and I shoot products all the time. Manual focus. One shot each. Dead simple and there's no other way we'd do it.
markle wrote:
let's see.. I shoot products in regular basis, on a tripod, 1DsII and 85 1.2, 200 items average, 4 shots each and if I had to manual focus all the shots then I'd move to another line of business
what kind of shots do you have in mind to use MF?
flowers?
I am sorry, but your subject does move extremely fast. I see why you require blazing AF from a Canon 1D to capture it. That 85f1.2 II does move at the speed of lightning.
They're freaking product shots, I really don't see why you need AF, unless you are one of those shooters, thank you come again. Judging from your work load, maybe you are one of them.
Is it the 70s again?