[Guest]

Some unique lenses in their days were the olympus 12-60 and contax 21f2.8. The 21f2.8 had mustach wave form which was a bit annoying but amazing contrast and resolution. The 12-60 - was very very good though excessively large. Then again the original 4/3 system had some excessively large camers (like the e-3). These days the 12-100f4 is truely unique in performance (though i'm sure someone will compare it to 'relative' speed and claim otherwise); though it is a bit large for the system.

 

The 17-55 was ok but i'm not sure it is any better than the 12-40 (micro 4/3) or 18-55 (fuji); though it is a bit faster if you do relative comparison to the 12-40 and the 18-55 is a little slower at the long end.

[JJ_SO]

Well, it's two reasons: manual focus check by visual sight, even with zebra, just sucks when the display is already at the edge of amplifying these 3 or 5 photons available at night. It's hard to tell waht is zebra and what is flickering noise. Focus by wire is worsening this: If I turn the focus ring slowly, nothing happens - at least no real difference. If I turn it a bit fast, it starts to jump for- or backward. It's highly unreliable as far as i can tell. Unpredictable acceleration and reduced sharpness control are two variables - one would be more than enough to handle.

 

If the object is close enough, I use a torch - but aiming at the stars with a torch is not helpful.

[Rover]

Sometimes there is no need to rely on the AF system. You can set focus to just about anywhere on a lens wider than 20mm and everything will be adequately be in focus. I prefer infinity and there are good reasons but that's another story.

 

Packing your gear just because the light is too low seems like a limp excuse.

 

There are great shots possible everywhere at anytime of day and night!

I've found that this is so not true; if something isn't blurred to the point of turning into a bunch of boken balls, that doesn't mean it's usably sharp. When MFing a 24mm lens (all right, it's not 20mm but close enough) for nightscapes the tiniest movement of the focus ring would throw the scene out of focus far enough for me to consider it unusable; stopping way down might've helped things but nightscapes aren't about shooting at f/11, innit.

When I have the time to shoot with the tripod, LV and MF, all is fine (well... not quite since I usually have trouble finding the point of best focus). But when I'm relying on AF (which is, 99% of the time), it usually means I'm constrained by the scene.

[JJ_SO]

Funny you mention the 24 and 20 mm FL. I found the 24 usually very precise in focus, Nikkor or Sigma didn't matter much. But the 20/1.4 is a challenge to AF with Phase detection. It's either the lens or the realtion between distance and focus area. To me it appears that with 20 mm there are just enough obstacles in reach to become potential focus targets.

 

And the turning angle of the focus ring is  much larger with MF lenses, true, but I prefer the geared drive of manual focus of "normal primes" - to me, precise enough.

[davidmanze]

 Oh at night to have an infinity focus stop.......those were the days!...

[JJ_SO]

 Oh at night to have an infinity focus stop.......those were the days!...

 

These are the days: Irix still has one. Adjustable...

[toni-a]

All right, all right. MF is indeed useful when shooting night landscapes.

However, I still fail understanding why focus by wire is an impediment in such situations...

Easy: Focus distance.

Some cameras show you where the focus distance is because they were designed to work with lenses that focus by wire, but y if you're a canon or Nikon user sometimes you have no clue where the focus is.

[JJ_SO]

And you, dear toni-a, once again have no clue what this distance scales do: Estimating.

 

On Fuji:

 

There's an index on a scale showing the estimated distance. This distance scale remains the same with every lens, no matter if it's a 12 or a 400 mm. I never saw same scales on lenses with such a variation. When manual focusing the index keeps on moving although I already stopped turning. You never see the minimal focus distance as the scales starts at 0.1 m, jumping to 0.5 - 1 - 1.5 - 2 - 3 - 5 - 10 - ∞. The space between 0.1 and 0.5 is about the same as between 5 and 10 m. Look at any prime lens or professional grade zoom lens and check the distance scale.

 

Two samples:

0.875 - 1 - 1.1 -1.3 -1.5 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 6  - ∞

0.27 - 0.35 - 0.5 - 1  - ∞

 

Both are f/1.8 lenses, one is 135 mm and the other 14 - but nobody had the idea to multiply the scale of the 14 mm to 2.7 - 3.5 - 5 - 10  - ∞ . It's not practical, that's why. And you cannot rely on them, that's the other why. I would not dare to set any focus wide open by these scales - and they show more steps in between than the Fuji.

 

Besides: What good is it to set the focus to, say 6 m, if I cannot estimate a 6 m distance myself? Of course, I can take my laser distance meter with me, but I need to aim it at something more or less rectangular to the laser beam. 

 

It would not hurt if you get yourself informed before you conclude what Canon and Nikon owners don't know - some of them do know a bit. And still make mistakes. 

[toni-a]

And you, dear toni-a, once again have no clue what this distance scales do: Estimating.

 

On Fuji:

 

There's an index on a scale showing the estimated distance. This distance scale remains the same with every lens, no matter if it's a 12 or a 400 mm. I never saw same scales on lenses with such a variation. When manual focusing the index keeps on moving although I already stopped turning. You never see the minimal focus distance as the scales starts at 0.1 m, jumping to 0.5 - 1 - 1.5 - 2 - 3 - 5 - 10 - ∞. The space between 0.1 and 0.5 is about the same as between 5 and 10 m. Look at any prime lens or professional grade zoom lens and check the distance scale.

 

Two samples:

0.875 - 1 - 1.1 -1.3 -1.5 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 6  - ∞

0.27 - 0.35 - 0.5 - 1  - ∞

 

Both are f/1.8 lenses, one is 135 mm and the other 14 - but nobody had the idea to multiply the scale of the 14 mm to 2.7 - 3.5 - 5 - 10  - ∞ . It's not practical, that's why. And you cannot rely on them, that's the other why. I would not dare to set any focus wide open by these scales - and they show more steps in between than the Fuji.

 

Besides: What good is it to set the focus to, say 6 m, if I cannot estimate a 6 m distance myself? Of course, I can take my laser distance meter with me, but I need to aim it at something more or less rectangular to the laser beam. 

 

It would not hurt if you get yourself informed before you conclude what Canon and Nikon owners don't know - some of them do know a bit. And still make mistakes. 

All I said standard lenses have focus scale written on them, in total darkness you can focus to infinity by looking just on the lens barrel

focus by wire lenses don't have focus scale on them, some cameras like Sony A7 and surely many others show you the focus distance on the camera LCD and thus you can focus to the desired distance with the lens

Focusing to take this one  was a nightmare with 10-18 that focuses by wire, had t focus scale or did the camera write focus distance on the LCD things would have been much easier,, anyway I am not quite happy with the focus here, I should have focused a little further

[JJ_SO]

The focus scale written on the lens' barrel is basically also estimation - and the numbers, as well as the ∞ character are big enough to cover some distance. One needs to stop down three stops to hit somewhere close to bull's eye.

 

The Batis lenses do have LCD focus scale, together with a DoF scale. But you know what? You gave me kind of motivation to go out in the dark and cold night and see if the clouds are too dense to see some stars...  thanks.