[zz7]

Recently I have been contemplating on pros and cons of MF lenses, most of them currently in production seem to be of very high quality, especially Zeiss and Voightlander, which is confirmed by quite of the reviews in this site.



I wonder what is your experience with this? Is the lack of AF big trouble to you? I consider some Zeiss primes for landscape photography. Recent newsletter of theirs reveals some very inspiring results achieved:



http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Co...4C00590B1A



Cheers!

[Brightcolours]

Hmm, I only see photos made from a plane, made when the light was good (low, early sun). MF lenses do not come with airplanes. Zeiss lenses donot come with planes.



There is nothing special about the photos' in terms of the lens used. It would NOT make a difference if you used another brand lens, AF or not. Do not let a photograher's skill and knowledge get confused with what a certain lens brings. You like the viewpoint (airplane) light (early/late) and skill/eye of the photographer, it has nothing to do with the lenses used.



Of course, some (most?) Zeiss lenses are very good. Some Voigtlander lenses are good too. Some Canon lenses are very good, some Nikon lenses, even some Sigma lenses. Difference of these with the Zeiss and Voigtlandenr lenses is that they ALSO offer AF when needed.



The choice is totally up to you, just do not get succered into thinking you buy skill with a certain lens. A skilled photographer can make great images with whatever lens from whatever brand.

[quote name='zz7' date='14 July 2010 - 02:54 PM' timestamp='1279115684' post='1000']

Recently I have been contemplating on pros and cons of MF lenses, most of them currently in production seem to be of very high quality, especially Zeiss and Voightlander, which is confirmed by quite of the reviews in this site.



I wonder what is your experience with this? Is the lack of AF big trouble to you? I consider some Zeiss primes for landscape photography. Recent newsletter of theirs reveals some very inspiring results achieved:



http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Co...4C00590B1A



Cheers!

[/quote]

[zz7]

[quote name='Brightcolours' date='14 July 2010 - 08:01 PM' timestamp='1279134111' post='1006']

Hmm, I only see photos made from a plane, made when the light was good (low, early sun). MF lenses do not come with airplanes. Zeiss lenses donot come with planes.



There is nothing special about the photos' in terms of the lens used. It would NOT make a difference if you used another brand lens, AF or not. Do not let a photograher's skill and knowledge get confused with what a certain lens brings. You like the viewpoint (airplane) light (early/late) and skill/eye of the photographer, it has nothing to do with the lenses used.



Of course, some (most?) Zeiss lenses are very good. Some Voigtlander lenses are good too. Some Canon lenses are very good, some Nikon lenses, even some Sigma lenses. Difference of these with the Zeiss and Voigtlandenr lenses is that they ALSO offer AF when needed.



The choice is totally up to you, just do not get succered into thinking you buy skill with a certain lens. A skilled photographer can make great images with whatever lens from whatever brand.

[/quote]







Thanks for the comment. I understand all this. However article suggests that for certain applications (like landscapes or aerials) certain lenses do the best. I mean it imposes that manual focus in these conditions brings the advantage over autofocus...



I wonder if some members of this forum could second that.



Thanks!



Alex

[Rainer]

[quote name='zz7' date='14 July 2010 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1279138961' post='1007']

I mean it imposes that manual focus in these conditions brings the advantage over autofocus...

I wonder if some members of this forum could second that.

[/quote]



There are situations where autofocus fails more often. In such a case, manual focussing

might produce more consistent results. But who said, that with an AF lens, you cannot

switch off the AF and use manual focus?



Pure MF lenses do have some sort of nostalgic aura around them, and in fact I just try to

complete a small set of MF-only lenses for myself. But this is (at least for me) not for the quality

of the results. It is just that it brings back some of the habits of how taking photographs was

done 30 years ago ... which I still enjoy. There are extremly good MF lenses,. but for the price they

cost, you also get extremly good AF lenses.



Just my 2cts ... Rainer

[Guest]

This is an interesting topic, and it often (sadly) descends into a purely technical discussion about resolution, distortion, and so forth.



But there is a certain magic about using any kind of equipment which demands a more active participation from the user which is hard to describe. Just as the magic of hand-developing prints creates an excitement that using Photoshop cannot ... though it will not necessarily guarantee better results.



Personally I am much more content to pit myself against 'basic' equipment, and to see if I can grab the moment I want at just the right time. This does indeed require practice, and it also means frustration at 'lost' shots. On the other hand, you as a photographer are not just an operator of an automatic machine that will (these days) capture perfectly any scene at which you point it - you are required to anticipate, wait, and consider what you will photograph. The use of manual lenses does bring you closer to the feeling that it is 'this moment' that is important, because in the next moment, your subject may have moved.

For landscape photography, focus is a purely technical function, so if you have good eyesight, the movement of the lens can be either mechanical or manual without affecting the results. However, no sport publication will thank you if you turn up for a basketball game with a Zeiss 100mm on your Canon 1D.



In terms of focus accuracy, I don't notice any major differences between manual/auto lenses - I've had some AF lenses that focus wrong 50% of the time, but it depends on the lighting and the subject.

[wim]

[quote name='Pinhole' date='15 July 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1279152641' post='1010']

This is an interesting topic, and it often (sadly) descends into a purely technical discussion about resolution, distortion, and so forth.[/quote]

Well, looks like this is taking a different, more interesting direction anyway <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' />.

But there is a certain magic about using any kind of equipment which demands a more active participation from the user which is hard to describe.

I do think that that is about the photographer, not about the equipment. I think this is about what you want to achieve, and I also think it doesn't matter what type of lens you use in that case, or other equipment. As long as you have a vision of what you want to achieve.

Just as the magic of hand-developing prints creates an excitement that using Photoshop cannot ... though it will not necessarily guarantee better results.

I don't necessarily agree with you here, having done both extensively. hand-developing only brings excitement if you are trying to coax the most out of it. Otherwise, it just becomes like any other print from a fast turnaround store. The same is true for Photoshop et al. I can assure you that if I want to create exactly that which I visualized, I often spend hours behind the computer, just like I used to do in the darkroom, for a single print that is. Often it takes more time on a computer than in the darkroom, basically because you need to pay extra attention for different formats, to have those optimalized for the different formats and viewing conditions (screen, web, print, large print, etc.).



I think there is easily as much magic, if not more, in seeing a perfect 40 cm X 60 cm or 60 cm X 90 cm print rolling out of a photoprinter as is a similar sized print from a darkroom. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. Well, I do get excited, at least <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

Personally I am much more content to pit myself against 'basic' equipment, and to see if I can grab the moment I want at just the right time. This does indeed require practice, and it also means frustration at 'lost' shots. On the other hand, you as a photographer are not just an operator of an automatic machine that will (these days) capture perfectly any scene at which you point it - you are required to anticipate, wait, and consider what you will photograph.

Not only anticipate, but also visualize. Why would this be different with equipment that is more automated BTW? I think this should be true for any photography sessions.

The use of manual lenses does bring you closer to the feeling that it is 'this moment' that is important, because in the next moment, your subject may have moved.

I don't think it makes a difference at all, MF or AF in this regard. It si just as easy to miss a moment with MF as it is with AF, and actually, you can miss it faster with faster equipment <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I think that what is really important is how a lens renders. What is a good lens for one subject, may well be less so for another, either because of its specific direct optical characteristics, or because of the way such a lens renders differently. This is actually one of the reasons why some photographers have different lens brands in their bags of lenses with the same FL.



I don't think it matters a lot if a lens has AF or MF in that case. Essentially, AF offers great convenience over MF, especially if and when ones eyes are getting worse. The concept of focusing really stays the same, even though many don't necessarily think this through. The rendering doesn't. And this is really another interesting part of lens choice, because we all like things differently <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

For landscape photography, focus is a purely technical function, so if you have good eyesight, the movement of the lens can be either mechanical or manual without affecting the results. However, no sport publication will thank you if you turn up for a basketball game with a Zeiss 100mm on your Canon 1D.

Funnily enough, that is what we used to do 30 years ago <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. It is possible, just a little harder. I reckon that if you give a talented sports photographer a manual lens, he will still bring home the goods, but maybe just a few less shots <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Many of the better photographs are exactly that because th ephotographer knew what he was doing, and was on the right spot at the right moment, becaus eit was more or less planned, and (pre)visualized.. Personally, I like to go back to the same spot over and over again, at different times of the day, walk around it, look around for the best angle, etc. That way I know when it is the best time to be there, and also what teh best spots are.

In terms of focus accuracy, I don't notice any major differences between manual/auto lenses - I've had some AF lenses that focus wrong 50% of the time, but it depends on the lighting and the subject.

Well, that's also true for MF. When it gets too dark, the human eye can't be relied upon too well either, where often a focus assist on the camera will allow accurate focus for an AF camera <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim

[edge]

Personally, I like MF lenses because of its limitations.

Although it's possible to switch off AF on AF lenses like people above mentioned, it's hard to switch it off when it is readily available. Sometimes it's good to be "forced" to be more interactive with the camera.

I think that having an enjoyable photographic "experience" is just as important as producing high quality photos. Like someone once said, "Life is a journey, not a destination". A lot of us are not pros, so I think it's refreshing to just be forced to put you skills/eyes/intuition to the test.

I know that many times when I put an AF lens on, I start to rely on the camera's crutches way too much. When I put on a MF lens, put the camera into manual exposure, and pull out my light meter, I enjoy shooting a lot more. Sure I miss some shots I wish I could have taken, but I tell myself that the pictures I get are the pictures I deserve. And if you are shooting with a Zeiss, it's definitely not the optics that are to be blamed.

[Guest]

[quote name='edge' date='15 July 2010 - 04:07 AM' timestamp='1279159678' post='1014']

Personally, I like MF lenses because of its limitations.

Although it's possible to switch off AF on AF lenses like people above mentioned, it's hard to switch it off when it is readily available. Sometimes it's good to be "forced" to be more interactive with the camera.

I think that having an enjoyable photographic "experience" is just as important as producing high quality photos. Like someone once said, "Life is a journey, not a destination". A lot of us are not pros, so I think it's refreshing to just be forced to put you skills/eyes/intuition to the test.

I know that many times when I put an AF lens on, I start to rely on the camera's crutches way too much. When I put on a MF lens, put the camera into manual exposure, and pull out my light meter, I enjoy shooting a lot more. Sure I miss some shots I wish I could have taken, but I tell myself that the pictures I get are the pictures I deserve. And if you are shooting with a Zeiss, it's definitely not the optics that are to be blamed.

[/quote]



A little bit of duct tape over the AF/MF switch can help you



-Lars

[zz7]

[quote name='larsrc' date='15 July 2010 - 08:12 AM' timestamp='1279177925' post='1015']

A little bit of duct tape over the AF/MF switch can help you



-Lars

[/quote]





I have some experience trying to use AF lenses in manual mode. Maybe I have used wrong lens models, but this was not very good experience (focus ring wobbling and going past infinity...). I just made conclusion that AF lenses are simply not intended for accurate manual focus (this is indicated in the article as well).



This is one of the main reasons why I am considering MF over AF lenses for landscape photography.



Do you guys have examples of some modern AF lenses which allows trouble-free manual focusing? What I mean by this is - if you place focus ring on infinity, you get the actual infinity setting and focus ring being smooth and wobbling-free.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='zz7' date='15 July 2010 - 08:57 AM' timestamp='1279180647' post='1016']

I have some experience trying to use AF lenses in manual mode. Maybe I have used wrong lens models, but this was not very good experience (focus ring wobbling and going past infinity...). I just made conclusion that AF lenses are simply not intended for accurate manual focus (this is indicated in the article as well).



This is one of the main reasons why I am considering MF over AF lenses for landscape photography.



Do you guys have examples of some modern AF lenses which allows trouble-free manual focusing? What I mean by this is - if you place focus ring on infinity, you get the actual infinity setting and focus ring being smooth and wobbling-free.

[/quote]

You have a misconception there. Those lenses are SUPPOSED to be able to move past the infinity mark. That does not mean that the lenses are not at infinity around the infinity mark, though (you can test that yourself). The reason those lenses are able to go past the infinity mark is because with changing temperatures and conditions, the focussing can change. And this way, you are always sure the lens can reach infinity focussing.



My EF 35mm f2 certainly does focus at infinity when at the infinity marking, and yes, it can more beyond that marking... I fail to see the problem.



Now why would that be a problem? You actually use the lens markings for focussing? And then? What is the problem?



And about a "wobbly" focus ring. Of course, you may prefer the feel of a machined lens with well damped focus ring from for instance Zeiss over a budget AF zoom lens, that is fine. That is your choice. However, your original post was not about that, it was about if MF lenses are more suitable for landscape work. They are not. You can set any AF lens to MF, when MF is preferred, and it does not make the lens deliver better results, just because it lacks AF.



Now I get the feeling you think some (like me) want to argue AGAINST Zeiss or Voigtlander lenses. But that is not the case. I was just responding to your original post, and the arial photos which impressed you, and wanted to point out that those photos show NOTHING specific about any lens (except that they have good contrast), but are all about the actual photographer (and a plane).



I use my Canon 35mm f2 (very affordable) and EF 70-200mm f4 L USM most of the time without AF (so.. as MF lenses). Yes, the Canon 35mm f2 does not reach the sturdy feel and tight tolerances of the Zeiss 35mm f2. But it is more affordable, it is much more compact and light, and it does allow AF when needed. It is all about your personal preferences and requirements, and it is FINE to buy MF lenses, whether they are from Voigtlander (I want the 20mm f3.5 SLII pancake from Voigtlander for macro work), Zeiss, or even old MF Nikkor lenses.

Just your original proposition is not correct (MF lenses being better suited for certain tasks).



About AF lenses with a good MF feel: That depends on the lens. And what you prefer. Most L lenses from Canon offer a very sturdy feel, with good MF action. but they do feel different from traditional metal machines MF lenses, because they have a construction which allows MF during AF operation, making the MF ring "slip".

Just get whichever lens suits YOU best, in optics, in price, in materials and/or in feel.