What do you think of this MF lens? wide open at f2.8.

Started Apr 19, 2014 | Discussions thread
The Incredible Hoke
The Incredible Hoke Contributing Member • Posts: 894
Re: What do you think of this MF lens? wide open at f2.8.

ultimitsu wrote:

ShawnHoke wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

ShawnHoke wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

ShawnHoke wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Good photography oppotunities in life are too few and far between to use awkward lenses.

If you value your photography, use AF lenses.

That's not really true - if you value critical focus, manually focus.

I am not sure what makes "critical focus" in your book. I settle for the level of focus I get from my AF lenses. MF lenses would mean a lot of my photos wouldn't have been taken.

The key word here is "settle." Some photographers prefer not to settle.

Not to settle for what? check out my challenge entries, which image do you think suffer from "settled" focus accuracy? and which of these do you think could be more accurate with MF?

I have no idea what you mean by challenge entries.

Look up DPR challenge.

If you use AF (I use it too - a LOT) and are happy then we are both happy. I'm sure your pictures are lovely and correctly focused.

That is the whole point. there is no scientific evidence that MF yield better focus than modern AF.

Many landscape shots do not use AF because DOF covers infinity and AF is not necessary.

However, focusing on a point to maximize DOF is necessary. You don't just open it up to infinity and hope for the best.

Not sure what this has to do with AF. with AF, you get to choose which AF point to forcus where, too.

Correct, you do get to choose either way.

So you do concede that MF being used for landscape has nothing to do with its superiority but because its inferiority not being an bothering issue.

If you don't need MF, then that's fantastic, but don't assume that others don't "value their photography" if they use MF lenses.

That is taking what I said out of context.

Not really, you said: "If you value your photography, use AF lenses."

Really, you cutting it from the line above is taking it out of context.

"Good photography opportunities in life are too few and far between to use awkward lenses."

In the end, it doesn't matter what you or I use. No one else probably cares. I happily use both, but often prefer MF. Please don't let that ruin your day.

Do not flatter yourself, nothing you can say or do could ruin my day. we are debating over a point, whether MF lenses yield any meaningful benefit over AF lenses to compensate for its slowness that makes you miss shots. I am not seeing you producing any evidence or useful arguments to support that contention. Please confine your reply to the topic and less about what it does to me or my day.

You are debating (endlessly it seems). I am simply commenting on using MF lenses based on my experience.

If you can't or won't see the benefit of a MF Zeiss, Scheider, or Leica lens over the Nikon/Canon/Sony AF lenses that most of us use, then that's on you. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of reports/reviews that document the differences. <-- Google. But honestly, it's not worth my time to obsess over "scientific evidence" to justify the use of MF lenses. I know what looks good and what works best for my work.

I understand that many of us are obsessed with speed and the possibility of missing shots, but for my personal work I don't give either a second thought. For much of my work work, I do need fast, reliable AF from my Nikon. And in that case I use AF. It's simple to choose which tool to use for the situation and I don't see the need to limit myself to one type of lens.

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow