Reading mode: Light Dark

Re: FE Lenses- writing off MF legacy lenses is like writing off manual transmission cars...

Go to last post
S

sportyaccordy

Forum Pro
Messages
21,425
Solutions
2
Reaction score
17,174
Location
US
The analog is apt to a large degree, IMO.

Sure, for pinpoint pixel level accuracy and ease of use, AF is great. And it would be awesome if Sony (or even 3rd party makers) would commit to a logical and full lens map. Similarly, an automatic transmission never misses a shift, and these days often yields better performance and fuel economy than manuals.

But folks used to have no choice but to shoot MF, and they got pictures fine. Plus, yes, wide open on a very fast lens, accuracy is difficult... but stopped down, it's pretty easy.

Plus it's not like the NEX platform is known for its super fast/great AF systems anyway. It's only recently with the A5000/6000 I believe that they have stepped it up... but the FF bodies are still a few steps behind DSLRs.

For all the folks who have written off MF lenses without trying them... go buy a $30 adapter and a $50 50 1.4-1.8. Shoot with it for 2-3 weeks. THEN see how you feel. For the price of 1 fast AF prime, you could easily build a whole MF prime lineup (24, 35, 50, 85). For folks who used MF back in the day and stopped.... dust off some of those old MF lenses in your closet, get an adapter and give it a try, if you haven't already.

And no, switching an AF lens to manual doesn't count. Just like an automatic car with manual "mode", it's not really the same. You still have to fiddle through modes to change aperture, and most new AF lenses are not optimized for MF. Plus it's easier to give up and the level of commitment is much lower- once the learning curve gets too steep it's not unlikely you will just give up and turn back.

I'm no pro or super shooter but I have been shooting with FDs for the last few weeks, and since I got over some intial hiccups I am finding it to be very satisfying, and not a ton more difficult than shooting AF in 85% of shooting situations. Give it a try.
 
Last edited:
sportyaccordy said:
....You still have to fiddle through modes to change aperture, and most new AF lenses are not optimized for MF. ...
Click to expand...
Aperture is separate regardless of the focus mode. It's the control wheel on Nex , you don't have to go through the modes.

Is the manual focus difficult to adjust on E mount auto focus lenses? I agree that the feel is different, manual focus by wire instead of mechanical linkage. Similar to focus by wire would be any machinery, from surgery to heavy equipment controlled with a joystick. Positioning control is way better and more affordable than it was few years back.

The only difficult part of manual focus with E mount lenses for me is to see when focus is on what I want.
 
sportyaccordy said:
The analog is apt to a large degree, IMO.

Sure, for pinpoint pixel level accuracy and ease of use, AF is great. And it would be awesome if Sony (or even 3rd party makers) would commit to a logical and full lens map. Similarly, an automatic transmission never misses a shift, and these days often yields better performance and fuel economy than manuals.

But folks used to have no choice but to shoot MF, and they got pictures fine. Plus, yes, wide open on a very fast lens, accuracy is difficult... but stopped down, it's pretty easy.

Plus it's not like the NEX platform is known for its super fast/great AF systems anyway. It's only recently with the A5000/6000 I believe that they have stepped it up... but the FF bodies are still a few steps behind DSLRs.

For all the folks who have written off MF lenses without trying them... go buy a $30 adapter and a $50 50 1.4-1.8. Shoot with it for 2-3 weeks. THEN see how you feel. For the price of 1 fast AF prime, you could easily build a whole MF prime lineup (24, 35, 50, 85). For folks who used MF back in the day and stopped.... dust off some of those old MF lenses in your closet, get an adapter and give it a try, if you haven't already.

And no, switching an AF lens to manual doesn't count. Just like an automatic car with manual "mode", it's not really the same. You still have to fiddle through modes to change aperture, and most new AF lenses are not optimized for MF. Plus it's easier to give up and the level of commitment is much lower- once the learning curve gets too steep it's not unlikely you will just give up and turn back.

I'm no pro or super shooter but I have been shooting with FDs for the last few weeks, and since I got over some intial hiccups I am finding it to be very satisfying, and not a ton more difficult than shooting AF in 85% of shooting situations. Give it a try.
Click to expand...
I agree on the most part. I would say though, that the Sony Zeiss E-mount lenses are very nice to operate in MF (esp. the SEL24 with the smoothes focus ring I have ever layer my fingers on, incl. nice range finder glas that I've handled), even though they don't have hard stops and are focus by wire.
 
sportyaccordy said:
For all the folks who have written off MF lenses without trying them... go buy a $30 adapter and a $50 50 1.4-1.8. Shoot with it for 2-3 weeks. THEN see how you feel. For the price of 1 fast AF prime, you could easily build a whole MF prime lineup (24, 35, 50, 85). For folks who used MF back in the day and stopped.... dust off some of those old MF lenses in your closet, get an adapter and give it a try, if you haven't already.
Click to expand...
So you make some good points. Legacy lenses can be cheap. They can be satisfying to use, with their aperture rings and mechanical focus (and focus distance scales !) Focus peaking actually makes them pretty easy to use; arguably easier than manual focus on DSLRs or AF SLRs. (These lenses were designed for use with cameras that had viewfinders with focus screens that were much easier to use than AF SLRs/DSLRs).

The question is: are you talking about FF A7 bodies or APS-C bodies. The problem for APS-C bodies is finding interesting lenses. Anything wider than 50mm is either slow or expensive and/or big. Wider lenses designed for APS-C can be made sharper, cheaper, smaller, faster (sort of like the six million dollar man). Look at the 20/2.8 pancake versus a 20/2.8 legacy lens, or the 35/1.8 versus a 35/2 (the latter isn't terribly big, but they tend to be pretty expensive) and that's just to get a normal. Try to find a 24/2. A 50 isn't a very interesting portrait prime; a 58 gets closer (I personally like something that's equivalent to 100mm or longer, but 58 gets you to 85mm equivalent which some people like) but a lot of the 58's are older designs and are pretty soft wide open.

So for APS-C, I find legacy lenses less interesting, at least at shorter FLs. I have a compact Konica 40/1.8 that would be fun on an A7, but does nothing for me on APS-C, but I also have a Tamron 135/2.5 that's pretty compact and has silky smooth focusing.

But I'm guessing that this thread is in response to the thread about the FE lineup. I think it could be very interesting to try an A7 with a set of legacy lenses (for the right purposes).
 
I am talking about FF bodies. I cheat though. I have an APS-C body, but it has an FL reducer. Wide open, IQ is... questionable, at best, especially with the faster glass. But stopped down the lenses work great. I am still green and haven't taken enough pictures to get a real feel for IQ capabilities, but I like what I'm seeing so far.

I was one of the people who bemoaned having to use MF, but the call of cheap fast glass was too much to ignore. I'm glad I gave in. It's really not that bad at all, and makes getting good shots that much more satisfying. Plus with the distance markings, shooting stopped down is a breeze. For FF guys, who don't have to deal with FL reducer issues, giving it a try is a real no brainer. I'm hoping to go to Europe next fall and I'm hoping A7s will be low enough under $1K to warrant the upgrade.
 
Good analogy - I also drive a stick shift (practically had to pull teeth to get it - mine was the only stick on the entire dealer lot).

Any time I can feel a greater sensation of hands-on control AND save a bunch of money simultaneously, for a guy like me that's the only way to go! :-D
 
sportyaccordy said:
The analog is apt to a large degree, IMO.

Sure, for pinpoint pixel level accuracy and ease of use, AF is great. And it would be awesome if Sony (or even 3rd party makers) would commit to a logical and full lens map. Similarly, an automatic transmission never misses a shift, and these days often yields better performance and fuel economy than manuals.
Click to expand...
Funny, my own autofocus experience is a little different -- I would never call it 'pinpoint accurate', it benefits from a little tweaking in most instances. DMF offers that, but once I've gone that route, why not go MF?



Maybe my eyes are sharper than average -- but it seems simple to me: Adjust the focus until the subject in the viewfinder is as sharp as can be. Better to focus wide open, so there is a minimum DOF to confuse the issue. AF at best will do that -- certainly no sharper -- and on the whole, it just comes close but not perfect.

I use AF occasionally, typically with moving subjects that defy patience. I assume there will be a lot of misses. When I'm focussing manually, I assume there is never a miss ...


To paraphrase from the Simpsons 'just don't push the button until what you see is in focus people, I can't emphasize this enough ...'

Cheers,
GB
 
Dennis said:
Ahh, yes, I keep forgetting about those ! Do you have one of the more expensive models (Metabones) or one of the cheaper copies ?
Click to expand...
I have a Lens Turbo II for Canon FDs. It works well enough. I have 3 lenses as well. I think the most open you can go and still expect decent IQ is 2.8 on the lens/2.0 on the sensor. Below that, just like on real FF and even with modern glass, things get a little fuzzy. But the added speed and more importantly the added angle of view are real boons for me. I love shooting with my 35/2, it's my go-to at the moment.
 
You can not compare a manual transmission to a manual focus lens no matter how you think about it.

How did people survive when all cameras were manual focus and the user even had to adjust the shutter speed and aperture. Those were the days of real photographers not the photographers of now who only know how to push a button.
 
wherearemyshorts said:
How did people survive when all cameras were manual focus and the user even had to adjust the shutter speed and aperture. Those were the days of real photographers not the photographers of now who only know how to push a button.
Click to expand...
No kidding, and they didn't need these sissy mirrorless cameras - they trudged uphill seven miles in only one shoe with an 8x10 view camera on their back to get a shot and then uphill seven miles home again. Harumph !

Of course, camera manufacturers have been making cameras "stupid easy" for over a century. The Brownie came along in 1900. Kodak advertised it as "so simple they can easily be operated by any school boy or girl". Hold the camera at waist level, aim and turn a switch.
 
Dennis said:
So for APS-C, I find legacy lenses less interesting, at least at shorter FLs. I have a compact Konica 40/1.8 that would be fun on an A7, but does nothing for me on APS-C, but I also have a Tamron 135/2.5 that's pretty compact and has silky smooth focusing.
Click to expand...
I couldnt disagree more. For APS-C I found legacy lenses a lot more exciting since adding a Lens Turbo adapter gives you two lenses in one pretty much plus you get the extra stop of light of course.
I pretty much sold all my E Lenses and use Canon FD lenses for 90% of my photos now. :)
 
Once I got hooked on the manual focus legacy lenses I became particularly enamored of the Zeiss lenses. I'll admit that I am hooked. Comparing what I have been able to collect, in range and price, to what is available in the Sony Zeiss line:

CARL ZEISS JENA FLEKTOGON 20mm f4.0 $249.00

CARL ZEISS JENA LENS 29MM f2.8 $58.23

CARL ZEISS FLEKTOGON 35mm f2.8 $131.20

Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 40mm f4.5 $179.00

Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar MC 50mm f1.8 $84.99

Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 58mm f2.0 $109.00

Carl Zeiss Biometar MC 80mm f2.8 $21.49

Carl Zeiss Jena Triotar 85mm f4.0 $250.00

Carl Zeiss Jena MC Biometar 120mm f2.8 $289.99

Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar Zebra 135mm f3.5 $125.00

Carl Zeiss Triotar 135mm f4.0 $60.00

Carl Zeiss Jena silver Sonnar lens 135mm f4.0 $50.00

Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180mm f2.8 $202.50

Total = $1,810.40

Didn't I just read that Zeiss is releasing a manual focus 35mm for E mount at around $1,300?
 
Last edited:
shaolin95 said:
I couldnt disagree more. For APS-C I found legacy lenses a lot more exciting since adding a Lens Turbo adapter gives you two lenses in one pretty much plus you get the extra stop of light of course.
Click to expand...
Someone else mentioned the speed booster, too. I tried out MF lenses before those were first introduced, so I tend to forget about them. But it's something for me to keep in mind, especially if I do get around to picking up a new e-mount body at some point (or stumble across a great collection of old lenses at a yard sale).

- Dennis
 
shaolin95 said:
Dennis said:
So for APS-C, I find legacy lenses less interesting, at least at shorter FLs. I have a compact Konica 40/1.8 that would be fun on an A7, but does nothing for me on APS-C, but I also have a Tamron 135/2.5 that's pretty compact and has silky smooth focusing.
Click to expand...
I couldnt disagree more. For APS-C I found legacy lenses a lot more exciting since adding a Lens Turbo adapter gives you two lenses in one pretty much plus you get the extra stop of light of course.
I pretty much sold all my E Lenses and use Canon FD lenses for 90% of my photos now. :)
Click to expand...
 
If you get a body without stabilization, then you need stabilization in your lenses if you ever hand-hold your camera and want the best quality shots at slower shutter speeds. Then, as long as you're getting lenses with OSS, getting a choice between AF and manual focus seems like an easy thing to look for.
 
Oldan New said:
MF lenses are fun. Isn't that the whole point ?
Click to expand...
Yes they are. And with focus peaking and magnification I really don't think AF is all that much of an advantage. If I had known how easy manual focus was with the a6000, I may have opted for the a7 instead (was scared off by slow AF on a7).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top