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

Started Apr 19, 2014 | Discussions
OP yfan Regular Member • Posts: 320
Summary and Comparison is two messages up. (NT)

No text.

 yfan's gear list:yfan's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 Nikon D3200 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +15 more
OP yfan Regular Member • Posts: 320
Re: What do you think of this MF lens? wide open at f2.8.

Rservello wrote:

I agree that hard sharp focus is not necessary to have a good photo. Soft focus can be very useful when used properly. And not only for portraits of old people. You get a really dreamy quality from it. Especially with some back lighting.

face is soft focused, but I love this photo. Very dreamy.

The direct front facing portion has a good sharpness...but wide open this lens glows really well and is always a little soft.

Narrow DOF and softness to really isolate a subject

Manual lens, shot without vf. Sometimes it comes out a little soft. Exactly what I was hoping for.

With a lens that can really handle soft focus, it's not a hinderance. It's an asset and makes for much prettier images.

I've tried to get away from shooting wide open all the time...but this lens just produces such lovely images it's hard to shoot tighter with it...lol

Beautiful photos and lovely baby.

 yfan's gear list:yfan's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 Nikon D3200 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +15 more
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:

stevo23 wrote:

ShawnHoke wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

yfan wrote:

I am thinking about put it on ebay. It's overlap with my other lens. But somehow I feel reluctant let it go.

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. 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.

If it's a critical shot where point of focus and critical focus is important, I eschew AF. Typical examples would be landscapes.

You cannot be more wrong. 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.

And last point, how many threads on DP are devoted to AF issues/problems even on the latest and greatest DSLRs.

And you try to make the point that far fewer threads are about MF issues therefore MF is superior? do you also think horses are better commuting tools than cars and bicycles because far fewer people today complain about horse issues than those about cars and bicycles?

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."

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.

-- hide signature --
ultimitsu
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: What do you think of this MF lens? wide open at f2.8.

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.

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 --
ultimitsu
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: What do you think of this MF lens? wide open at f2.8.

ShawnHoke wrote:

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).

Actually it is you who begin the debate. I responded to OP's issue with my view of low end MF lenses and missing opportunities of good photography. You turned this into a debate.

I am simply commenting on using MF lenses based on my experience.

Which by your own admission has little to do with the point I made.

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 have never said I think high end MF lenses are pointless. The thread is essentially about cheap old MF lenses for every day photography like the ones presented by OP and my comments was made regarding those MF lenses and their place in such photography. You are now trying to spin it into as if I hold a general grudge against all MF lenses for all photography

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.

Your use fo the word "obsessed" shows you miscomprehension. See above paragraph for what I was really saying.

René Schuster Forum Pro • Posts: 14,180
Re: What do you think of this MF lens? wide open at f2.8.

yfan wrote:

The photo was taken with a Vivitar 28-90mm f2.8

Not a constant 2.8 but a 2.8-3.5.

If you are into old manual lenses and even old zooms, I wouldn't sell it, it is definitely one of the better old Vivitar zooms, made by Komine! I like this one better than the earlier constant 2.8 35-85 S1 Betenski creation made by Kiron.

But no matter how nice these old zooms are, we shouldn't forget that in their days "zoom" is what it was all about; "zoom" was the new feature, that started selling with the Kiron made 70-210/3.5 Vivitar S1 lens!

When it comes to IQ I prefer an old prime over any old zoom. But even very good old primes, like my Vivitar 200/3.0, 135/2.3, 135/2.8 CF and some great 90 and 105 mm macro lenses might have problems now and then with a little CA/PF or not so perfect contrast, due to the imperfect lens coatings of these days.

After a few days with the old stuff it is always surprising to see the quality of our modern kit lenses (in my case Oly)! But when it comes to criteria like build quality or maybe Bokeh, the old ones are usually the winners!

RS

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads