Interesting "side effect" of manual focus

[BobSC]

No, that is a wrong conclusion. What is logic is that considering a MF lens can save some money but sacrificing flexibility and speed. I do believe that being aware of the need to compose the image and control the background is the important thing. You don’t need a MF lens to do these things.

PS. Of course you can switch most AF lenses to MF, but you would face a lot of temptation to switch back just to capture a particular scene. The lack of AF option enforces the discipline

Do you know of any AF lens that cannot be switched to MF? I don't. In fact for those who want to practise MF they are completely free to do so at any time, but still have the flexibility to go back to AF. Many people pay for that flexibility. The lack of AF is a serious drawback and slows you down. In addition I do believe that the number of keepers will go down with a MF 85/1.4 compared to a similar AF version at wide apertures.

AF lenses don't work as well in MF mode as MF lenses. There are two reasons:

1) With a MF lens you move the focus ring a larger distance to make the same change. The pitch of the threads is shallower. This allows better manual control.

2) MF lenses have thick grease in the threads that dampens the movement. With an AF lens if you touch the end of the lens it will go out of focus. Not true with an MF lens.

You say that you sacrifice speed and flexibility. You definitely sacrifice speed under some situations, but not all. It's not uncommon for me to want to take several photos of the same scene, where the AF chooses the wrong focal point. Yes, I can change the focus point by hand, but that requires changing AF mode and then focus point, which takes longer than focusing by hand. Also, in dark situations, the AF can rack back and forth and not focus. This is never faster when it happens.

I don't see any loss of flexibility though. Either lens will focus from infinity to some closer distance. In my experience the MF lenses focus closer, which would give you more flexibility, not less.

 

[slimandy]

But buying a MF lens in order to learn photography is illogical, IMHO.

Despite the fact it worked for the OP.

--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 

[slimandy]

Some good points there. I also like MF when DoF is very narrow and accurate focus on a small part of the subject is critical. Examples would be macro and close portraiture.

The fact that MF slows you down can be a fringe benefit as the OP said. I would say the same for using a tripod.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 

[Emeraldforest]

But buying a MF lens in order to learn photography is illogical, IMHO. /

So, I guess buying a lens that does everything for you will help you become a better photographer? I think using an old lens, where you have to manually set the aperture, shutter speed and manually focus will allow you to become more knowledgeable about photography than using a lens that does everything automatic. Do you think Ansel Adams had AF lens? Shooting manual everything, not just focus, increases your skills and allows you to 'really' control your shot and composition. But like others said about 'shooting a tennis match'....yes, AF would be critical.

Once again, that is the beauty of slr cameras. You can pick and choose which lens you want for each situation. Half of my lens are manual, the other half AF. Old glass can be a beautiful thing It sure beats a plastic, made in China lens!!

 

[BobSC]

But like others said about 'shooting a tennis match'....yes, AF would be critical.

Ah, right. That would explain why there are no photos of tennis prior to the early 1990s. [Just playing with you.]

For me, framing is a bigger problem with long lenses and fast moving subjects than focus.

 

[David Rosser]

i think the same thing happens when using a prime lens. if you are forced to use a certain focal length you can't just lean against the crutch of being able to zoom. it forces you to think more about composition. so if you have a 35mm prime, you are forced to move with your feet and position your camera in such a way that frames your subject the way you want. if you have an 18-200mm zoom, you just turn the zoom lens until the subject looks "about right" and then take a picture.

Also very true. People who never shoot with prime lenses are missing on developing the key skill of MOVING. (My hero Scott Kelby says this too)

You move to get the perspective and the relationship between near and far objects right not to fill the frame with whatever lens you happen to have on the camera, you then choose a focal length to get the framing right. Thats why in the past you carried a range of fixed focal length lenses around, it's more convenient, though, having position yourself correctly to frame with a zoom.
--
Dave
http://www.rosser.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.pbase.com/dgrosser

 

[BobSC]

You move to get the perspective and the relationship between near and far objects right not to fill the frame with whatever lens you happen to have on the camera, you then choose a focal length to get the framing right. Thats why in the past you carried a range of fixed focal length lenses around, it's more convenient, though, having position yourself correctly to frame with a zoom.
--

That's one approach, and it can certainly work.

If you only have one lens and it doesn't zoom, then it usually works better to use a different method.

First you take in the scene and build a little mental model of it (takes a few seconds). Then you determine where the field of view of the lens you have is going to produce a great picture and you move the camera to that location.

A long time ago I read an interview about people photography. The advice went something like, "get as close as you think you can, and then take another step closer." It works great, actually.

 

[David Rosser]

You move to get the perspective and the relationship between near and far objects right not to fill the frame with whatever lens you happen to have on the camera, you then choose a focal length to get the framing right. Thats why in the past you carried a range of fixed focal length lenses around, it's more convenient, though, having position yourself correctly to frame with a zoom.
--

That's one approach, and it can certainly work.

If you only have one lens and it doesn't zoom, then it usually works better to use a different method.

First you take in the scene and build a little mental model of it (takes a few seconds). Then you determine where the field of view of the lens you have is going to produce a great picture and you move the camera to that location.

A long time ago I read an interview about people photography. The advice went something like, "get as close as you think you can, and then take another step closer." It works great, actually.

As I quite often only have a one fixed focal length lens with me I often have to follow your advice ;-)
--
Dave
http://www.rosser.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.pbase.com/dgrosser

 

[oeoek]

Bobac wrote:
Emeraldforest wrote:

But like others said about 'shooting a tennis match'....yes, AF would be critical.

Ah, right. That would explain why there are no photos of tennis prior to the early 1990s. [Just playing with you.]

-big grin- I took this very example because, back when I received my education as a photographer, I spend numurous weeks at a tennis court, first practicing with an empty camera (gotta love digital!) en then waisting endless rolls of film in order reach a certain amount of confidence and certainty in getting the shot.

For those wanting to practice for themselves: here are the orriginal assignments I was given (and remember: no AF, no autoexposure and no serial shooting; one shot, one kill...):

1: tennis player filling frame, serving the ball, showing full contact between ball and racket (deformation of ball and/or racket webbing)

2: same as 1, but close up of head, arm and ball

3: same as 1, but now not from a player serving the ball, but from a player returning the ball

4: same as 3, but close up as 2.

5: one uncut film (36 frames) with at least 20 pictures sharp and catching the right moment, can be a mix of all four previeous assignments.

Good luck (said my teacher with quite an evil grin).

 

[[email protected]]

Good photography means paying attention to lots of things.
AF doesn't cause poor photography, it just lets us
take bad pictures faster.

You can improve your photography more with a tripod.
Shoot in Manual Metering mode.

Slow things down, pay attention to what grabs you about
a scene. What do I want exposed properly in the scene and
what can go black or white? Any Coke cans in the background?
How much depth of field do I want? Is the horizon horizontal?
Should I compose according to the 'rule' of thirds?
Would a different lens make a better composition?
How is that light (photography is all about light after all)?

Are manual focus lenses better for photography than AF lenses?
No. Just bring more discipline to your work.

maljo

 

[Christoffer]

Hi,

This thread is becoming far more interesting that I initially anticipated.

Your points are very good and I definitely find myself looking at the world around me with a "photograper's eye". However, one thing I am curious about; how do you combine that approach of pre-reflection to street photography where many scenes happen in a moment and then are gone again? Do yoy have an overall approach to how you want to compose a photo and then wait for the scene to happen or ...? I am very interested in hearing how you combine the reflections of intent with fast changing scenery.

Best regards,

Christoffer

 

[BobSC]

Your points are very good and I definitely find myself looking at the world around me with a "photograper's eye". However, one thing I am curious about; how do you combine that approach of pre-reflection to street photography where many scenes happen in a moment and then are gone again? Do yoy have an overall approach to how you want to compose a photo and then wait for the scene to happen or ...? I am very interested in hearing how you combine the reflections of intent with fast changing scenery.

You get better at it. You can learn to anticipate a scene as it unfolds, seeing with your 'photographer's eye' not only in real time, but into the future too.

See if your local library has a book of Henri-Cartier Bresson's work. He was the master.

"To take a photograph means to recognize – simultaneously and within a fraction of a second– both the fact itself and the rigorous organisation of visually perceived forms that give it meaning.

It is putting one’s head, one’s eye, and one’s heart on the same axis." HC-B

 

[exit here]

See if your local library has a book of Henri-Cartier Bresson's work. He was the master.

If he was still playing he'd have a flickr account and no one would pay him any notice unless there was a pretty girl in the pic.