Hi All,

Sorry if there's a thread about that already but i searched and couldn't find (it's my bad), i've met with the MF lens world and impressed with the image quality of them, i wonder if anybody feels the same way i do.
I just ordered a Sanyo Katana 135mm f/2.8 for my Nikon and it's on its way to me. Now i'm in love with Helios 40 and Planar 50mm.

Regards

Hi Uzay. I use MF lenses at many time, since the old A1 from Canon in 80´s.
In medium format also i use it, in Mamiya 645 and in RZ PROII (in this one, the focus are made in camera, with bellow)

But for 35mm i have a nice colection, three zeiss in 180mm, 135mm and 50mm, a Meyer Gorlitz in 180mm, some Pentacons, 2 Porst in 135mm and 28mm

The optical quality is superb, for allmost every works i do.

Hi Rui,

I don't know maybe i'm wrong but as faar as i can see, optical quality is better than today's lenses. (and most of them are cheaper). You have a beautiful collection, especially the Zeiss ones, what about Pentacons, are you happy with them and in which camera do you use them?

All are very high quality lenses, designed for film cameras, but work also very nice in digital.
The optical quality is superb, but actual lenses are designed with the last CAD software and optimized for digital sensors, so it´s dificult to tell you if the optical performance is better, but each of my MF lenses have a special optical "character" i love and see in the photos.

Actualy i use it in a EOS 40D, and in filme in EOS1-N and EOS5.

Lot´s of people is using now this lenses in FF digital SLR, like 5D MKII, specialy in 28, 50 and 135mm. They are cheap and give very nice results.

Maybe a optical engineer can tell us more :)

Besides digital I use a Rollei lens on a Rollei 6008 with excellent results especially when printed. And sometimes use my old RB67 with Mamiya lenses.

hi Uzay,
i have one manual focus lens....Leica Elmarit R 135mm f/2.8 and i use it for my 5D and 30D....and the result is fantastic....sharp and i love the tonal that produced from leica lens......warm tonal and the contrast is good as well....what i heard that Helios 40-2 85mm f/1.5 also fantastic...i wish i have it......:)

I have many manual focus lens with my fav being the old 500 f4P. I have heard that it is sharper than the newer AF versions and don't doubt it. I think primarily with the MF lens folks are more precise when composing and focusing than they are with AF (true even when manual focusing with a AF lens) I have noticed some lens just do not AF as well as we think, as some back focus and others front focus. Nikon even has a place in the menu twhere can correct the problem. You will find that most macro shooter much prefer MF even when they own AF lens. Just my 2 bits, Will

Hi All,

I feel like a i've got a new taste when using MF lenses in DSLRs, cheaper and quite good results, now i have Katana 135mm f/2.8 Rollei Planar 50mm f/1.5 and a few others. I want to have a few Zeiss but they're expensive .

hey Uzay!
I only use MF lenses on my EOS 30D, and i love the results.
I have:Leica Summicron-R 2.0/35, Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50, Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/85 and Helios-44-2 58mm f2.0 + Extension Tubes
(Olympus-OM Zuiko 35mm f2.0, Olympus-OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8, Olympus-OM Zuiko 85mm f2.0) -> to sell

Slow but deadly accurate!

I have a mix of modern zooms and primes, I shoot MF probably 75% of the time even if my lens is AF.

well since i've got a nikkormat, all i've got is MF! :P its great, although it can get seriously tricky @ f/2. but i'm usually at f/4 so thats not so bad...

Sorry to crush your MF party, but what exactly is the benefit?

I hardly ever get sharp images using MF (Nikon D90, 18-200mm), especially at the wide end. Autofocus (and it's 3d tracking!) is mostly dead-on.
So why should go for MF when AF does all the work for me. True, for night photography of some weird macro shot MF could be better, but in 99,9% of the shots, autofocus does it for me.

The problem is a 18-200mm is not a lense, is a piece of crap with horrible glass inside. You can´t compare that lense to some high end MF prime lenses.

Try a Carl Zeiss 200mm/f2.8 or a 180mm/f2.8 or ever a 135mm/f2.8 MF in your Nikon and see the diferense. ;-)

I use a Zeiss Planar T* 50mm/f1.4, for me is the best lense in world and is MF.

Joris, what ever works for you is what you need, its called technique and takes practice. You select what and where you want to be as far as focus is concerned when using MF. Really long lens almost demand MF, plus macro is mostly a manual focus thing for most folks. It is indeed what ever trips your trigger ;-) Not to mention that the effect is much more pronounced in very large high quality prints. Print sizes of 20 inches ( 50CM) by 30 inches ( 76 CM) will show how really in focus you are. I Just looked and every shot that I have on 1X was manual focus, true I have only a meager amount here :-( will

Beyond accuracy, there's nothing more pleasing than framing a shot in a huge, bright viewfinder. With a decent focusing screen, you'll be dead on every time. AF was made for sports shooters, birders and the like who actually need it.

Yes, I bought a week ago a Kiron 105 mm macrolens (Minolta md-mouth with md/ma adapter) I use it together with my Sony Alpha and I love it!
The bokeh and dof are sublime, the colors are great, very robust build.

That's a bit over the top, isn't it?

I remember my analog days when I used a Minolta SRT100x. I mostly used a Minolta MD 50mm f1/2 lens back then. No autofocus, but MF was a lot more precise, not because of the lens, but because the camera had viewfinder with microprism.

In my D90, there's no such microprism, so MF feels like guesswork to me.

Joris.

i guess the subject is manufactured MF lenses, not AF lenses with MF usage.

I enjoy putting an MF 135mm 2.8 Yashcia on my Canon 20D... I really enjoy.
With the eye pressed on the camera to catch the focus right... :)

I love my MF. Couldn't live without it on my Farm!

Lars :-)

Yup. I seldom use AF anymore...it is quicker and more accurate to self focus - provided it is a MF lens that has a good feel and not an AF lens in MF.

I have just scanned in some shots all donw on 85/2 AIS 28/2.8 AIS and 135/2.8 AIS.

I can say for sure that the 8 element Nikon 28 2.8 AIS is THE SHARPEST LENS with the LEAST DISTORTION that I have used. It is optical perfection. SO glad I stumbled upon Ken Rockwell's review of one and then found a mint one for less than 400 USD.

With a matte/fresnel focus screen it is just pure nirvana. A split prism is cool too - but the fresnel screen is the ebst.

RF.

And I am in in love with my Zeiss 85 f1.4... incredible sharpness and contrast... MF is a totally different feeling - but of course it's a question of taste - so I would say it's not better or worse than AF, it's just different

Sounds a bit like religion to me, Richard!
Why should MF on an AF lens not be as good as a MF-lens?

Lars :-)

Well it is usually the gearing. Move a AF lens in MF mode and it often sticks or will turn from close to infinity with a small movement - that and you need to use your whole hand.

In a real MF lens - the cam is very smooth, rotates with an even relation between rotation and focus change and does so over a longer turning circle. Plus MF lenses tend to have big, wide focus rings and they work and roll smoothly with just one finger and still will stay put.

Just turn the focus rings on one to compare - you will see what I mean.....

Yep, he's right!!

Zeiss 85 f1.4 is on my list but i'm not sure if it will be a good decision to buy that much expensive lens
even though my eyes are not so well for a expensive MF lens? But i really like the taste of MF prime lenses, each one of them have different character, that's what i love in them

i'm busy scouting the range of 85mm too right now!

this is handy if you really wanted to compare:
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/85mm-center-comparison.htm

the price of the zeiss is unreal, i could just do with this:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/vivitar/85mm-f14.htm

Yes, i'm mf lover, using Zeiss Hollywood Distagon 2/28 @ 500D EOS Body, Distagon 2,8/35 - Planar 1,4/50, Sonnar 2,8/135 and Zuiko Olympus OM brand, love to focusing manually :)

Chongky, you have some good lenses! I'll rewiev your protfolio right now.

don't have portfolio in 1x... always rejected :((

I might not be an experienced photographer but I think I have my fair share... Anyway, with AF lenses, I tend to get frustrated because I don't really get what I have in mind. Most of the time I just use MF lenses or manually focus on AF lenses just to satisfy myself. Still, that's just me.

I stuck to MF lenses for a long time, and manual cameras. I'm on Nikon now, Canon MF before.
I don't think there are any better cameras built than the Canon F1n! But, I got problem with my eye sight.. And at the time I decided to change to autofocus there was very few underwater housings available for Canon, so I swapped to Nikon (but that's another story, attaching the wrong way, and focusing the wrong way).

Most of the work we do can be done in complete manual, just as good, and sometimes better in manual. My decision has always been; Anything automatic is good, as long as it can be turned off!

I own some lenses that are completely manual, The PS Nikkor 24 which is excellent, but at the time Nikon had them on the market you could also tilt the Canon lenses, not only shift.. did I start some fighting here now??

I'm using a Jupiter 135, 3.5 on my EOS 10D, it's a copy of Zeiss 135, 3.5. It's a great lens. We have a lot of MF lenses here in Moldova, especially Russian ones. Last week I sent a Jupiter 135, 3.5 to a friend of mine from Portugal.

I also have Helios 50, 2, Jupiter 85, 2 and others, all are awesome lenses.

It is mostly not the MF that actually makes the big difference in the lenses, it's the fact that most people who do MF do this with pretty high quality prime-focus lenses and not with zoom lenses.

No matter how many achromatic, ULD, aspheric elements you stick in a lens, you just can not make it perfect for all focal lengths covered - that's plain physics. Prime lenses have no range in focal lengths so can be corrected for to a much higher level.

And secondly, as I have experienced, when changing to primes you tend to spend more time on thinking about the composition of your shot (or thinking which lens would be appropriate) compared to with a zoomlens, it is much more satisfying to shoot with a prime than with a zoom. Unless the subject calls for it - you need to cover a range of focal lengths which you do not know in advance.

I think I use the primes ~80% of the time, and yes, they happen to be MF ...

cheers,
h.

Primes are all I use. Zooms are a quick way to shoot crap photo's and make the "Pre visualise" process non existent...

The only zoom lens I've used in the past 6-8months is the Nikon 70-300 VR, it's the only long lens I own. My longest prime is 85mm. I love the primes!!

I have a lot m42 used in my DSLR, they are great. I had 28 mm Pentacon but I found Takumar beeing better.
I have a vivitar 35/f2, takumar 50/f1.4,chinon 55/1,7,Helios 135/f2.8, Takumar fishete 17/f4 and takumar 85/1.9 that is incredible.

Thos old lenses are really great, but there is a drawback, and is when you shoot in very dark places, like concerts, etc. Is hard work to focus, but the result can be very nice

Link to concert shots I did with the takumar 50/1.4, all iso800:

http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=731180

Enjoy the MF world :-)

Clyde, i also have a copy of Takumar 50 1..4 and they say that
this lens is radioactive due to the thorium element used in this lens which gives a yellowish color.

Yeah, I've heard that about some of the Soviet and East German lenses. Not familiar with Takumar...

I have all of them, Soviet East German and also Takumar 50 1.4, i guess i'm going to be a mutant soon:)

Or infertile...

i find myself shooting MF all the time now since I got the zeiss 21 2.8

Name Dropper!!

Don´t joke with that. Thorium lenses can be very dangerous for human eye. In 1960-1970 there are some very fast lenses with internal elements with thorium and that is very dangerous to cornea of eye if you use them for many hours. The gamma and beta emissions from high thorium content lenses in photographic cameras have the potential to degrade the film if you left it in the camera for a substantial period of time, in digital cameras no problem, but can be very dangerous for the eye cornea if you use that lenses for many time.

Rui - is this the same for say a waist level finder then?

no, with waist level finder you have no problem with your eyes if you have in your camera a thorium lense. But i don´t know if can hurt you in waist parts. thorium lenses and other thorium devices are forbiden for common citizen use at many time ago. It´s intersting to study in law if comercialization or use and own of this lenses is legal this days. Maybe we have here in 1X someone who knows about radiation and give us something about this.

Other lenses I use MF are the 55 1.8 super takumar. Not really a fan of it, since it's not very clear (yellowed with age). Seen great stuff with it though. I also use my thrifty fifty on MF because the AF is so poor unless shooting in bright sunlight.

What's a name dropper?

name-dropping: the studied but seemingly casual mention of prominent persons as associates done to impress others

in your case, zeiss is the name you dropped...

I think it's more impressive what I do with it than the actual physical lens. It's a bit cheaper and a lot better than most of the Ls IMO though I wasn't intending to show off with name dropping :)

I'll let my work show off for me

But Karl, we were impressed!!

It is an impressive lens...everything looks real out of it. If I wanted to name drop I'd mention I was once a poster below Clyde Beamer. LOL

Rui, we discussed this thorium and radio active lenses in MFlenses forum http://forum.mflenses.com/s-m-c-and-super-takumar-50mm-f1-4-t7191,highlight,takumar.html here looks like there are some treatments for this thorium issue