Autofocus only?

This seems like a really silly question to ask, but I can't find the answer on the internet

anywhere! So here it goes... I have a Canon 300D and am looking at buying a new lens

for it. Preferably to do a bit of portrait work, among other things. I keep noticing that

most lenses in my price range specify that they are autofocus. Does this mean I don't

have the choice of manual focus as well? Or do they just not bother specifying the they do

both? I like autofocus, but enjoy using manual as well, so I want a lens with both options!

Any comments would be helpftul. Thanks!

You have to buy an autofocus lens for your camera, as Canon's EOS (autofocus) mount is entirely different from their old FD (manual focus) mount. However, all autofocus lenses can also be focussed manually, so yes, you can have your cake and eat it, too.

What you can't have is a manual camera. You live & die by the batteries.

<<you can have your cake and eat it, too.>>

 

As the late Dudley Moore pointed out in one of his movies, we usually get that one backwards. We say "have your cake and eat it, too" but anybody can do that. Here you go, here's some cake. Now you have it. And now you can eat it. Not hard at all.

 

The way the saying really is supposed to go is "you cannot eat your cake and have it, too" because once you've eaten it there's no way to still hang on to it for later.

 

Hey Melissa... yes you can focus the lenses manually. It's just that all the lenses made to work with the 300D are capable of autofocus.

 

Be well,

Not so, Jim. You assume that, in the modern rendering of this proverb, the word "have" means "to receive" or "to possess," and yet you assume that in your rendering it means "to save." In fact, it means "to save" in both renderings. Some have claimed that Shakespeare wrote "you cannot eat your cake and have it too" or something like this, but this is false. The oldest extant example of this saying in print is from a 1546 (?) book of old proverbs, and it says "Wolde ye bothe eate your cake, and haue your cake?" The fact that the modern rendering reverses the order of "have" and "eat" is inconsequential to the meaning. So, Melissa, like I said, you CAN have your cake and eat it, too.

While you can manually focus, test the lens in a store to see if you like how it feels. Some of the autofocus lenses don't have a good feel when manually focusing. Some do. The ones that don't zip from close focus to infinity in a very short arc, making it difficult to fine focus.

The viewfinder on the 300D does not have any focusing aids like microprisms or a split-image rangefinder, and the matte ground glass is not very precise, making accurate manual focus very hard.

 

One other thing you may consider - all Canon EF lenses for EOS have a MF/AF switch. But lenses with ring USM type motors and the 50mm f/1.4 also have "full-time manual focus", whereby you can manually override AF at any time without having to flip the AF/MF switch. This is specially handy with CF.4, which allows you to map AF to the * button, allowing you to give "squirts" of AF assist, while having full manual control at all time.

Marie Antoinette said "let them eat cake" even though they didn't have any.

Thanks for all the comments, they have been helpful. Not only have you answered my

question, but I was also given a history lesson on eating cake! So tomorrow I am going to

buy my lens while I have my cake, and eat it as well! Thanks!

And don't forget, the proof is NOT in the pudding, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. But I couldn't car less...

Woops, make that "care" not "car". But the former makes sense too due to the lack of public transportation.

Melissa, don't get crumbs in your lenses...try explaining that one to the repair guys. ;-)

All autofocus lenses (either from Canon or third-party manufacturers) for the 300D will have an AF/MF switch. With the switch is at AF, the lens operates in autofocus. When the switch is as MF, the lens operates in manual focus. Problem solved. In fact, all autofocus lenses can be switched to manual focus. That is assumed, and that's why no one bothers to list autofocus lenses as being manual focus also.

Just to temper Fazal's response -- which is a good one -- MF with "1.6x" DSLR viewfinders isn't universally difficult, but it certainly isn't as easy as a larger, brighter viewfinder with the right focus screen. Unfortunately, there aren't better alternatives for DSLRs in the same price range. Besides, you might as well enjoy the camera you already own.<br/>

<br/>

Canon's firmware doesn't provide custom functions, but many use a "hacked" version that enables several. Whether or not the hack supports CF4 or not, I don't know, but there's also the <a href="http://eosdoc.com/manuals/hack/DOFFTM/">DOF option</a>. Look for Canon lenses designated as "full time manual" (FT-M) if you plan on using this feature, but they tend to be the more expensive lenses. (The 300D works manually, of course, even though it's not a purely <i>mechanical</i> camera.)<br/>

<br/>

<I>And don't forget, the proof is NOT in the pudding, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.</I><P>

 

I disagree.<P>

 

Both are logically correct. If you see the pudding as a product, and the thing to be proved the the process of its manufacture and/or its ingredients, then the proof absolutely can be in the pudding. The logical idea is that the proof of the value of the process or material is the result (product, pudding, whatever) of using the process and material.<P>

 

<B>ALSO, there <I>are</I> manual-focus only lenses that should work with a 300D (or any EOS camera).</B> These include some of the older Sigma wide-angles lens for autofocus-mount cameras that are manual-focus-only lenses, and probably some of the mirror lenses (e.g., the common 500mm f/8's). However, I am not aware of any such lens that is appropriate for conventional portraits.

Stay tuned for what "hopefully" really means. When we get to the necessity for the serial or Oxford comma, there'll be blood in the gutters.

 

Everybody go read "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" now.

 

Be well,

Oh, I just can't resist. <i>The proof is in the pudding</i> is a parable that, like many, comes from Middle English or earlier. Here, "pudding" referrs to a cake rather than what we call pudding (you know, like plum pudding). "Proof" does not mean "evidence," but rather referrs to the act of a dough rising because of air developing within it. Modern bakers still refer to allowing their dough to rise as "proofing." The saying originally meant "look for the substance/meaning/importance in the only place it can exist" (instead of speculating, for example).

 

[by the way, I studied the history of the English language and the history of English usage extensively in college, and still read on it. Geeky, I know, but I love it!]

Yes, here I am going on about studying English in college (I have an MA in it), and I spell "refers" wrong...not once, but twice. Doh!

You all had me rolling on the floor laughing!! I have had more than enough responses to

answer my question and have been thoroughly entertained as well!! Chris - loved your

input! What kind of stuff do you write? Can't wait to see a few of your photos posted!

Thanks again everyone!

You all had me rolling on the floor laughing!! I have had more than enough responses to

answer my question and have been thoroughly entertained as well!! Chris - loved your

input! What kind of stuff do you write? Can't wait to see a few of your photos posted!

Thanks again everyone!

Sorry about the stutter! Don't know what happened!

Oh, Melissa, if only I could oblige. I have no film scanner, and my flatbet is a piece of junk. That's the only reason I don't have a gallery here on Photo.net. I write about early 20th Centutry American literature (especially drama) and English usage, as well as discourse analysis and various topics related to the American upper Midwest. To see anything I've written, you need to peruse magazines like Missippi Quarterly or English Today. Thanks for your interest, though.

Oh, and just you wait, Jim! :-)

The definition of the word proof is widely misunderstood. It does not mean verification, but only a test. e.g. a proving ground is a testing ground. A proving ring is a testing ring. Proof photos are only tests. 100 proof alcohol has been tested to be 50% by volume.

 

Incidently, the statement that "the exception proves the rule" only means that the rule is likely invalid, and in no way truth.

 

These are my beliefs. Don't ask me to prove them.