Your thoughts about manual focus lenses on digital bodies..is it a good idea?

<p>I started photography in the digital era (a few years back) so I have never used a film camera or manual focus lenses. I heard digital bodies like my d800e and d4 are not designed to be used for manual focus because of the limited viewfinder etc. Given zeiss has recently released the sharpest lens ever made (according to Dxomark) for nikon bodies, 55mm f/1.4 and 135mm f/2, and also because of the availability of highly rated yet affordable samyang MF fisheye, 24mm , 35mm, 85mm lenses, I am real tempted to give it a try. I will probably still stick to my nikkors' autofocus for wedding work, but I wondering how feasible is it to use these manual focus lenses for slower paced shooting? <br>

I know there is focus confirmation green dot thing,but how accurate are they in my cameras? I can certainly try to "autofocus fine tune" them to assist me better in the field, but are they any good given they are tuned properly?<br>

Also I read there's this belief about the viewfinder not being able to distinguish any difference in depth of field under f/2.8? assuming that will make the manual focus even more difficult because it would appear to be in focus in the viewfinder when in reality at f/1.4 it's not.<br>

What are your thoughts? does focusing screens work as advertised? (i am a bit hesitant about putting 3rd party parts into my cameras even if they are available, afraid they might screw up anything or making the viewfinder hard to read)<br>

What are your thoughts? are any of you manual focusing with excellent results? should i invest my time to learning MF or it's better to stay away coz i will go blind doing that? Thanks for any comments</p>

<p>It's a shame the Df didnt have the viewfinder from a film camera....</p>

<p>See here:<br>

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/929565/3438#lastmessage<br>

and see the thread just posted today asking a similar question.</p>

<p>You cannot set focus fine tune on a manual focus lens, but the screen can be calibrated (affecting all lenses). The focus confirmation dot is not very precise; with some wide angle lenses it only gives a rough idea but sometimes it is useful. I have had good experiences with Katz Eye focusing screens on Nikon DSLRs. They really do help with manual focusing of fast lenses, but are available for only some of the cameras (no 100% FX viewfinders included). Other manufacturers also provide replacement focusing screens (e.g. focusingscreen.com) but I haven't used those. Some photographers report that the Df viewfinder is excellent with fast manual focus lenses, others say they cannot tell the difference from other FX DSLR viewfinders. I guess it depends on the user's eyes, vision and experience and whether they actually give it some time to test it properly before coming up with a conclusion.</p>

<p>I'm sure you won't go blind trying to do manual focusing. Manual focus camera focusing screens that were great for focusing fast lenses went dark with small aperture lenses that are typical today (f/5.6). Separate screens for slower lenses were offered in the top of the line camera bodies. I believe the Df is an attempt at reaching a better compromise between viewfinder brightness and manual focusability than the typical DSLR viewfinders. Whether it is successful or not, would be up to the user to determine for their lenses and needs.</p>

<p>I have used many of the Zeiss lenses for the Nikon mount, and find them excessively contrasty for my people photography (they can be great for e.g. landscapes though). I prefer the way Nikon lenses (well, the ones I like ;-)) render images, with some exceptions. But for the 135mm f/2 I don't think there is any debate; Nikon 135mm primes have never been their strongest lenses. For stopped down (f/4-f/5.6) people photography the 135mm DC is a fine lens, producing very beautiful results, but at f/2 it's very low contrast, a bit soft, and has some CA so even though I use it sometimes, I wouldn't necessarily recommend it for wide aperture shooting (I normally use it at f/5.6- f/2.8). It's totally a different kind of lens than the Zeiss. What you like personally only you can determine; personally I hope that Nikon updates the 135mm soon.</p>

<p>f/2 manual focus lenses should be a bit easier to focus than f/1.4 at least if you intend to use them at wide apertures; I did not find the Zeiss 50/1.4 or 85/1.4 easy to focus at all, but the f/2 ones in general have more bite wide open and that makes manual focusing easier. While I intend to purchase the 135mm f/2 Zeiss at some point if Nikon doesn't do anything in that focal length, I have no intention of purchasing the 55mm f/1.4 Otus as in this focal length range I have several much less expensive, smaller, lighter, autofocus and manual focus lenses that I like a lot so for me it is not a lens that I would likely use.</p>

<p>Rick.</p>

<p>I have been using my old 105 2.5 Nikkor on my digital bodies wilt no problems whatsoever. I am currently using a d7100 as my principal camera so I cannot speak to the question with regard to your FF bodies. I think there are some excellent manual focus lenses that people overlook because of the misconception that there will be a problem. Try them before you rule them out.</p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

<p>Rick, you should definitely give that a try to see whether it works for you or not. For me, I need the old split-image focusing aide, as I did back in the 1970's. However, today, another option is to use live view to manual focus, with the camera on a tripod. You should check out that route as well.</p>

<p>Rick - I've been using manual focus lenses on digital bodies for several years...they worked better on some bodies than others...I used a Nikon D200 and currently a D300, a Sigma SD14, and a Olympus E-Pl2. Generally it is much easier to use MF lenses on older MF film bodies because the viewfinders were optimized to use them, giving generally a bright field, sometimes split image rangefinder-type focusing, and the MF lenses themselves often had more degrees of rotation for finer focusing than today's AF lenses. I have put a split image screen in my D300 which helps but isn't as good as my older Nikon film bodies. I never count on the green dot...too much variability IMHO. The Oly has an EVF and up to 14x zoom for fine focus, so that works fine. The Sigma is entirely different technology, so I won't go into that except to say it worked exceptionally well with Leica R lenses. If you have some older lenses which you can inexpensively try via an adapter on your Nikon body, I'd encourage you to give it a shot...you may like it, but again you may not..little money wasted on the adapter.</p>

<p>I use super speed lenses on my DSLR's and have since I bought the first one. Being able to manually focus a lens takes practice. It always has and always will. When I shot film cameras with interchangeable screens the first thing I did was change out the split screen for a mat screen. They are what I preferred to use. So for me moving to a DSLR with out the split screen was not a big deal.</p>

<p>Rick each of us is different you need to try it and see how it works for you. </p>

Cheap deals on 50mm AI and AIS lenses are easy to find. Try one for a while and see if you like it.

<p>Hi guys thanks so much for the input<br>

Alright so everyone agree the green dot is unreliable so I have to trust my eyes.<br>

Certainly sounds like it's a skill that requires practice, something i am willing to invest my time on.<br>

Thanks Ilkka for the insight about zeiss lenses, something which i might want to start trying. Will keep a lookout for over contrasty images which I am not a big fan either<br>

So far my experience with MFocusing has only been using live view to focus nikkor lenses which either backfocus or front focus horribly beyond +- 20 with the D800E..and I find the process very slow and a battery drain</p>

<p>Samyang lens features a D type CPU, which enables the "rangefinder" on recent Nikon bodies. That's much more usable than the green dot.</p>

<p>No problem. Who needs a microprism or a split image in the middle of the viewfinder?</p>

<p>Seriously, I don't remember too many people in the old days desperately desiring a 35 mm SLR that didn't have either one of these focusing aids. It would be like using a large format view camera.</p>

<p>I used a few of my old Nikkors on a D3000 a couple of years ago. It works, but really, it gets old quickly when the only method you have to use is over and under-focusing over and over again until you think you've got it at just the right spot. The sharpest lens ever made would have to be some sharp to overcome the inaccuracy of the focusing, especially in longer focal lengths.</p>

<p>If you want a fast focusing lens that gives you consistent results, get an autofocus lens and calibrate it to your content.<br>

If you want a slow focusing manual lens buying you wide apertures on the cheap, you'll have to live with much slower focusing whichever aid you choose.<br>

If you want to play with older and cheaper lenses you come across, get another body with another registration distance that allows more lens mounts, like a Canon. They'll even accept Nikon lenses and you won't have to worry about them crashing your "pro" Nikon.</p>

<p>Almost all of the lenses I use with my D300 are manual focus. The first thing I got for the camera was an aftermarked split-image/microprism screen, and it works great. Someone on ebay is selling them for $32 for your camera. Spend the thirty bucks and see what you think. The green dot is useless.</p>

<p>Of course it works very well, IFF YOU ARE DOING IT FOR FUN OR TO USE A SPECIAL LENS OTHERWISE NOT AVAILABLE.<br>

I wouldn't dream of trying to shoot anything faster moving than a black cave (Nikkor-S 55mm f/1.2) or architecture (PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8). <br>

For special effects, old lenses often have great virtues, but I have never considered them a "cheap" substitute for modern AF lenses. Like a singing dog, you can't actually expect them to sing well unless you romantically pine for the days of stop-down aperture shooting of the late 1940s (Contax S, anyone? I love mine, but I wouldn't try to shoot sports or a wedding with one).</p><div></div>

<p>Pierre<br>

We didnt wish for different viewing screens because we could choose from a wide range of different viewing screens for our cameras<br>

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf3ver2/screens/<br>

The E type is what lives in all of my 35mm SLR's</p>

<p>JDM von Weinberg<br>

I used to shoot equestrian sports using a pair of F3's. With practice it is not all that hard to follow focus on a moving subject.<br>

I will be the first to admit that my D4 makes it so much less stressful</p>

<p>I have and use old mf lenses on my D 300s, D 700 and D 610. I wear tri focals and have no trouble getting accurate focusing with the mf lenses. Sometimes I focus my AFS lenses manually when doing landscapes as I find manual focusing faster to get the focus where I want it than moving the focus square to the right position, making sure my composition is just right, etc. I do not use the green dot as I find it only approximates accurate focusing. Live view is the way to go. For action shooting, I use AFS lenses and let the AF module set the focus. If your eyes are good (with or without corrective lenses), you should not be deterred from using quality manual focusing lenses as long as they are appropriate for the shooting situations. And you can buy some that are at lower cost than new ones and the older ones are built like tanks. Check out this link for more info on Nikon lenses including older manual focusing ones: <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html</a></p>

<p>Joe Smith</p>

<p>Most of what of what I use on my D300 are older MF lenses. (I'm too cheap I guess.) I honestly never really thought too much about the issue of focusing without a split image viewfinder. Most of my shooting is static and done from a tripod though. I never pay attention to the green dot either, just twist the knob till its all sharp, check my my depth of field preview and adjust if necessary. Focusing seems easy enough for me, but my eyesight is pretty good and I don't shoot a lot of fast paced action. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I used to shoot equestrian sports using a pair of F3's</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Precisely, the old manual focus lenses are perfectly usable on the cameras they were made for. It's their utility for digital bodies that I question for any number of reasons not having to do only or even primarily with their being manual focus.<br>

As I say,<br>

"this is my AF lens and this is my stop-down son-of-a gun, my AF is for business and the stop-down for fun"</p>

<p>I have a D800 and a D800E. If you are not in a hurry, <em>and you have good enough eyesight</em>, the D800 is perfectly manually focusable without the green dot or the add-on magnifier. By the way, I'm focusing these cameras while wearing glasses for my approximately +2 diopter farsightedness.<br>

The 'not in a hurry' part refers to the fact that you have to rack the focus through the chosen focus point on the subject several times to be sure you are placing the lens' plane of focus where you want it on the subject. Yes, this activity may have been easier in the old days with the old Nikon F3, F2, and F cameras. Many are saying that the new Nikon Df camera has excellent eye focusing capability.<br>

Mostly I'm using f/2 and f/2.8 prime lenses(Zeiss ZF and Nikon Ais and AF).<br>

I feel slightly lucky that both my D800s, and the two D3's before that, and the D2Xs before that, had dead accurate eye-focusing. My D200 did not. <br>

I tried a Katzeye once in the D2; it wasn't a match for the thickness of the stock screen so the body would have had to be recalibrated for that screen only, so I sent it back.<br>

Some lenses mysteriously are easier, and some less easy to eye focus. Most f/1.4 to f/2.8 lenses seem ok for eye focus. The newer Nikon 35/1.4 AFS lens was really easy to focus--easier than the old Ais 35/1.4.<br>

The old Nikon 25-50 f/4 zoom lens, 135mm and 28mm f/3.5 Nikkors I have are more difficult to eye focus.<br>

If you have the sun glaring into your eye, unavoidable vibration(moving vehicle, etc) or a strong wind that causes your eyes to water, it'll be harder.<br>

Good luck on your choices.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...this belief about the viewfinder not being able to distinguish any difference in depth of field under f/2.8?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In my experience, this is true, though it might be a bit less than f/2.8. But it's not as much a problem as it may seem in many cases.You still have to look very careful where your focus is, and understand you will have a bit less DoF still. A bit of practise, but really not a hurdle.<br>

My most used lenses are all AiS Nikkors, including fast ones (AiS 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.2). Nailing focus with the 35mm is not too hard, also not wide open. With the 50mm, at f/2 it's easy, but the wider apertures are more tricky. All my other lenses are really easy on the standard D700 screen without any aids or replacement focussing screens. The green dot is not entirely useless but not something I rely on fully.<br>

I've used most of my MF lenses also on a D300, without issues - and that's certainly a smaller and dimmer viewfinder than the D700. So, the viewfinder and focussing aids really are not obstacle for not trying it.<br>

Since I frequently shoot in low light (night scenery), MF very often simply works faster for me than AF. Sure, AF is nice, and great in good light. But once it starts hunting, or the subject is very off-centre and you work at wide aperture/close range - I find myself more battling against AF, which tends to cost more time than just turn that ring a little. One gets used quick enough. And at least, with MF, getting it all wrong is my own achievement. No more blaming the equipment :-)</p>

Many good responses above, of which I recognize many

issues.

 

I had MF problems on the D200, where the screen and the

focus-dot said different things and both could not be

trusted. . Especially the 105/2.8 micro was problematic.

The D300 is better, but the viewfinder is still small. The

D800 has a larger viewfinder but it is still hard work to get

it right. In fact, the old F801 had the best matte screen in

my experience, better than F3 and F4..

 

I have a lot of experience with the 400/3.5 on D300.

Again: hard work, but doable.

<p>Way back in the day, I used to add a prop to slow down the process to make sure everything, including the focus (everything was manual focus then) was correct. I would light and smoke a cigar on the set -- try that today. Actually, a cigar really gets in the way, and that was the point. It slows everything down. I found that taking it slow, making sure everything in front of the camera was right, the art director or creative director was happy, everything behind the camera was right took a great deal of attention to detail. Manual focusing is part of that. The advantage we have today is that you can instantly see your image and determine if you got it right and if not repeat the process. But taking your time, and probably doing it several times (we no longer are paying for film or processing) is certainly something to build into your practice.</p>

<p>"Alright so everyone agree the green dot is unreliable..." - No, I don't agree at all. I was focusing on the moon the other night with a 400mm f/5.6 lens. The focus confirmation dot turned out to be just as accurate as using Live View. In fact Live View was near useless, since the moon's image was shown far too bright on the TFT screen, regardless of exposure settings. See image below, which was manually focused using the dot, and bear in mind that some atmospheric turbulance was noticeable and will have impacted on sharpness.</p>

<p>I'm not sure where all this 'anti confirmation dot' lobby comes from. If the camera's AF system is properly adjusted (by Nikon at the factory - AF fine tune is a total fudge IMO) then the dot tracks the camera's AF servo-loop and is just as accurate; including any backlash in the system. Manual focus lenses cannot be fine-tuned in any case. There's also the issue of some (maybe most) wide aperture lenses showing a shift of focus on stopping down and no visual, AF or focus confirmation system can automatically take that into account.</p>

<p>Edit: Forgot to say that the camera used was a D800 - you know, the one that's supposed to have iffy focusing - and the crop is 100% with the whole moon taking up about 1/10th of the frame area. I also didn't, and still don't have any problem using the focus confirmation dot on a D700 either.</p><div></div>

<p>It's not that the green focus confirmation dot is unreliable, on my D800 I found that peak focus is lens dependent. One lens I have is perfectly in focus when the light just starts to flicker on when coming from the near side of focus. Another is when it's fully illuminated, while another needs to be just on the far side of dot lighting up (i.e., coming from infinity focus to closer in). I have to remember which lens behaves like what. This is one of the main reasons I want a mirrorless D800 (AKA a Sony A7r, but with a Nikon logo on it) - so I can nearly instantly check the focus in the viewfinder like I can on my m43 cameras and nail it.<br>

I had wish that on the Df Nikon would have used a different focus confirmation method that was more amenable to manual focusing when using the PDAF system.</p>

Some good points here. My Contax SLRs had a split image, a fresnel collar and a ground glass sort of screen. Much

easier to focus. When I use those lenses on the Nex, I have to slow down and use peaking and then viewfinder

magnification. That works but is slower. The wider the aperture and the longer the lens, the less depth of field and the

better peaking seems to work by itself, but you really need the focus aides to be fast like we used to have in the old days,

especially if you are in your 50s with bifocals. I'm ok for landscapes but I'd hate to do action.