your favorite manual focus lenses!

I seem to have missed this one the first time around. I have lots of lenses, having gotten my first F in 1970.

Now using a D7100, the manual lenses I find I use the most are the 35/2.8 PC (my "normal" lens), the 55/3.5 micro, and the 200/4 Q (with extensions for bug closeups).

All of these are pre-AI, converted. I actually have two of the 200's, both gotten from bargain shelf with hack-job conversions (because previous owners didn't know how to take the ring off a threaded-on flange), but the newer one has a nice smooth focus. I think my total investment in those two is $35.

Honorable mention to a shopworn 35/2.8K and the 28/3.5 - lackluster on full frame film, they both play nicely on DX, and because they are both cheap, simple and nearly indestructible, one or the other often gets packed as a spare when traveling.

Oh, actually it seems I did respond way back when, but it doesn't show in the usual way on an old thread. Oh well, this is the current set of favorites, as the thread is so old it predates my move to digital by several years.

I still have and like that old 105/2.5 but it's kind of long on DX and I am using my wife's 105/2.8D more often for macros and the like. Likewise, my preference for the 50/2 has waned as I lean now more toward 35, but I still have two of those 50's and they're still mighty nice.

I seem to have missed this one the first time around.

No, you didn't. Might not remember though as the thread is some 12+ years old:D

Four manual focus lenses that I occasionally use: Leica Apo-Telyt 180/3.4, IRIX 15/2.4, Nikkor 105/2.5 Ai, and a Nikon Series E 75-150/3.5. Most used: Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar 50/2.

this is, I think without actually checking, a post that has been re-animated often since 2009. FRANKENPOST

• a major problem with re-animation is that the post gets cumbersome and LOOOONG
   
  
• posting a new thread on the general topic gives newer participants a shot at being at the head of the column
  

you can always put in a link to the older cycle so it doesn't get lost

Perspective-control and tilt-shift lenses have good reasons for being manual focus, and I'd still put them at the head of my list.

I don’t think I ever posted here but if so, here’s an update: my standard carry manual focus lenses include an 18/3.5, a 24, also a 3.5 I think, a couple 50/1.4’s, 105/2.5 and also in 2.8 macro, 135 in 2 and 2.8, 180/2.8, 300/4.5, 500/8. Also 80-200/4.5, 35-135, a humongous 85-250, one or two others. They are all in one bag or another, all Nikkor and used on F2 or Nikkormat bodies or F4s and N90S. In my early newspaper days a second body and a 300 or 500 were just wishful thinking.

Rick H

43-86 when I was shooting film.

I think today it would be the 35-105

The other is the 80-200/4.5.

Smaller/lighter than the f/4 and f/2.8 lenses, and the zoom/focus ring is smooth and light.

Interesting above. Back in film days I bought used both the 35-105 and the 80-200 F4. They were about contemporary in manufacture, but they could have been made by different manufacturers they were so different. The 80-200 was nice to use - hyperfocal and constant aperture, tight and sharp. The 35-105, though optically decent on film, was temperamental, variable aperture, variable focus, ergonomically clumsy, with a chronically loose zoom. Ok as a walking-around lens, a varifocal lens with a loose zoom is virtually useless on a tripod, especially for macro (or pseudo-macro with the somewhat clumsy feature on the lens) unless you taped it down. Both these lenses have front elements that rotate with focusing, too, which makes polarizers difficult, especially with the floppy 35-105.

I used both extensively when filming, but neither gets that high on the favorite lens list now, though the 80-200 comes closer.

Interesting above. Back in film days I bought used both the 35-105 and the 80-200 F4. They were about contemporary in manufacture, but they could have been made by different manufacturers they were so different. The 80-200 was nice to use - hyperfocal and constant aperture, tight and sharp. The 35-105, though optically decent on film, was temperamental, variable aperture, variable focus, ergonomically clumsy, with a chronically loose zoom. Ok as a walking-around lens, a varifocal lens with a loose zoom is virtually useless on a tripod, especially for macro (or pseudo-macro with the somewhat clumsy feature on the lens) unless you taped it down. Both these lenses have front elements that rotate with focusing, too, which makes polarizers difficult, especially with the floppy 35-105.

 

I used both extensively when filming, but neither gets that high on the favorite lens list now, though the 80-200 comes closer.

I started with the 43-86 and always wished for just a little more zoom range, a little wider and a little longer.

Which is why the 35-105 looked attractive. But from your comments, maybe not.

For walking around, the 35-105 is fine, and though I have heard sample variation was worse for this than for most Nikons, mine was quite OK in sharpness and aberration, at least for film. And it is a nice range. Its unhappiness is mostly ergonomic. These days if you're using an AI camera or later, you might instead look for the 28-105 AFD. They're pretty cheap these days I think, and quite decent performers, with a 1:2 macro which, while not great, is not awful, and because it's a two-touch zoom, it's much easier to use on a tripod. The front element rotates with zoom but not with focus.

When I had the 35-105 I found it OK most of the time, and carried a bit of masking tape for when I wanted to put it on a tripod and shoot a mushroom or something.

For walking around, the 35-105 is fine, and though I have heard sample variation was worse for this than for most Nikons, mine was quite OK in sharpness and aberration, at least for film. And it is a nice range. Its unhappiness is mostly ergonomic. These days if you're using an AI camera or later, you might instead look for the 28-105 AFD. They're pretty cheap these days I think, and quite decent performers, with a 1:2 macro which, while not great, is not awful, and because it's a two-touch zoom, it's much easier to use on a tripod. The front element rotates with zoom but not with focus.

 

When I had the 35-105 I found it OK most of the time, and carried a bit of masking tape for when I wanted to put it on a tripod and shoot a mushroom or something.

• If it is a manual zoom, I want a 1-ring zoom. I don't want to be shifting back and forth between the zoom and focus rings.
  I've been spoiled by the 1-ring handling of the 43-86 and 80-200/4.5. :)
  But I have rarely been working on a tripod with the lens pointed down where the weight of the zoom mechanism would cause the lens to change zoom.
   
  
• If it is an autofocus lens on an autofocus camera, then a 2-ring zoom is OK. I will be 99+% on the zoom ring, and rarely be manually focusing the lens.
  
• But I don't know about an AF or AFD lens on a manual camera. I do not like the feel of the focus ring on my two AF zooms, in manual focus mode. Feels lose and sloppy, compared to the focusing on my pre-AI and AI zooms.
  

Yes, the down side of an AF lens is the short focus throw. If you could find a tight 35-105 at a good price you might well like it. You can also, of course, put tape on the barrel to stop the zoom creep, if you don't mind the ugliness. I did that with another notoriously loose one, the E type 75-150. I rag on mine because of its odd design, but I used it an awful lot when I was shooting film.

If you really like this kind of lens you might want to look at third parties. Vivitar, for example, made a 28-90 Series 1 close focusing 2.8-3.5 that is pretty highly regarded and sometimes shows up inexpensively, though I've noticed it's not as cheap as it used to be.