Nikon v. Nikon, Manual Focus Ease...

<strong>Nikon v. Nikon, Manual Focus Ease...<br>

</strong><br>

The finest lenses cant give their best if you cant

focus quickly, accurately and especially precisely where you

chose. I decided to compare several Nikon cameras to determine

which cameras are the easiest to focus manually under modest

light levels with fast lenses.<br>

<br>

<strong>Here are my results listed from easiest to the slightly

less easy...<br>

</strong><br>

FM2n and FE2 with K2 Screen.<br>

F3 (DE-2) and F2As both with red-dot K Screen.<br>

F5 with EC-E and F3HP (DE-3) with red-dot K Screen.<br>

<br>

<strong>And the underdog...<br>

</strong><br>

F100 with B Screen.<br>

<br>

<strong>How I did it...<br>

</strong><br>

First I compared a 50/1.4 AIS and 50/1.8 AI. After a number of

trials I decided that the 50/1.8 AI had a crisper image on the

finder screen so despite being 2/3 stop slower it was chosen. The

longer throw on the focus control didnt hurt.<br>

<br>

I did all focusing on the matte surface near the 12mm reference

circle at about the twelve oclock position. Neither the

split image rangefinder nor the micro prism collar of the K

screens were used. I focus through my regular glasses as I have

20/15 vision corrected at distance and I can see the subtle lines

of the Fresnel lens on the top side of viewing screens under

moderately good light. I dread the day when I have to install

diopter correction lenses on many of my cameras viewfinders.

Cameras with built in diopter correction are a real advantage.<br>

<br>

<strong>The winners...<br>

</strong><br>

The FM2n and FE2 beat the pack because they have a 0.86x finder

magnification with a 50mm lens focused to infinity. Here bigger

is better. The F3 with DE-2 finder and the F2As tied for second

because of their 0.80x magnification. The F2As has a red-dot K

screen installed in a frame dispossessed from an F2 Apollo or P

screen. The F2As also sports an F3 (DE-2) replacement eye piece

with the fat rubber donut.<br>

<br>

I was very surprised that the F5 (DP-30) and F3HP (DE-3) were

identical. I compared them for about 10 minutes and could not

call a winner. The traditional wisdom is that auto focus cameras

have viewing screens optimized to pass more unfocused light and

are therefore are less easy to focus than manual focus cameras.

The F5 clearly doesnt fall in this category. The 0.75x

finder magnification kept the F5 and F3HP in third place. If you

want an auto focus camera for use with both auto focus and manual

focus lenses the F5 is the one. The F5 viewing screen still has a

nice bite and focus experience despite the 0.75x magnification.<br>

<br>

<strong>Less honorable mention...<br>

</strong><br>

The F100 has the lowest finder magnification of all the cameras

in my test, just 0.70x with a 50mm. It is also the only camera in

the list that lacks ADR (Aperture Direct Readout) so you cant

see what aperture you are using when using AI and AIS lenses. It

also has the least useable electronic rangefinder as its

all green and not usable with peripheral vision. It was the clear

under dog. Please keep in mind that the emphasis of this

comparison is manual focusing ease. The F100 has other assets not

considered here and it would fair better under different

circumstances.<br>

<br>

The F4s and F4 also have a 0.70x finder magnification so they

cant

reasonably expect to compete with the F5 and F3HP.<br>

<br>

<strong>For those with eyesight problems...<br>

</strong><br>

The F5, F4s and F4 have an electronic rangefinder display which

is red/green/red that is easy to see with peripheral vision.

These are the best cameras for manual focus for those whos

eyesight cant be fully corrected through glasses, contacts,

diopter eyepieces or built in diopter correction. The F5 and F4

both have ADR.<br>

<br>

<strong>A word about eyepoint...<br>

</strong><br>

In the past Ive said the FM2n and FE2 are no problem

although I shoot through my glasses. I have been spoiled. I now

say the FM2n and FE2 are quite acceptable when viewing through my

glasses. The shading at the edges seems to disappear when

actually shooting the same way dust on the finder disappears.<br>

<br>

Though Im spoiled by the higher eyepoint of other Nikons I

still value the size, weight and user interface of the FM/FE

family of cameras. The F3HP has highest eyepoint but I value the

edge in focus ease so Im using a DE-2 prism on my F3HP

making it an F3. The eyepoint of the F3 is better than the F2As.

I probably should put an eyepiece from an FM2n on the F2As rather

than an F3 eyepiece. This would allow the camera about 1mm closer

to my eye while wearing glasses.<br>

<br>

<strong>The Extra Ace...<br>

</strong><br>

The 6x High Magnification Waist Level Finders DW-2, DW-4, DW-21

and DW-31 for the F2, F3, F4 and F5. These beat everything hands

down. The F5 is the winner here as its DW-31 has the least image

distortion. The DW-21 may well equal the DW-31 in this respect, I

dont remember. The Achilles heel of these finders is

vertical composition. Its so disorienting that I feel a bit

queasy trying so I just dont.<br>

<br>

<strong>Subjective v. Objective...<br>

</strong><br>

These test were subjective as conducting a more objective test

would require additional resources, they would require more than

one person and Im satisfied that the results are adequate

for my purpose.<br>

<br>

<strong>What this is not...<br>

</strong><br>

This is not a comparison of auto focus v. manual focus. This is

about manual focus v. manual focus.<br>

<br>

I hope you find my review of focusing ease useful.<br>

<br>

All the best,<br>

<br>

Dave.

I have so far resisted the siren call of the F5, David. My experience with the N90s, F100, and F4 had led me to believe that AF cameras were pretty awful for manual focus. Now you've gone and spoiled it. If an F5 is neck and neck with the DE-2 of an F3, I may have to give it a look-see.

 

By the way, most (but not all) of my F2 bodies will take an F3 screen with no modification. You just turn the screen around (fore for aft) and the 'lifting lip' of the F3 screen just clears the finder retention mechanism in the front of an F2. Older F2 bodies seem to have less clearance there. I have been told that a little work with a dremel tool on the lip of the screen will take care of even that. For some reason I've had difficulty 're-framing' screens.

Todd,

 

Rest easy, sort of: the F5 is neck and neck with the F3HP (DE-3) prism.

 

I�ll have to see about reversing the F3 screens as my F2 is a later version. I had a heck of a time getting the slotted screws back into the F2 screen frame. They really wanted to cross-thread. The Phillips screws of the F3 screen were a breeze.

Intersting thread. Here I run old Nikon F2's and F's; and use the H series screens; for rapid focusing in poor lighted sports gymns. These H series screens come in four models; optimized for different focal lengths. I use a H2 screen with the 85mm F1.4, 50mm F1.4; 35mm F2 and a H3 with a 180mm F2.8 ED...This screen has a micro-prism pattern over the entire screen; which works well for me for rapid focusing at sports events.

David, I'm not quite as surprised about the viability of the F5 manual focus... Having owned the FE2 and FM2N at one time, in my 20's, I agree that they are winners. But I just fell in love with the F5's total versality - incredibly usable for manual focus, and the obvious blazing speed when it comes to AF.

 

I like the F5 so much that when it came to selecting a second body (even factoring in DSLR options), I bought another F5.

 

KL

Interesting, and I have done similar tests comparing F3, F3HP, FM2, F2, and I have not been able to make the test objective enough to conclude anything. I am curious how you decided one was better or easier to focus than another. If you use the same lens, then all that swapping makes side by side comparisons impracticle.

 

The conclusions I reach are seemingly changeable depending on how tired my eyes are, what lens, etc. I can conclude I prefer the DE-2 to the DE-3, I think the F2 would be right up there if I put a red dot F3 K sccreen in there. The FM2 is fine also,I don't wear glasses when shooting, and the FM2 (w/a E2 screen) has this kind of great 'in-your-face' quality and is great for low light with the bright LEDs.

Some things are peculiar to the specific serial number.

 

Most others are peculiar to the class (F3 versus F100 for example).

 

But the manual focus versus auto focus is a big difference.

 

I have gone back to manual focus (9 lenses, out of 60 lens types tried).

 

The F90X meter, at least for me, was dead on. And the rangefinder snapped into focus instantaneously (literally, compared to an F100, which I eventually returned, because the rangefinder never seemed to focus from the same spot that the F90X got it on the first pass).

 

The viewfinder was much easier to read as well, from a manual focus perspective.

 

Different horses for different courses.

 

I do love F3's for manual focusing, though.

Neil; <i> I think the F2 would be right up there if I put a red dot F3 K sccreen in there</i><BR><BR>Here I use a K screen for the F and F2 bodies. What is a "red dot F3 K screen" ?

The 'Red dot' screens for F3 are the later, brighter F3 screens, similar to the F4 screens. (They have a red dot on the side)

 

I have an extra red dot K screen for F3, and would like to put it in one of my F2s, someone mentioned it could be mounted in an F2 frame, (I don't have an extra one), is there some other way an F3 screen can be mounted in an F2?

Oh Duh!...if only I had read Todd's post above I would have my answer on mounting F3 screens in an F2, I will try that, thanks!

I wonder how the FM3A with K3/B3/E3 screen would have fared if included in your test. I've had experience with the FM2n+K2, and I must say that the FM3A with its K3 screen is a notch above the FM2n in terms of viewfinder brightness and ease of focussing.

The "red-dot" K screen for F3 came out after the original F3 was released with its default screen. The red-dor K screen is a improved version that is brighter, this screen is distinguished with a red-dot

<em>"I wonder how the FM3A with K3/B3/E3 screen would

have fared if included in your test." -- Arnab Pratim Das <br>

</em><br>

Ive seen the FM3a listed in tech sheets as having an 0.8x

finder magnification and in the manual its listed as 0.83x.

If its really 0.83x Id guess it would edge the FM2n

and FE2 if the later had the K2/B2/E2 screen. <br>

<br>

I understand the eyepoint is the same for all three cameras. If

the image magnification is a little lower, 0.83x v. 0.86x then

the viewing experience for someone with glasses would be a little

better with the FM3a. Arnab, if you feel the FM3a is a touch

better than the FM2n then I think the finder magnification is 0.83x

as listed in the manual. Thats what Id prefer.<br>

<br>

In theory the FM2n and FE2 with K3/B3/E3 screen should be a

little better than the FM3a but I dont think it would be

enough notice if the FM3a is really 0.83x. <br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

<rant><br>

<br>

I bought a new DE-2 and it didnt fit my F3, No Way! I had

to pop the hood on the DE-2 and use a rattail (well, mouse-tail)

file so the slide on the left would move enough to allow the

finder to drop into place. I had to relieve the slots about 0.5mm.

<br>

<br>

Also the switch for the finder blind was sharp enough that I

though it might catch on a shirt and snap so I covered the finder

carefully with semi-permanent Scotch tape and sand the sucker

round on the back side. I used #240, then #400 then #600

sandpaper and finally a little nose grease so it didnt look

dull.<br>

<br>

Should I have to do this?? Am I being too hard on Nikon?<br>

<br>

</rant>

David, given all of this info, I have a specific question. It has to do with the 85 f/1.4

AF. BJørn Rørslett rates this lens above the 1.4 MF version by a fair margin. It seems

to

me that lens demands a lot of recognition, from a quality standpoint. But I

don't know that it handles well in MF, where one would get the most out of it for

portraiture. In my mind the closet competitor would be the 85 f/1.8 AF, even

surpassing the 105 f/2.5 due to it's speed . Where does it fall in the scheme of

things, in your opinion?

KELLY FLANIGAN (any others w/ insights on this issue), I thought that the H2 screen was OK for Nikon/Nikkor lenses from 55mm a certain model (the f/2.8, I think) at least up through a certain model at 200mm focal length, based on credible information that I've read. I'm in the market to buy one focusing screen that will work well in low light w/ lenses 50mm to 200mm. I notice that you go use H2 for shorter-focal length lenses but the H3 for 180mm in sports-arena photography. Why? What is the difference between the H2 and H3 screens? Is the H3 simply brighter to compensate for haze-buildup and light-reflectance falloff due to distance? Or what?

 

Also, I'm trying to remember whether I've read on photo.net that the H screens do NOT yield perceivable depth of field in the finder. Is this true? Do you only see the point of actual focus as being in focus, or do you see a before-and-after-point-of-focus depth of field as appearing to be in focus at a given f stop?

 

My prospective lens kit for use w/ a screen would be (28mm wide angle), 50mm normal, 55mm micro, 75-150 E series zoom, 80-200 zoom, 200mm Nikkor-q, TC-200 teleconverter. Would I be okay with the H2 only?? Do you have comparative experience using any other Nikon finder screens in low light, or using the Intenscreen?

Has any compared focusing ease of the F3HP vs an F3 with DA-2?

Boy, this thread is covering a lot of territory.........

<P>

<i>

Also, I'm trying to remember whether I've read on photo.net that the H screens do NOT yield perceivable depth of field in the finder. Is this true? </i>

<p>

Yes, that's true. If you're used to a standard 'K' screen, think about how the image looks through the split image rangefinder. In theory, you're supposed to line up the two halves to judge focus, but if you simply peer *through* the halves, everything seems clear. You can't judge focus or DOF this way.

<p>

The H screens work just like the microprism collar on a K screen. They break up or 'fracture' the image if it is not in focus and present a cohesive image if it is in focus. You can't really judge DOF with them. If you stop down beyond their designed range, they just get dark spots.

<p>

The difference between the various H models is the 'pitch' of the cut prisms. Different pitch for different 'angle of incidence' (determined by focal length and lens speed).

Brad:<p>Go back and read David's initial posting again. You will note that he does rate the F3 with DE-2 finder as easier to focus than the F3HP with DE-3.<p>David:<p>I've never had any problem with a DE-2 prism. The two that I've had (including the one that came with my camera) just drop into the camera without any binding. The eyepiece blind lever has always been smoothly rounded. Are you certain that your DE-2 has not been subject to some abuse in the past?<p>Now that I have an FG, I find the magnification of the FG to be higher, and thus a bit easier to focus than the F3 with DE-2. The instruction book lists the magnification as 0.84X with a 50mm lens at infinity. I don't think that one can practically go much higher, as I already have to mash my face against the eyepiece to see the entire screen. I do wear glasses, but a relatively small -1.5 diopter. I can see the F3 screen and meter displays in its entirety with my glasses on.<p>Finally, let me say that there are trade-offs in everything. I started with a non-red dot K screen. It has more tooth in the ground glass than the current red dot version, and thus it was actually easier to focus with than the current red dot K. I finally had to give it up because it had always had some play - it shifted around in the frame - and I doubted it's accuracy when the camera was held vertically. If you find a non-red dot screen that is selling at a discount, as long as it is in good condition, I would not snub it.

Kenneth; the old Nikon-Nikkormat Handbooks give alot of info on the old focusing screens for the F and F2. Each 2 page data sheet has a list of recommended focusing screens. This info was also listed with the instruction manual/data sheet one got when purchasing a Nikkor lens. A H1, H2, H3, H4 could be fitted and used with a body; for a 180mm F2.8 lens. The H2 and H3 work alot better with a 180mm f2.8 lens; with the H3 slightly better. Each H series screen is optimized for certain focal lengths; the H4 is for super telephotos. The screen is made entirely of microprisms; and is very bright. If one has a metered prism; one can dial in the "meter offset". With a 105mm F2.5 and 85mm F1.4 50mm F1.4 35mm F2; the H2 is the best in the H series screens. With a 2000mm F11 giant; 600mm F5.6; or a telescope; the H4 is the best H series screen. With a 400mm F5.6; 300mm F4.5; the H3 is the best H series screen. The 180mm F2.8 is ok with the H3 screen; H2 or H4; but I like the H3 the best. It has an apparent tad of blockage/vignetting in the finder; this doesnt show on the film.<BR><BR> Each H series screen is cut/molded with a different angle of the microprisms; so it can be optimized for a range of lenses. A general purpose screen is a vast compromise; the best thing for average shooting. An H series screen is a specialized screen; that is optimized for rapid focusing in dim light; with a different series for each range of focal lengths. They are great for sports and fast action. <BR><BR>The old big Nikon dealers and Nikon school had a gizmo that was Nikon F screen demo unit. One could place a Nikon F lens on its mount; and "try" each Nikon F/F2 screen; to see how they "worked"; with your Nikkor. The last time I saw one was in Franks Camera; in Los Angeles; about 2 decades ago. The list price of the Nikon screens was about 18.50 bucks in 1970; with the used prices about 9. Today many collectors are buying up the oddball screens.

Robert:

 

I was refering to a comparison between an F3HP (which would have the DE-3) and an F3 with an Action Finder (i.e. the DA-2). I just tried a DA-2 at a local shop and was amazed at the image size. Not sure if that translates into ease of focusing though? Anyone have experience with these two finders & ease of focusing? Thanks in advance.

<em>"I am curious how you decided one was better or

easier to focus than another." --Neil Parker<br>

</em><br>

I used the (is this better or this, with or without) method of an

optometrist or optomoligist. Its not easy but it works. I

used various subjects and various distances. I looked for subject

details that were just at the edge of being resolved.<br>

<br>

I didnt have a preferred camera in mind at the start though

I was surprised that the F5 and F3HP were at the same level. I

put a spotmeter on the eyepiece of the F5 and F3HP and the F3HP

is a trifle brighter. That surprised me also. I didnt know

that the F100 had a finder magnification of only 0.7x until after

testing.<br>

<br>

The difference between the FM2n and F3HP (DE-3) was quite clear.

The difference between the FM2n and F3 (DE-2) was there but not

as pronounced.<br>

<br>

A test with better controls would be good but I think the pattern

is quite clear. If the optical properties of the viewing screen

and the prism type and quality are similar then image

magnification determines the ease of focus.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

<em>"I wonder how the FM3A with K3/B3/E3 screen would have

fared if included in your test." --Arnab Pratim Das<br>

</em><br>

Tech sheets say the FM3a has a finder magnification of 0.8x and

the manual says 0.83x. If the later is true then FM3a should be

better than the F3 and have a more comfortable viewfinder

experience for eyeglass wearers than the FM2n and FE2. The FM3a,

FM2n and FE2 all have an eyepoint of 14mm so a slightly smaller

image size would make it easier to see the whole frame. The FM2n

and FE2 should be a trifle easier to focus than the FM3a with the

same K3/B3/E3 screens. This would really be splitting hairs. I

doubt that one could really see to be sure.<br>

<br>

The difference between the FM2n and the F100 is very noticeable.

The advantage for the F100 is not manual focus but auto focus,

TTL flash, balanced flash, etc. I can hold an F100 in one hand

and a speedlight in the other like a 40s or 50s press

photographer. With the F5 I get hand tremors very quickly. The F100

has a lot of performance in a rather light package. Im

afraid some will think Im dumping on the F100. Its

just not the best for manual focus, thats not its strength.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

<em>"Has any compared focusing ease of the F3HP vs an F3

with DA-2?" --Brad Farlow<br>

</em><br>

The old "Speed Finder" has an eyepoint of 60mm so the

finder image is going to be small. I looked at one once and since

I was not wearing a helmet or SCUBA mask I didnt see a use

for one. I imagine the DA-2 has the same optics or very similar.

Obviously the speed finder has its use and would be a lifesaver

when you cant get your eye close to the camera. I dont

have...<br>

<br>

OK, I do have specs on the DA-2: 0.7:1 with a 50mm lens focused

to infinity per Nikon F3 Sales Guide Q&A, Jan. 1980. It

should be similar to an F100. It might be brighter, I dont

know. I honestly have not looked through a speed finder since

about 1972 to 74.<br>

<br>

<a

href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf3ver2/finders/finder3.htm"

target="_new"><u>Nikon F3 - Interchangeable Viewfinders - Part IV</u></a><br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

For anyone who cant see the difference between an F3 and an

F3HP that might indicate the need for a diopter correction lens

on the eyepiece. I used to see quite well without my glasses. Now

I see the finder image rather poorly without glasses.<br>

<br>

Ive noticed that the rubber donut on the F3 (DE-2) finder

looks as though it will fit over a diopter eyepiece for the DE-2.

For those who dont want to take their glasses off and put

them back on repeatedly this will make using diopters quite easy.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

<em>"Are you certain that your DE-2 has not been subject to

some abuse in the past?" --Robert Lai <br>

</em><br>

That DE-2 was new from B&H. My F3HP was almost mint so I

figured I should get a DE-2 to match. Since the part I filed is

inside no one who is not inside the DE-2 will know. It functions

fine now.<br>

<br>

<em>"I doubted it's accuracy when the camera was held

vertically." --Robert Lai<br>

</em><br>

The finder screen rests (thats the actual focus surface) on

a fiber reinforced polycarbonate frame in the F3. That frame

masks the image coming from the lens to the prism at the surface

of the viewing screen. Its held down by four Phillips head

screws. You may not see the frame edges if the eye is back from

the finder. If that frame is loose it might move as much as 0.1

to 0.2 mm. Thats a guess I cant measure that

accurately.<br>

<br>

Only for perfectionists: that frame may be slightly crooked. ;-)<br>

<br>

Folks if you drop your precision screw driver and crack your reflex

mirror this conversation never happened. Coffee before commencing

is counter indicated.<br>

<br>

<em>"If you find a non-red dot screen that is selling at a

discount, as long as it is in good condition, I would not snub it."

--Robert Lai<br>

</em><br>

Revisiting the non-red-dot screen will have to come another day.

My F2 needs foam, it's getting sticky, and the F3 doesnt

want to accept the F2 screen. Ill keep that in mind.

I have an F3 DE2, and an F90. F90 finder looks brighter, and I can see finer details with it, compared to F3 with E screen (red dot). But i recently found out that I can actually focus with more precision and consistence with the F3. I have seen it in the photographs (I was shooting a 3D subject with both cameras to test my 300 f2.8 with 5 converters, to find out which combination would work best).

I also have the H3 screen: with the 300 it is very bright, add a converter and it is useless, as it starts to get black spots.

I had the impression that defocused areas looked different through the F90 and F3 with E screen. I wonder if someone else has noticed the same. If I understand correctly the F90 screen has something to do with fresnel for brightness, where the E screen fo F3 is a simple ground surflace. Am I correct?

Marco P

Im not double checking but the only viewing screens I

know of that do not have a Fresnel are the C and D screens. The U

screen is similar to the B screen but has a Fresnel designed for

lens with a focal length of 100mm and longer. <br>

<br>

Just remembered, here is a link at an astrophotography site with

information on F3 screens....<br>

<br>

Catching the Light by Jerry Lodriguss, <a

href="http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/I03/I0301/I0301.HTM"

target="_new"><u>Nikon Focusing Screens</u></a><br>

<br>

There are a few less screen types available for the F4 and F5

Carl,<br>

<br>

I have no experience with either the AF 85/1.4D or 1.8D. I do own

an 85/1.4 AIS which I special ordered not long after they were

announced. Bjørn Rørslett rates the 85/1.4 AIS very well. It

should be on the stand getting the gold medial but for the even

better performance of AF version. Im very sure Bjørn Rørslett

has his reviews of these lenses right. Ive seen a

comparison of the AF 85/1.4D Nikkor and a Carl Zeiss 85/1.4 and

the Nikkor edged out the Zeiss lens over and over.<br>

<br>

The 85/1.4 AIS is somewhat flat wide open with marked improvement

by f/2.0 and probably hits its sweet spot before f/4.0. The AIS

version beats the 85/2.0 AIS from f/2.0 to f/5.6 and then by f/8.0

they are about equal. The 85/2.0 AIS is a good lens if good is

good enough. Its not in the same class as the 85/1.4, 105/2.5

or 180/2.8 at least not in my tests. Bjørn gives the 85/2.0 (AI

or AIS?) poor marks for color rendition. I had one but only shot

B&W that I recall. <br>

<br>

One thing about both of the 85/1.4(s) is the large front element.

The lens is not subtle. You become a Cyclops god when you raise

it to your face. If you dont want "presence" youve

got a problem.<br>

<br>

I would guess the AF 85/1.4D focuses well as its one of the

more expensive prime AF Nikkors. Thats only a guess. The

price of the AF 85/1.4D is pretty steep. If you need the speed,

shallow DOF the AF may well be the best 85/1.4 available. Id

be inclined to keep the AF 85/1.8D for more casual use like

hiking, family picnics, etc. <br>

<br>

I paid $580.00 in 1987 for my 85/1.4 AIS. In CPI adjusted dollars

thats $938.00 US v. $999.95 US, 844.95 gray.<br>

<br>

This camera comparison certainly had an eye towards how easy it

is to focus on eyes on the matte field.<br>

<br>

<em>"But I don't know that it handles well in MF, where one

would get the most out of it for portraiture." --Carl Stone<br>

</em><br>

I guess Ive done everything but answer that question. I

wish I could as that would mean Id own the lens. <br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave.

My wife and I use an FM2n, F100, 85 1.4 AF, 35 2.0 AF, and 24 2.8 AF exclusively

(and have been doing so for the past few years).

 

For manual focus, we both reach for the FM2n (in fact we fight over this one

to the point where I'm considering trading in the F100 for another FM2n).

So our subjective preference concurs with Dave's extensive testing;

the FM2n is a greater pleasure to manually focus with. :)

 

All the manual focus lenses I've encountered have better focus feel compared to their

AF counterparts. I think the 85 1.4 AIS feels better and actually is

closer focusing than the AF version.

The 85 AF resolves a bit more at f/1.4 - f/2.0.