Shall I go manual focus for everything and forever?

I follow 1 body - 1 lens pholosophy. I used to shoot manual focus a lot (the Yashica 109).

I want a very classy tank-like rock solid lens and can afford one. I live in a small town so I want to minimize lens's ability to break down and search for service in a big city. I want everlasting problem-free lens.

Shall I get Loxia 50/2 for everything? Like rich colors and 50 mm. I see it won't be worse than my Limited Pentax.

Landscapes and product ph. are OK.

Is street ph. OK?

Is speedway and beach people OK? Parties and weddings? I know zone focus to some extent....

I think the main reason people go manual-focus only is a feeling of ritual purity. If it makes you feel good, go to it.

 

On the other hand, why not take advantage of modern technology? Using AF does not mean that you can't "touch up" the focus manually (if you buy the right lens, that is).

 

Lots of classic photographers shot mostly with 50mm or 35mm on a 24x36mm format.

 

If I, personally, were going for only one lens, I'd get one of the walkabout 24mm to 100mm zooms (for 'full frame').

Photographers have been manually focusing lenses for almost 200 years. It still works.

I'm completely fine picking up a Nikon F2/F3/FM/FM2/whatever and going out with a bag of MF primes. I also use my Hasselblad a lot, and of course that's manual focus.

 

I cut my teeth on MF cameras, even well in the AF era, and I'm 100% comfortable with it. When I was in high school in the mid-2000s, I was sometimes on the sidelines at football games with my Canon T90, FD mount 400mm f/4.5(sometimes with a 1.4x) and often Tri-X pushed to 1600 or 3200. I got a lot of perfectly usable images with tricks like anticipating the action and prefocusing(wait until something comes into focus in the frame and then releasing the shutter) and even tracking action with MF.

 

Still, though, I prefer to NOT MF on an AF camera-the focusing screen is often not that great for MF.

I cut my teeth on MF cameras, even well in the AF era, and I'm 100% comfortable with it.

Same here - with the following addition: "until I wasn't". I even used Novoflex rapid-focus lenses - until my wife with her then-new F100 beat me handily. More recently, I used some manual focus M-mount lenses on a Sony A7/A7II - fine for shooting static subjects but not good enough for anything that moves. Not so much because I don't know the manual focusing techniques and tricks but simply because without viewfinder magnification critical focus wasn't always possible - and that's nigh impossible to do with anything that moves (and not even that great with static subjects until you locked the framing in with the camera on a tripod).

You haven't made a reasonable case for manual focus so for you I'd say forget it.

You haven't made a reasonable case for manual focus so for you I'd say forget it.

:)

Newer AF lenses are made for AF. There may be a manual focus ring but many aren't mechanically connected and provide poor feedback.

Newer AF lenses are made for AF. There may be a manual focus ring but many aren't mechanically connected and provide poor feedback.

 

At least in the Nikon world, I find some AF lenses are better than others.

 

Screwdriver lenses of moderate focal lengths and AF-S lenses that require actually flipping a switch to engage MF(i.e. M-A switches, as opposed to M/A-M switches) are terrible since theres no damping. Focus-by-wire AF-P isn't too far behind. Older screwdriver lenses with an A-M switch on the lens tend to be decently damped and aren't bad. "Real" ring motor AF-S lenses also MF pretty nicely with good damping, although they have a somewhat annoying trait of allowing you to turn the focus ring past the limits(you can "feel" them if you're turning the ring slowly).

Don't!

I haven't tried somewhat contemporary Sony bodies. I'd hope they 'll automatically open your aperture up for focusing and close it for shooting? - Looking at various cheapo SLR lenses I had, I dare to say: That doesn't always work reliably and (almost) eternally. I am worried to have some aperture blade salad dangling into my path of light or to end with a lens that won't stop down, again.

Please pardon me starting Djihad, but

1 body - 1 lens pholosophy... and weddings

Works only as long as two are "one" and one is none.

From my personal, paranoid POV you are unlikely to gain enough reliability boost from buying a manual focus lens to justify sacrificing AF.

While I don't know the Sony mount manual Zeiss lenses, I consider the focus ring of my ZM 21/2.8 unpleasantly sticky; i.e. "worth trying to have it relubed". Of course that lens, with maybe two helicoids, one for the RF coupling cam, the other for moving the glass around, might be a different beast...

I think the main reason people go manual-focus only is a feeling of ritual purity. If it makes you feel good, go to it.

+1!

I like my Leica Ms, but won't claim them to take as many good pictures as maybe EOSes. I shoot them to have my fun, not to capture something for sure or to gun down weddings.

I guess one could enjoy going all manual focus but keep in mind: An EVF needs to be zoomed in, to confirm focus (or will you rely on the AF module to do that job?) Everything else will be zone focusing guess work demanding you to stop down, to be better safe than sorry. - Nothing wrong about "f8 & be there" though.

I think that carrying only a 50mm lens is just fine as long as you don't need (or want) anything wider or longer, or are willing to live with the limitations (and potential creative advantage) of just having a 50mm FOV. Would not be my choice, nor would it be my choice to primarily use MF. I would think that any MF lens (especially an expensive high quality Zeiss lens) could be used for decades without the risk of any mechanical failure. Of course any digital camera, like any modern electronic device, can malfunction at anytime, though most likely will also operate for a long period of time without fail.

I would think that any MF lens (especially an expensive high quality Zeiss lens) could be used for decades without the risk of any mechanical failure.

 

It depends to some extent on the exact lens and when it was made.

 

MF SLR lenses are pretty simple devices in general, but that doesn't mean that there's nothing that can go wrong with them.

 

I've seen a non-zero number of Nikkors, especially newer AI-S ones, get "sticky" focusing rings. One in particular, a 135mm f/2, that I've had was basically unusual.

 

Also, lenses of all makes are susceptible to oil migration to the aperture blades. In the Nikon world, one of the most notorious lenses for this is the AI-s 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor. This can give inconsistent exposure as the blades can be "sluggish" in closing.

What camera, film or digital ?

 

I found all the dSLRs that I've used to be inferior to the film SLRs for manually focusing. The AF screen is optimized for AF, not MF.

 

As has been said, some autofocus lenses just do not feel good to manually focus with.

 

As for:

The old saying comes into play "a jack of all trades is a master of none."

A single lens will NOT do everything you want to the level that you want. A single lens is a compromise.

On my Canon 5DS R and Sony A6000, I use 3 Nikon AIS manual focus lenses, 2 Canon FD manual focus lenses, 1 Canon EF zoom, and the manual focus only Canon EF 17 TS-E.

 

 

The Canon EF zoom comes in handy for AF with some sports photography, otherwise 99% of my photography is manual focus and manual exposure. i honestly can't remember the last time I put my camera in an autoexposure mode...maybe 30 years. At least not since I switched to digital in 2005, that is the huge advantage to DSLRs and instant feedback.

I have a Loxia (the entire set), which I find ideal for landscapes and relatively static objects. I would take them over any other manual lens in my menagerie, Nikon, Leica and Zeiss ZM. While I can manage to use them for active subjects (e.g., grandchildren), it is with considerable difficulty, and only because I have so many years doing just that with a Leica. That said, I would not recommend a manual-only lens to someone without a particular need or passion for it. An AF lens, even slow AF, is at least 3x as quick to put on target, and can still be used in manual mode should the need arise.

 

One of the features which endeared me to the Sony A7 system is the ability to focus manual lenses with extreme accuracy. Focus by wire is difficult only in the fact that it is velocity controlled, not position controlled. Most people can master it with a little practice, and the knowledge of the principles involved in velocity control.

Edited February 18, 2019 by Ed_Ingold

What camera, film or digital

Sony A7 iii.

I like my Leica Ms, but won't claim them to take as many good pictures as maybe EOSes.

I will think it over.

I consider the focus ring of my ZM 21/2.8 unpleasantly sticky

Unexpected to me.

As for mechanical feel, I have recently tried the Pentax 40/2.8 limited in a manual mode...(it is screw diven aluminum one). Guess what - the focus rind is super petite, it is damped just right and turns as it is oiled. No friction sound, no wobbling....

On the street I will need to focus by scale and stop down to f8. Or f4 - f5.6 for faraway objects.

I haven't tried somewhat contemporary Sony bodies. I'd hope they 'll automatically open your aperture up for focusing and close it for shooting?

Loxia is fully manual aperture lens. I have to close it every time for every shot.

As for 1 many task lens, I see great photographers of the past. They did everything with a single 50mm lens.

Maybe, high speed motion will not be easy :confused:

But the main caveat for myself - I will spent much more time for a particular (magnify each time and change position of magnified frame and stop down) shot and consume more energy. Sometimes miss smth super fast (burst of emotions, speedy objects etc)....

Edited February 18, 2019 by ruslan

Loxia is fully manual aperture lens. I have to close it every time for every shot.

In that case I would run(!), not walk, to avoid it.

I have & had old(!) SLR stuff, like early Zeniths & Practicas, without the auto stopping down features. At least the comrades were kind enough to offer preselect aperture lenses with a smooth ring for closing it or semi automated aperture like in the 300mm Tair that closes mechanically before you shoot and needs to be reopened and recocked by hand before you take a next picture.

To shoot a lens without such features I really prefer cameras where the aperture setting doesn't interfere with my composing and focusing. - Be it RFs, TLRs or the good old Technika.

I tried my DR 'cron on X-E1 in the studio for products. Since I wanted to shoot hand held at f16 (DOF was needed; IQ not really) I packed up quickly. My EVF lag became horrible at f16 so framing became hard to do and operating the RF lens' hard clicking aperture ring all the way round caused too much movement to the too light camera.

I believe SLRs, as wide or normal cameras, didn't gain popularity among journalists until apertures got automated?

 

Great photographers of the past faced subjects of the past. Yes a beautiful face then would be the same now, but what did and does a mind behind those know and expect? Would a revived Erich Salomon with his revolutionary Ermanox (<-nightmare camera) be still competitive? Will flocks of presidents sit long enough after a meeting for press to maybe even rig up tripods for a group shot?

I guess people are used to others snapping them instantly and all the time with half decent phone cameras and expect us to work at a similar speed. When shooting events indoors switching from older Pentax to EOS made a huge difference to me. - I'd still try to take a few pictures with Leica M but I know its impossible to spontaneously capture the facial expressions I am after, on some people, with that rig. Things are maybe not that bad, if you stick to 50mm & less, but once again: The great street and press shooters of the past most likely did not go for wide open portraiture, all the time. Assuming you are into that and 'll go Sony, I'd really try to buy into their eye detection AF for portraiture and maybe dabble with affordable manual specialty lenses on the side, once in a while, after nailing my bread shots, If I am confident to have a sufficiently cooperative subject.

How good are you with manually focusing a lens? Until you have enough experience it can be a rather slow and difficult process, especially with screens that have no manual focusing aids.

 

With a MF lens, focusing will be SLOW compared to AF. Are you prepared for that? Personally I would NOT give up AF because of the speed that the AF systems will focus is much faster than I can do by hand. This is important for anything with fast action or where you have to get a shot off quickly.

 

Having to manually stop down the aperture for each shot is a real PiA, and will get old fast. We had to do it back in the 60s and 70s with manual lenses, and I was glad to switch to an auto lens where I did not have to hassle with the aperture ring for each shot. Add this to slow manual focusing, and it will take a significantly longer time to get off each shot.

 

I could handle a manual focus lens, but NOT a manual aperture.

There are times that manual focus works better than AF, but conversely there are plenty of times when AF is better.

I can't see the point of making any choice in photography 'for ever'.

Use whatever works best, by all means have an exercise of only using one for a fixed time, to practice that skill, or get to know its limits.

 

Likewise I find the concept of one body one lens to be needlessly restrictive. All the camera bags I use have at least 6 lenses & I sometimes bring an extra lens bag :)

I follow 1 body - 1 lens pholosophy. I used to shoot manual focus a lot (the Yashica 109).

I want a very classy tank-like rock solid lens and can afford one.

 

If it works for you, fine, but I can't see any reason to do without the functionality offered by a good AF lens, and I have never seen the point of using a single lens. The whole point of SLRs is to allow one to use multiple lenses. I started out when there was no AF, and I still use manual focus when it works better, but much of the time, the camera focuses quickly and accurately by itself. Moreover, it can sometimes maintain focus when I can't. I don't see any virtue in avoiding that functionality.

I don't understand why most (all?) of your utterances are so extreme. Why do you want only one lens? What possible advantage will this offer? In the old days people did this because they could not afford more, or their camera only allowed one, or they didn't care much. Not caring about the photos you can't take because you only have one lens is fine if you are happy with this. But this takes a state of mind that, to me, does not chime with what seems like an equipment fetish. Again what possible advantage is there in having an MF-only lens over one that allows both? From the way you talk I doubt you are serious, you keep basically asking the same question over and over again. The answer is not in the equipment. If you want to minimize equipment, then buy something (anything!) and take photos. Why spend a fortune on a one lens product when you are so unsure, tormented even, about the choice? Pick something inexpensive to start with. There's no point buying a Leica Q only to find out in 3 months time that you want more than one lens. I also am prepared to predict that if you do follow your 1-camera 1-lens philosophy that within a year you will be wanting to buying another lens. Then you will wish you had not spent all your cash on the Zeiss Otus or similar. Manual focus is no big deal in itself, but I don't see (nor will your photos show) any advantage to having an MF-only lens, and you will be worse off when you want to focus quickly.

Whatever gear you decide on you will be able to take a lot of nice photos if you put your heart into it. Just go with what feels right. It's not a tattoo so you can change your mind later on.

My 24-120/4 Nikon isn't stellar performer at 24 or 120 and I have thought about replacing it with primes. But most common primes are 35, 50 and 85 and kind of expensive, so I start using my zoom a bit differently, I am pre-setting my focal length at 35-40, 50-55 or 85, depends on subject, and it actually works really well, can't complain on sharpness anymore.

Tom Hogan mentioned in one of his articles , that he was surprised, when Galen Rowell was using cheap zoom and Rowell told him it works just fine when you use right focal length and aperture settings.

As for manual focus you can always turn AF off:)