Non canon MF lens vs autofocus canon

[randy_johnson2]

I am trying to decide on a lens to purchase (used) for my canon 7NE. This will

be used for sports (outdoor soccer in daylight and stadium lights, track and

field outdoors, and swimming indoors (worst of lighting and access). I am on a

limited budget and would like a multi-purpose set up to save money. I have

been investigating using a MF wide aperture fast lens (by Nikon, Leica, etc.)

for fast action low light environments vs. prime canon autofocus (non-IS).

There are tradeoffs to both alternatives: can get a faster, sharp, high

quality MF lens for about the same price as a newer used canon autofocus prime

(but slower not as low light capable.) Can anyone help me decide based on

personal experience with both types of lenses?

[m_barbu1]

You want to shoot sports with a manual focus lens? I think you should try this before committing. It's not something I would want to have to do.

[jcolwell]

I suggest you stick with AF for these uses. I have some great MF fast primes, such as the Carl Zeiss Contax Planar T* 85/1.4, Tamrom SP 180/2.5 LD, and Nikkor*ED 400/3.5. When you shoot wide open, the depth of field is very shallow, so it is important to get the focus right on. I use a Haoda split-prism focus screen in my 20D to help improve things (the 20D finder is much less bright than the Elan 7N). These lenses work well on a tripod and with subjects that are not moving fast, but it's not easy to use them wide open for sports (even with a bright finder). Of course, Canon's fast AF telephoto lenses are expensive, but you could find something like a Sigma AF APO Macro for around $200. It has a very good reputation, just make sure it says "APO Macro", as there are some "APO"-only versions that are not so good.

[dave_powell2]

If I understand correctly, you want to mount a MF Nikon lens (for example) on a Canon body. I think you will need to also buy an adapter (thru KEH, e*ay, B&H, e*ay...) that will put the lens at the proper registration distance to get infinity focus. Since Nikon lenses have a longer registration distance than Canon, this would be a simple mechanical adapter ring. (If you wanted to go the other way...Canon lens on Nikon body...you'd have to buy a more-expensive adapter that included an optical element.) And with either type of adapter, you'd lose many of the camera's automatic controls. The same would probably hold for a Leica lens, or any other that doesn't match the Nikon registration distance.

 

Actually, MF lenses can be good for shooting sports (or any subject), if they are appropriately marked and you know how to control Hyperfocal Focusing. But you mention a "wide aperture fast lens," and that can really scrunch down your depth-of-field. You'd have to be VERY lucky to get (for example) a sharply focused action shot from the bleachers using a 50/1.4 lens wide open! An autofocus would be much safer.

 

Good luck with your decision! --Dave

[John Crowe]

I am lucky. I never made the jump from manual focus to auto focus, so putting Nikon manual focus lenses on my Canon 10D was a no brainer. I also have my wife's Elan IIe, it's kinda mine now, for when I want to use film. I have learned how to manual focus over the last 20+ years even with Formula One race cars.

 

 

I use a Nikon 200mm f2 AI for indoor swimming in the lanes close to my position. I chose this over the equally priced Canon EF 200/2.8 L so I could use ISO 100 with my flash. From years of using Canon FD L glass I highly suspect that the 200/2 is far sharper than the EF 200/2.8 L even wide open let alone at f2.8.

 

 

For those swimming lanes that are farther away I use a Nikon 400/2.8 AIS lens and ISO 200. This is also my primary motorsports lens and kid's soccer lens. I paid about the same amount as a Canon EF 400mm f5.6 L. For the image quality and the 2 stops I'll take the manual focus anyday!

 

 

I also use a Nikon 14/2.8 and Nikon 50/1.4 AIS for the same obvious reasons. I do have my wife's 50/1.8 and 70-210/3.5-4.5 for those times when I don't care so much about lens speed and image quality.

 

 

My Nikon to EOS adapter just got stuck on my Nikon 400 so I just ordered 3 more from jinfinance on eBay for a total, including shipping, of less than $50 USD. I doubt I will ever own a Nikon body so I am not worried about what I would have to go through to get the adapter off the lens. That adapter was 3 years old and mounted/unmounted at least 250 times!

 

 

Yes depth of field with these teles is tiny. I'd say 60% of my soccer shots, 40% of my motorsports shots, and 25% of my swimming shots are sharp. The soccer and swimming are ALL digital so the lower percentage is not wasting film. The motorsports are all films including Ektar 25, Kodachrome 25, Velvia and E100VS so the expense of failure is higher. The 25 ISO films is why I demand having a 400/2.8.

 

 

For the near lanes of swimming pools the Canon EF 200/2.8 L would be easier to use and would still do a great job at ISO 200 but the 200/2 is the sharpest lens I have ever used and I do use if for more than just this one purpose. Eventually I will get a Canon EF 70-200/4 L or 200/2.8 to use when I do not want the weight and size of the 200/2.

 

 

For most sports shooting you can prefocus on a spot through which your subject is going to pass. Indoor basketball in a gym is the only place I have reverted to autofocus. Even then it misses a few due to picking up the wrong subject. I still read of many autofocus pros going with the prefocusing method of manual focus.

 

 

All this is not for the faint of heart. It will take time and practise. Good luck!

[shawngibson]

I LOVE manual focus lenses. I shoot portraits (WAY more slow than any sport barring maybe snail fights). I just upgraded to the 5D. My choices as a main lens (85mm for me) were obviously large...Canon, Leica, Zeiss, Nikon...I've owned all but the Leica.

 

My choice? I sucked up the cost of the Canon 85L/Mark II because MFing is just too slow. I am personally still slow at AF, but that is the weak link - me. And THAT is a slow lens...but way faster at shallow apertures than MFing.

 

I suspect for sports it would be practically useless to try and do it, unless you are happy to spend a lot of time hitting the delete button.

 

but YMMV

 

Shawn

[shawngibson]

edit: what did they do in 1980?

 

Have you ever noticed there is not a single sports picture ever made on the entire planet before the first AF camera?

 

Hummm...

 

Wow, we are spoiled...

[m_barbu1]

Did anyone say it <i>couldn't</i> be done? It's just not something I would want to <i>have</i> to do. :-)

[nam_nguyen]

I'm used to MF for sports from the days of the T-90 and F-1, but I guess it's not for everyone. One trick is to stand besides the road and practice focusing on oncoming cars. You need to coordinate your eye (tracking), left hand (focus) and right hand (click shutter) to work together. But then oncoming cars don't zigzag or change directions abruptly like players on the field.

 

For football and soccer you'd want 400mm on monopod, and the Nikon 400mm 3.5 is a unique lens. It's not gigantic and still fast enough and now is rather cheap (I got one for $700). No other mount has such a lens. You would not want to lug around a 400 2.8 all day, save your back.

 

For indoor swimming the 70-200 2.8 auto focus variety with a 1.4x would do fine. I wouldn't wanna skim on this with a MF 80-200 2.8 because their push pull design and bulkiness makes it quite difficult to manual focus, let alone tracking a moving object. I had a Tamron 80-200 2.8 back in the days and it was a pain to shoot basketball with.

 

The 70-200 2.8 plus 1.4x would also give you a 280 f4. Multi-purpose and weight saving there.

[John Crowe]

I don't mind doing this at all.<div></div>

[John Crowe]

Here is another.<div></div>

[dave_powell2]

Nam's first paragraph above (about hand-eye coordination) is WAY true. Reminded me of the time my uncle (a retired AF Colonel and B-52 pilot) sent my wife and me tickets to the Hanscom Air Show north of Boston. I took my newly-acquired, first-time-used, 500mm mirror tele mounted on a Nikon FE. After a bit of trial-and-error, I started to "know" when my exposures hit and missed the mark, focus-wise.

 

I even captured a sharp tele shot of the underside of a Stealth bomber that suddenly flashed into view, low over the forest behind us, and vanished over the far horizon at mind-numbing speed. And I just KNEW that I had the shot. It was truly a "Luke...Feel the Force" moment!

 

As a gift, I offered a set of prints to my uncle. He "passed" on the biplane-aerobatic shots, and the Thunderbirds courting catastophe, and instead kept my close-ups of the Stealth and B-52 bellies. "There's some weird technologies mounted on them that I don't understand," he said. "I want to make a few calls...check it out."

 

MF can be challenging in action situations...but also fun and very rewarding when everything clicks!

 

Dave

[yakim_peled1]

Which focal length do you need? What is your budget? Do you have any previous experience which shooting sports with manual focus lenses?

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.