Nikon AF vs. Nikon Manual Focus

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>For several years now, I have shot photos for the local community theatre. First I take informal portraits (which they display as part of theatre Décor), then the dress rehearsal, then some of the first performance -- usually around 400 total shots. Since their proceeds go to charity, my work, including an 8x10 portrait print of each actor, is another contribution. From old habit, I still shoot with two cameras, DF and D750, nearly all available light, certainly with the audience present. I used the 24-85 and 24-120 for the portraits and rehearsal, the shots came out very well, possibly the best so far, since the theatre company much improved their stage lighting. Here is where it gets interesting. Because I shoot the first actual show from behind the audience from the back of the (small) auditorium, and am looking for actor close ups, I use longer lenses. In this case, the 28-300 on the D 750, and an old favorite 180 f2.8 AI on the DF. The images from the D 750 were just as good as the previous sets with current Nikon lenses. The surprise is the photos taken with the old 180. They appeared even better, contrast, color, sharpness. I have been using manual focus quite a bit the last few months with the micro 105 f2.8 D the 600 5.6 ED IF, I find that I prefer the results gotten with manual focus. It isn't that there is anything wrong with the autofocus photos, they are well exposed and nice and sharp. The manual shots are just some percentage better. I use aperture or manual for those, with the lens programmed in as non CPU. I do enjoy the convenience of the AF, but find manual to be almost as fast, and to some degree, on the DF, at least, superior in quality. <br>

Any thoughts or similar experiences? <br>

I just finished the work, but don't care to post samples without first asking. I do have quite a few manual focus images from the 105 and 600 already posted.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

Well, to be fair you're comparing a very well-regarded

lens in the 180mm (ED I assume) with some AF zooms

that were designed for flexibility rather than outright

image quality, so I'm not that shocked at your report. I

might be more surprised if you liked the 180 results

more than a 70-200 or 200 f/2 AF - unless you actually

wanted a little less contrast for portraiture. But there

wouldn't be a huge amount in it.

 

I do prefer my 135mm f/2.8 AI over the 135 f/2 DC (now

sold) - but I hate LoCA and seemed to have more trouble

than most with the DC. I usually use my 70-200 (or the

150mm Sigma macro or 200 f/2) instead, but the little AI

is handy for portability (especially since I was surprised

how big the 24-120 f/4 is).

 

I guess current MF lenses will come up. Zeiss do nice

stuff, but my experience with an 85mm f/1.4 Samyang is

that AF is just too useful - though I wouldn't turn down a

21mm f/2.8 if offered despite my 14-24. I'm vaguely

tempted by the Petzval lenses, though.

[glen_h]

<p>Many DSLRs have a focus screen not optimal for manual focus. I might guess that the Df has a better one. </p>

<p>Less accurate focus mean softer images, but if you are really good with the MF lens, I suppose you should get sharper pictures.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Glen -- the DF is good, the D 750 isn't bad. I sure wouldn't mind one of the old microprism F, G, or even K screens! Totally subjective, but I think the color is richer on the DF -- not necessarily more accurate. Of course that is all tunable so I should see what I can do to make the D 750 closer to the DF.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

I have the AF 180mm f/2.8 Nikkor and it's also

amazingly sharp and contrasty. There's a lot to be

said for relatively simple primes with their low

glass count, compared to a complex zoom. Having

said that; I'm also fond of the little 75-150mm f/3.5

series E zoom. If you haven't tried one, I can

recommend it for theatrical portraits when the loss

of half a stop isn't an issue.

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>RJ -- is that a push pull like the old 80-200 4.5? They sure aren't expensive on the net.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>I using a Nikon D3s, D4 and the Df. Before I go to detail, I getting slightly better images of my Df. I have all the top AF & AF-S lenses, but don't like the bulkiness of them, and using most of the time the old AI & AI-S lenses, prime mostly, and some of the old one-touch push-pul zooms. One of my favorite is the Nikon 50-135 mm f/3.5 AI-S zoom. One day in a steady daylight on tripod, on the 16th floor balcony, same subject I made a test shoots. Camera on the heavy tripod, not moved, and lenses ( all of them at f/8) from the oldest Nikon Nikkor-Q 200 mm f4 AI converted, two version of them, then a 200 mm f/4 AI-S, 80-200 mm f/4 & f/4.5(@200 mm ) then my brad new AF-S 70-200 mm f/4 VR. Send the images to my friend, ( living in the same floor) removing all the technical information from the file, name them as #1, 2, 3 - 6. Please pick the best on sharpness color contrast. He had pict the 2 & 3. Come over, I said, I haw a better monitor please see here and pick again. He did. 2 & 3 again. When I told him it was the old Nikon-Q 200/f4 and the old 80-200mm f/4.5 he didn't believed, shacked his head and walked a way.<br /> You mentioned the 180mm f/2.8ED. One of the sharpest lens on this range and the color and contrast is superior. Many of the old lenses non AI, AI, AI-S prime as god as the latest AF variant plastic lenses of over thousand dollar or, some of them even better, and a fraction of the bulk and weight. Of-course, you have to learn to focus manually fast. No problem for me, even in my age of 77. I shot 99 percent of the time in "M" manual mode.<br /> Rodeo-Joe. The 75-150/ 3.5 AI-S is also an excellent light zoom lens. Remember the famous photograph of the "Pagoda with a rainbow" it was done with this lens, by . . . . shhh i forgot the guy name. Sham on me. Yes it is the 77.</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>+1 for the 75-150 and the 50-135 zooms, wish there was an AF version of the latter. I think the 50-135 zoom range is really nice for portraits. The two samples I have perform very well, as does the 75-150 I have. I have had better luck with the older 80-200/4.5 lenses than the newer f/4 manual focus versions.</p>

<p>I just wish it was easier and more reliable to get critically in focus images with the DSLRs I have and MF lenses. My manual focus hit ratio is pretty good with telephotos, but it always seems that the best image is just slightly out of perfect focus. One of these days I plan to try an aftermarket focusing screen.</p>

<p>I like my AF 180/2.8D a lot, a little more than the 180/2.8 AIS I had. Its not the sharpest lens I have, but it sure renders people well.</p>

<p>I have used the 24-85 AFS and 24-120/f4 AFS. The samples I have used performed well, but did not seem to have any great characteristics. I prefer the results from my 28-70/2.8 AFS when a mid range zoom is the lens of choice (necessity), but I am not a big fan of mid-range zooms.</p>

[paul_k1664875007]

<p>I think the real thing you're observing is a) the difference in IQ of prime lenses verses (kit) zoomlenses, and b) the difference in image rendering between older manual and AF-D lenses vs modern AF-S lenses.</p>

<p>With regards to prime vs kitlenses, I think that discussion is closed pretty fast. Kit lenses are fit to be used in all kind of different situations (within heir focal length), but apart from being able to do the job/the jack of all trades character, in most of the cases lack the sharpness and IQ of primes, whether manual or AF.<br /> So when using them, one has to accept the loss in IQ (sharpness, contrast, 'character') as a trade in for convenience and speed (as in less need to physically move in closer by or further away to get the optimal framing all of the time)</p>

<p>With regards to the older manual/AF-D vs more modern AF-S (and optical performance wise similar lenses from other manufacturers) it's IMO more a question of personal taste</p>

<p>AF-S lenses, and (based on what I've seen and read in reviews and comparisons) similarly e.g. Sigma's and Zeiss Milvius/Otis/Batis (not sure if all of those can be used on a Nikon, not a Zeiss owner/User), are very much fixated on 'ultimate' corner to corner sharpness, resolution, and contrast.</p>

<p>The older manual and AF-D lenses (and maybe very few AF-S lenses, like the 1.4/58mm AFS) are not as 'perfect' in that regard.<br /> In some cases even much 'worse (eg 2/135mm DC and 1.4/85mm AFD, 'notorious' for softness wide open, and CA).<br /> And even the, despite owning one, IMO very expensive 1.4/58mm AF is by many 'experts' considered soft/unsharp wide open, while having a corner to corner sombrero type sharp/unsharpness shape http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/58mm-f1.4g-af-s-nikkor/review/</p>

<p>So if you're after that 'ultimate' sharpness, the older manual/AFD lenses IMO definitely are to be avoided.<br /> That ultimate sharpness though IMO comes at the cost of the way the image is rendered, call it character, a I hasten to admit very personal and consequently subjective benchmark.</p>

<p>To put it in practical terms, when I eg shoot catwalk of surf, where I (for simple commercial reasons) need to end up with the sharpest pictures possible, I use my 2/200 AFS, 2.8/70-200 AFS or 4/200-400 AFS<br /> But when I shoot fashion, fantasy or personal work, I prefer falling back on my old pre AI and AI/AI-s 1.8/85mm Nikkor H, 2.8/135mm Nikkor Q, , and AF-D 1.4/50 AF D, 11.4/85 AF D, and 2/135mm AF DC, occasionally even even 2.2/85mm Petzval, and the 1.4/58mm AF (despite all the newer AFS and Nano technology still 'burdened' with much of the optical 'faults' of the older generation lenses) on my DF and D800's<br /> From a technical point of view Those older lenses 'struggle' with eg when used on a high resolution camera like the D800 (the DF IMO is more 'forgiving' in that regard).<br /> But in return for me their 'image rendering' makes up for that in a superior way, a price I'm more then willing to 'pay'</p>

<p>At least, that's what I think ....</p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Quite many people actually like Nikon's manual focus lenses even today. The MF version of the 180/2.8 ED is reported to have less colour fringing than the AF versions (due to the latter being internal focus). The 180/2.8D AF N I've used was very good to excellent overall; what I didn't like about it was that it didn't have AF-S and the manual focus turn was very fast and it was not easy to get precise focus wide open. The LoCA was also noticeable at f/2.8 but by f/3.5 both problems pretty much evaporated and the images had a fresh, crisp look. Now, the 28-300mm superzoom isn't exactly the best autofocus lens to compare with the 180mm .... any zoom which has a range greater than about 3x is going to be compromised in image quality, and the 28-300 has greater than 10x range.</p>

<p>Today most people would use an autofocus 70-200/2.8 for that kind of shots, and that's a nice lens as well, but heavier and more expensive than the manual focus 180mm. I'm actually hoping Nikon would eventually make an AF-S version of the 180/2.8, and reduce the LoCA in the redesign. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I'm also hoping that Nikon start giving higher priority to LoCA - it's much harder to fix properly in post than, say, lateral/sagittal CA or even low contrast. I'm hopeful about the new 105mm f/1.4 in this respect, though it's not really my preferred focal length; also if Nikon have started using fluorite, that gives them more options for super-apochromats. Despite the ability to sharpen in post, I'd always rather have a sharp image and then blur details selectively in post-processing (sharpening increases noise, blur reduces it) even for a portrait, but I know many prefer a bit of flattering softness out of a portrait lens. In the best modern lenses, sharpness needn't hurt bokeh (and again, sharpening makes bokeh worse); however, perfect sharpness in the focal plane does tend to mean anything not locked on is blurry, whereas slight softness can give you an extended plane of best focus, which sometimes is nicer. So lens design is a bit complicated. Even the Otus has a bit of LoCA.<br />

<br />

On the manual lens front, apart from the Petzval, I'm mildly curious about the Laowa 105mm STF. I always liked the idea, and the DC lenses are very compromised for achieving the same thing. And I'm also not really a mid-range zoom person - I just bit the bullet on the Tamron 24-70 and the 24-120 because of my impending (at the time) holiday and my expectation that the UK prices were about to jump by 30%. I still want to prioritise a 400 f/2.8, so that'll keep me saving rather than buying for a while... (and yes, I know the manual focus 400 f/3.5 is good, but I'm not tempted).</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

The 105/1.4 is apochromatic to a similar degree as the Zeiss Apo Sonnar (135/2) so you might like the new Nikkor. I know

you had problems with LoCA on the 135/2 DC which does have a lot of aberrations wide open.

 

Still, somehow despite its techical flaws, I found images from the 135 DC of people subjects pleasing stopped down a bit

(f/2.8 to f/5.6) and surprisingly I have framed more prints from that lens than any other. Wide open I didn't like it much and

it was tricky to AF. The 105/1,4 AF-S autofocuses quite nicely at least on the D5. I am not yet sure how the D810 focuses

the new 105 but I expect to use it more in the future. To me the 105/1,4 is a good lens but a little ridiculous on the

specifications; I would have preferred an f/2. The f/1.4 maximum aperture is a little too big for its own good; it is easy to

get swirly bokeh using this lens which is perhaps to be expected but I am a little disappointed in that respect. I suppose

some users find the effect desirable. However, sharpnesswise the images are very good already at f/1.4 and the LoCA is hard to see if there is any. In this sense it is a significant improvement. 1-2 stops down and the image improves further. I suppose stopping down should refuce the swirly bokeh, however I have not yet tested what would the best aperture to avoid it but still get some background blur.

 

Maybe there will be 135/2 and 180/2.8 AF-S in the future, at more moderate prices for the more moderate specifications.

[Andrew Garrard]

<p><Joker>Where does he get those wonderful toys?</Joker><br />

<br />

Thanks, Ilkka - both for reporting back and for making me feel better about my own NAS. :-) I should probably try the 105 f/1.4 the next time I'm delusional about having any money. I'd spotted in the sample images that the LoCA seemed extraordinarily well-controlled, and it's good (if potentially expensive for me) to hear a real-world report.</p>

[roland_vink]

<blockquote>

<p>it is easy to get swirly bokeh using this lens which is perhaps to be expected but I am a little disappointed in that respect. [...] I suppose stopping down should refuce the swirly bokeh, however I have not yet tested what would the best aperture to avoid it but still get some background blur.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not surprised the 105/1.4 has significant mechanical vignetting (which is the cause of swirly bokeh and "cats-eye" highlights towards the corners), this is common with high speed lenses. A lens will need oversize front and rear elements to reduce this effect, but the 105/1.4 is big enough already.<br>

Stopping down will reduce this effect. Usually a lens needs to be closed down at least 2-3 stops before the aperture blades completely eliminate mechanical vignetting, and are the only thing affecting the entrance pupil. However closing down one stop already eliminates the worst effects - cats-eye highlights don't start to appear until further from the image center and illumination is more even across the frame. I imagine shooting 105mm near f/2 will have a good balance between reducing swirly bokeh and maintaining background blur.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Being paranoid, I also want to check that by "swirly bokeh" we're talking about mechanical vignetting rather than the kind of effect you get from petzval lenses due to their extreme astigmatism. Unless I'm actually going out of my way to find candlelight, I'm not normally too fussed by mechanical vignetting in the bokeh - smooth matters more to me than shapely!</p>