The joy of manual lenses

[sjmurray]

<p>I’ve been shooting digitally now for over 10 years mainly with AF zoom lenses. I can’t complain; I’ve gotten years of great shots using these modern tools. However, I began photography in the 60’s with a Nikon Ftn and the venerable 50mm f 1.4 lens, and later added a 24 and 28mm f 2.8 lenses and a 105 f 2.5. Since my main style of shooting is casual documentary and general landscape, I was quite satisfied with this set up right up to going digital with a D70. I still have a 28mm 2.8 Ais, the 105 2.5, a 50mm 1.4 Ais and a 55 f 3.5 micro Nikkor. Lately I’ve just been shooting with these manual lenses. With the D7100 it took me a while to figure out that accurate focusing depended upon getting the camera’s diopter setting just right, otherwise even when the image looks sharp in the viewfinder, the resulting image was not quite focused. I did not replace the ground glass with a third party option, although I considered it for a while. My point here is that using these manual lenses brings me back to the “feel” of shooting from what I remember from the film days. That’s the best way I can put it. These lenses are optically very fine: sharp and have nice out of focus rendering, since I tend to shoot with wide apertures. I’m wondering if any of you older folks who started with film and manual lenses experience the same thing that I am describing when using older lenses. I could put this in the “casual photo conversations” forum, but since I’m referring to Nikon lenses I posted here. Here’s some examples:<br>

50mm 1.4 at f 2 <a href="/photo/18193587&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/18193587&size=lg</a><br>

28mm Ais 2.8 <a href="/photo/18141877&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/18141877&size=lg</a><br>

105mm 2.5 http://www.photo.net/photo/5448379&size=lg</p>

[Two23]

<p>Rather than go just half way with a few lenses, I also bought and now use a nearly pristine F3/T. I shoot mostly FP4 and HP5. I like what I'm getting. :-)</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

[vrankin]

<p>We've had parallel experiences. I started with primes in the sixties/seventies. My basic Nikon body was a Nikkormat FT2. My favorite lens for general shooting was the 35 f/2. About five years ago I bought a used D70 and put a couple of fixed focal length D lenses on it. I enjoyed MF shooting for the same reasons you mentioned. I suppose a current full frame Nikon DSLR with some great primes would dazzle me.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Beautiful shot Kent! The one thing I lack in primes is a wide angle for my crop sensor D7100. I have done some outdoor shots with the 28mm, but I usually want wider for landscapes and tend to stick to the 18mm zooms I have. Some day I'll check out a used 20mm ais. It would be nice to have a wider prime to bike around with, which is when I do most of my outdoor shots. </p>

[Rick Waller]

<p>I can totally appreciate your comments. I too am old enough to have shot with only manual focus glass for many years. To this day, one of my favorite lenses is my old 105/2.5 that you mention. Simply stunning lens. <br>

But as much as I enjoy the manual focus aspect of some of the golden oldies, there is more to my satisfaction. The old manual focus lenses "feel" better in your hands. They are metal. The are highly machined pieces of mechanical art. Compare the focus ring on old Leica, Contax and Nikon lenses to the focus ring on a modern lens set to MF. The tactile sensation just is not present with the newer lenses. <br>

The Zeiss 100/2 makro is my only current manual focus lens, but it is a throwback. Craftsmanship and construction to die for. The focus ring has a very long throw making pin point focus easy compared to modern AF lenses switched to MF. Hell - the consumer AF lens have focus rings that are maybe 1/16" thick - they are sort of afterthoughts. No satisfaction turning the ring or handling the lens shades on the new lenses.</p>

<p>Hard to express what I (and you) are describing to someone who has not handled the lenses of old. The optical quality of the new generation of Nikon pro lenses are amazing and often blow the older, MF lenses out of the water, but there is no "feel" to the plastic/magnesium gear of today.<br>

Actually - as I think about it, if you have ever shot a Leica M-3 (or similar film body), you can not duplicate that experience of precision machinery using a D4. Hearing the mechanical click of the shutter or experiencing the perfectly smooth film advance when cocking the lever is something I miss.</p>

<p>Of course my aging eyes appreciate the AF convenience; at this point, the AF capability of my Nikon DSLRs and AF lenses focus far more accurately than I can hope to manually in many instances, especially if the subject is moving. And my aging muscles appreciates the lightweight modern bodies.</p>

<p> </p>

[Albins images]

<p>Lovely image, Kent! (F3T is my favourite too .. which tops it up ;-) )</p>

[studio460]

<p>Yes! I love my Ais Nikkors' feel and build quality. My first Nikon FM/FE kit included: 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm Ais Nikkors (later sold to buy a Mamiya RB67 system). But, a few years ago, I began re-collecting Nikkor Ais glass off eBay to build a manual-focus inventory for cinematography. My Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 Ais, I bought brand new from B+H:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/nikkorais-4.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="466" /></p>

[ChrisSpeaker]

<p>I too started with film/manual focus lenses in the 80s and still love it. <br>

I use both digital and film on a variety of camera lens combinations but my one of my favorites is Voigtlander 28mm f2.8 SL2N for Nikon mount. A extremely sharp lens and very compact and light too.<br>

Also, while technically a AF lens, I like my Nikon 105mm macro which has never even left the MF position on the AF/MF selector ring</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Besides "feeling" better in the hands, as eric points out, I think there is another thing that is also hard to describe: its the "process" of manually focusing that I am so used to doing. After a while you barely think about it. The process of using AF is very different: for me it is aiming my focus point at the part of the image I want in focus, then pressing the shutter half way down, then composing and shooting. I know there are a myriad variations of using the focus points, but that's how I have come to do it. Manually focusing is more part of the process of composing the shot, especially without a split image or Fresnel screen in the center of the focus screen. It seems smoother and more intimate in a way, than selecting the focus, pressing the shutter half way down, then re-composing. At least this is the difference to me!</p>

[SCL]

<p>I began in the 50s and got serious in the 60s with rangefinders. In the 70s I began to switch mostly to SLRs and joined the digital revolution relatively early. All said and done....I still love my manual lenses, and the opportunity to use most of them these days on a micro 4/3 body.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Is this the senior photographer's forum? I, too, shot for many years with manual lenses - starting as a child (about ten years old) and turned pro in the '60s. I think the real benefit of a manual photo system -- lenses and cameras -- is that you actually have to learn how photography works. I suspect that many, if not most, of those who have only used the highly automated system have a very slim understanding of the physics or even the practical aspect of how things work.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I am using manual lenses more on more these days, even on lots of work gigs. I find the focus peaking on my Sony A7R2 is easier than using auto focus in some cases, mostly with wider lenses.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I guess I'm somewhere in the middle here. I'm another old fart who has used manual lenses forever, and I still do often even though my low end DX camera makes this a challenge. I enjoy the process, and don't mind the slowness most of the time. But most of all, I just like the lenses. I like metal barrels and brass helicoids and real depth of field scales, and I like the way the pictures look when I take them. But I'd love it if I could wave a magic wand and have them convert to AF at least some of the time. I don't have any big issue with back button AF and recomposing, and the philosophical problems of the young are of only theoretical concern to me. I'd love it if my pre-AI lenses could magically be transformed into chipped AF without changing anything else about them. But they can't. </p>

<p>I'm sure the bondage and discipline aspect of this is good for the character, and keeps my laziness at bay, but really, it's mostly because I like the lenses and would rather use them manually than leave them at home. </p>

<p>I joke that my ancient 28/3.5 lens has Nikon pixies inside it. All joking aside, maybe it does. </p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Another "senior" joins the post, with the same kind manual focus prime lens of story dating back to about 1960 - I was a kid then.</p>

<p>I don't know if I find manual focus particularly pleasurable but for my product photography (bottles of wine) I use my D800 + 45 PC-E, tethered and manual everything, and even if there is a better way I can't use it because the key to kind of work is consistency of image style.</p>

<p> </p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>Another gray beard chiming in here, although I didn't actually get started in a serious way with photography until the early 1980s. Even after AF swept through the amateur ranks, I doggedly stuck to my beloved manual focus glass -- and manual exposure cameras, like the original Canon F-1 and the Nikon F2. I bought my first DSLR in 2009, but to this day, I still shoot mostly with manual focus lenses. Fact is, I have only a few AF lenses, while I have dozens of mf ones -- and I don't see myself changing my ways this late in the game.</p>

<p>From my beginnings in SLR photography, one of the things I always enjoyed the most was the act of focusing a lens, so it was like AF took a lot of the fun out of the process, which I guess is one reason why I have resisted it for so long and have only reluctantly given into it on occasion. You develop favorites over the years -- in my case, a modest selection of primes: a 24/2.8 Ai, pre-AI 35/2, 50/1.4 AIs, a wonderfully tack-sharp, battle-scarred pre-Ai 55/3.5 Micro and another beautiful pre-AI 105/2.5. I just can't see ever letting go of these gems for their modern AF equivalents. Not when they do such a wonderful job.</p>

<p> </p>

[marc_ravignat]

<p>I also enjoy using MF lenses. Started photography in my 20's in the mid 70's and have always enjoyed using older type lenses. I now use a variety of Nikkor lenses ai and non ai on my Nikon DF. My recent acquisition is the 50mm f2 Zeiss Makro Planar. Such an incredibly well built lens with the smoothest mf focusing mechanism that I have ever used. Some of my older Super takumars that I use on my micro four thirds camera have that quality feel also. I just love using finally machined lenses. Part of the joy of taking pictures. </p>

[john_hinkey]

<p>Head on over to here and you'll be in MF Nikkor heaven:<br>

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/929565/5471#lastmessage</p>

[donbright]

<p>I remember when Auto Focus first came out, I thought, Auto focus? Why? Well, I also remember doing very well without auto focus and I still do thanks to diopters for viewfinders. When and where to emphasize, or utilize the tools, and to do without them to keep things simple.<br>

I still use the 20mm 3.5, 24mm 2, 55mm 2.8, 85mm 1.4, 105mm 2.5, 180mm 2.8, 400mm 3.5. I've had some CLAd after 30 years of use. Some have their idiosyncrasies, working around them is entirely doable. I'm still amazed at the durability of these lenses. A little oil and lens element cleaning brings them back to life. In the early days of my Photographic endeavors, or before Medium format, I would shoot the Landscape in 135. That shortly gave way to 135 for the street and Medium format for the Landscape. Its all been good and it still is.</p>

<p> </p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I started shooting in the late 60s/early 70s and bought two F2 bodies not long after they were released. I worked them until 2006 when I used my cousins digital point-and-shoot on a trip to Chicago. That hooked me. I traded in everything for two D70s bodies and AF lenses and I have to say, I don't miss manual focus at all. Now I have two D300s bodies and all AF f/2.8 lenses and I'm a happy camper, but even though since getting the D300s cameras I've said they are all the camera I would need in the future, I'm now having GAS thoughts of the finally released D500.</p>

[StefDevos]

<p>I second the OP's feelings. I'm into portrait photography, and must admit that I mostly use the older AiS lenses, because of their ... feel & softness wide open (85mm 1.4 and 105mm f1.8). I do own AFS lenses and carl zeiss, but the latter, although spectacular, can be too "analytical" for portraits. <br>

Both lenses shot at f2 (800 iso, natural light in studio on tripod):<br>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=740366</p>

 

[Albins images]

<p><a name="00doqb"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6789788">Don Bright</a>, it's fun to see you own the same two f/3.5 lenses at the extremes of the manual lenses spectrum! 20/3.5 and 400/3.5.. In fact, I also have the 55/3.5, which could for esthetic reasons alone be my most compact travel-and-nature set in MF lenses..<br /><br />Other small MF combinations could be: 24/2.8, 50/2.0 & 105/2.8...<br /><br />Do I still use these lenses occasionally? Yes. For 'free photography', at home and during holidays. For fast-paced 'commercial' work, only the 20/3.5 gets used, together with 24-70/2.8 AFS and 70-200/4.0 AFS...</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Beautiful portraits Stef!</p>