wildpicture Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 Last year I bought a used EF50/1.4 and EF85/1.8 lens. Both work fineand autofocus quickly with USM. But when I focus them manually itworks, but somehow doesn't feel smooth. Other (L) lenses I have focus(manually) much more smooth. Specially the EF17-40/4L I boughtrecently. Manual focussing requires slightly more force, but itfocusses so smooth. Very much like the old FD lenses, which give afeeling of metal rings moving through grease. I love that. Is this common for lenses like the 50/1.4? Or may there be somethingwrong with mine? Anybody have both a 50/1.4 and a 17-40/4L? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellavance Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 I have both, and my 17-40L is a little smoother than my 50/1.4. The 50/1.4 is about as smooth as my 70-200/2.8L IS, however... so... I hope they make as nice pictures as mine. Pierre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_stelly Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 The consumer EF lenses vary a lot. From what I hear, most of the FTM Ring USM lenses have a nice, sturdy manual focus. I've got a 28-135 IS and I'd agree that the manual focus ring is easy to use and has a nice tactile feel. From there it's pretty much all downhill. The non-FTM focus rings are anywhere from acceptable to cheesy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbq Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 I don't own a 17-40 (not yet, sadly, my wife doesn't let me get one), but I tried it in store a few times. I have a 50/1.4. I agree, the focusing ring feels smoother on the 17-40. It may be because the 50mm uses an USM micro-motor instead of a ring USM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 I have the EF 50 1.4 USM, EF 85 1.8 USM and EF 17-40 4L USM. The EF 50 1.4 USM has rather gritty and coarse MF. In fact, the EF 50 2.5 Compact Macro is much better in this regard (except for the thin MF ring!). The EF 85 1.8 USM and EF 17-40 4L USM are better and pretty close in terms of build and MF feel. Both feel kind of cheap compared the silky precision of my Nikkor 50 1.4 AIS and 135 2.8 AIS. Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david choo Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 There is a large difference between ring USM and micro USM. Ring USM cameras generally have a super smooth focusing mechanism simply because its much larger and less prone to stress problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quicksilver1 Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 <HTML> <Body> <i>The EF 85 1.8 USM and EF 17-40 4L USM are better and pretty close in terms of build and MF feel. <b>Both feel kind of cheap </b>compared the silky precision of my Nikkor 50 1.4 AIS and 135 2.8 AIS. </i> <p> I do not know where that comes from. Cuz, I recently got my new 17-40L and it does feel very vey smooth. I haven't owned any Nikkors but had borrowed from my friend. They are OK. </p> </html> </body> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 "I do not know where that comes from. Cuz, I recently got my new 17-40L and it does feel very vey smooth. I haven't owned any Nikkors but had borrowed from my friend. They are OK." I agree, the EF 17-40 4L USM's MF ring is smooth compared to most AF lenses. However, once you rotate the MF ring on a manual focus lens, e.g., Nikkor 50 1.4 AIS, you won't be so impressed. The fine gear ratio, perfect damping and silky smooth action are poetry in motion. In contrast, MF on most AF Nikkors suks green donkey wangs--loose, coarse and plastic feeling. Don't touch a Leica optic or you'll cry a river of tears for the whimpy MF rings on your expensive AF optics... Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerry_szarek Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 I do agree with puppy face that the Leica optics wins hands down for feel in the focus department. Not to mention that the bodies also feel better in the hand. Now why can't Leica make a digital rangefinder that takes M lenses, I'd even take a Canon nock off. Gerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robin_sibson1 Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 Canon's own MF lenses are/were pretty smooth; the real differenceis between AF and MF, and it does not make a lot of sense to compare one maker's AF lenses to another maker's MF lenses. A well-placed shot of manganese grease is capable of smoothing out even quite crude MF helices, although it is true that the best are beautifully engineered, and the Canon TS lenses show that the art survives. You cannot do the grease trick with AF lenses because it creates too much resistance in the focusing movement, and what is really remarkable is that in the 17~40 Canon have produced a focusing movement that is in the MF league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildpicture Posted December 8, 2003 Author Share Posted December 8, 2003 Thanks for all the replies. Good news and bad news. The good news is, that my 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 aren't suffering from a problem. Which I thought they might be, having bought them second hand. The bad news is that these lenses will never be as smooth as some other of my L-lenses, or my Canon FD lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now