Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Careful, another rant !!
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
My best prime (Pentax FA* 85mm F1.4) is an AF however I've never seen any lens AF or MF that can outperform it for sharpness and/or quality of bokeh


I had the same feeling as you. I read a lot of good thing in forum for my canon 85 1.8 and I believe it.
I change opinion after only 1 photo with a contax zeiss 50 1.4
Now the canon stay in the bag like a old good friend.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

niblue wrote:

Of the lenses I own over half are manual focus (and that ratio is likely to widen as I'm starting to add old M42 lenses) so I've no bias against them however there does appear to be some element of reverse snobbery about AF in some of the posts on this (excellent) site.


Speaking only for myself, if Canon came along and gave me a bagful of AF 'L' glass I'd happily take it and use it, but it wouldn't blind me to the results. Without a doubt, some of the 'L' lenses are magnificent, but are they worth the cash being charged for them? I don't think so.

I like Canon, I've always liked Canon, but they're just another camera maker - to show how loyal I am to a particular brand, ie, not very - my next digiSLR might be a K10. I can say this because I've put together a small collection of Tamrons and others that can now be used on almost any major camera in the future. Something I didn't do years ago and should have. It would certainly have avoided any 'orphan lens' issues when Canon abandoned their FD users, for example.

I use manual lenses because of issues like the above and the quality of lens that can be picked up for relative peanuts. Apart from that, I've always shot manually and it's something that's not an issue for me.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 5:45 am    Post subject: MF for beginners... Reply with quote

People 'raised' on AF may find MF less than consistant...yet they will complain that AF doesn't work well in low light situations, exactly when MF should be used...and are surprised how well MF works...esp. with MF lenses with their wide ratio turning of the focusing barrel (vs. AF lens's narrow ratio focusing barrel needed for the AF motor)...
My many years experience with MF with flat fresnel screens (minus split image and microprism) gave me the skills I need to use MF lenses on Dslrs...
I'm lucky to have found out how well Nikkors work on Canon...


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:34 am    Post subject: Re: MF for beginners... Reply with quote

mfkita wrote:
...I'm lucky to have found out how well Nikkors work on Canon...


Isn't that amazing? Shocked Very Happy


Welcome to this forum! I'm sure you will enjoy your stay.

Carsten


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 12:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Careful, another rant !! Reply with quote

LensLunatic wrote:
Orio wrote:
About "L quality" autofocus lenses, this time.....


ORIO,
without quoting / repeating all of your remarks I can only say that you're spot on: this is the truth, and it's a sad one.

Regarding all NEW lenses I bought within the last 4 years, the results were even more catastrophic:

Out of 12 original Canon AF lenses - 7 of which were "L" types (!) - , only 50% were fault-free and usable.

Out of 17 Sigma AF lenses - of which 15 were "EX" types - a whopping 70% were faulty.

Out of 9 Tamron AF lenses - make sure you're firmly seated before you read on - ALL (100%) were faulty


Well, these figures you report speak by themselves.
And coincide with the amount of disappointed comments I read on Canon forums.

I would like to have one, maybe two autofocus IS zooms to use for work, where I don't mind the image quality only the amount of work I can make in one hour - but I don't like the idea of spending thousands and being unhappy.

I have chances of being unhappy buying Russian glass, too, but there the lenses cost from 10 to 100 Euros on average, so I can afford this type of disappointment.

If I need top quality, I buy Contax or Leica lenses: I still spend a lot less than for a L lens, but I buy lenses built to last forever with whom the concept of copy variation is minimal, if not near to zero. Also they are smarter investment, because they are build to last more than a lifetime (no plastic), and because they can be mount on a variety of cameras, while L lenses can only be used on Canon cameras. This means that I will find more potential buyers the day I'd need to sell them.

Not to mention what would happen if Canon decided to change the EOS mount into something different. Impossible? No, it has already happened, it can happen again. Well, my Russian, Nikkor, Contax, Leica manual lenses will still be useable and will still have a value. I would not bet my money now on the future value of L lenses.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indeed some interesting facts here Smile

The quality you get from some of these older lenses is just plain unaffordable in a new AF lens.

Let's see for some of my own setup. I took lenses of comparable quality:

Pentax-A 50mm f1.7 : payed 30 euros || new AF version: Pentax FA 50mm f1.7: 150 to 200 euros.


Tamron SP 60-300mm: payed 70 euros || new AF Tamron 70-300mm DiII: 150 euros


Kiron 105mm f2.8 macro: payed 60 euros || new Pentax FA 100mm f2.8 goes for 300 euros on ebay.

and so on...

my profit: 440 euros on just 3 lenses!

+ I learned how to focus manually, something a lot of photographers can't do anymore! ^^

Tom


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:17 pm    Post subject: Re: Careful, another rant !! Reply with quote

LensLunatic wrote:
... but adjusted the AF module myself instead.


Wow! How did you do that?


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks! (Just in case...) Wink


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@MFkita - welcome. From your list of nikkors I would suggest you try out the 105/2.5 - it's one of the best they ever made. Then check out Bjorn Roerslett's website for information on older nikkors.

@TDN - Kiron 100/2.8 macro for 60 euros? - that price has long been impossible in the US. One recently sold for more than$300. And the Tok 90/2.5 is almost totally gone from the market, if you see one it will go for more than $300. Even Tam 90/2.5 is going up rapidly. Unfortunately MF lenses are gradually being discovered.

As a Nikon user I lament the fact that many Canonites have discovered the quality of the old nikkors and are in the market buying them.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrickh wrote:

As a Nikon user I lament the fact that many Canonites have discovered the quality of the old nikkors and are in the market buying them.


I wonder who here started this trend last year Embarassed


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's all ups and downs though. I feel that eventually the number of DSLR owners who want to use MF lenses will reach a peak and as more old MF lenses are found in cupboards or as part of estate sales, etc, there will be a surplus of them again. Bear in mind MF lenses were made in huge numbers for decades and some of the truly good ones were produced in significant amounts. (Admittedly the day of the real bargain has probably gone - no more finding a Nikkor 1.2 for a fiver, but that kind of thing was an aberration anyway.)

There must still be thousands, nay, tens of thousands of them still out there and only a portion of that number will appear on ebay. It's still worthwhile keeping our eyes open at flea markets, garage/boot sales and the like. Mind you, so does every other bu**er out there now. Sad
For me, the only access I have is via ebay, since decent flea markets and the like are very rare here, so for me it's a two-edged sword. I like ebay for bringing the world to my desk, but otoh, it's tending to bring asking prices up as sellers cotton on to the value of some items.

Market forces, and all that.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrickh wrote:
As a Nikon user I lament the fact that many Canonites have discovered the quality of the old nikkors and are in the market buying them.

Patrick, as a Nikon user maybe you should lament even more the fact that Nikon chose a register distance that makes their cameras incompatible with most other mounts, particularly M42. It's the only reason I've never been keen to own one, even though the quality is exceptional.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

peterqd wrote:

Patrick, as a Nikon user maybe you should lament even more the fact that Nikon chose a register distance that makes their cameras incompatible with most other mounts, particularly M42.


But this is also the reason why we Canoneers can rob them of all the great manual lenses!! Twisted Evil

(sorry!) Embarassed

Smile
_


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
peterqd wrote:

Patrick, as a Nikon user maybe you should lament even more the fact that Nikon chose a register distance that makes their cameras incompatible with most other mounts, particularly M42.


But this is also the reason why we Canoneers can rob them of all the great manual lenses!! Twisted Evil

(sorry!) Embarassed

Smile
_


You should count yourself lucky then, it would all have been so different if Canon had stuck with their old FD mount.

You were ranting about EF lens quality earlier, but the QC of Canon cameras is also pretty poor don't you think? I had to send mine back under guarantee to have the sub-mirror spring replaced and I think Entwistle had the same problem. When I couple this with the cr*p viewfinder, the problem with flash voltage, the lack of image-stabilisation with non-EF lenses and a plastic body that's developing shiny patches despite careful use, I'm currently ruling out Canon for my next DSLR.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

peterqd wrote:

You were ranting about EF lens quality earlier, but the QC of Canon cameras is also pretty poor don't you think?


Absolutely yes.
I think that their first really good digital reflex is the 400D.
5D has flaws, so did the 300D.
I always repeat, if it wasn't for two things:

1- the manual lenses
2- the CMOS sensor

I would have kept buying Nikon cameras (I used to be a NIkoneer in film age).

-


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

D3 and D300 will have CMOS sensors


patrickh


PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrickh wrote:
D3 and D300 will have CMOS sensors
patrickh


I know.
But I can't use my Contax, Leicas and M42s on them Sad
So no point for me.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't know what to do with your faulty Canon product ?

http://paradoxoff.com/mass-destruction-of-the-canon-cameras.html Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:09 am    Post subject: Nikkors on Canon full frame? Reply with quote

patrickh wrote:
@MFkita - welcome. From your list of nikkors I would suggest you try out the 105/2.5 - it's one of the best they ever made. Then check out Bjorn Roerslett's website for information on older nikkors.

As a Nikon user I lament the fact that many Canonites have discovered the quality of the old nikkors and are in the market buying them.


I've been a Nikkor user since the mid-1960s...I originally had the 105/2.5 but the lighter/faster 85 was better for shooting indoor sports (I originally had the 1.8, and that meant a click faster shutter speed, a LOT when shooting in dark arenas)...it was also too close to the 135/2.8 to be efficient on the news scene...the set up of 24/35/50/85/135/200/300 gives a near perfect progression of aspect ratios of vertical to horizontal (each vertical of the wider lens becomes the horizontal of the next longer lens)...

I got into Canon totally by accident...the luck of finding a 3mgpxl D30/50mm combo for under $100 at a thrift shop about a year ago...upgrading to the 10D a few months later...and then a half-year later tripping over myself discovering that this $375 camera would let me use all my old Nikkors...(as opposed to the D200 costing $1000 more).
I did sell my 58 and 35 as the Canon 35 and 50mkI are perfectly fine on the EOS...esp. as the crop bod uses less edge glass leaving just the center "sweet spot" as the image "catcher"...

Now I am considering whether putting these Nikkors on the FF 5D will introduce less (edge) quality...or wondering if I should just stick to crop bods like the 40D...I mean, I would like to step up the tech curve...
either way I'm in Nikkor heaven again...
BTW...Bjorn's "2" rating of the original 300/4.5 seem's WAY underated based on my experience...


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Absolutely agree about the 300/4.5 - but I think Bjorn is rating the lousy tripod mount as much as anything. My own experience of the lens is that it is oneof the sharpest out there.


patrickh


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrickh wrote:
Absolutely agree about the 300/4.5 - but I think Bjorn is rating the lousy tripod mount as much as anything. My own experience of the lens is that it is oneof the sharpest out there.


patrickh


Yeah, the mount isn't the best...(I hand hold 95% of my shots anyway)...
The rotating collar of the later model is probably better...but having gotten what I got so cheaply ($60 del.) I'm not EVER going to complain...


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello,

Just an oppinion: what I don't like about Nikon is tha fact that they didn't went on the same politics like Pentax : metering capability and focus confirmation with any Nikon F mount lens (MF , AF etc). Only D200 can do this (D300?). So in fact this very tiny feature would have had a bigger impact on Nikon body sells, I think. Imagine that you, with a D70/D80 (which are great cameras) can not do things that a Canon EOS user can have using Nikon MF lenses: metering and if the adapter permits even focus confirmation. Thats pretty weird, no.
Of course the registered distance is bigger but you can use T mount lenses, F mount lenses and don't forget about the great medium format lenses (yes, they are more expensive, more heavy and rare).

PS. May be Canon did made the EOS with 44mm registered distance to don't let FD Canon lens owners use them on the newly lauched EOS system (cameras). Yes, it was a risky move, but in long terms it proved a better one (concerning new AF movement in photo technics) which proves that other companies followd them (Nikon with AF-S/AF-I lenses, Olympus with 4/3 solution, Pentax with SMD lenses). Well, we'll see what Sony will do.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The lack of metering with the D70 was always a bitter pill, but chimping is relatively simple and digital allows instant erase, so all it does is make you take more time. I use both and I really dont care which of the two I put the lenses on. The mere fact that one could buy a 30 year old nikkor and mount it was a big consideration for me - after all Canon never gave a hoot about the buyers of their older lenses - neither did Pentax, or Oly. Why do you think M42 lenses are so cheap? It's because they are orphans, and is nothing to do with their quality. And look at the price of FD lenses!


patrickh


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrickh wrote:
... - neither did Pentax...


Well I don't know about Pentax. In each (I think almost) manual among the compatibilities of a camera with K Pentax lenses were put the M42 leses too. Pentax even made (or still makes?) the first adaptor M42->K Pentax (which was copied after by others like KOOD, KENKO, HAMA, KALT, etc.).
I hope that in the future, Pentax cameras (and any camera made with the K Pentax mount) (if Hoya will remain in the dSLR business) will still suport all the older lenses (with the limitasions we know today).