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

Is it worth it?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:59 am    Post subject: Is it worth it? Reply with quote
I would love to hear opinions from as many people as possible, as to whether you feel old glass or legacy lenses are worth the cost of no AF and no stabilization? What are the pros & cons? What is it about manual lenses that attracts such interest?

I'm really sincerely asking as a brand new user of MF lenses, and am very interested in the topic.

Thank you!


PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Get a Sony A7 II series and an AF adapter, you will get AF and stabilization with many old prime lenses. Wink


PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:50 am    Post subject: Re: Is it worth it? Reply with quote
Philtr wrote:
I would love to hear opinions from as many people as possible, as to whether you feel old glass or legacy lenses are worth the cost of no AF and no stabilization? What are the pros & cons? What is it about manual lenses that attracts such interest?

I'm really sincerely asking as a brand new user of MF lenses, and am very interested in the topic.

Thank you!


Get a camera body with built in aids for manual focus, and in-built image stabilisation. Problem solved really.

Pro's and Con's are difficult to discuss because it's really down to the photographer and what they are trying to do in their photography. In reality one persons unhelpful lens, is another's absolute gem, sometimes.

What is it about these lenses that has attracted your interest Philtr? That might narrow it down a bit for meaningful replies.

To give you a start, if you're into say street photography, an old manual lens on hyper-focal, might prove quicker in catching the moment, than an AF lens, although that's probably splitting hairs these days.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The (relatively) low cost of MF legacy lenses was a big incentive for me.
Manual focus also forces me to take a more deliberate, leisurely approach to photography.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My digital is a Sony NEX 7, which does not have in-body image stabilization and which does not support AF with most lenses. I bought it for two primary reasons: 1) I wanted to be able to use all of my lenses, including my Canon FD lenses, on a digital -- and mirrorless was the way to go in that respect, and 2) I wanted a camera with excellent resolution so I could get best quality digital duplicates of my slides and negatives (the NEX's resolution output is 4000 x 6000 pixels).

As for MF lenses, my recommendation is that you should buy the best lenses you can afford. This does not necessarily mean that you have to spend a ton of money. There are excellent primes and zooms you can pick up for not much money. 50/1.4s are relatively inexpensive. So are 28s. 24s are a bit more expensive, but still affordable. When you get into ultrawides (20mm and wider), prices have stabilized at high levels, even with old MF lenses like the Nikon 20mm f/3.5 UD pre-AI lens. Lenses like the Canon nFD 135mm f/2.8 and nFD 200mm f/4 can be picked up for very cheap and they are outstanding lenses. Zooms like the Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5 and Tamron SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4 can often be found for cheap and are outstanding lenses. As are many others. You should do a search here at mflenses if you have any questions about an MF lens. Chances are somebody here has reviewed it.

You should bear in mind, though, that if you have an APS-C camera, your lens focal lengths are effectively extended. This might be cool beans with your telephotos, but it isn't so cool with your wide angles. An 18mm lens becomes the equivalent of a 35mm format 28mm lens. So if you want wide angles with an APS-C camera, you're best off buying primes or zooms meant for these APS-C cameras. There is an alternative, the use of a focal reducer, like the Lens Turbo II, but you'll see some degradation of the image, especially in the corners.

Obviously an FF digital, with its 24x36mm sensor, doesn't have these special problems that an APS-C camera does.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I love to use manual focus lenses but not for fast moving objects such as my son.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:09 pm    Post subject: Re: Is it worth it? Reply with quote
Philtr wrote:
I would love to hear opinions from as many people as possible, as to whether you feel old glass or legacy lenses are worth the cost of no AF and no stabilization? What are the pros & cons? What is it about manual lenses that attracts such interest?

I'm really sincerely asking as a brand new user of MF lenses, and am very interested in the topic.

Thank you!


I would tend to switch the question round. Is AF worth the extra??
My manual lenses average under £10 a lens (still <£25 even after ignoring the unreliable junk).
On one of my camera I get IS on every lens I can mount, many of my SLR lenses should have AF (or at least AF for the final focus tweak) if used with one of my teleconverters (I've rarely tested them in practice)

If I was willing to buy another camera I could get an adapter that would give similar AF to pretty much all my 150+ lenses.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Most of us are not professionals. Or at least we don't use old junk to make a living, that would be just stupid most of the time. We play with vintage glass because they interest us and that has nothing to do with autofocus or stabilisation or even being able to get a technically good photo for the most part.

For me it's also a matter of budget. Hypothetically if you're willing to spend 1500 eur/$ you can buy exactly one top level modern lens that will give you perfect performance, reliability and image quality, or you can get for the same money 50 or 100 vintage lenses you can play with. Smile


PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Its a hobby.
Is it worth my wife's time to knit a pair of socks?
Certainly not.
But she does it anyway.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I consider AF and other stuff pretty overrated. On most camera's, in order to make the system to actually focus on what you want it to focus, you may as well focus manually.

Another advantage of real manual lenses: they have a mechanical focusing ring, not the dead-feeling "focus by wire" on AF lenses in manual mode.

Of course, there are some applications for AF, but not really within my style.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Is it worth it? Reply with quote
Philtr wrote:
I would love to hear opinions from as many people as possible, as to whether you feel old glass or legacy lenses are worth the cost of no AF and no stabilization? What are the pros & cons? What is it about manual lenses that attracts such interest?

I'm really sincerely asking as a brand new user of MF lenses, and am very interested in the topic.

Thank you!


Welcome Philtr

Depends. You'll answer yourself through your experiences.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Depends. If you shoot sports or events then mostly best to use AF.

For me, I shoot architecture off a tripod at night quite often and all past (and present for that matter) shift lenses are MF... So I'm used to MF and can happily adapt to using MF lenses on for other slow moving subjects.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wrong question in the wrong place! Twisted Evil
It's like walking into a lion's den and asking if it's worth eating meat. Caution! Laugh 1


PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Caution is warranted but only because (at least for me!) these old lenses perform quite well, will outlast the photographer and are just amazing pieces of industrial art and collecting them can be addictive.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This could be a long discussion, but basically I prefer the "look" of photos taken with many older lenses to that produced by many current ones. I am willing to work through the more cumbersome process these older lenses require to get the results I want. I don't consider my favored older lenses to be inferior to modern optics, at all. FWIW, photography is an important part of my work.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:43 am    Post subject: Re: Is it worth it? Reply with quote
Philtr wrote:
I would love to hear opinions from as many people as possible, as to whether you feel old glass or legacy lenses are worth the cost of no AF and no stabilization? What are the pros & cons? What is it about manual lenses that attracts such interest?

I'm really sincerely asking as a brand new user of MF lenses, and am very interested in the topic.


That’s a question that can be answered in so many different ways… It all depends on what type of photography you like, your technical/artistic preferences, and what you can afford. For me, the interest in MF lenses lies in the fact that this is how I learned to take photos. I like to take the time to think about what I am doing, to compose the picture, to set the exposure, and to focus. As a matter of fact, I like the process of focusing as much as I need the image to be in focus. To see an object snap into focus in response to the action of one’s hand on the focusing ring is very satisfying. It gives you a direct connection to what is happening. Some people like to call this “taking charge” or ‘being in control”. For me it’s part of the creative process.

All this is pretty subjective. But even objectively speaking, you know best what element of the image you want the focus on better than any AF system. I’ve used AF cameras on occasion, and I find that, as often as not, the AF system focuses on something else than what I intended and I end up struggling with it. Most AF systems also get less dependable as it gets darker – to me that’s distracting and annoying. But perhaps the reason why I look at it this way is because my subjects tend to be impromptu portraits, urban scenes and architecture. I don’t shoot action scenes or sports, so I don’t need the speed that AF provides in such situations.

Using MF lenses makes great sense for optical reasons as well. The images produced by the best lenses from 3-5 decades ago have a distinct character. There are several hundreds to choose from and they resolve differently, render colors differently, and blur the background differently, in an almost endless array of combinations. I’m not very knowledgeable about modern “made for digital” AF lenses. I understand that some of them may be sharper than old vintage MF lenses but the images made with them that I see on the web are not very inspiring. While technically brilliant, most tend to be flat, sterile, and without character to my eyes.

The optical considerations combine with financial ones. Some lenses made for digital today do indeed seem to leave old vintage lenses in the dust, but you can take an all-expense-paid vacation for two for the price of most of them. If you are an AA (advanced amateur) and not a pro with a company expense account, most are simply out of reach. This is especially true for fast lenses or any type of specialty lens. For example, you can get the celebrated 57/1.2 Hexanon lens for around $300, or a Hexanon 55/3.5 macro lens for about $150. The price of optically comparable AF lenses is usually many times that and often enough to blow a gaping hole in any spending account.

There is also the built-quality and size aspect. Frankly speaking, there is not much to go wrong in an old MF lens. The only moveable parts are the aperture and focusing mechanisms. In contrast, the functions of modern AF lenses – aperture operation, focusing, and image stabilization – all depend on delicate sensors, electronic circuitry and electrical motors. All these components are housed in light barrels made of polycarbonate or other not terribly resistant synthetic materials. In my opinion, all this represents a much increased risk of failure, and of exorbitant repair bills to boot. Moreover, the result of packing all these systems into the lens barrel is that the size of modern AF lenses is usually twice or three times that of their MF equivalents in focal length (this week Sigma introduced an 85mm for the Sony E-mount that looks like a vintage 300mm).

So that’s basically how it looks for me. The drop in prices of vintage lenses following the introduction of digital technology in the 1990s has allowed me to acquire all the lenses I had been drooling over before then. Considering my photographic interests, I feel the AF lenses don’t offer anything optically that I don’t already possess. As always, YMMV.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I am fairly new to manual lenses, I have found since using them a huge improvement in my photography, some of it due to taking my time to get the shot right, & a lot due to the characteristics of the lenses. My Sony kit lens with auto everything cannot compete with the box full of old lenses I rescued from a trip to the rubbish bin. The kit lens is always on the camera at work for work related stuff but as soon as I get home on go the old manual lenses.
I love the feel, the quality & the results, not to mention the price. My last 2 purchases a Tamron Adaptall 2 80-210 & a Minolta 55/1.7 cost under $50.00 each with stunning results.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:36 am    Post subject: Re: Is it worth it? Reply with quote
konicamera wrote:
Philtr wrote:
I would love to hear opinions from as many people as possible, as to whether you feel old glass or legacy lenses are worth the cost of no AF and no stabilization? What are the pros & cons? What is it about manual lenses that attracts such interest?

I'm really sincerely asking as a brand new user of MF lenses, and am very interested in the topic.


That’s a question that can be answered in so many different ways… It all depends on what type of photography you like, your technical/artistic preferences, and what you can afford. For me, the interest in MF lenses lies in the fact that this is how I learned to take photos. I like to take the time to think about what I am doing, to compose the picture, to set the exposure, and to focus. As a matter of fact, I like the process of focusing as much as I need the image to be in focus. To see an object snap into focus in response to the action of one’s hand on the focusing ring is very satisfying. It gives you a direct connection to what is happening. Some people like to call this “taking charge” or ‘being in control”. For me it’s part of the creative process.

All this is pretty subjective. But even objectively speaking, you know best what element of the image you want the focus on better than any AF system. I’ve used AF cameras on occasion, and I find that, as often as not, the AF system focuses on something else than what I intended and I end up struggling with it. Most AF systems also get less dependable as it gets darker – to me that’s distracting and annoying. But perhaps the reason why I look at it this way is because my subjects tend to be impromptu portraits, urban scenes and architecture. I don’t shoot action scenes or sports, so I don’t need the speed that AF provides in such situations.

Using MF lenses makes great sense for optical reasons as well. The images produced by the best lenses from 3-5 decades ago have a distinct character. There are several hundreds to choose from and they resolve differently, render colors differently, and blur the background differently, in an almost endless array of combinations. I’m not very knowledgeable about modern “made for digital” AF lenses. I understand that some of them may be sharper than old vintage MF lenses but the images made with them that I see on the web are not very inspiring. While technically brilliant, most tend to be flat, sterile, and without character to my eyes.

The optical considerations combine with financial ones. Some lenses made for digital today do indeed seem to leave old vintage lenses in the dust, but you can take an all-expense-paid vacation for two for the price of most of them. If you are an AA (advanced amateur) and not a pro with a company expense account, most are simply out of reach. This is especially true for fast lenses or any type of specialty lens. For example, you can get the celebrated 57/1.2 Hexanon lens for around $300, or a Hexanon 55/3.5 macro lens for about $150. The price of optically comparable AF lenses is usually many times that and often enough to blow a gaping hole in any spending account.

There is also the built-quality and size aspect. Frankly speaking, there is not much to go wrong in an old MF lens. The only moveable parts are the aperture and focusing mechanisms. In contrast, the functions of modern AF lenses – aperture operation, focusing, and image stabilization – all depend on delicate sensors, electronic circuitry and electrical motors. All these components are housed in light barrels made of polycarbonate or other not terribly resistant synthetic materials. In my opinion, all this represents a much increased risk of failure, and of exorbitant repair bills to boot. Moreover, the result of packing all these systems into the lens barrel is that the size of modern AF lenses is usually twice or three times that of their MF equivalents in focal length (this week Sigma introduced an 85mm for the Sony E-mount that looks like a vintage 300mm).

So that’s basically how it looks for me. The drop in prices of vintage lenses following the introduction of digital technology in the 1990s has allowed me to acquire all the lenses I had been drooling over before then. Considering my photographic interests, I feel the AF lenses don’t offer anything optically that I don’t already possess. As always, YMMV.



Very well said.
We can all relate to this.
It is, in fact, the total control of focus that has been my main motivation behind the acquisition and use of MF lenses.
Older lenses are also items of physical beauty and applied functionality.
Tom


PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2018 10:15 am    Post subject: Re: Is it worth it? Reply with quote
Philtr wrote:
I would love to hear opinions from as many people as possible, as to whether you feel old glass or legacy lenses are worth the cost of no AF and no stabilization?


All my MF lenses are stabilized very well. Pentax rules. Wink
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1