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

Canon L and Nikkor AF series vs. MFL
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
gaeger wrote:

As far as cost/quality, an inexpensive lens in practiced hands is better than the most expensive lens in fumbling hands. My advice would be: If you think your photos aren't good enough, practice more, experiment, shoot, shoot, shoot. Buying a different lens, while fun, won't make the difference.


I posted a picture in the Café of some shots I took exactly one week ago using MFL's. I don't know how good people think they are since few people commented. Considering I was able to capture the moon with craters while the wind was Gusting 40 mph and knocking me down, while holding a long telephoto in the dark by hand, I would say that I am pretty good with manual lenses; however, I am not sure if they are good enough for my work in low light. Recently, in a separate setting, I used the Nikon 1.2 AIS manual lens, which some people would say is fast, but it simply wasn't stellar to me, in its shooting capability, including wide-open. I don't think it is my skills but I am open to suggestions and criticism. There is definitely something wrong with the focal plane and I most likely do have to change the focusing screen, like cooltouch and a few mentioned. However, to sacrifice (if that is what one wants to call it?) the existing focusing screen built for AF lenses for that for MF lenses, is the question and, if, after that, I can still get as good a shot as with an L-series lens, is what remains to be determined. Yes, low light, as in anything in the dark. Fast as in sports stuff. Low light + Fast, as in anything with movement in the pitchness of darkness. Fast also as in capturing a shot that there is no time to focus for, like a wedding kiss that someone had mentioned, etc....just things that you cannot afford to miss, no matter what.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 6:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well this is a manual focus forum so opinions may be biased. All I will say is I have the Canon 24-70 L and the 70-200 L and I use these mainly for my more serious non-still life stuff; only occasionally pulling out an MF lens.

Concentrating mainly on modelling photography these days, I don't want to lose the moment whilst trying to focus and operating the manual aperture so AF wins here. Landscapes and all other still life and it's almost all MF.

If you're interested only in the final image then pick the right tool for the job. If you are more into lenses, you pick the interesting older ones.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I really wish I had L series lenses with AF. I cannot tell you much this is on the front of my mind. I don't know anyone who uses Manual in my neck of the woods and I really think it does matter. I feel so disappointed. Sad

Even my fastest Zeiss (1.4) feels like it is not good enough for my needs. I am having trouble realizing there is such a large difference. Sad


PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
quote="martinsmith99"]If you're interested only in the final image then pick the right tool for the job. If you are more into lenses, you pick the interesting older ones.[/quote]

...Or the newest, most expensive, highest tech lens in the belief it makes one a better photographer.

No question, though. Right tool for the right job. I use a couple AF lenses for work or catching fast moving subjects. Landscapes? Still life? Macro? No thanks on the AF. And, older, interesting lenses often work as well as--sometimes better than--their high priced, modern successors.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
NikonD wrote:
gaeger wrote:
As far as cost/quality, an inexpensive lens in practiced hands is better than the most expensive lens in fumbling hands. My advice would be: If you think your photos aren't good enough, practice more, experiment, shoot, shoot, shoot. Buying a different lens, while fun, won't make the difference.


+1


+1


PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
gaeger wrote:
As far as cost/quality, an inexpensive lens in practiced hands is better than the most expensive lens in fumbling hands. My advice would be: If you think your photos aren't good enough, practice more, experiment, shoot, shoot, shoot. Buying a different lens, while fun, won't make the difference.


+1


PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arninetyes wrote:
gaeger wrote:
As far as cost/quality, an inexpensive lens in practiced hands is better than the most expensive lens in fumbling hands. My advice would be: If you think your photos aren't good enough, practice more, experiment, shoot, shoot, shoot. Buying a different lens, while fun, won't make the difference.


+1


Another +1 Wink L lenses will make no-one a better photographer! BTW, L lenses are designated as "L" because they have certain properties to the lens elements, not because they are loads better than some other Canon lenses.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I am not familiar with Nikon - I simply do not have any of these lenses

I have had only one - Nikkor 135 f2 and that was amazing lens but I found Canon FD 135 f2 -- ehhmm -- better in my eyes.

I have got 4 x FD 'L' lenses = they're all perfect - high quality standard lenses with own spirit and quality

I have got several Canon FD lenses with no 'L' but also killers ..

I would really discourage anyone from saying Canon is not good...

I had had Canon zoom AF lense and I sold it -- but I would never say it was a crap..

Canon AF lenses are perfect and high quality standard -- especially zooms - they're almost unbeatable

...but Canon is improving wide-angle zooms or wide-angle primes and they do very well.

I have not Canon AF lens in my collection now -- but I would not hesitate to buy one for professional shooting, if there is a need to buy one.. and again == especially tele or tele-zooms

tf


PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't think anyone here has said Canon doesn't make good lenses, or that Nikons are inherently better. They're not. Both make mostly good lenses, some great lenses, and some dogs. Based on my limited experience, the opinions of a couple pro photog friends, and on many reviews I've read, Zeiss and Leica seem to make a higher percentage of great SLR lenses, and a lower percentage of dogs than either Canon or Nikon, but even they don't make perfect lenses.

There is no such thing as a perfect lens, though there often will be a lens that is perfect for whatever task is currently at hand.


PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arninetyes wrote:

There is no such thing as a perfect lens, though there often will be a lens that is perfect for whatever task is currently at hand.

The perfect lens for me, is whatever I put on my camera, be it AF/MF or some homemade/adapted gizmo. All have their place, but the final image is what I'm looking for.


PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
The perfect lens for me, is whatever I put on my camera, be it AF/MF or some homemade/adapted gizmo. All have their place, but the final image is what I'm looking for.


Yup! And the 'worst' lens is pretty much any lens you don't use because you'd rather use something else.


PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arninetyes wrote:
martinsmith99 wrote:
The perfect lens for me, is whatever I put on my camera, be it AF/MF or some homemade/adapted gizmo. All have their place, but the final image is what I'm looking for.


Yup! And the 'worst' lens is pretty much any lens you don't use because you'd rather use something else.
Laughing Laughing
Precisely!


PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2011 4:31 am    Post subject: Brand vs brand....or... Reply with quote
process vs process
....Canon's MF designed lenses are no more...the AF function requires a focusing barrel that isn't suited to MF (not being viscous dampened)

and

process vs product
....I just prefer to rotate the MF barrel designed for MF
...MF seems to engage me more in the decision-making and product creating

...but that is not a brand vs brand issue...that's my aesthetic preference not my brand fancy...though after shooing Nikkors for so long, the opposite rotational direction of other OEM focusing barrels isn't suited to my unthinking automatic processing...had I been shooting any other brand I probably would be thinking in the opposite "direction"


PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2011 5:00 am    Post subject: Re: Brand vs brand....or... Reply with quote
mfkita wrote:
process vs process
....Canon's MF designed lenses are no more...the AF function requires a focusing barrel that isn't suited to MF (not being viscous dampened)


I understand completely. My 'best' macro lens (according to some) is a Tokina 100/2.8 AT-X Pro D Macro. Yes, it's very sharp and it has no discernible distortion. It really is excellent, it has a very "usable" MF function, and it cost only a small fraction of a new Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8. I use it mostly for work, where the ability to switch between AF for non-closeup work and MF for closeup is a huge and efficient advantage.

When doing closeup photography for pleasure, I really dislike the feel of the MF ring on the Tokina as it has no damping at all. For closeups of not-necesessarily macro subjects (particularly shy and/or stinging ones), I still prefer my MF 200/4 Ais Micro-Nikkor with its one-finger focusing ring (and long lens-to-subject distance). For field macro work in the 1:1 range (excluding many venomous critters), I like to use an old Micro 55/3.5 pre-Ai (compensating). Talk about wonderful focus feel!

They just can't build that into modern AF lenses.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2