View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Tom466
Joined: 15 Jun 2015 Posts: 26 Location: Viersen, Germany
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:39 am Post subject: How to get "faster" in manual Focussing.... |
|
|
Tom466 wrote:
So I am new to those old Lenses and MF, but it is real Fun to me playing around with them. Are there any Tips how to get faster and safer in getting Things, Objects and especially moving Objects in the right manual Focus. The E-PL2 has no "Focus Peaking" like other Cams for Example. .... (but next Year I am getting myself the Olympus OM-D E-M10, wich has the "Focus Peaking Feature"
Thanks for your Help, Tips and Ideas.
Tom |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
miran
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2015 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
In my experience focus peaking doesn't help to focus faster. I use focus peaking only when I have enough time to zoom in and fine tune the focus. To focus quicky I usually turn focus peaking off and rely on the fact that the EVF starts to flicker a tiny little bit when you find best focus. The same is true for the back LCD but to a lesser extent. _________________ my flickr stream |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
cooltouch
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2015 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
What Miran said. I use focus peaking on my NEX 7 to get me close, then I double check focus using the image magnification function on that camera, which enlarges to 5.9x and 11x. I find this plenty sufficient. 11x is really a handful when trying to hand-hold this camera.
Also, I'd just say this: practice, practice, practice. Back in my film days, I bought plain matte ground glass focusing screens for all my cameras that would take interchangeable screens. I still follow this practice. I initially bought the plain matte screens so it would be easier to use my Sigma 600mm f/8 lens. And I had a couple others that were f/5.6 lenses and a few others that were f/4. With all of these lenses, the standard microprism/split image focusing aids no longer worked very well and had in fact become a nuisance, just getting in the way of my trying to focus and compose. I found that with a bit of practice I got quite fast with plain matte screens, which is why I still use them.
One of my techniques that you might try is rocking the lens to achieve focus. By rocking, what I mean is you turn the focusing collar in both directions from the exact point of focus, reducing the degree of turn with each rock until you settle on that precise center point. It's like what a pendulum does -- it swings back and forth until finally coming to rest at its point of equilibrium. I find this works best when lenses are wide open and not stopped down a ways because that extends the depth of field, which makes it more difficult to determine the precise point of focus. But by the same token it makes things easier as long as I'm willing to trust the DOF the lens is showing. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
Attila
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Magnification is only what accurate really, for example on portrait shoots I check blood lines in white part of eye, if I see it , shoot will be deadly accurate if not either lens is crap or need try more to have accurate focus. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
dwijip
Joined: 16 Jun 2015 Posts: 12 Location: New Zealand
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dwijip wrote:
Also It really helps that you know your lens inside and out. How sharp it is at what f stop and focal length and whether it goes past infinity etc. Which I guess all come with practice |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
cooltouch
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2015 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Wow, Attila, I'd never thought of focusing on blood vessels in the eye. I'd always contented myself with trying to get the reflections sharp -- but I can definitely see how blood vessels would give you a better focal point, since some reflections can be diffuse. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
Attila
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2015 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
I am glad I could give you a useful hint _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
mo
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 27 Aug 2009 Posts: 8979 Location: Australia
Expire: 2016-07-30
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2015 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
mo wrote:
cooltouch wrote: |
Wow, Attila, I'd never thought of focusing on blood vessels in the eye. I'd always contented myself with trying to get the reflections sharp -- but I can definitely see how blood vessels would give you a better focal point, since some reflections can be diffuse. |
+1 thanks for the tip,it should work for cat portraits as well. ![Laughing](images/smiles/icon_lol.gif) _________________ Moira, Moderator
Fuji XE-1,Pentax K-01,Panasonic G1,Panasonic G5,Pentax MX
Ricoh Singlex TLS,KR-5,KR-5Super,XR-10
Lenses
Auto Rikenon's 55/1.4, 1.8, 2.8... 50/1.7 Takumar 2/58 Preset Takumar 2.8/105 Auto Takumar 2.2/55, 3.5/35 Super Takumar 1.8/55...Macro Takumar F4/50... CZJ Biotar ALU M42 2/58 CZJ Tessar ALU M42 2.8/50
CZJ DDR Flektogon Zebra M42 2.8/35 CZJ Pancolar M42 2/50 CZJ Pancolar Exakta 2/50
Auto Mamiya/Sekor 1.8/55 ...Auto Mamiya/Sekor 2/50 Auto Mamiya/Sekor 2.8/50 Auto Mamiya/Sekor 200/3.5 Tamron SP500/8 Tamron SP350/5.6 Tamron SP90/2.5
Primoplan 1.9/58 Primagon 4.5/35 Telemegor 5.5/150 Angenieux 3.5/28 Angenieux 3,5/135 Y 2
Canon FL 58/1.2,Canon FL85/1.8,Canon FL 100/3.5,Canon SSC 2.8/100 ,Konica AR 100/2.8, Nikkor P 105/2.5
|
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
56 DIN
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 24 Apr 2010 Posts: 1656 Location: Germany Erbach /ODW
Expire: 2021-11-18
|
Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2015 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
56 DIN wrote:
mo wrote: |
cooltouch wrote: |
Wow, Attila, I'd never thought of focusing on blood vessels in the eye. I'd always contented myself with trying to get the reflections sharp -- but I can definitely see how blood vessels would give you a better focal point, since some reflections can be diffuse. |
+1 thanks for the tip,it should work for cat portraits as well. ![Laughing](images/smiles/icon_lol.gif) |
but mo, i have heared that in Australia you are not allowed to beat your cat..... _________________ Thomas
NEX & manual lenses
Nikon & manual lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
duckrider
![Level 2 Level 2](rating2.gif) Joined: 11 Dec 2013 Posts: 437 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2015 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
duckrider wrote:
Attila wrote: |
.. on portrait shoots I check blood lines in white part of eye... |
Hopefully the very nice ladys You normally share with us don't have too many blood lines!
My boss, when he meets me, for that Your tip would be very helpful, but I don't shoot him.....
....not with a camera.... ![Rolling Eyes](images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif) _________________ T*homas
(from the origin land of Zeiss, an obligation )
Zeiss ZF 3.5/18, 2.8/25, 2.0/35, 2/50macro, 1.4/50, 1.4/85, 2/100macro
Nikon Df, F2AS, F2A, F3/T, FM
ALPA 11Si, Angulon 2,8/35 ; Xenar 1,9/50 ; Tele-Tessar 4/200
Leica R3 SAFARI Safari Lenses 2.8/28 ; 2/50 ; 4/180
Rolleiflex SL 350 , Zeiss 2,8/16 ; 4/18 ; 2,8/25 ; 2,8/35 ; 1,4/35 ; 1,8/50 ; 2,8/85 ; 1,4/85 ; 4/135 ; 4/200
Leica M9-P, Leica M4-2, Tri-Elmar "Wate", Distagon 2,8/21, Biogon 2,8/28, Biogon 2/35, Planar 2/50, Tessar 4/85, M-Elmar 50mm, Summicron 90
Sony alpha 7r & adapters for all lenses above |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
visualopsins
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10934 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2015 5:21 pm Post subject: Re: How to get "faster" in manual Focussing.... |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Tom466 wrote: |
So I am new to those old Lenses and MF, but it is real Fun to me playing around with them. Are there any Tips how to get faster and safer in getting Things, Objects and especially moving Objects in the right manual Focus. The E-PL2 has no "Focus Peaking" like other Cams for Example. .... (but next Year I am getting myself the Olympus OM-D E-M10, wich has the "Focus Peaking Feature"
Thanks for your Help, Tips and Ideas.
Tom |
Practice with kids & pets. My friend calls this Lens Kung Fu. He practices with whooping cranes in flight & long lenses. ![Very Happy](images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif) _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
mo
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 27 Aug 2009 Posts: 8979 Location: Australia
Expire: 2016-07-30
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2015 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
mo wrote:
never would I beat my cat,she likes to sit and pose ,well make that sleep and there's my chance I just have to get her to look my way.I guess that is the key as well to "quick focusing" is know your subject and take plenty of images!Thankfully digital affords us this luxury.
Not quite the blood vessel focus,taken with the G1 and Canon 100/3.5 FL
![](http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20158/1827_P1200692_1200x900_1.jpg) _________________ Moira, Moderator
Fuji XE-1,Pentax K-01,Panasonic G1,Panasonic G5,Pentax MX
Ricoh Singlex TLS,KR-5,KR-5Super,XR-10
Lenses
Auto Rikenon's 55/1.4, 1.8, 2.8... 50/1.7 Takumar 2/58 Preset Takumar 2.8/105 Auto Takumar 2.2/55, 3.5/35 Super Takumar 1.8/55...Macro Takumar F4/50... CZJ Biotar ALU M42 2/58 CZJ Tessar ALU M42 2.8/50
CZJ DDR Flektogon Zebra M42 2.8/35 CZJ Pancolar M42 2/50 CZJ Pancolar Exakta 2/50
Auto Mamiya/Sekor 1.8/55 ...Auto Mamiya/Sekor 2/50 Auto Mamiya/Sekor 2.8/50 Auto Mamiya/Sekor 200/3.5 Tamron SP500/8 Tamron SP350/5.6 Tamron SP90/2.5
Primoplan 1.9/58 Primagon 4.5/35 Telemegor 5.5/150 Angenieux 3.5/28 Angenieux 3,5/135 Y 2
Canon FL 58/1.2,Canon FL85/1.8,Canon FL 100/3.5,Canon SSC 2.8/100 ,Konica AR 100/2.8, Nikkor P 105/2.5
|
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
16:9
![Level 2 Level 2](rating2.gif) Joined: 04 Apr 2014 Posts: 304 Location: UK
|
Posted: Tue May 31, 2022 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
16:9 wrote:
Each type of subject is a law unto itself: if you want to get good at shooting cats, shoot a lot of cats. _________________ If it ain't broke, break it. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
oldgearuser
Joined: 15 Oct 2023 Posts: 5 Location: uk
|
Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2024 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
oldgearuser wrote:
It is the easiest thing, and it is also the hardest thing to focus swiftly and precisely with MF lenses. You need months or years of practice in doing it to become good at it.
1 Get a good photography book that explains the principles of achieving good manual focus and practice what it says.
2 Get a digital camera and practice your technique with that.
The reason is you need to follow good sound principles to have any chance of reliably and swiftly focusing manually.
You also need to practice manually focusing hundreds of times before you have any possibility of success in this. And you need to continually practice this fundamental skill.
Practicing taking 500 images with a film camera is out of the question on a cost basis so digital is the best choice for serious practice.
So what can go wrong and cause poor focus and why is it so hard to do.
The camera has too slow a shutter speed
The camera aperture is too wide
The camera is maladjusted
The camera has a poor focusing screen
The camera is shaking during exposure
The subject is moving too much during exposure
The depth of field is too narrow for the subject
The eyepiece diopter is wrongly set
A word of warning
On cameras that have replaceable focusing screens, screens with manual aids can be fitted to help in manual focusing.
Those with split images often interfere with the normal operation of the camera when using AF lenses.
My personal preference is to practice and become proficient with the standard screen rather than swap the screen out for an MF screen otherwise the camera performance is compromised when using AF lenses.
If you have a replaceable screen check it is fitted correctly.
I found that on a very expensive pro camera it was almost impossible to manually focus reliably, but after removing and refitting the screen the problem went away and the camera focused reliably.
The only explanation that makes sense is that the original screen was incorrectly fitted, and was not the same distance from the lens as the digital sensor is. This prevented me from achieving correct focus.
If the screen is not properly and correctly fixed in its designed position, the focusing screen will show a correctly focused image when it is not correctly focused on the sensor or film plane.
If the focusing screen is incorrectly mounted it will be impossible to achieve correct manual focus.
Even with good technique and with plenty of practice you will still fail to achieve good focus on a significant number of images. There are many variables at work and sometimes just bad luck.
There is a trick that can help quickly select the best focused image on digital cameras.
Take three separate images each one independently focused. examine the image file sizes after downloading to the pc.
The image with the largest file size will be the sharpest image.
The reason for this is, file sizes in digital images rise as the data increases. Digital images have edges the more edges present in the image the greater the detail and the greater the sharpness of the detail.
If there are three images that contain the same details, then the sharpest image will have more edges present and consequently with have a larger file size.
There is a great deal in this topic and I have not explained much due to limitations of space.
There are three fundamentals
1 make sure the camera is correctly and precisely set up
2 learn the basic principles of focusing and of exposure
3 practice image making hundreds of times until it becomes second nature to focus swiftly and accurately
There are no shortcuts.
Manual focusing takes skill, great technique, and plenty of practice this is why AF was developed. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
RokkorDoctor
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 27 Nov 2021 Posts: 1389 Location: Kent, UK
Expire: 2025-05-01
|
Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2024 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
RokkorDoctor wrote:
Well, since this old thread has been revived...
There is no good answer I think; manual focus is either done slowly and accurately, or faster but less accurate.
Split screens and micro-prisms can be useful on film-cameras, but in live view on digital cameras I find focus "rocking" to be working better.
With focus rocking you jiggle the focus ring back and forth around the optimal point of focus, an hone in on the optimal point by observing two aspects:
- a perceived symmetric amount of defocus/blurring either side of the optimal focus as you move the focus ring back and forth.
- a perceived focus sharpening and softening at double the frequency at which you are moving the focus ring back and forth.
Using tactile feedback and muscle memory:
What helps greatly here are traditional unit-focusing lenses with a linear helicoid focus mechanism; this allows for you to employ short-term muscle memory in conjunction with the above whilst rocking the focus ring back and forth. This often doesn't work so well with non-linear internal focus mechanisms, although once honed-in accurately enough their behaviour also tends to become linear enough. Electronic focus-by-wire with adaptive variable focus pitch/acceleration is a complete no-no as far as utilising muscle memory is concerned. _________________ Mark
SONY A7S, A7RII + dust-sealed modded Novoflex/Fotodiox/Rayqual MD-NEX adapters
Minolta SR-1, SRT-101/303, XD7/XD11, XGM, X700
Bronica SQAi
Ricoh GX100
Minolta majority of all Rokkor SR/AR/MC/MD models made
Sigma 14mm/3.5 for SR mount
Tamron SP 60B 300mm/2.8 (Adaptall)
Samyang T-S 24mm/3.5 (Nikon mount, DIY converted to SR mount)
Schneider-Kreuznach PC-Super-Angulon 28mm/2.8 (SR mount)
Bronica PS 35/40/50/65/80/110/135/150/180/200/250mm |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
Doc Sharptail
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 23 Nov 2020 Posts: 1139 Location: Winnipeg Canada
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Doc Sharptail wrote:
There is another factor that hasn't (surprisingly enough) been discussed here yet:
The lens it's self.
It's hard to be fast with a lens with a narrow depth of focus, and either a too short or too long focus throw.
This is where some lenses are notable, like the 200 micro nikkor, with a fairly short focusing radius. It takes a bit of practice.
Some other lenses are quite good with a shorter focus throw that have wider depth of focus like the Tamron 28 f2.5 and the nikkor "H" 50mm f2.
I personally like a very slight resistance to the focusing ring, and have a bit of trouble at times with internal focus mechanisms that almost spin free-wheel style...
-D.S. _________________
D-810, F2, FTN.
35mm f2 O.C. nikkor
50 f2 H nikkor, 50 f 1.4 AI-s, 135 f3.5 Q,
50 f2 K nikkor 2x, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 35-105 3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 200mm f4 Micro A/I, partial list.
"Ain't no half-way" -S.R.V.
"Oh Yeah... Alright" -Paul Simon |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
RokkorDoctor
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 27 Nov 2021 Posts: 1389 Location: Kent, UK
Expire: 2025-05-01
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2024 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RokkorDoctor wrote:
Doc Sharptail wrote: |
There is another factor that hasn't (surprisingly enough) been discussed here yet:
The lens it's self.
It's hard to be fast with a lens with a narrow depth of focus, and either a too short or too long focus throw.
This is where some lenses are notable, like the 200 micro nikkor, with a fairly short focusing radius. It takes a bit of practice.
Some other lenses are quite good with a shorter focus throw that have wider depth of focus like the Tamron 28 f2.5 and the nikkor "H" 50mm f2.
I personally like a very slight resistance to the focusing ring, and have a bit of trouble at times with internal focus mechanisms that almost spin free-wheel style...
-D.S. |
I know exactly what you mean Doc; focus resistance and senstivity make a big difference. It is one of the reasons I have never liked Tokina MF telelenses & telezooms very much, despite their otherwise excellent optical performance. Just too sensitive (for me) to focus accurately; I prefer far less sensitivity of the focus ring. _________________ Mark
SONY A7S, A7RII + dust-sealed modded Novoflex/Fotodiox/Rayqual MD-NEX adapters
Minolta SR-1, SRT-101/303, XD7/XD11, XGM, X700
Bronica SQAi
Ricoh GX100
Minolta majority of all Rokkor SR/AR/MC/MD models made
Sigma 14mm/3.5 for SR mount
Tamron SP 60B 300mm/2.8 (Adaptall)
Samyang T-S 24mm/3.5 (Nikon mount, DIY converted to SR mount)
Schneider-Kreuznach PC-Super-Angulon 28mm/2.8 (SR mount)
Bronica PS 35/40/50/65/80/110/135/150/180/200/250mm |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
Lloydy
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7776 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2024 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
Doc Sharptail wrote: |
There is another factor that hasn't (surprisingly enough) been discussed here yet:
The lens it's self.
It's hard to be fast with a lens with a narrow depth of focus, and either a too short or too long focus throw.
This is where some lenses are notable, like the 200 micro nikkor, with a fairly short focusing radius. It takes a bit of practice.
Some other lenses are quite good with a shorter focus throw that have wider depth of focus like the Tamron 28 f2.5 and the nikkor "H" 50mm f2.
I personally like a very slight resistance to the focusing ring, and have a bit of trouble at times with internal focus mechanisms that almost spin free-wheel style...
-D.S. |
The worst lenses for this problem seem to be the 500 / 8 mirror lenses. The cheap ones have so little turn on the focus it makes them unusable, the good ones like the Tamron and most major manufacturers are real easy to focus with a long turn. I had a Samyang that was actually decently sharp, but finding the sharp spot was completely random. I soo got rid of that. _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
calvin83
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7555 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
[quote="Lloydy"
The worst lenses for this problem seem to be the 500 / 8 mirror lenses. The cheap ones have so little turn on the focus it makes them unusable, the good ones like the Tamron and most major manufacturers are real easy to focus with a long turn. I had a Samyang that was actually decently sharp, but finding the sharp spot was completely random. I soo got rid of that.[/quote]
The Samyang should be benefit from an AF adapter. _________________ https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
|