Why I prefer MF lenses...

[NikonD]

here's a nice example why I prefer MF over AF

Nikkor 50/1.8 AF @ f1.8 did a couple of shots and this is the best photo I came up with... tried MF same result



this one was shot only once... dead on focus
Nikkor 50/1.8 AI-S @ f1.8

[Sven]

I agree. AF is simply not that reliable.

I have an AF 1.8/50 Nikkor, and it can be very sharp when focused right, but sometimes the camera catches on to the wrong object in the picture. If I do the focusing manually I can at least only blame myself if I get it wrong.

I never thought it would come to this, but I very seldom shoot AF nowadays. The possibility to have control of all setting make photography more interesting.

[Attila]

I think they have optical difference too, I like more result from old lenses than new ones.

[orly_andico]

I think it also depends on the lens.. the Nikkor 50/1.8 AF is a low-grade lens.

A friend of mine has a (rather expensive) Canon 17-55/2.8 zoom, and it's sharp at all apertures and focuses silently and very fast. Can't speak for the character or bokeh (and maybe Canon cameras sharpen aggressively) but results from this lens look much sharper than from my MF 50mm primes.

[glockman99]

I've found that as long as I trust my eyes, I can usually focus quicker manually than I can with autofocus (Nikon N90s).

[patrickh]

Erhum!!.

[SkedAddled]

I don't see differences in focus as much as I see differences in color saturation, chromatic aberration, general clarity, and contrast/lighting.

[voytek]

There are several facts about manual lenses:
1. They are developed to be used in any situation. AF funcion is useless in situation with lack of light. So what the reason to spend additional money for advantage which is not true advantage.
2. Where you focusing - you choose the point , not lens
3. You can always set aperture, many AF lenses don't even have aperture ring. To set it you have to do additional steps. To choose from menu, to lock it etc
4. They are usually not expensive so you can try number of lenses which are excellent performers
5. Manual lenses have soul, AF electronic
6. MF lenses are collectible and AF are expensive
7. When your AF lens is going out of order help yourself and try to fix anything except cleaning body or glass.
8. Write only five examples of lenses with AF which are developed for medium and large format
9. Old, beautiful MF lenses are made by true craftsman, AF by robots
10. ... is empty, you are free to write why you prefer MF lenses.
My proposition is: show me photographer who is using only AF and have more then 7-8 lenses. I have more then 100.... including 9 AF

[martinsmith99]

I have the Canon 50/1.8 and it's similar in spec to the Nikkor. It produces sharp images when stopped down a bit and focus is accurate. It isn't sharp until 2.8 but really better at F4. I would expect that image from mine when wide open and probably a fair amount of CA.

I only use it when I need AF as it's a million miles away from the Tak 55/1.8, which if it was a Canon, it would have an L after it.

[martinsmith99]

[cilinderman]

MFlenses rules . It is that simple. A photograph who takes the photo in Manual he deserves 75 % of respect (the rest goes to the camera) the one that does it with AF he deserves only 50% or less.

How many times, with an AF Camera, a noob has done good shots without even knowing what a shutter is? It is amazing the amount of people that have a DSLR nowadays and don't even now what aperture, diaphragm, compensation of exposure is.... They just "press the button". That's not photography, tha'ts point n'shoot.

Moreover, manual focus delivers a high reliability in precision of focus. It's like you had an infinity of those blinking AF point, against 9 of the 5D and the 51 of the Nikon high end cameras.

MFLENSES RULES!

[spiralcity]

Hmmmm, interesting.

Im not sure I agree with all that has been said. i can shoot both ways with minimal problems. I also can shoot in the dark in bulb mode and focus rathers easily with my Nikon N70 and an auto focus lens.

That pictue of the antena can be done in auto focus also. Set your lens to it's hyper focal setting focus off a mid point and there should be no problem, I dont see why matrix metering couldnt handle that.

Just my two cents.

Who in the world told anyone they couldnt focus in the dark with auto focus lenses?

It was dark as night when I shot this with auto focus.



Pitch black when i did this with auto focus. I put my camera in bulb mode, used auot focus and shot.



And barley any light when I shot this sunrise. Again, bulb mode and auto focus.

[martinsmith99]

The sunrise pic is why I wouldn't use auto exposure.

I know that's the look you wanted in that photo, but shooting against the sky will result in everthing else being underexposed. Fine in this instance, but what if that was a portrait?

AF in dark places may work depending on how dar and how good the lens is. My L lens needs very little. My Siggy & nifty fifty start hunting a lot sooner.

[yalcinaydin]

MF has advantages but a good USM driven AF can give pretty decent results if you don't have the time to focus like concerts including musicians move too much and fast. EF 85/1.8 is one good example with sharp results, fast and accurate AF, not much pricey (used can be found for 200EURO, not much example than a clean copy of Nikkor 1.8/85). Some can focus pretty quick and I really envy them as I'm on the really slow side

I use MF cause:
1) They are cheap
2) Optically they are pretty good
3) Built like a tank
4) The ability of using Zeiss and Leica on the cheap side
5) Macro and Landscape, with patience and AFC assist Portrait.
6) Fast ones still cheaper but also focusing is harder for me than the slower ones.
7) And they are small even not lighter

[sichko]

[sichko]

[orly_andico]

I used to have the Canon 50/1.8 and it, too is a low-grade lens.

By low-grade I mean mechanically, not optically.

For Canon at least, the high-grade lenses focus faster and more accurately than the low-grade ones like the 50/1.8 --- because they have those dandy ring ultrasonic motors.

What I've found is that all things being equal, my colleague can take sharper photos with his 70-200/4L IS than me with my S-M-C Tak 200/4. And the reason for this? the AF is accurate and fast!

For portraits for example, at close ranges, MF is really really hard (very shallow DOF, subject moves just an inch and this throws your focus off...)

But then I use MF lenses because they're cheap and optically great

Just not useful in all cases.

[spiralcity]

[yalcinaydin]

because:
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,124329.html

[Mike Deep]

I definitely prefer manual lenses for macro and close up work. There's just very little need for autofocus, the savings are considerable, there's a huge selection, and there are many impressive lenses. They're also bulletproof.

Almost everything manual I own was obtained for close ups. The only manual lenses I tend to use normally are 50mm's (Zuiko 50/1.4 and Tomioka 55/1.2) because Canon's AF 50's are a little underwhelming (1.8 AF is useless, 1.4 is too expensive for fake USM, 1.2 is absurdly expensive and reportedly has focus issues anyway!).