Canon L and Nikkor AF series vs. MFL

[newton]

I am wondering how people would grade the Canon L AF series lenses with some of their manual focus lenses. I have spent well over enough to buy a few Canon L series AF lenses. I spent that money on MFL's. I am wondering if anyone would trade some of their best MFL's for a top-notch L series, like the Canon 85 1.2 mm L or even a Canon 70-200 mm L f/2.8 USM II zoom.

This is more about where is the best place to put their money, if they could only spend X amount of dollars budgeted for the rest of the year(s)/investment. Would you get a bunch of different MFL's or one or two "great" L series lenses, assuming they are "great". This purchase is specifically for pro use, where the L's and Nikkors seem to be or are incorrectly perceived to be dominant, as they are in my community? Low-light and fast photography. I know some MFL's are superior like Voigtlander Nokton, Zeiss (the list goes on....), but I am writing in general...like if they could only buy one lens, kinda thing. Thanks.

(Pardon me if this question may not be so clear, as I struggle to learn and understand more.)

[NikonD]

I'm not selling any of my lenses for any Nikkor AF, not even 24-70/2.8 or 70-200/2.8VRII... I'm in LOVE with my MF lenses, they give me everything I need and I don't need AF

besides it's fun to shoot with MF lens

[Joosep]

Ive almost used all of Canons EF L series. Wouldnt want to own one.
I just have too much fun with my boys.
I mean the build quality and focusing speed and coating and sharpness is wonderful on some L´s, but to me, they lack character. Thats all there is to me.

[LucisPictor]

[francotirador]

[Esox lucius]

I've worked hard over the years to finance and keep the best of both worlds:

Workhorses
Nikkor G-series AF-S lenses for technically excellent performance and handling designed for the Multi-CAM 3500 AF system. They deliver shots that would have been difficult to achieve with manual focusing, and have saved me from missing crucial moments at numerous wedding assignments. 24-70/2.8G is the most versatile tool I have, 50/1.4G is excellent in every way and the older screw-driven 28/1.4D delivers a look that is unique.

Brushes
Whenever I can and the scenario allows, I will always choose certain manual focus lenses because of the dimensionality and fingerprint. If it's too dark for AF to lock I have a higher success ratio with manual focusing lenses, favorites being the 58/1.4 Nokton, Planar T* 85/1.4 ZF, Macro APO Lanthar 125/2.5 and APO Lanthar 180/4.

It's a bit like affording to keep two cars: the sensible choice (station wagon with lots of torque) as well as a sporty and enjoyable spider or coupé.

[rbelyell]

i have a canon L 17-40/4.0. it is by far my most expensive lens, but is nowhere near my 'best' lens, in any sense. for sure it is a fine piece of equipment, but compared to better iq/less cost mf lenses, not worth anywhere near the money it commands.

[newton]

Yesterday, I tried one of my manual focus lenses. It is a Nikkor 1.2 AIS manual. I blew one quarter of my shots on a subject but still managed to shoot more sharply than any of my Canon lenses. Unfortunately, these shots are not good enough because manual focusing in a flat fashion wasn't perfect or my condenser glass needs to be changed badly. Very low lighting. I cannot afford to miss shots. Time is of the essence and I am wondering about a) newer glass like the L series fast lenses, b) my condensor, etc, or c) my skills with manual focus. Either way, I need something to be changed fast.

The Nikkor MFL's sharpness was great but not great enough, where I needed. I am wondering if the condensor/viewfinder needs to be changed. Everything looked sharp through the viewfinder but the images were not as perfect as I actually saw them or focused on them. Thoughts? Keep in mind this is the first time I am actually using my manual focus on my DSLR. I am still working out the kinks. Things are so different on a still object vs. a real live person. It seems like a whole new ball game. It could also be the Nikkor? I don't know.

(I am wondering if I should have bought the 85 mm L.)

[Arninetyes]

[jjphoto]

For work there is really no substitute for a quick and efficient lens such as a zoom, or several of them. I use a 24-70/2.8 L for about 90% of my work even though I have a long list of Leica and Zeiss lenses that could potentially create much more interesting images if there were the time to 'play' with such things. Getting a job done usually requires expedience so the preference falls naturally to fast/efficient L zooms.

Interestingly, I also think that the Canon 24-70/2.8 L might have the best flare control of ANY lens that I have ever used so it is actually a better lens for certain applications than any of my Leica R or Zeiss glass (I shoot at night where flare can be a big problem)!

JJ

[newton]

[NikonD]

[cooltouch]

[Himself]

[james]

[jjphoto]

[Esox lucius]

[Cistron]

[Esox lucius]

Well, having met mr. Rorslett and read his posts on Nikongear I have no reason to doubt his assessments. KR on the other hand writes reviews even before the lens has touched his hands.

I had at one point two 28/1.4D's and they were identical. That lens is built for nocturnal use and it shows.

There are plenty of samples in my signature, everyone can judge themselves how much they like the lens or not. I don't care what reviewers say, it's a lens I'll pick for any indoor tungsten assignment.

[sichko]

[Cistron]

[AhamB]

[gaeger]

As to the original question: What lens you buy in a given year would greatly depend on what you're going to do with it. You mention low light and fast photography. Are you shooting sports in dimly light arenas or tight street scenes at night? You need very different lenses for those situations. Also, what lenses do you have now that can do those jobs? I've shot at night with the lowly Nikkor 18-55mm, with a maximum aperture of f3.5 -- that's not 'fast' by most people's standards.

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.

[NikonD]

[james]