Why do we shoot MF ?

ZoneV · Expire: 2011-12-02

I think I can agree to all things said.

Furthermore I am too dumb to understand and use the autofocus system.

I am even not able to memorize which symbol on the camera is for shutter priority and aperture priority - therefore I work manual.
Oh, I think in this moment I understand it - because I had to translate the German words Smile

Most times I buy lenses used - with all this front / backfocus issues, broken internal cabels and so on, this would not be that much fun.
I like to go to fleamarkets and look if I find some interesting lenses - for Canon AF this would be very boring.
For manual lenses I didn´t have to care for which camera the lens is - I like to convert lenses Smile

Most old manual lenses are build to resist Smile

I have the new Samyang 14mm/2.8 - a manual lens - but the build quality is far behind most old manual lenses.

xjjohnno · Expire: 2011-11-18

I could say because I'm a miser but then some of my more recent MF lens buys would suggest otherwise.

beachboy2 · Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:30 pm Post subject:

I think I'm confused. Lots of manual lenses. Now I have a Pentax AF adaptor and am discovering a whole lot of hybrid Manual/AF lens combinations!
bb2

Geoff C. Bassett · Expire: 2012-06-18

Control of image. When I let the lens focus for me I feel like it's not my picture, but the cameras.

Papapishu · Joined: 26 Feb 2010 Posts: 38 Location: Bushwick, Brooklyn

Because I’m a filmmaker.

Autofocus lenses don’t make sense for anybody that needs to do a focus pull. A Zeiss Rep explained the situation to Jared Abrams Recently. I need precise controls, and autofocus photo lenses are not able to do that.

http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=5082

Also, like everyone here, I started from the point of view of poverty, and moved on to taste. I’ve been shooting photos since March, and know a lot more about glass than most photo majors I went to school with.

Bokeh is important too. For some reason, most modern lenses I’ve used, save for Leica, Voigtlander and an occasional prime here and there are sharp but tend to sacrifice something really hard to describe. Something got lost in the need for speed. Modern glass is made with sharpness in mind. It’s a personal preference, but it’s important.

The build quality is also important. I like heavy ass glass. I’m rough on my equipment, so to have optics made out of tank parts (thank you, former soviet union) is actually a plus. Density also helps stabilize camera movement on DSLRs for video. It gives it a really stable center of gravity.

Lastly is, oddly, networking. I was on a shoot for a fairly large indy band with an SNL cast member yesterday. I actually had the Cyclop 85/1.4 on me and was taking stills between takes, and people kept asking me “What the hell kind of lens is that?”. When I told them, they were really really interested.

As a culture, we’re so used to buying zooms or kit lenses, to having these robots that do all the work for us, that when you say to somebody “This lens was originally a Russian night vision scope” or “This lens is yellow because it has a radioactive Isotope in it” they remember it; and they give you jobs because they know that you know exactly what the hell you’re talking about. It’s shocking how much work I’ve gotten as a result of that.

So yeah. I’ll take my 5 dollar Yashica ML or my 8.50 Super Takumar. I’ll take a Helios 44-2 in exchange for licking a piece of Himalayan salt in a craigslist deal (this actually happened). And I’ll also take that person’s job while he’s saving up for his Canon L zoom. Old glass democratizes shooting. Viva la revolucion.

martyn_bannister · Joined: 23 May 2010 Posts: 1151

Why?

Can someone please show me a modern AF lens that can produce a) images and b) debate like this....

MF lenses can be cheap (or expensive) and they can have excellent image quality. But they can also provide a challenge that has been designed and built out of virtually all modern camera/lens systems (lomo camera aside).

Where else would you find a lens like the "one eyed monster"? Certainly not in the catalogue of a modern manufacturer Smile

couchpotato · Joined: 10 Sep 2010 Posts: 33

It's like love at the first sight. After taking the first picture with an MF lens, an Olympus 50mm f1.4, I knew I've fallen in love.

Every MF lens I bought with the purpose of using, not collecting it. So I don't have "too many" lenses in my possession, less than 20. Most of them are Olympus OM and Contax C/Y, then a few M42 mount like Biotar 58mm f2 and Meyer Lydith 30mm.

I still keep a few AF lenses for the occasions like sport event, but 99% of the pictures I took are with MF lenses now.

gearsNcogs · Joined: 20 Oct 2010 Posts: 215

I started using them for 16mm motion picture photography. There simply was no autofocus for those cameras (or at least, not for the Krasnagorsk-3, or any of the Bolex's I know of, etc.) also, as far as movies are concerned, its my understanding that it's preferred to control your focus, rather than having a computer in your camera do it.
Once it started there, I bought adapters to use MF lenses on my DSLR, and if i can take the time (some of my MF lenses have really slow focus rings), i will use my MF lenses over AF ones. The extra practice for movies, as well as the price/quality ratio, it's been pretty much a no-brainer for me.

martinsmith99 · Expire: 2013-11-18

For me it's the price. I am not as accurate with manual focus as the AF on my cameras which achieves about a 99.999999% success rate oposed to my 50% when shooting wide apertures.

However, I do now have a passion for M42 cameras so MF lenses are the only option.

blende8 · Joined: 29 Sep 2007 Posts: 260 Location: Bremen, Germany

For me it's the built of the MF lenses mainly.
I think that todays plastic AF lenses with electronics will not last 50 years.
And repair is more difficult if not impossible then.
Handling a MF lens is just a joy.

I also like MF, because I am used to it for 30 years.