Do you MF?

[KevC]

Do you use Manual Focus?

I'm really interested in these East German Zeiss lenses and obviously, they're all Manual Focus. However, the viewfinder on my Drebel is teeny tiny and my eyesight isn't perfect (glasses...) so I dunno how nicely I'll find them.

So, do you Manual Focus?

[KevC]

Hehe I just read Mr. Rick Denney's Jena lens thread and I'm fascinated. It'll be different for sure, seeing a tank of a lens on a little plastic drebel body.

Forget the 100-400L, I'm picking up some Sonnars.... 135/4, 180/2.8, 300/4, 500/5.6..... *drool* :)

//edit: Thanks for adding the last option, whoever it was you sneaky little one :) but I figured since we're almost all Canon users, if you do really "manual focus with any/all SLRs" you'd just check all 3 boxes....

[CyberDyneSystems]

.. sorry added a catagory.. :o

[aam1234]

Mostly in macro. Don't know where that fits.

[KevC]

Mostly in macro. Don't know where that fits.

Ah... I totally forgot about that one. Maybe CDS can add that category too!

[Andy_T]

Kevin ... some word of advice :D

I have some very nice M42 lenses (Jupiter 9 85/2.0, CZJ 135/3.5 and Tair-3 300/4.5) that I bought for a grand total of about $ 150 including the required EOS adapter.

Still, I use them only sparingly, because I have a hard time correctly focusing them. Mostly due to the fact that my eyesight is less than optimal. It is not a problem on a manual M42 SLR with a Fresnel disk as focusing help, but on the 20D it's not as easy as I thought. A lens can have the nicest bokeh, if you have to take 5 shots in order to get one halfway sharp, it's a bit of a limitation to photography.

The 135/3.5 actually works best, it's a great lens and might be a good starting point if you decide to venture further. You might start by trying to manually focus your 50/1.8 (e.g. @ f/2.8 ) and see if you are successful.

Best regards,
Andy

[mbze430]

I manual focus about 90% of my shots. The only time I am using AF is if I am taking snap shots or fast moving subjects.

[jrh312]

Mostly in macro. Don't know where that fits.

Does autofocus not work very well with macro shots? That's like the very last sticking point I'm on with trying to decide between two cameras... one has manual focus, and the other has an image stabilizer and I'm torn :confused:

[aam1234]

Does autofocus not work very well with macro shots? That's like the very last sticking point I'm on with trying to decide between two cameras... one has manual focus, and the other has an image stabilizer and I'm torn :confused:

Hi jrh312,

I'm using a DSLR, so it's a function of the lens not the camera.

I would imagine the tough choices you have to make, as both of these options are really useful. Sorry I can't help much in this regard :o

Edit: If I have to make such a choice I'd go with manual focus. I find IS a bit over-rated and MF very useful. Of course, this is just my opinion.

[rdenney]

Kevin ... some word of advice :D


What he said.

And the 180/2.8 is a medium-format lens, which means it is HEAVY. How fit are you? Sure, it's fast, but it's HEAVY. The effective aperture wide open is 64mm, and it takes 86mm filters. Plus the glass elements are literally over an inch thick. Heavy!

Rick "who would do this one lens at a time" Denney

[PacAce]

The only time I would even consider using manual focusing on a regular basis is if I got a split screen or a microprism focusing screen for my camera. Otherwise, I'd go crossed-and teary-eyed in no time at all. I've tried using the Angle Finder C in 2x magnification and I still found it very difficult to focus the lens.

[KevC]

Kevin ... some word of advice :D

I have some very nice M42 lenses (Jupiter 9 85/2.0, CZJ 135/3.5 and Tair-3 300/4.5) that I bought for a grand total of about $ 150 including the required EOS adapter.

Still, I use them only sparingly, because I have a hard time correctly focusing them. Mostly due to the fact that my eyesight is less than optimal. It is not a problem on a manual M42 SLR with a Fresnel disk as focusing help, but on the 20D it's not as easy as I thought. A lens can have the nicest bokeh, if you have to take 5 shots in order to get one halfway sharp, it's a bit of a limitation to photography.

The 135/3.5 actually works best, it's a great lens and might be a good starting point if you decide to venture further. You might start by trying to manually focus your 50/1.8 (e.g. @ f/2.8 ) and see if you are successful.

Best regards,
Andy

I could easily spend $150 for all those lenses, I'd be super happy if I had :)

I tried manual focussing on my 35-105 and it was EASY. Mainly because there was such a long "travel distance" and I can be more precise. However, I slapped on the 50/1.8 and boy was it hard. It seemed like every nanometer counted and I needed to be extremely precise.

Are these East German/Soviet lenses like my 50 or 35-105?

Given there is enough light, I'm sure it'll be alright....

[tim]

MF only for macro, or occasionally if i've been fiddling with my camera and can't work out why AF isn't working ;) I was taking photos of a fire a couple of days ago and couldn't work out why AF wasn't working, until I remember i'd turned CF4-1 on!

[Tom W]

I occasionally manually focus on the 1D2. The viewfinder is big enough, though it could still be bigger. I do note that some lenses are easier to focus manually than others. A focus ring with a longer, more gradual adjustment is very helpful. Most older manual lenses had this feature, but a lot of the AF lenses do not, making it a little more difficult to hit the spot.

[intechpcx]

MF is often a necessity when doing low light shots. I've taken a number of candid portraits in low light situations where the camera wouldn't focus (using the Nifty Fifty). Also, often times when I'm doing Macro work I'll find that it is just easier to do the focusing myself because it is often hard to tell if the camera is searching because I'm too close, too far or something else is wrong.

[Andy_T]

Are these East German/Soviet lenses like my 50 or 35-105?

I'd say that the Jupiter 9 85/2.0 is more like your 50 (very hard to focus), whereas the 135/3.5 might be more like your 35-105 (easier to focus). It's really a great way to start trying this out.

Best regards,
Andy

[Jon]

It's the situation not the camera that decides me . . . I'll use either MF or AF as seems appropriate (like I could get my 100-400 + 2X TC to AF!).

[pdrow]

I agree that it is the situation that decides for me. I almost felt like I was cheating using AF at first, but now I like it.
pam

[Steve Parr]

Sometimes I use manual focus, other times I'll use auto focus...

Steve

[Longwatcher]

For me it depends.
If using my TS-E 24 or an extender on the 100-400, I have no choice.
If using a very shallow DoF, I tend to manually focus.
When doing IR I also need to go to MF.
There are also occasions where I don't want the autofocus to get in the way of getting the shot, so I go large DoF and turn AF off.
Lastly sometimes I am just playing with the camera.

Other then that I use AF all the time. (if I remember to turn it back on) 8)

I think it works out to
During Model shoot: AF 85% / MF15%
Other photo activities AF 50% / MF 50%

A better poll would have been
How much of the time do you use MF instead of AF. And list percentages in increments of say 20%

[pierrot]

Mainly when shooting macro, but also sometimes when I'm trying to achieve a "sophisticated" framing and that I'm fed up juggling between the various buttons.
I'm kinda lazy sometimes... ;)

[chtgrubbs]

Generally, all auto focus. But I like to pick the focus point, so I have set the custom function to focus using the exposure lock button on the 10D. I pick the point I want to focus on, lock the focus, and then reframe. Obviously, I dont shoot much sports or action! But if the subject doesn't have enough contrast or detail for the autofocus to work properly then I am going to have a really hard time to do it manually.

[DocFrankenstein]

I would love manual focus... I use it on zenit's dark viewfinder and it works ok... doesn't even have the split circle.

You can replace the viewfinder on your rebel with a contax split circle viewfinder, and you'll have the manual focusing aids. They are almost the same in thickness.

I've been meaning to do it, but the cost is about 100 bucks for adapter, shipping and the viewfinder. Plus time...
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46498
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=search&Q=&b=12&shs=&ci=290&ac=&Submit.x=21&Submit.y=5&Submit=Go

You need an FU :D series focusing screen I beleive, but don't quote me on that.

[DocFrankenstein]

BTW: That FU is probably a statemtent to canon's attempt to restrict interchangeable viewfinders to pro bodies. :lol::lol::lol:

[Raj]

Almost always for macro photography. I love my EF 100mm all time MF for that ;)
Sometimes for low light indoor stuff too. Also started learing concept of focussing hyperfocal distance for landscape shots recently & so MF sometimes for landscape too. For some reason I seem to like to MF when I have ample time for the shot :-)

[mbze430]

let me just rant a little. Someone MESSED with my Dioptric adjustment....and the last shoot I had...let just say I had a lot of out of focus shots.......

[Andy_T]

I finally got some good shots with my (not-so-easy-to-focus) Jupiter 9 85/2.0 M42 lens.

Take a look here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=72811) for an example :D

Best regards,
Andy