5D MKIII users, how do you deal with MF lenses?

All folks are praising the new AF system of MKIII. It is probably a revelation for F/1.2 and F/1.4 primes.

Obviously if you have invested in Zeiss, the new AF is as good as nothing. On top, Cannon did not design the EG-s focusing screen as it was the case for MKII.

What does it mean for you? You sell all your Zeiss lenses? If you are a landscape photographer, then Live View is the solution, but if you do portraits?

I don't own a 5D Mk III, but I would assume that you would just manually focus until the subject is clearly in focus. With ANY manual focus lens...even Zeiss.

The same way that people used to focus using manual focus cameras/lenses before AF cameras & lenses even existed.

It really sucks. Using fast primes, you're completely unable to accurately see the DOF and you're totally reliant on the AF to get it right. I only have 2 MF lenses (24 + 17 TS) and I used to be able to use them handheld no problem with my 5D2 + Eg-S screen, but it's a guessing game with the 5D3.

Canonswhitelensesrule wrote in post #14435494
I don't own a 5D Mk III, but I would assume that you would just manually focus until the subject is clearly in focus. With ANY manual focus lens...even Zeiss.

The same way that people used to focus using manual focus cameras/lenses before AF cameras & lenses even existed.

Sorry, mate, but I am not 100% sure that you know what your are talking about

Yes, it's an issue since the EG-S screen was the only way to really visually see if the focus was correct or not when using a large aperture.

It does suck that there's no means to swap the focus screen anymore, and I hope that someone comes out with a method to do so, since it's apparently still possible in the 1DX.

That said, what you lose on the screen, you gain in the AF.. but for MF lens, it's a bit rough. I really only use a 17 TS-E, and LiveView is great for that, but it would be nice to have focus screens back.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #14435533
Sorry, mate, but I am not 100% sure that you know what your are talking about

My bad. I didn't realize that the EG-S screen made manual focusing with fast lenses so much easier.

I just thought that you were talking about basic manual focusing, and naturally concluded, what's the big deal...just manually focus.

No disrespect intended.

I replaced a focusing screen on a 7D without too much difficulty. (For those who don't know, it also has an LCD overlay like the 5D3.) The job took me 15 or 20 mins.

It appears the BrightScreen may be making one to suite the 5D3. Here's a link

LiveView - I used my 5D2 + 82L @ f/1.2.
So, MF + LiveView should work with 5D3, too.

noisejammer wrote in post #14437664
It appears the BrightScreen may be making one to suite the 5D3. Here's a link

VERY cool - thanks for the link!

I have no problem with my TS-E24 on my 5D3 as it beeps when it achieves focus!!!

Just wondering whethre thre is mkiii user ith WA bright zeiss glass to share the experience.

I personally think it is a slow death to lenses like Zeiss or other 3rd party. I think Canon is thinking about it too - they do not want consumers to go for Zeiss 35 f/1.4, as an example, and so they will do everything possible to force people to get the 35L instead. For a consumer, with the new AF system on MKIII Zeiss doesn't make sense anymore, especially that you cannot instal the EG-s screen, and so 35L becomes a much better choice.

I wonder how Zeiss will react, if at all. Companies start reacting when they see changes in their numbers. Let's see.

The 7D is problematic because it only let's F/3,5 through the viewfinder. So with a faster lens it's guesswork.

I use manual focus a lot and I feel I have to use the LCD unless im f/4 and above.

There was a long thread about this over at Fred Miranda about a month ago:

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/10991​92

The thread starter there has a long history of very flattering posts about Zeiss ZE lenses.

Opinion seems to be divided in that thread on the question you ask. I don't have the camera, but curious and concerned about the future viability of ZE (I have one ZE lens) I asked a couple of questions there, and pointedly got no answers. You can draw your own conclusion about that.

The questions I asked of them were:

1. Do you have back-button AF set? I suspect these guys don't use AF at all, so it's OK for them to leave AF set to shutter half-press. AF confirm is hardly a convenient replacement for the Eg-S otherwise.

2. Do you use the Zeiss lenses which have focus shift? Because, on my 1DS Mark III, AF confirm does not work with DoF pressed.

I will also make the point, as others did over at Fred Miranda, that the purpose of seeing correct depth of field in the finder is not only to focus. Portrait shooters want to verify that AF picked up the correct target; fine artists want to visualise.

Thanks for sharing. Based on what I see there, LLoyd Chambers says that MKIII is completely useless with Zeiss bright WA lenses, almost impossible to focus.

I guess for me this is a question of whether I replace Zeiss with Canon or not go to MKIII.

I prefer Zeiss quality to the one of Canon.....not easy...............ide​ally Zeiss has AF.

melcat wrote in post #14439130
There was a long thread about this over at Fred Miranda about a month ago:

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/10991​92

The thread starter there has a long history of very flattering posts about Zeiss ZE lenses.

Opinion seems to be divided in that thread on the question you ask. I don't have the camera, but curious and concerned about the future viability of ZE (I have one ZE lens) I asked a couple of questions there, and pointedly got no answers. You can draw your own conclusion about that.

The questions I asked of them were:

1. Do you have back-button AF set? I suspect these guys don't use AF at all, so it's OK for them to leave AF set to shutter half-press. AF confirm is hardly a convenient replacement for the Eg-S otherwise.

2. Do you use the Zeiss lenses which have focus shift? Because, on my 1DS Mark III, AF confirm does not work with DoF pressed.

I will also make the point, as others did over at Fred Miranda, that the purpose of seeing correct depth of field in the finder is not only to focus. Portrait shooters want to verify that AF picked up the correct target; fine artists want to visualise.