Manual Focus Wide Angle….

Hello all,

First posting after reading this site since fall 2005. A longstanding but latent interest in photography finally transformed into my primary hobby about two years ago after deciding to actually learn the fundamentals: aperture, ISO, depth of field, focal length, and so on. I subsequently rewarded my efforts by upgrading from a Canon G3 to a 350D, which I still use.

I am basically into walk-around / street photography, and throughout 2006, I only used a 20-35mm f/2,8 L (which I bought used here in Bangkok). This January, I decided to shift to a manual lens, winning a near mint Zeiss 35mm f/2.4 Flecktogon on eBay. Given its inexpensive price, it's a fantastic lens, effectively purging any desires to return to a zoom or automatic lens. I use an M42-EOS adaptor with an auto-confirm chip, which helps immensely…

However, until I can afford a full frame DSLR, I must contend with the 350D's crop factor, so I need something wider. If I had the money, I would buy a Zeiss Contax 21mm, but those are floating around for US$3,000, if not more.

As such, I'm wondering if any members have used any of the following lenses, and what their thoughts might be…I have done extensive Internet research on the lenses, but information is relatively limited given their comparatively anachronistic status:

• Contax Zeiss 25mm f/2,8 Distagon---mixed reviews, although the new Nikon-mount is supposedly an improvement, but expensive…
  
• Nikon 24mm AI-S, either the 2.0 or 2.8 version…
  
• Olympus Zuiko 24mm f/2,8---supposedly great lens for the price…also interested in the f/2.0 version…
  
• Zeiss Jena 20mm f/2.8---has not received great reviews, but this could be due to inconsistent quality…
  
• Zenitar 16mm f/2.8---yes, a fisheye, forcing some lens correction in Photoshop, but it appears to be an adequate lens for the price…

Well the Flek 35mm 2.4 is a superb lens as your shots show and one that also happens to be a MF. Now, there are equally superb lenses that are AF and there are lots of crummy MF lenses. Why struggle to find a MF lens when wide angle is the big weak spot on the classic gear? On a crop body you will be hard pressed to find something suitable. The Tokina 17mm is an option. I had one and is decent, but there are better AF options these days. Only the Zeni will be decently wide angle on a 350D in my opinion. Something like a 17-70mm Sigma or 17-50mm 2.7 Tamron will do a great job with AF.

The Zuiko 24mm isn't a bad lens imo. My dad had one for his OM slr i believe. Produced some very nice pictures.

You know...you can always use Aperture Priority (which will let you use the dial on the 350 instead of the button) and you can switch to manual focus on any AF lens. I agree with condyk...unless you want to spend thousands on amazing exotic wide-angles, you're probably better off going with modern lenses and using manual focus if you enjoy that.

I only manually focus my Sigma 105mm Macro...(though to be fair, the AF sucks, and for macro shooting, it's easier to manually focus).

Firstly, thanks for the quick replies….

I should note that, while perhaps it's just an idiosyncratic phase at this point, I really enjoy the manual process of focusing and setting the aperture and shutter for its own irrational sake. Maybe I have some underlying rangefinder envy (I'd probably buy one, but find me a digital one that is under US$2,500 and has as much control over noise as a Canon 5D)…I am also one of those freaks who finds equal gratification in post processing, using curves to manipulate contrast, tones, and such….

Yes, setting an AF lens to manual is an option, but I prefer that the lens has a depth-of-field scale, which many modern AF lenses omit. As for zooms, they play too much on my compulsive side. When replacing the 20-35mm L for the Zeiss, I thought I would miss the the convenient benefits of the zoom, but using a prime has proven a release of sorts, despite its limitations. All right, so I'm a fastidious pain in the…

In addition, while the lenses noted are exotic, they are, for the most part, cheap, which is an attractive factor.

I hope to upgrade to a full frame by next year, so the 350D's crop factor will not be a protracted issue.

Anyway, that said, I'll give the Olympus and Tokina 17mm a look; in fact, I probably would have bought the Tokina 20-35mm f/2.8 instead of the used Canon, but I couldn't find it in Bangkok at the time (the Canon did its job). The Zenitar is also intriguing, and I suppose that I can set up some lens correction action to hammer the shots back into a rectangular wide when necessary.

Once again, thanks for the prompt comments,
Steve

I understand and I enjoy MF's for the same reason. The 20-35mm 2.8 Tokina is a great lens and I have often regretted selling mine. I am looking for one now I have a 5D.

I don't understand how turning a ring on the lens is any different than turning a dial on your 350D to get the aperture. Any AF lens can then be manually focused. I just think you're discounting the quality of modern glass for the "fully manual-ness" of older glass.

There really is some great wide-angle options out there that are AF lenses.

i think your ignoring the facts, i think the OP just wants some fast wide glass at a reasonable price.

asylumxl wrote in post #3044836
i think your ignoring the facts, i think the OP just wants some fast wide glass at a reasonable price.

I'm not ignoring the facts at all, there's plenty of "fast wide glass" that are great modern lenses that aren't expensive.

purelithium wrote in post #3044878
I'm not ignoring the facts at all, there's plenty of "fast wide glass" that are great modern lenses that aren't expensive.

find a nice AF 24mm prime that isn't expensive then?

Either the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 or the Sigma 24mm f/1.8

There's plenty of great zooms as well.

purelithium wrote in post #3044990
Either the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 or the Sigma 24mm f/1.8

There's plenty of great zooms as well.

£250-300 for the sigma 20mm, £25 or so for a Zuiko 24mm f2.8.

I think that sums up the attraction of MF glass by some people.

Right, well they're about CAD$400 here, I forgot about the European markup on stuff...

EDIT: also, the zuiko stuff isn't great IQ, I have a zuiko 35mm OM mount lens, and I haven't been able to get a large number of satisfactory shots out of it.... maybe user error though.

I admit, I have possibly myopically discounted some modern AF lenses. However, as I stated, the lack of a depth-of-field scale, which I do use occasionally, automatically disqualifies a number of these lenses…and of course, exorbitant costs for certain lenses is also a factor. I suppose that I became fixated on the older lenses simply because I was so impressed with the quality of the Zeiss 35mm for just US$170.

Zooms are out, that's not negotiable….it's only photography, so it's my prerogative to be narrow minded in this case…after all, I have a perfectly fine Canon 20-35mm L, although I like the tonal quality of the Zeiss better…

As for the aperture issue, it's just a personal preference. There is something more tactile and cognitive about setting the aperture on the lens, at least for me; I'm more aware of the aperture setting if I need to make a quick shot. Also, setting the aperture using the dial on the 350D was not necessarily the issue, as much as inadvertently and unknowingly pressing the drive-mode selection button that sits just below the aperture button, thus accidentally activating the self-timer. It didn't happen a lot, but it become enough of a nuisance that I would have to take my eye away from the viewfinder to double check…

In any case, I will expand my search to look at some more modern AF gear…

Thanks,
Steve

Actually, the DoF scale on any of these lenses except those made for crop factor cameras, is not correct for your 350D. You're better off making a list based on any of the DoF calculators on the internet.

Furthermore, there is a big difference in how sensors react to OOF vs film, which again is what the DoF scales are based on. Film has a certain thickness, which means that it hides unsharpness to a degree; sharpness is more of a gliding scale than it is with digital, because for the image, sensors do not have any depth at all. As a result, with sensors, the image seems to jump into sharpness more, with less of a gradient than with film.

Anyway, for manual lenses you may want to add Voigtländer to your list; they made a few manual lenses of Zeiss like quality for avariety of mounts. Unfortunately only few for the EF mount, and the lenses are discontinued, but you can still get them if you look around. Especially Nikon mount should be still fairly easily available, and they can get mounted on a Canon by means of an adapter.

Kind regards, Wim