manual focus lenses on af bodies...

[back alley]

seems like most folks who use af bodies bought into them for the express purpose of using manual focus lenses on them.
would this be an accurate assesment of your intentions?
i can understand people who already have a collection of mf lenses doing so…

for me, i wanted an af camera so i could use af lenses. very simple i think but i sometimes feel completely left out of some of the conversations around here because of it.
i love af, even slow af…which seems much faster than my manual focus ability.
other than setting hyperfocal distance with a wide or near wide lens which is the fastest way to shoot…i prefer af.

where are you all on this?

 

[thirteen]

I'm with you. I just picked up a beat up but fully working Nikon F4s. I bought it just so I can shoot film with my Nikon G lenses.
Makes all kinds of sense to me!

 

[GaryLH]

For me, using mf lenses are secondary (side benefit) at this time. Good native af support is where my head is at right now. That is not to say that there are times when I use mf lens to cover for missing focal length in the native lens, but once that has been resolved, the preference for me is always the native af lens.

The use of legacy mf lenses for me is more of secondary use or trying to take advantage of an existing investment in film lenses.

In the case of the speedbooster, it is actually a slightly different story.. I most cases I already have the af lens in question, but the speedbooster gives me an extra stop of light gathering that I sometimes value in certain situations.

Gary

 

[burancap]

I started off as an adapted guy and then grew to realize just how great some rather pedestrian (by most standards) kit or third party lenses are. The 19 and 30 DN Sigmas may be the best bang/buck lenses ever made. The kit FX 18-55 is a keeper too.

 

[YYV_146]

I'm pretty fast on MF, fast enough to shoot events using only one long AF zoom and manual primes. The thing is, I firmly believe that some photographs should be made with manual focus. Anyone can take amazing street photos with a super-fast SLR body, it only gets easier if the body has wifi and you can compose with your phone. But capturing the moment with manual takes much more skill and discipline, and IMO that is what makes the images of HCB and the like great.

I also enjoy "being in control" while I'm shooting, which is probably why I prefer EVFs. When I use MF (with a EVF camera), I am certain that I've nailed a shot. I see the edge in focus, and immediately know that the shot is a keeper. With AF I am constantly chimping, even with a reliable dual-focus system body such as the A99, because I just can't trust the camera to nail every shot.

 

[GaryLH]

For me, my eyesight is not good enough these days to focus fast w/ mf lenses. If I use mf lenses, then I need a good aid like mag view. Peaking w/o mag view, my eyesight is not good enough these days. One thing that has me intrigued right now is the xt1 that would allow dual view w/ I think a mag view split image or focus peaking in the secondary screen. If this works as advertised, this would make me think twice about using native lenses as the primary..

Gary

 

[nikon_sam]

I was studying and looking for my next Nikon body...I looked hard at the FA but then thought about the possibility of getting the F4...the F4 had everything the FA had plus AF...that was the clincher for me even though at the time I bought it I did not own any AF lenses...my first AF lens was the 50mm 1.8
At this time the AF is faster than me and I'm cool with that...I see it as one less thing to worry about, I can concentrate on composition and watching what's going to happen next.
At the moment I only own 4 AF lenses...not looking for any at this time either...

 

[iamzip]

I bought the EF mount Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f/2 but only had AF bodies when I bought it. Even with the focus assist, still had a difficult time focusing as the screens just aren't meant for it. So I thought about selling the lens - but instead I bought the Canon EF-M. Not the mirrorless, but Canon's only EF mount body for MF lenses. Has a nice split prism screen and absolutely no AF capabilities.

 

[Ranchu]

Focus reframe focus reframe focus reframe leaves little of my attention left over for the picture. I find it very distracting.

 

[Godfrey]

seems like most folks who use af bodies bought into them for the express purpose of using manual focus lenses on them.
would this be an accurate assesment of your intentions?
i can understand people who already have a collection of mf lenses doing so…

for me, i wanted an af camera so i could use af lenses. very simple i think but i sometimes feel completely left out of some of the conversations around here because of it.
i love af, even slow af…which seems much faster than my manual focus ability.
other than setting hyperfocal distance with a wide or near wide lens which is the fastest way to shoot…i prefer af.

where are you all on this?

It depends on what camera I'm buying and for what reason.

When I first started using manual lenses on an AF body, it was when I bought the Pentax *ist DS in 2004 and found I could acquire a dozen older lenses for a couple hundred dollars. Over time, I sold off all those lenses (at a profit, because Pentax lenses were becoming more valuable with the introduction of the K10D model, etc) and bought the latest top of the line FA and DA Limiteds to replace them.

When I bought my first FourThirds SLR, I tried adapting lenses to it. It worked well for some things, not as well for others, and over time I replaced all the manual lenses I bought for FourThirds SLR with Olympus and Panasonic native mount lenses.

Along the way, I acquired a Panasonic G1 and had a lot of fun adapting manual lenses to it. I used my FT SLR lenses or a couple of choice manual SLR lenses on it primarily. Mirrorless bodies work well with manual lenses overall, particularly SLR lenses.

Then I closed my photo business, sold off all but a little bit of FourThirds SLR gear, and worked with the Ricoh GXR and Leica M9 for a year and some. The GXR is either a point and shoot with an AF lens or a Leica M mount camera. I used it primarily as an M-mount camera with M-mount lenses. The M9, of course, is all manual focus.

Last year I re-entered Micro-FourThirds when the camera i'd been waiting for, the E-M1, was announced. In the meantime, I'd acquired a rather nice Leicaflex SL kit with a half dozen lenses, so I bought an adapter and work with that for a bit. Ultimately, I added a few top notch mFT lenses to the E-M1 kit and have discontinued adapting manual lenses to it.

This year, having all these lovely old Leica R lenses (and a few of my favorite Nikkors) in the closet, I bought a Sony A7 body specifically to use these lenses with. They work very well together and present a use experience like my Nikon FE2 did, which has been what I have wanted for a long time.

So I keep the E-M1 fitted with my choice of favorite FT or mFT lenses, all AF capable, and the A7 fitted with a Leica R or Nikkor manual focus lens. The combination of kits like this works exactly as I'd hoped and produce lovely results. I have very fast and fluid AF and image stabilization with the Olympus kit, and I have stunning manual focus lenses and a super quality FF sensor with the Sony-Leica kit.

Life is good.

G

 

[ssmc]

Modern AF SLRs / DSLRs have pretty mediocre viewfinders and screens for manual focusing - especially when the light gets iffy. This is where a modern AF system can really work wonders - my 5DIII can lock focus in light so dim I can barely see what I'm aiming at. But using MF lenses on a manual-focus body in reasonable light is a joy and one of the reasons I can't imagine selling my Minolta gear while film is still available (MC & MD lenses, X700 & X-570). There is also a definite pleasure in the mechanical quality of MF lenses compared to even expensive AF stuff.

However... MF lenses on a camera with an EVF is a different story. Super-easy with the magnified view and the camera braced at eye level. Trying this with the rear monitor on a Sony NEX-3 was a dismal experience; greatly magnified shake from having to hold it away from me combined with the refesh rate of the screen made it extremely difficult.

BTW I totally agree with burancap about the Sigma DN lenses - I got the 30/2.8 (original version) for $150 and it stays on the G2 most of the time.

 

[hamradio]

I originally bought a 5D to use with my crop of Nikon F mount lenses, as it cost considerably less than a used D700. After a good deal of shooting mf lenses in an af body, however, I actually picked up a native lens for the camera: the 40mm 2.8 STM. Since getting it, I haven't gone back to mf lenses on that camera; my previous go-to mf lens, a Voigtlander 40/2, has found a new home on my F3. I mainly got tired of how the mf lenses don't work quite perfectly on the af camera; no stop down metering, focusing is a pain (even with the right Ee-s screen), etc. I find them to be far more enjoyable to use in their native bodies.

 

[kxl]

I only use AF (in fact, AFS) lenses on my D800e, except for my Kiron 105/2.8, which is a macro lens.

On my A7R, I use the an AF FE 55/1.8 and M-mount lenses that I have had for a while. I may purchased add'l AF lenses in the future.

 

[Darshan]

I adapted my M lenses to use on my GF1 but after a few months the 20 1.7 went back on it and hasn't come off for 4 years. mf lenses slowed me down and 20 1.7 is fast with good results, no reason for me to use mf lenses. Now, I am thinking of getting the sony a7 to try all my mf lenses (rf and slr)..

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I tried at let go all MF lenses on my 5D. Including Zeiss 50 1,4 T ZE.
Doesn't makes sense on DSLR.
But I have seen how people focus with MF on advanced modern compacts with focus pick and it is different story.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

After my apartment was burglarized last year, I had to get back into shooting and cheaply so I decided to use old MF Nikkors. Eventually, I grew to remember that I loved using them so I have a gang of some of the best lenses Nikon ever made, all Ai or AiS and a Nikon D3 with a viewfinder hacked to work better with fast manual focus lenses.

Using an 85mm f/1.4 and the old B focusing screen then relying on the little focus dot wasn't good enough. There is some depth of field to the dot actually, so with lenses faster than f/2.8, if focus is not set on open-loop logic (continuous focus which I find incredibly annoying) then there is a chance the camera just won't get it. Up close and wide open with a 50mm f/1.2 or 85mm f/1.4 the AF sensor sometimes just doesn't cut it but a split prism focusing screen does.

So now I shoot nothing but manual focus lenses on the D3 and I love it. I got hired with a paper out in New Mexico just from one shot at a night time high school football game. I took it with a 300mm f/4.5 AiS ED lens. Focus was dead on and exposure perfect. Proof to myself that I can do it so I don't need anymore tech.

And Nikon doesn't make a real manual focus digital. That's why.

Phil Forrest

 

[John Bragg]

I have a mix of Nikon MF and AF lenses and switch between them without a hitch. That is the beauty of the F mount and system. I bought a Nikon F5 recently and it is equally happy with my old collection of manual lenses as well as the small collection of AF lenses that I am gathering for it and its F 90x sibling. Admittedly, AF is faster for most things but MF does for what I do, and there is a quality and heft to a manual Nikkor and a tactile experience that is lacking in AF lenses ..

 

[willie_901]

I was frustrated using MF Nikkor lens on Nikon DLSRs. I once owned seven Nikkor Ai/AIS lenses. Nikon clearly has no interest in accommodating MF lens users, even on the Df. Life is too short to fight Nikon's marketing goals. This is one reason I no longer have an interest in Nikon.

I was always frustrated using adapted lenses. I played around with adapted lenses on a m4/3 body. For me personally it was not worth the effort. I wasted time reading about what adapted lenses might work best and playing around with the lenses. In the end I didn't realize any advantage at all. Of course I know others enjoy this sort of thing. Re-purposing lenses is also an admirable means to conserve capital and resources.

I only owned five M/LTM lenses (two Zeiss Ms, a Nikkor, a Canon and CV LTMs). The only one I miss is the C-Sonnar 50/1.5. When I abandoned film I sold them all. I do not have emotional attachments to camera equipment. Well, that's not true. I display my grandfather's Argus C3 and my first SLR/50mm prime on a shelf. Otherwise they are just tools.

I decided to stay with the Fujifilm X system because of the lenses. It took a while, but the Fujinon XF prime offerings meet my needs. I enjoy focusing with the lens collars on some of them (14, 23, 56, 10-24) more than others (18, 28, 35). Even the least enjoyable (18) is acceptable. The lens and body firmware updates did make a difference in the feel of the fly-by-wire lenses and by offering focus peaking and improving ease of use.

The XT-1 is better than the X-Pro 1 for focusing with the lens collar due to the improved EVF, dual-screen mode and color options for focus peaking. The split screen method is useful in some situations as well. Even if you only focus with the lens collar, the electronic coupling still provides advantages depending on the menu parameter selections. I plan to use focusing with the lens collar more often with both bodies.

 

[f16sunshine]

I've had excellent results adapting lenses to my 5Dclassic and 5Dii DSLR cameras.
Everything from Zuikos and Leicas to Zeiss Contax and Nikkors.
The ability to instal a proper focus screen makes all the difference in the world when manual focussing.
In the old 5D I installed a Screen from a Contax RTS. In my 5Dii it a Canon High contrast screen.
Focus is pops in.

These bodies were purchased specifically to use my Contax Zeiss Lenses from my film days as well as older M42 Zeiss lenses.
The Ability to adapt many different mounts got me looking at Zuiko, Leica R and Nikkors as well as some other M42 lenses.

So far with Mirrorless my luck has not been as good using adapted MF lenses(Fuji for Me).
The Fuji lenses are superb so all is good.

I guess a lot of folks really want the perfect platform for using M mount lenses.
I went a different route after giving up on manually focussing on my fuji.
My M mount lenses have been retired. Not so true for the Contax and Zuikos on the Eos 🙂

my 2c

 

[valdas]

Many years ago I owned Canon EOS 50 (a.k.a Elan II), then I started using manual lenses on it (Contax) and later I "went manual" and never regretted. Well, there are those rare moments when I miss AF, so I bought Hexar AF, I also have Contax AX which allows AF with manual focus lenses when I need it. I had temptations to buy Nikon F5/F6 and use my manual Nikkors on it, but then I realized I would open Pandora's box and will start buying AF Nikkors...