07-15-2010, 09:37 AM
[quote name='Brightcolours' date='15 July 2010 - 10:21 AM' timestamp='1279185695' post='1017']
You have a misconception there. Those lenses are SUPPOSED to be able to move past the infinity mark. That does not mean that the lenses are not at infinity around the infinity mark, though (you can test that yourself). The reason those lenses are able to go past the infinity mark is because with changing temperatures and conditions, the focussing can change. And this way, you are always sure the lens can reach infinity focussing.
My EF 35mm f2 certainly does focus at infinity when at the infinity marking, and yes, it can more beyond that marking... I fail to see the problem.
Now why would that be a problem? You actually use the lens markings for focussing? And then? What is the problem?
And about a "wobbly" focus ring. Of course, you may prefer the feel of a machined lens with well damped focus ring from for instance Zeiss over a budget AF zoom lens, that is fine. That is your choice. However, your original post was not about that, it was about if MF lenses are more suitable for landscape work. They are not. You can set any AF lens to MF, when MF is preferred, and it does not make the lens deliver better results, just because it lacks AF.
Now I get the feeling you think some (like me) want to argue AGAINST Zeiss or Voigtlander lenses. But that is not the case. I was just responding to your original post, and the arial photos which impressed you, and wanted to point out that those photos show NOTHING specific about any lens (except that they have good contrast), but are all about the actual photographer (and a plane).
I use my Canon 35mm f2 (very affordable) and EF 70-200mm f4 L USM most of the time without AF (so.. as MF lenses). Yes, the Canon 35mm f2 does not reach the sturdy feel and tight tolerances of the Zeiss 35mm f2. But it is more affordable, it is much more compact and light, and it does allow AF when needed. It is all about your personal preferences and requirements, and it is FINE to buy MF lenses, whether they are from Voigtlander (I want the 20mm f3.5 SLII pancake from Voigtlander for macro work), Zeiss, or even old MF Nikkor lenses.
Just your original proposition is not correct (MF lenses being better suited for certain tasks).
About AF lenses with a good MF feel: That depends on the lens. And what you prefer. Most L lenses from Canon offer a very sturdy feel, with good MF action. but they do feel different from traditional metal machines MF lenses, because they have a construction which allows MF during AF operation, making the MF ring "slip".
Just get whichever lens suits YOU best, in optics, in price, in materials and/or in feel.
[/quote]
Thanks for this post. I do not see much sense arguing over your statements, all this makes sense.
However, let's simplify discussion to following situation: let's assume that I shoot only landscapes on infinity focus. Would not the manual focus lens (where focus ring turned to the edge means infinity) simplify my life and reduce number of technically flawed images (due to autofocus errors)?
Thanks,
Alex
You have a misconception there. Those lenses are SUPPOSED to be able to move past the infinity mark. That does not mean that the lenses are not at infinity around the infinity mark, though (you can test that yourself). The reason those lenses are able to go past the infinity mark is because with changing temperatures and conditions, the focussing can change. And this way, you are always sure the lens can reach infinity focussing.
My EF 35mm f2 certainly does focus at infinity when at the infinity marking, and yes, it can more beyond that marking... I fail to see the problem.
Now why would that be a problem? You actually use the lens markings for focussing? And then? What is the problem?
And about a "wobbly" focus ring. Of course, you may prefer the feel of a machined lens with well damped focus ring from for instance Zeiss over a budget AF zoom lens, that is fine. That is your choice. However, your original post was not about that, it was about if MF lenses are more suitable for landscape work. They are not. You can set any AF lens to MF, when MF is preferred, and it does not make the lens deliver better results, just because it lacks AF.
Now I get the feeling you think some (like me) want to argue AGAINST Zeiss or Voigtlander lenses. But that is not the case. I was just responding to your original post, and the arial photos which impressed you, and wanted to point out that those photos show NOTHING specific about any lens (except that they have good contrast), but are all about the actual photographer (and a plane).
I use my Canon 35mm f2 (very affordable) and EF 70-200mm f4 L USM most of the time without AF (so.. as MF lenses). Yes, the Canon 35mm f2 does not reach the sturdy feel and tight tolerances of the Zeiss 35mm f2. But it is more affordable, it is much more compact and light, and it does allow AF when needed. It is all about your personal preferences and requirements, and it is FINE to buy MF lenses, whether they are from Voigtlander (I want the 20mm f3.5 SLII pancake from Voigtlander for macro work), Zeiss, or even old MF Nikkor lenses.
Just your original proposition is not correct (MF lenses being better suited for certain tasks).
About AF lenses with a good MF feel: That depends on the lens. And what you prefer. Most L lenses from Canon offer a very sturdy feel, with good MF action. but they do feel different from traditional metal machines MF lenses, because they have a construction which allows MF during AF operation, making the MF ring "slip".
Just get whichever lens suits YOU best, in optics, in price, in materials and/or in feel.
[/quote]
Thanks for this post. I do not see much sense arguing over your statements, all this makes sense.
However, let's simplify discussion to following situation: let's assume that I shoot only landscapes on infinity focus. Would not the manual focus lens (where focus ring turned to the edge means infinity) simplify my life and reduce number of technically flawed images (due to autofocus errors)?
Thanks,
Alex