[Rainer]

[quote name='zz7' date='15 July 2010 - 09:57 AM' timestamp='1279180647' post='1016']

Do you guys have examples of some modern AF lenses which allows trouble-free manual focusing? What I mean by this is - if you place focus ring on infinity, you get the actual infinity setting and focus ring being smooth and wobbling-free.

[/quote]



Try the 24L for instance, but I would think the other L-primes are just as well in this respect.

[zz7]

[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

[Guest]

[quote name='zz7' date='15 July 2010 - 10:37 AM' timestamp='1279186653' post='1019']



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

[/quote]



Hi,

My Voigtländer 40/2 isn't very accurate in that regard - it seems that the 'infinity' setting is not actually infinity. The Zeiss 21/2.8 however, is extremely accurate and child's play to focus. You can literally set that lens to F5.6/5m and use it like a Lomo. The Zeiss 85/1.4 and 50/2 are also very good, sharp lenses and admirable for landscape work - and although I might believe they are superior to Canon/Nikon lenses in some respects, the differences are quite small. And plenty of people would disagree with this assertion, anyway.



Also, one would assume you won't always want to focus at infinity. And, as has been said, you can use an AF lens in MF mode, so it's just a matter of turning AF off. At the end of the day, using a tripod, spirit level and live view will probably improve optical errors to a greater extent than a shift to MF lenses.

[zz7]

[quote name='Pinhole' date='15 July 2010 - 11:07 AM' timestamp='1279188473' post='1020']

Hi,

My Voigtländer 40/2 isn't very accurate in that regard - it seems that the 'infinity' setting is not actually infinity. The Zeiss 21/2.8 however, is extremely accurate and child's play to focus. You can literally set that lens to F5.6/5m and use it like a Lomo. The Zeiss 85/1.4 and 50/2 are also very good, sharp lenses and admirable for landscape work - and although I might believe they are superior to Canon/Nikon lenses in some respects, the differences are quite small. And plenty of people would disagree with this assertion, anyway.



Also, one would assume you won't always want to focus at infinity. And, as has been said, you can use an AF lens in MF mode, so it's just a matter of turning AF off. At the end of the day, using a tripod, spirit level and live view will probably improve optical errors to a greater extent than a shift to MF lenses.

[/quote]



Thanks for input!

[Guest]

I want to note that according to what I've read on the fredmiranda (sp) forums many of the ZE lenses will focus past infinity (not sure if infinity matches infinity mark). I think I read that the official comment on this (from zeiss) is that it allows for expansion due to heat.



[quote name='Pinhole' date='15 July 2010 - 11:07 AM' timestamp='1279188473' post='1020']

Hi,

My Voigtländer 40/2 isn't very accurate in that regard - it seems that the 'infinity' setting is not actually infinity. The Zeiss 21/2.8 however, is extremely accurate and child's play to focus. You can literally set that lens to F5.6/5m and use it like a Lomo. The Zeiss 85/1.4 and 50/2 are also very good, sharp lenses and admirable for landscape work - and although I might believe they are superior to Canon/Nikon lenses in some respects, the differences are quite small. And plenty of people would disagree with this assertion, anyway.



Also, one would assume you won't always want to focus at infinity. And, as has been said, you can use an AF lens in MF mode, so it's just a matter of turning AF off. At the end of the day, using a tripod, spirit level and live view will probably improve optical errors to a greater extent than a shift to MF lenses.

[/quote]

[wim]

[quote name='zz7' date='15 July 2010 - 11:37 AM' timestamp='1279186653' post='1019']

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

[/quote]

Hi Alex,



In that case, why not settle for fixed-focus lenses?



This really defeats the object of a lens with any focusing mechanism at all.



AF is not necessarily flawed, no more than manually focusing a lens. It is all about knowing how to work the AF, know its limitations, just like you need to know your own limitations when focusing manually on a focusing screen. I dare say that under most circumstances, AF is better than MF, and certainly faster. However, what I do see a lot is that people when doing portraits, focus, f.e., on the ridge of someone's nose in a frontal head shot, IOW, on an area with no contrast whatsoever, especially when the light gets a little dimmer. This never worked well with MF, so why should it work with AF, when it all is really contrast or phase based. Do focus on something with a bit more of a contrast transition, e.g., an eyelid, which has eye lashes, and underneath there are the white areas of an eye. That's a lot easier to focus on, both manually and automatically, and the added bonus is that this is exactly what we humans expect to be sharp in focus, the eyes.



Other than that, have you ever tried MF? How often did you overshoot and have to turn the lens back, in either direction, and how many times did you have to do that? AF is way faster in this regard.



As I said, you just need to know how to use it, and that requires experimentation.



Another thing when it comes to landscapes: why would you ever want to focus at infinity? That is essentially the wrong thing to do, as you lose a lot of DoF in the foreground that way, and beyond infinity there is no need for extra DoF. Concentrate on that which is what attracts your attention in a shot, and focus on that, i.e., about 1/3 into that object, 1/3 being in front of the focus point, 2/3 behind it. That was a good rule of thumb from the analog period that still works with digital. It guarantees that that which attracts the most attention in a photograph, is imaged sharply and really becomes the point of focus, under all circumstances. Unless you use an extreme wideangle, and even 21 mm on FF is not enough in this regard, it is not possible to have everything in focus at apertures you'd like to use anyway. Sharpness as a function of DoF doesn't pan out as tables or calculators tell you, unless you do only tiny prints. Unlike what a lot of people think, sharpness in DoF is a gradual transition, not a set of boundaries between which everything suddenly is sharp, although a low MP camera (< 6 MP in APS-C) may make it look that way.



This gradual transition is the exact reason why you do have to focus, otherwise it wouldn't matter.



Kind regards, Wim

[wim]

[quote name='Rainer' date='15 July 2010 - 11:23 AM' timestamp='1279185822' post='1018']

Try the 24L for instance, but I would think the other L-primes are just as well in this respect.

[/quote]

Yep. With any of the -S focusing screens it's a jiffy, on any of my lenses. And when doing close-ups, I always use M, to get just that sharp which I want to be sharp, rather than let AF guess. In such cases I find AF great to get it in the vicinity of the correct focusing point, and with a little twist I can then get it perfect, if so required.



Kind regards, Wim

[zz7]

[quote name='wim' date='15 July 2010 - 04:21 PM' timestamp='1279207306' post='1024']

Hi Alex,



In that case, why not settle for fixed-focus lenses?



This really defeats the object of a lens with any focusing mechanism at all.



AF is not necessarily flawed, no more than manually focusing a lens. It is all about knowing how to work the AF, know its limitations, just like you need to know your own limitations when focusing manually on a focusing screen. I dare say that under most circumstances, AF is better than MF, and certainly faster. However, what I do see a lot is that people when doing portraits, focus, f.e., on the ridge of someone's nose in a frontal head shot, IOW, on an area with no contrast whatsoever, especially when the light gets a little dimmer. This never worked well with MF, so why should it work with AF, when it all is really contrast or phase based. Do focus on something with a bit more of a contrast transition, e.g., an eyelid, which has eye lashes, and underneath there are the white areas of an eye. That's a lot easier to focus on, both manually and automatically, and the added bonus is that this is exactly what we humans expect to be sharp in focus, the eyes.



Other than that, have you ever tried MF? How often did you overshoot and have to turn the lens back, in either direction, and how many times did you have to do that? AF is way faster in this regard.



As I said, you just need to know how to use it, and that requires experimentation.



Another thing when it comes to landscapes: why would you ever want to focus at infinity? That is essentially the wrong thing to do, as you lose a lot of DoF in the foreground that way, and beyond infinity there is no need for extra DoF. Concentrate on that which is what attracts your attention in a shot, and focus on that, i.e., about 1/3 into that object, 1/3 being in front of the focus point, 2/3 behind it. That was a good rule of thumb from the analog period that still works with digital. It guarantees that that which attracts the most attention in a photograph, is imaged sharply and really becomes the point of focus, under all circumstances. Unless you use an extreme wideangle, and even 21 mm on FF is not enough in this regard, it is not possible to have everything in focus at apertures you'd like to use anyway. Sharpness as a function of DoF doesn't pan out as tables or calculators tell you, unless you do only tiny prints. Unlike what a lot of people think, sharpness in DoF is a gradual transition, not a set of boundaries between which everything suddenly is sharp, although a low MP camera (< 6 MP in APS-C) may make it look that way.



This gradual transition is the exact reason why you do have to focus, otherwise it wouldn't matter.



Kind regards, Wim

[/quote]





Thanks!

[PuxaVida]

From my experience, I can tell you that using MF is a joy when it comes to my Zeiss 50mm. The MF ring is silky smooth and can rotate until you get bored with it. And the best part is you can choose where to focus by yourself without a need of one of the 51 or 18 AF sensor points in the viewfinder. This is really something, because even if you have 51 focus points they do not cover the edges and you need to focus & reframe (or AE/AF lock). But I'm not sure if the same is valid for wide angle landscape usage... I use it for street photography and close portrait shots.



Edit: All statements made above was excluding the need of a decent focusing screen. Because in some body/lens combinations the signal of focus indicators can lead false results and all you can depend on becomes a decent focusing screen.



Regards,



Serkan

[wim]

Hi Serkan,[quote name='PuxaVida' date='16 July 2010 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1279284969' post='1045']

From my experience, I can tell you that using MF is a joy when it comes to my Zeiss 50mm. The MF ring is silky smooth and can rotate until you get bored with it. And the best part is you can choose where to focus by yourself without a need of one of the 51 or 18 AF sensor points in the viewfinder. This is really something, because even if you have 51 focus points they do not cover the edges and you need to focus & reframe (or AE/AF lock). But I'm not sure if the same is valid for wide angle landscape usage... I use it for street photography and close portrait shots.



Edit: All statements made above was excluding the need of a decent focusing screen. Because in some body/lens combinations the signal of focus indicators can lead false results and all you can depend on becomes a decent focusing screen.



Regards,



Serkan

[/quote]

Surely you can switch off the focus indicators? I do...



I am convinved however that you do need a good focusing screen which supports MF, for the simple reason that generally the standard focusing screens with which modern cameras are equipped in the factory, are so coarse as to provide one with the same DoF perception as a lens stopped down to F/5.6 or F/8, which means that MF at larger apertures can't be correct by definition, especially if you don't stop down to those apertures.



I don't know whether that is what you wanted to convey, as I don't completely understand your post well enough, I think, so I thought I added this remark.



Kind regards, Wim