Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Photo of the day April 2015
- Thread starter oblomow
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As one of the most ancient flowering plants I think of them as really exotic. They evolved before flying insects and are pollinated by beetles.
Last edited:
Nice. I ordered the 40mm myself but I got buggered about by Digital Rev and they ended up cancelling my order. It worked out ok in the end as I found a nearly new Fuji XF35mm really cheap and that's a cracking lens. I still want for a Voigtlander Nokton though and have been eyeing up the 50mm.....unfortunately funds won't allow at the minute. I do have the 15mm Heliar though and that's also a lovely lens.
I love the way that manual glass slows you down and makes you think about your shot. It also feels right somehow to be controlling the focus yourself.
Love manual lenses too for that reason and also the character you get but be careful... I got hooked and my GAS has taken me from sublime Jenas through FDs and M42s to the Voigtlander then on to Leitz M into Leica Summiluxes.
I know it isnt the same league as you guys and you probably havent noticed it, but you all have been responding more positively to my images, and i get more people fav'ing my stuff on Flickr now i am shooting with my 35 and 50 asph. luxes. So legacy lenses get expensive hell of a quick if you have GAS.
Learn to love your 55 FE it is cheaper in the long run...
You lucky so and so
I'd love a couple of Summiluxes. There is absolutely no way that I can ever justify buying one unfortunately, so I'll just have to covet them from afar. If you ever want to offload them super cheap then let me know 
Other Reasons
Is it just manual focus that is the attraction? Turning off the Auto give similar affect.
Or presumably some inherent qualities are missing from your modern lenses that are present in the older named lenses.
Just curious. If so that would mean you feel we (us shakey handed, dodgy eyesighted) types are missing out on something being stuck with the AF setting.
Obviously over the years I have noted and lusted over the odd lens or two so not being critical just nosey.
Regards
Sharkey
Nice. I ordered the 40mm myself but I got buggered about by Digital Rev and they ended up cancelling my order. It worked out ok in the end as I found a nearly new Fuji XF35mm really cheap and that's a cracking lens. I still want for a Voigtlander Nokton though and have been eyeing up the 50mm.....unfortunately funds won't allow at the minute. I do have the 15mm Heliar though and that's also a lovely lens.
I love the way that manual glass slows you down and makes you think about your shot. It also feels right somehow to be controlling the focus yourself.
You lucky so and so
Is it just manual focus that is the attraction? Turning off the Auto give similar affect.
Or presumably some inherent qualities are missing from your modern lenses that are present in the older named lenses.
Just curious. If so that would mean you feel we (us shakey handed, dodgy eyesighted) types are missing out on something being stuck with the AF setting.
Obviously over the years I have noted and lusted over the odd lens or two so not being critical just nosey
.Regards
Sharkey
Is it just manual focus that is the attraction? Turning off the Auto give similar affect.
Or presumably some inherent qualities are missing from your modern lenses that are present in the older named lenses.
Just curious. If so that would mean you feel we (us shakey handed, dodgy eyesighted) types are missing out on something being stuck with the AF setting.
Obviously over the years I have noted and lusted over the odd lens or two so not being critical just nosey
Regards
Sharkey
For me it's three things.
1. The feel of manual focusing makes me feel more connected to my camera and provides a more visceral experience. As I shoot mirrorless (Fuji XE1) the Fuji lenses employ a focus by wire system that just doesn't feel right.
2. Lens size. I like to use rangefinder lenses, which are typically a lot more compact and suit mirrorless bodies really well.
3. Lens character. Old manual lenses can have real character in the way they resolve an image, whereas modern lenses can be a bit clinical in the way they render.
It's a personal preference at the end of the day I guess.
Another bonus is that you can pick up some real bargains using legacy glass.
Nice. I ordered the 40mm myself but I got buggered about by Digital Rev and they ended up cancelling my order. It worked out ok in the end as I found a nearly new Fuji XF35mm really cheap and that's a cracking lens. I still want for a Voigtlander Nokton though and have been eyeing up the 50mm.....unfortunately funds won't allow at the minute. I do have the 15mm Heliar though and that's also a lovely lens.
I love the way that manual glass slows you down and makes you think about your shot. It also feels right somehow to be controlling the focus yourself.
You lucky so and so
Lol. I am kicking myself mate, I had a 40 nokton MC version. You could have taken that off me for mates rates if I had thought at the time. Great little lens that takes a load of flack for no reason. To be honest, although I have these Summiluxes, I bought them mint used condition so saved a packet on them figuring i will get most of my money back on them if the time ever comes. Yes they are overkill for my skills and I will give you first refusal if the time comes. They are very easy to focus. I wont rub any more...
In the meantime, I will try and justify my ownership of them.
I do find focus by wire frustrating though, didnt really appreciate the joys of MF until i got used to it though this claim if someone using an RF can focus faster than AF, i need some proving on...
Many many years ago I worked professionally with all manual Canon kit and it was not until the eos 1 came out that I changed (one camera at a time) to af. models. The first was a T90 to an eos 1.. Cost an absolute fortune at the time.
At the time I noticed no real difference in keepers/focus ratio but found the variety of shot I could think about getting increased markedly. In other words my manual focussing skills must have been close to those early af. machines excepting of course moving sports which I did not cover anyway.
Keeping both types of camera/lens combo working was a real boon to my skills profile using each at times when I felt they had an advantage. I suppose never moving over to Leica or similar rangefinders meant no comparison across camera types but still using 20+ year old tech. alongside the cutting edge did give me a very broad perspective.
Ultimately the point and shoot af. became my backup type and mf. was lost.
I could now not contemplate taking a photograph handheld and mf. for love nor money and to be honest I do not miss it.
General hobbiest photography (unless macro or such) I feel is more about the second; the moment, the emotion and as that is now what I am, so be it.
Finally to end this waffle. I do find it very interesting to hear you and others talk of a lens having (image) character and would live blind tests (unintended joke there) just to see if this character could be consistently picked out
Regards
Sharkey
Hi Sharkey,Is it just manual focus that is the attraction? Turning off the Auto give similar affect.
Or presumably some inherent qualities are missing from your modern lenses that are present in the older named lenses.
Just curious. If so that would mean you feel we (us shakey handed, dodgy eyesighted) types are missing out on something being stuck with the AF setting.
Obviously over the years I have noted and lusted over the odd lens or two so not being critical just nosey
Regards
Sharkey
So i can only speak to recent experiences. I shot Canon EOS for a year and thought manual was for when you wanted to stop the camera focus moving - generalising a bit there but basically never really used it unless shooting the moon.
I then moved to mirrorless and the joys of legacy manual glass and a few native focus by wire lenses. FE lenses to be precise. What i like about the manual lenses is that when you get used to them, you know depending on how far you turn them, where roughly they are focused at distance wise. However mainly, i never noticed how many shots i missed before because the camera auto focussed somewhere other than where i wanted it to. Since going manual, i focus it precisely where I want and i set the aperture. This then gives a sense of increased satisfaction to me when i take a shot as i have been more involved in getting the shot - I think...focus by wire by contrast works on the premise of the speed you turn the lens dictates whether you get fine focus or fast focus changes, to me at least and everyone is different, i find this a bit detatched.
But manual lenses suck for anything in motion unless you become a Jedi Knight of zone focussing like some of the guys on here like MacRy on some of his street shots. When shooting and i know i cant take time over my shots like when out ANYWHERE with my wife or action i.e. my young daughters, i slap my FE auto focus lenses on
So it is basically that greater level of attachment to your camera but it isnt for everyone, I would never encourahe someone to go a manual only route.
K
----------
Many many years ago I worked professionally with all manual Canon kit and it was not until the eos 1 came out that I changed (one camera at a time) to af. models. The first was a T90 to an eos 1.. Cost an absolute fortune at the time.
At the time I noticed no real difference in keepers/focus ratio but found the variety of shot I could think about getting increased markedly. In other words my manual focussing skills must have been close to those early af. machines excepting of course moving sports which I did not cover anyway.
Keeping both types of camera/lens combo working was a real boon to my skills profile using each at times when I felt they had an advantage. I suppose never moving over to Leica or similar rangefinders meant no comparison across camera types but still using 20+ year old tech. alongside the cutting edge did give me a very broad perspective.
Ultimately the point and shoot af. became my backup type and mf. was lost.
I could now not contemplate taking a photograph handheld and mf. for love nor money and to be honest I do not miss it.
General hobbiest photography (unless macro or such) I feel is more about the second; the moment, the emotion and as that is now what I am, so be it.
Finally to end this waffle. I do find it very interesting to hear you and others talk of a lens having (image) character and would live blind tests (unintended joke there) just to see if this character could be consistently picked out
Regards
Sharkey
Lens blind tests on character, i would like a try but i know i am full of hor air due to a degree of convincing myself i like it. There are differences in saturation and and contrast from lenses but no doubt i couldnt tell them apart. What i do know is that open wide they are different but then how much of that is because they are the only ones that fast? I dont know but inam gonna claim the subjective angle and say it pleases me and makes me happy. I work in IT, i make a lit of money for other people and in my hobby here, i create something for me, just for me and i get tickled pink when you guys say nice things about my creations as i do try hard at it and i know i am not David Bailey but we all have our reasons and journeys.
So if manual lenses with "character " are my thing, let me enjoy being one eyed in the land of the blind...
Last edited:
Happy to see you've finally come around to showing an interest in bird photography Adam.
Well I figured it was the only way to get my photos talked about around here.Happy to see you've finally come around to showing an interest in bird photography Adam.
Bugger that was the version I had ordered! Never mind.
I'm going to hold you to your Leica promise
Wow. Looks like I started a whole conversation here. I'll reply in rapid-fire fashion with my 2 cents before moving on to my photo of the day.
There is a rather big difference. Lenses built for AF (like most modern lenses) have a focus by wire system for MF (meaning it's not really responding to your touch/feel, but rather, your rotation of the ring causes an electronic signal to move the focus inside the lens. These lenses, meant for AF, have a usually short throw (the amount of rotation of the ring that takes you from minimal focusing distance to infinity), so the focusing feels kinda loose and imprecise (hard to explain in words). The slightest touch to the ring will take you from say 3m to 10m (just an example). Manual lenses are designed to have an actual dampened ring, with usually pretty long throws as they do not require to communicate with an AF mechanism and are meant to be fine tuned by hand. I hope that made sense.
Also, as some mentioned, there is an inherent satisfaction in controlling the focus yourself. Much like the feeling you get from going off the "Auto" setting in your camera and using M for the first time. So there's definitely something of a "fun factor" to the experience that also causes you to slow down and think about your shot before hitting that button repeatedly.
AF does have its advantages though. There's no way I could ever MF in time to catch birds in flight, sports or wildlife.
Exactly what MacRy said. I explained the technical difference of MF lenses. But there's something more to it than that. A bit intangible (albeit visible in photos).
These lenses are usually very small. Which makes carrying them around fun. And makes the shooting experience more fun. I have started taking my camera with me almost everywhere I go. You never know when something interesting will lend itself to a photo. Big difference compared to the more rigorously planned approach of "going for a photo walk" where you intentionally set out with 10 lbs. of gear (for me, that meant the Canon 6D, 16-35L, 24-70L, 70-200L and sometimes 100-400L)...Yeah.
As for character...Well, that's another one that people who haven't tried it seem to think "How can something based in physics have character? It's not really organic". And that is indeed true. But after trying a couple of these lenses (an old Canon FD 50/1.8 and a Vivitar 135/2.8), both of which practically fit in my pockets, I do understand what character means. Character really means "lack of technical perfection" and that can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on one's interpretation and how one chooses to use it.
Modern lenses are very much striving for optical perfection (and many of them are pretty damn close). That means sharpness from corner to corner, microcontrast across as much of the frame as possible. Resistance to flare using modern lens coatings, etc.
Basically, the type of things you read about as "pros" in every new gear release pamphlet and announcement.
Older lenses don't always hit those marks. Some have pretty bad contrast, or bad flare resistance. Or their colors are rendered somewhat differently, or get soft away from center-frame. All this contributes to each of these lenses producing photos that are a bit different and distinct from "technically perfect" stuff we see in most modern lenses.
That can be good in some cases (some lenses are said to have "character") and it can be bad in some cases (some lenses are just awful).
That shot I posted yesterday...Very minimal processing. I don't think I could have gotten those colors and that vintagey look from my Canon (at least not without post processing it to intentionally look that way).
Here's today's photo. Shot with the Canon FD 50/1.8. Handheld and manually focused at f/1.8 for that uber shallow DOF.
Also note that this lens can be had for under $100 on ebay...(to compare to those Leicas mentioned in the above post, hehehehe).
There is a rather big difference. Lenses built for AF (like most modern lenses) have a focus by wire system for MF (meaning it's not really responding to your touch/feel, but rather, your rotation of the ring causes an electronic signal to move the focus inside the lens. These lenses, meant for AF, have a usually short throw (the amount of rotation of the ring that takes you from minimal focusing distance to infinity), so the focusing feels kinda loose and imprecise (hard to explain in words). The slightest touch to the ring will take you from say 3m to 10m (just an example). Manual lenses are designed to have an actual dampened ring, with usually pretty long throws as they do not require to communicate with an AF mechanism and are meant to be fine tuned by hand. I hope that made sense.
Also, as some mentioned, there is an inherent satisfaction in controlling the focus yourself. Much like the feeling you get from going off the "Auto" setting in your camera and using M for the first time. So there's definitely something of a "fun factor" to the experience that also causes you to slow down and think about your shot before hitting that button repeatedly.
AF does have its advantages though. There's no way I could ever MF in time to catch birds in flight, sports or wildlife.
Exactly what MacRy said. I explained the technical difference of MF lenses. But there's something more to it than that. A bit intangible (albeit visible in photos).
These lenses are usually very small. Which makes carrying them around fun. And makes the shooting experience more fun. I have started taking my camera with me almost everywhere I go. You never know when something interesting will lend itself to a photo. Big difference compared to the more rigorously planned approach of "going for a photo walk" where you intentionally set out with 10 lbs. of gear (for me, that meant the Canon 6D, 16-35L, 24-70L, 70-200L and sometimes 100-400L)...Yeah.
As for character...Well, that's another one that people who haven't tried it seem to think "How can something based in physics have character? It's not really organic". And that is indeed true. But after trying a couple of these lenses (an old Canon FD 50/1.8 and a Vivitar 135/2.8), both of which practically fit in my pockets, I do understand what character means. Character really means "lack of technical perfection" and that can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on one's interpretation and how one chooses to use it.
Modern lenses are very much striving for optical perfection (and many of them are pretty damn close). That means sharpness from corner to corner, microcontrast across as much of the frame as possible. Resistance to flare using modern lens coatings, etc.
Basically, the type of things you read about as "pros" in every new gear release pamphlet and announcement.
Older lenses don't always hit those marks. Some have pretty bad contrast, or bad flare resistance. Or their colors are rendered somewhat differently, or get soft away from center-frame. All this contributes to each of these lenses producing photos that are a bit different and distinct from "technically perfect" stuff we see in most modern lenses.
That can be good in some cases (some lenses are said to have "character") and it can be bad in some cases (some lenses are just awful).
That shot I posted yesterday...Very minimal processing. I don't think I could have gotten those colors and that vintagey look from my Canon (at least not without post processing it to intentionally look that way).
Here's today's photo. Shot with the Canon FD 50/1.8. Handheld and manually focused at f/1.8 for that uber shallow DOF.
Also note that this lens can be had for under $100 on ebay...(to compare to those Leicas mentioned in the above post, hehehehe).
That's a really good point. 99% of the MF lenses I have bought are old legacy glass that have cost me peanuts. For next to nothing you can have a lens that either performs nearly as well as modern glass or gives a unique look due to it's flaws.
For example:
Rokkor 50mm 1.4 - £50
Jupiter 8 50mm F2 - £40
Wonderful character of both lenses for next to nothing.
I suppose I was really looking for your reasoning rather than a tech. info. thing.
As I said my start was with the manually focussed lens of the past so well aware of its mechanics. Obviously from what both of you say your depth of knowledge is well sufficient to back up what on the surface would seem a counter intuitive choice in this day of speed/perfection and the pixel.
As of a whim despite my display being awol I took a quick look at a couple of images from the day and no; you are not seeing them . The overriding impression having not looked for some time is age. They look old. Old style, old quality and old technique.
Funny that they hold little for me now. Perhaps if I had not been responsible for them in the first place they would hold a little more fascination and maybe like you are I may want to recreate that feel. Bit like Rolling Stones and Muddy Waters etc..
The mechanics of focussing are beyond me now so like you I'll wear the shoes that fit till I walk no more
Regards
Sharkey
As I said my start was with the manually focussed lens of the past so well aware of its mechanics. Obviously from what both of you say your depth of knowledge is well sufficient to back up what on the surface would seem a counter intuitive choice in this day of speed/perfection and the pixel.
As of a whim despite my display being awol I took a quick look at a couple of images from the day and no; you are not seeing them
. The overriding impression having not looked for some time is age. They look old. Old style, old quality and old technique.Funny that they hold little for me now. Perhaps if I had not been responsible for them in the first place they would hold a little more fascination and maybe like you are I may want to recreate that feel. Bit like Rolling Stones and Muddy Waters etc..
The mechanics of focussing are beyond me now so like you I'll wear the shoes that fit till I walk no more
Regards
Sharkey
I suppose I was really looking for your reasoning rather than a tech. info. thing.
As I said my start was with the manually focussed lens of the past so well aware of its mechanics. Obviously from what both of you say your depth of knowledge is well sufficient to back up what on the surface would seem a counter intuitive choice in this day of speed/perfection and the pixel.
As of a whim despite my display being awol I took a quick look at a couple of images from the day and no; you are not seeing them
Funny that they hold little for me now. Perhaps if I had not been responsible for them in the first place they would hold a little more fascination and maybe like you are I may want to recreate that feel. Bit like Rolling Stones and Muddy Waters etc..
The mechanics of focussing are beyond me now so like you I'll wear the shoes that fit till I walk no more
Regards
Sharkey
The Stones and Muddy Waters are prime examples of where nigh on perfect remains so decades on...
Just hanging out on top of a cliff!
_DSC0297 by apple fanboy1, on Flickr
Comments always appreciated.
_DSC0297 by apple fanboy1, on FlickrComments always appreciated.
I think that you might have got to the crux of the matter there Sharkey. Trying to recreate the look and feel of a bygone age via tools from that era.
Nothing wrong with that if you haven't lived it I guess
