Anybody shooting manual-focus lenses on a DSLR?

[Darren Addy]

If you are new to the topic, or have only ever shot with autofocus, you might think this is crazy, but I was just curious as to whether anyone here is shooting with manual-focus lenses on their DSLR.

Some of the best, sharpest lenses ever made were made by Leica and Zeiss, and a lot of people don't know that they can often be used on your DSLR.

I'm not sure about Nikon, but I know that Canon lets you shoot older FD mount lenses, and that Canons can also accept other lenses with the proper adapter.

Pentax DSLRs can accept any K-mount lens and M42 lenses with an adapter. There is a big, big inventory of those lenses available on the used market, and many of them are "faster" than zooms most people put on their digital camera's today. There is also a new outfit in Spain ( Leitax ) that manufacturers replacement mounts. (If you are brave you can do it yourself, or send it to them for conversion). I picked up a Yashica/Contax mount Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 85mm f/2.8 lens that is an incredibly sharp lens that I'm going to convert with a Leitax bayonet to K-mount for use on my K200D. (That will be an effective 127mm, making it an ideal portrait lens). Some of the images that I have seen shot with this lens looks sharp enough to cut you.

A huge advantage of those cameras that have in-body shake reduction (as opposed to using Image Stabilization lenses) is that those older lenses become (in effect) image stabilized lenses, when used on those DSLR bodies. (Pentax, Sony, Olympus and now Samsung offer in-body shake reduction).

Another reason to shoot MF lenses is their low-light capabilities are usually much better than the zooms. A Canon 28-135mm IS lens is going to give you a maximum aperture of f/5.6 at 135mm. Even if you assume a two stop improvement with the IS, you are still shooting at an effective f/2.8. With in-body shake reduction on my Pentax, I can get a 135mm f/2.5 manual focus lens and gain the effective two-stop improvement over that. This is like getting higher ISO performance without the noise.

If you are not shooting a full-frame DSLR, you will still want a modern lens for the ultrawide end of the spectrum (thanks to the 1.5/1.6x focal length factor you will pay on a vintage lens — you'll never reach the wide angle you can with a Canon 10-22mm or Sigma 10-20mm, for example). But for other focal lengths, a vintage manual focus lens can be a nice option.

To learn more, I recommend the manual focus lens forum.

 

[Cris Schroeder]

I've considered it, but ruled it out for several reasons:

1. My understanding is that the back focus distance between Canon FD and EF lenses prevents the older FD glass from reaching infinity focus when using an adapter. The adapter would have to move the FD lens closer to the focal plane which isn't possible. I'm working from memory here so maybe I heard wrong. There may be lenses from other manufacturers that work on the Canon bodies using an adapter, however.

2. The focusing screen on a DSLR is not optimized for manual focus. There are replacement screens available with microprism or split-prism focusing areas but, at least for the Rebel line, they eliminate the autofocus lock indicators in the viewfinder. OK if you always use manual focus lenses, but an annoyance with AF glass.

3. Why? I looked into manual-focus lenses out of frustration with finding infinity focus in low-light situations. In the end, it was easier to teach myself how to use the autofocus DSLR than it was to kludge together a manual focus system.

4. Sharpness. How much is good enough? My images either get reduced in resolution for display on a PC or my electronic picture frame, or I make prints. Either way, I apply sharpening in Camera Raw or Photoshop and have been perfectly happy with the results. I'm not saying that a sharp lens isn't better than a soft one, because it is, but there is some limit beyond which it no longer matters in the digital world. Anything beyond the resolution of my printer is basically a waste. IMHO, incredibly sharp lenses were more important in the film days when tools like unsharp mask were not available. I'd feel differently if my end products were 100% crops of my images, but with the prints I make, even my really bad lenses are sharp enough on paper (disclaimer...the largest prints I make at home are 8x10. I doubt this would be the case with 11x17 or larger prints).

5. Nostalgia. Manual focus takes me back to the good old days of shooting film with my Minolta XG-1. Those were fun times but I certainly get better results with my newer gear. Down the road, if I want to relive the good times, I'll buy some film medium format gear and do it right.

6. Lemming mentality. It's not my strongest argument, but if shooting MF glass on a DSLR was superior to the AF stuff, you would see a lot of pro photographers walking around with MF lenses. I don't see this happening, and the few pros I keep track of seem to do just fine with autofocus glass. If it works for them, there is no reason it won't work for me (talent issues aside).

In the end, I found more important things to play with and spend my money on. I'd be curious to see how your setup works out, though.

 

[Darren Addy]

I have to admit that I was drawn into this subject mainly because I happened upon this great Zeiss lens. As I said, it is a Yashica/Contax mount, and I don't even have a Yashica/Contax camera. When I found it, I was planning on just selling it, since it brings approx. $250 on eBay. But then I started seeing examples of images posted that were taken with it and reading more than one digital photographer who said it was their favorite lens. So I started looking into whether there was any way I could use it on my Pentax K200D. I didn't want to end up kicking myself for having such a lens and getting rid of it. I've learned a lot in the process.

As far as your other points go:
6) I'm an anti-lemming kind of a guy (Prefer Macs and Pentax, for example) so this is not a valid reason to NOT do something, in my book. However, with that being said, there are plenty of guys who ARE doing this. Perhaps you aren't hanging out with the right group of lemmings.
5) I don't get how nostalgia is a reason NOT to do it either, but I've already been down the medium format route and I think that other than meteor photography, I'm probably pretty much DONE with film.
4) I have to REALLY respectfully disagree with this one. The higher the resolution the sensor, the MORE important optical sharpness becomes. While post-processing sharpness is certainly a tool to have in the belt, I don't think you really understand what post-processing sharpness IS/DOES compared with optical sharpness. They both have the word "sharpness" in there, but that doesn't make them the same. Apples and Oranges.
Also, the resolution of your printer is not the only factor to consider. It is "how large a print" do you want to make from that image? Of my Zeiss lens is said :

The lens is capable of producing outstanding 19in and very decent 24in prints across all apertures, which is a pretty solid outcome for any fixed focal lens. Conclusion? Overall results are quite solid and would not disappoint even the most demanding users.

- source
3) Well, that's not my reason for looking into manual focus lenses. If I want to manual focus my autofocus lens, I can flick a switch on the K200D and I'm in manual focus mode. My post was more about the lenses available if you give up the autofocus mechanism. I don't feel like adding manual focus lenses to the arsenal is a "kludge", but to each his own.
2) This is a point that does give one pause. I will probably go the DIY route on this one but not until after my warranty expires.
1) Canon owners have probably the GREATEST range out there (of different lenses they can use with adapters). Not being a Canon owner, I'm not up on all of them, but I do know that they make adapters for Y/C to Canon. You can't put a Y/C Zeiss lens on a Pentax WITH AN ADAPTER because of the problem you describe. The lens is now farther away from the sensor plane and you can't reach infinity focus. This was my first twinge that made me regret not going Canon until I found Leitax. Fortunately Y/C lenses and Pentax lenses have an identical flange to focal plane distance. That's why I have to go the bayonet REPLACEMENT route. The bayonet for my Zeiss probably won't be here until the middle of Sept. but I'll post about it when the time comes.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Vey interesting link, Mr. Addy .
I'm a aperture priority guy myself.

It seems that every company that makes photography equipment always hires crack photograpers to show off their goods to their best advantages. I'm not saying that your tastes in cameras is misplaced - far from this amateur to say such a thing. It DOES get pretty expensive to have such an expensive hobby as this. BTW - I do have a vintage Leica that my Dad used in WWII that he gave me. Boy - did I just give my age away - eh? But it still can take incredible pictures too.

One would have a hard time using wide-aperture lenses to their best advantage in storm photography - it tends to narrow the depth of field focus considerably when using the widest aperture that it is capable of. Prime lenses are a useful advantage in that regard - my 50mm f/1.4 Canon can take some great photos of distant anvil clouds. Distant shots can be done with a aperture setting of f/5.6 - 6.3 easily. My 10-22mm requires a much smaller (f/11>) aperture for great Depth of Field.

This is Jayson Prentice's site; my photo of the close-up of a "budding anvil" was done with the 50mm. If you look halfway down the page for the "August 14" entry - that iswhat I am referring to. Jayson is in my neck of the woods, and he has encouraged me - and others - to share images on his sight. I know that JAyson - and myself - can barely afford thee lenses that we have and use. I sure wish I had th opportunity to play with some of the exotic film cameras that you enjoy. Maybe you could show us some of your favorite shots with

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

...continued

what you have. I'm always interested in learning from the experienced storm photographers/chasers and their work.

heres that link:
http://iowachaser.blogspot.com/

 

[Darren Addy]

I don't really have any classic film cameras that I shoot with. Well, I've got a few but I don't shoot with them anymore. I've got a couple of Mamiya C33s that take 120 or 220 film (2-1/4" square negative) and I've got an old Kodak Retina II somewhere that I've never put a roll of film through (feel guilty about that). And I've got a number of odds and ends 35mm film cameras. But I'm pretty much DONE with film, because I'm CHEAP. Can't stand the idea of buying film and paying for processing any more.

On the other hand, I've got Photoshop at work and I chose the Pentax K200D because I'm frugal. I like being able to use rechargable AA batteries for the camera instead of proprietary batteries, for instance. And I like the idea of being able to use manual lenses with shake reduction. So I've got a lot of catching up to do in the digital realm.

You are a lucky guy to have a Leica rangefinder!

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Yeah, you're right about DSLR's cost effectiveness.
I don't even have Photoshop yet; I'm using Picasa2 and Canon's Zoom Browser. I'm not sure of which software I want/need yet - really. Lightroom2 or Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo X2 or Photoshop CS3? I don't want to invest the money until I am sure that whatever I choose will fill the bill without needing a degree in the software to be successful with it. I'm not so concerned with the price - as much as I am concerned with the ease of use and the quality of the final product.

But this is easy compared to the problems that film entails. By the time that one collects all of the apparatus necessary for film - one has once again spent a small fortune. Chemicals, paper, enlarger, timer, the space for a darkroom and all that surrounds it - makes for a messy and time-consuming operation. If I am going to get the Leica film developed - I'll take it to a reputable and well-favored camera shop.

In the meantime, I'll continue to keep up with the practice/discipline of taking some pictures every day and getting more familliar with my lenses, camera, and computer...

 

[Greg Campbell]

Here's a useful link discussing some of the technical limitations and issues.
http://bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html

I suspect that using MF lenses isn't quite as rare as is suggested. Most photo forums have at least a few threads discussing the possibility.

Earlier this summer I started borrowing a Drebel XT and 'Kit' lens from work and have been trying to shoot lightning with the thing. After a few chases it became clear that the crappy little lens was not making it. Gross CA, flare, and general purpose fuzzies are killing me. Even stopped down to f9.5 or so, the lens just doesn't work well.

For the grand sum of $25, I bought a Zuiko 50mm/1.8 and OM>EOS adapter. They attach to each other snugly and work well. Put the camera in aperture priority and shoot - the Drebel's metering works fine, and the camera selects the proper shutter speed. As you'd imagine, the Zuiko just obliterates the kit lens in every way: Build quality, sharpness, flare, color, bokeh, and - I'd argue - even in ease of use. 1.8 isn't terribly fast for a standard lens, but it makes for a significantly brighter viewfinder. I now have some hope of accurate manual focusing in low light (infinity focus is dead on.) A friend has an unused OM4 kit, and I'll be borrowing several of his lenses soon.

The old lens looks handsome on the black drebel, lending the plastic body a touch of class. (It also probably doubles the weight of the whole affair. )


RE: Chris' points:

1) Canon $crewed us FD shooters big time when they designed their AF mount. Due to the flange dimensions, FD lenses lose infinite focus when bolted to any EOS body. To overcome this, you need to insert a FL multiplying lens into the system. None of the third party adapters' optics are worth a pinch, and the precious few Canon units are absurdly spendy. If Canon hadn't been so greedy and short sighted, I'd have bought a midrange DSLR years ago. AFAIK, several Canon DSLR bodies can be modded to accept FD glass w/o too much difficulty. (EOS flange/focal plane distance is the closest to FD, and the mount is nice and wide. Therefore you don't need to apply as much dynamite as you would on a Nikon.) Of course you lose AF for good...

2) Saying that the viewfinder and focusing screen are 'not optimized' for MF is simply doublespeak for 'they're damn cheap.' I don't think any camera should REQUIRE AF be enabled. (Yea, I'm an old fart.) My old A and T series cameras have have gloriously large, bright viewfinders and focusing screens. I really do like to see what the heck the camera is focusing on, and what my depth of field looks like. The dark, puny viewfinder found on modern digicams makes me angry.

3) What's your secret to night-time focusing? I built a collimated light source that works well, but it's a major PITA to re-focus each time you change a lens or zoom setting. For night work, a MF lens makes a lot of sense, IMO.

4) What Darren said...

5) It's not nostalgia. The 'old stuff' was built to high optical and mechanical standards. AF is wonderful when shooting fast-action, but is as often as not a PITA. People today tend to 'throw' the camera at a scene, relying on AF, 5-billion-zone matrix metering, IS, and all the other gadgetry to take the picture. What's the point? (Yea, we've already determined that I'm an old fart.)

6) The lemming mentality is the exact reason people eschew 'obsolete' lenses and cameras. Canon, Nikon, and the others have spend hundreds of millions in advertising to convince every soul on the planet how more 'megapixels' and gimmicky functions will allow them to take awesome pictures. Pick up any PC or photography magazine, and it will be blabbing about the latest and greatest 'advances' in camera tech. It's all about generating perceived 'need' and anxiety, and compelling the sucker/customer to plonk down some damn big bucks. I'm not saying IS is a bad idea in any way, or that complex metering systems are useless, but what do they really have to to with making a photograph?


For the time being, I'm content to go my own way and am willing to spend 25 cents or so per exposure on transparency film and development costs. Replacing my dozen FD lenses with equivalent modern glass is too great an expense to justify. My recent photo budget has gone toward a Bronica system (6x6 is a hoot) and travel expenses.

0.02

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Right Greg!

I think what you are saying - is that with all them new-fangled enhancements to digital cameras is still NO SUBSTITUTE for understanding the basic principles of photography. And I agree with that.

When underneath a lively meso, I use Aperture Priority and turn off the autofocus on the lens. But now it is time for a tripod, window mount, or creative balancing of the camera that is secure enough for a 1/6 second shutter speed.

But this is still not good enough - spinning mesos will be out-speeding the ability of the shutter speed to stop/freeze the motion - of a cloud/subject that is all about motion. Now it is time to ISO up enough to make the final product not too grainy - but high enough to give you at least 1/60 sec shutter speed for a better focused and fairly frozen subject. Ir's a juggling/balancing act, and I'm the clown!

I wait till I get back to the home base to evaluate my hard-obtained pics for final assessment. I've had a use-able picture rate of 70%. I think the worst offender of making shakey shots is my own adrenaline kicking in and being too excited. There's no way to get around that - short of a window mount. Heck, if I wasn't excited about getting close to a twister I wouldn't bother with chasing. But that excitement translates to how I personally compose the shot.
You know - Inspiration!

 

[Greg Campbell]

LOL, Rob!

ISO vs. noise vs. aperture vs. expense; tripod vs. convenience; utility vs. resolution. ARRRRGH!!

Balance, Grasshopper, is the essence of life!
"I seek not to know the answers, but to understand the questions."

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

Yeah, you're right about DSLR's cost effectiveness.
I don't even have Photoshop yet; I'm using Picasa2 and Canon's Zoom Browser. I'm not sure of which software I want/need yet - really. Lightroom2 or Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo X2 or Photoshop CS3? I don't want to invest the money until I am sure that whatever I choose will fill the bill without needing a degree in the software to be successful with it. I'm not so concerned with the price - as much as I am concerned with the ease of use and the quality of the final product.

Photoshop wins for quality of final product IMO, but the learning curve is much steeper than Lightroom 2. I have a feeling you'd love Lightroom 2 -- it is a very power image correction program that's specifically designed for photographers. It's not as powerful as Photoshop, but it does almost all the "most important" stuff to an image that a photographer might think of. It's also cheap and handles large batches of images far better than Photoshop can.

If you do plan on getting Photoshop, you might want to hold off a while, as I think they might have a new version coming up some time in the near future. It's been a while since they released CS3.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Photoshop wins for quality of final product IMO, but the learning curve is much steeper than Lightroom 2. I have a feeling you'd love Lightroom 2 -- it is a very power image correction program that's specifically designed for photographers. It's not as powerful as Photoshop, but it does almost all the "most important" stuff to an image that a photographer might think of. It's also cheap and handles large batches of images far better than Photoshop can.

If you do plan on getting Photoshop, you might want to hold off a while, as I think they might have a new version coming up some time in the near future. It's been a while since they released CS3.

One question about lightroom. Can you do anything with masks in that? If there is no ability to use masks they seem like a waste of money to me. And I mean to the RAW file too. It'd be nice if they came up with a way to do that, and maybe you can in lightroom 2.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

I've heard a lot of positives about Lightroom2. It is becoming my main choice at this point; the price is about $100 - and so is the Corel product.

But I've also read some choice/positive things about Corel's Photo X2. It seems that the software companies - like the hardware companies - hold out in giving you the features you want/require so that it becomes necessary to buy the newest upgrade. Assuring themselves of future clients that chomp at the bit for wht they can get in-the-now.

This is the very reason that I have yet to choose Lightroom2 or Corel's product. I sure would be interested in hearing/reading a definitive critique of the Corel's Photo X2 by a member of STORMTRACK.
Any takers?

 

[Darren Addy]

I haven't got Lightroom (yet), but it looks like masks are available (though I'm guessing not as powerful as you can do in PS3).
http://lightroom-news.com/2008/07/31/auto-masking-in-lightroom-2/
http://blogs.oreilly.com/lightroom/2008/08/viewing-your-masks.html

Looks like the other good sites for learning about Lightroom 2 are:
http://www.photoshopcafe.com/lightroom/index.html
http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/lightroom/
http://www.webmonkey.com/blog/New_Lightroom_2DOT0_Refines_the_RAW_Image_Editor
- sensational quote:

not only is it worth the upgrade, you may well have no reason left for Photoshop.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Hmm, I ain't seen it in exact wording yet, but it appears as though maybe you can do the masks on actual RAW files in conversion. That would make it appealing to me, since those are so useful for stormscapes. Guess I can always download the trial and see for myself, lol(*smacks self*).