Non- Auto focus lens'

wescobts · Mar 7, 2010

Can any tell me why non auto focus lens' demand such a high price ? I can understand the newer lenses with silents motors, treated glass, & stabilization gyros. I can always go to the used market, but I was looking into a Nikkor 35mm 1.4 and it's a grand :gah: I also understand the price of quality glass regardless of what the lens may or may not offer, but come on now.

Overread · Mar 7, 2010

Well...... that's the price of quality glass!
And also being out of production also ramps up its price. The old manual focus film lenses did crash in price as everyone went to digital - however the market has flipped into two sides now. The rubbish old glass is cheap as chips whilst higher grade older glass can command quite a high price since its now a rarity item.

wescobts · Mar 7, 2010

Thanks overread, just my luck :er: I am in a rut so I went back to basics, my old Nikon FG 20 (film) completely manual. I am really enjoying it, and thought it was due for a nice fast lens. I was surprised by what they are asking for a new lens, although have found some decent ones on the used market.

Overread · Mar 7, 2010

Yah I've tried going for a few (cheaper by far) older lenses and sadly many go for a lot more than their worth on ebay - normally everything looks good til the last 10 mins of the auction and suddenly the price can sometimes more than double!

djacobox372 · Mar 7, 2010

In most cases the optical quality of older mf prime lenses is just as good as modern pro glass, and the build quality is often superior with older lenses--as they are typically all metal.

Older nikon lenses are far more expensive then old canon fd mount lenses because they can be used on modern camera bodies. So if you're only shooting film canon is a less expensive route.

As for the nikons being too expensive, I don't see that. You can buy a 50mm f1.4 mf lens for $100-150, that's a bargain. I own the following MF nikkors, and can attest that their quality is 2nd to none:

50mm f1.2
105mm micro f4
300mm f4.5 ED
600mm f5.6 ED

That's about $2500 in old mf glass (most of it being the 600mm), to achieve the same results with new lenses it would cost me about $10k.

wescobts · Mar 7, 2010

So allow me to ask this; although most of us use AF camera and lenses, who still uses MF lenses on AF body's for the simple fact of good old glass ?

Overread · Mar 7, 2010

Well I guess some people still have older glass that is very good image quality wise and would be expensive to replace with new AF glass. Also some areas of photography manual focus is more dominant - such as the area of macro where a manual focus only lens is really no major limitation at all.

The only downside to manual focus on a DSLR is the lack of a focusing aid in the viewfinder and the fact that many give a smaller image - these being the case because a DSLR is made with autofocus in mind. If one is keen though they can get a split screen put into their DSLR to help with manual focus setups.

JimmyO · Mar 7, 2010

wescobts said:
So allow me to ask this; although most of us use AF camera and lenses, who still uses MF lenses on AF body's for the simple fact of good old glass ?

Alot of people.

It doesnt work great for candids and sports/wildlife, but if you have a stationary object in a controlled enviroment nice MF glass is alot cheaper then nice AF glass. For example my 180mm 2.8 AIS was the sharpest lens ive owned, sharper then any 70-200 2.8 ive ever shot with, and the lens only cost me around $200

Derrel · Mar 7, 2010

wescobts said:
So allow me to ask this; although most of us use AF camera and lenses, who still uses MF lenses on AF body's for the simple fact of good old glass ?

I will use a manual focus lens if it happens to be a good choice for the intended situation. I have a 1982 Nikkor 400mm f/3.5 ED-IF which is an internal focusing telephoto with a feather-light internal focusing system that moves only a few lens elements in the mid-barrel part of the lens, and which focuses with such a light touch that the lens design features and adjustable tension screw, to increase the drag required to focus to suit the user's preference. So, it's an excellent manual focusing lens on a new d-slr body,either Canon or Nikon. I will also use my Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S autofocus lens on a Canon camera body, in manual focus. I do not own a Canon 300mm or 400mm telephoto lens, so I sometimes end up using
a lens that must be focused manually.

The lightweight Nikon 300mm f/4.5 ED~IF that djacobox372 vouches for below is also an excellent manually focusing lens, on either a Nikon or a Canon body, and is REALLY compact for a 300mm lens. I bought mine for only $275, and it's a sweet, light lens that nature photo expert John Shaw has used to beautiful effect with extension tubes for many of the fine close-up pictures in his many nature books. That 300/4.5 ED~IF is a good lens for moving subjects, due to the feather-touch internal focusing system. It's one of the best telephoto bargains one can find in a tele prime.

The 600/5.6 he mentions--there's a birder on another forum I used to be on who did a lot of beautiful work with the NIkon 600/5.6 ED. Really,really nice work.

wescobts · Mar 7, 2010

Thanks guys, this is a big help. Nice pix jimmyo, love the old pentax :thumbup:

molested_cow · Mar 7, 2010

Manual lens makes me slow down and really think about my shot before I click it. Over time, it makes me think faster, which is beneficial in both MF or AF situations.

wescobts · Mar 7, 2010

molested_cow said:
Manual lens makes me slow down and really think about my shot before I click it. Over time, it makes me think faster, which is beneficial in both MF or AF situations.

Yes !! I am getting that, and went shooting today and everytime looked in the viewfinder had to check the meter and re-focus and also checked my distance meter on my wonderful "D" lenses :mrgreen:. I am thinking and looking much more, so this seems to be working. As I reflect back on this, I should have always had this manual camera with me, keeping me grounded to the basics. Last but not least... THE SOUND, THE WONDERFUL SOUND of the old girl, clicking away, rewinding the film, man did I miss that

.

matfoster · Mar 7, 2010

wescobts said:
So allow me to ask this; although most of us use AF camera and lenses, who still uses MF lenses on AF body's for the simple fact of good old glass ?

"good" ?hmmm. i do. i love old, junk lenses. mine are all cheap as chips..but i'm a stroll around snapper and i use a crop sensor. i mount any old tosh on my little Canon DSLR and see what it's like.

i bought a Tamron 2.5/28mm about a week ago at a charity table sale for 2 euros! love it. couple of days ago bought a Cosina 3.5/135 for GBP15. really sharp, great colors!

Hanimex 2.8/135 - piece of junk - amazing colors and sharp lol!

i have a fetish for aluminium/chrome preset lenses like CZJ or Steinheil. they're a mix of quaint, uncoated obselesence (Tessar, Industar/Biotar) and classic formulas like Sonnar. i like it all. my favorite long lens was 300mm "Clubman"..turns out it was made by Kiron. awesome! hehehe

every once in a while i give them all away to charity shops and start-over. apart from my CZJ's.

wescobts · Mar 7, 2010

Wow, thanks Matfoster

:thumbup: I wish we didn't have a huge body of water between us, sounds like a bunch of fun hanging with you and your camera. I have been re-energized by this thread, and I thank you all. I have been actively searching for some used lenses this afternoon, can some one tell me what the letters in the description of the lenses mean ? Non ai & ai & ais ?