Why do you still need manual-only lens?

[andrewsugi]

In this 21st century, especially for the last 10 years, many of our gadgets have become very reliable with their automation. Their usage has become easier and safe many of our time.

So, my question is, why there are still lens manufacturers who produce new manual-only lenses (manual AF and manual aperture) for modern camera body? And why do some photographers still want to buy it? Why don't they just use lenses that can switch between AF and MF which are more flexible depending on the condition? Doesn't it mean that many of the modern function in the camera body will become useless?

Example of manual-only lenses: VOIGTLANDER NOKTON 25MM f/0.95 TYPE I & TYPE II



Picture of Voigtlander Nokton 25 mm F/0.95 Type II

[Manfred M]

Cosina has really targeted the Nokton mFT line at video shooters, rather than photographers. although to be frank they can be used by both groups. In serious video work, focusing is done manually using focusing aides like larger secondary screens or focus peaking, rather than using autofocus. The f/1 and faster lenses are there to give the mFT cameras that very narrow depth of field that we get on full frame cameras. The f/1 lens on the mFT will give you the same DoF as if one were shooting an f/2 lens on a FF camera. That essentially is the story behind the Nokton line. I had a serious look at getting a couple of these for my video camera, but could not justify the cost.

There are some older legacy lenses that are still being sold (think the f/1.2 50mm Canon, which was introduced in 2006) that are manual focus. Macro shooters tend to focus manually as well, as autofocus is rather unreliable when shooting that close. My modern Nikkor f/3.5 24mm PC-E (shift - tilt lens) is also manual focus. A number of third party lens manufacturers from Samyang to Carl Zeiss (the "real" ones, not the ones built by Sony under license) are also generally manual focus.

When I do night shots (where autofocus does not work well), panorama shots or do some tricky scenes where I use hyperfocal distance or depth of field tables to set up my shot, I will switch off my autofocus functions and manually focus. I will sometimes use zone focusing (i.e. prefocus the lens for a distance range) and have autofocus turned off when I do street photography. The old manual lenses with their long focus throw are a pleasure to use versus the modern autofocus lenses with AF turned off.

There are limits to what autofocus can do and there are shooting situations where manual focus is preferable to autofocus. Autofocus doesn't always do what we want and manual focus, when done correctly, does.

[Mike Buckley]

Manfred explained very well the situations when manual focus is helpful. However, the question is about why some lenses only provide manual focus rather than both manual and auto focus. My guess, but only a guess, is that including auto focus in a lens that will primarily be used for its ability to manually focus adds to the cost, weight or both.

[Manfred M]

I thought I clarified this in #2, but let me try again:

1. Autofocus lenses are designed with that functionality as they need on-board electronics and a focus motor, so any older lenses that are still in production, i.e. those designed without autofocus functionality are still being built to the original design without autofocus. If they are replaced, the newer models often feature autofocus and in some cases, in-lens stabilization..

2. Specialty lenses, whether from the OEM (my example of the shift / tilt lenses) or the relatively low volume lenses that are either very inexpensive (Samyang) or very high end (Carl Zeiss) or specialty lenses (the Cosina Voigtländer) are not because the extra expense of doing so or the target users do not want / need the autofocus feature.

[Tronhard]

With the resurgence in analogue photography, marked recently by Kodak announcing they are reinstituting production and processing of Ektachrome film, (see https://www.dpreview.com/news/950367...ack-ektachrome) and the increase in use of other film media, I wonder if these new lenses would fit on the older film bodies? I would expect that Nikon compatible lenses would as I understand they have not changed their basic mount from the film days. In that case one would hope that these new units would offer improvements in design over their predecessors...

[inkista]

... why there are still lens manufacturers who produce new manual-only lenses (manual AF and manual aperture) for modern camera body? And why do some photographers still want to buy it?

Cost is one factor. Samyang, for example, makes a number of lenses that cost a great deal less than their autofocusing counterparts. And can make them much more cheaply for multiple mounts by not worrying about electronic communication or EXIF communication.

I own the Samyang 7.5mm f/3.5 fisheye lens for micro four-thirds. It costs roughly $250 new. It's almost the size of a pancake lens, it's extremely sharp, has great flare control, and almost no CA. For a fisheye, that's something of a rarity. And fisheyes have extreme depth of field, so autofocusing isn't as critical.

The only other choices I have for a fisheye lens in the micro four-thirds mount are the Panasonic 8mm f/3.5 fisheye ($800), or the Olympus m.Zuiko 8mm f/1.8 fisheye, which is $1000. Or adapting the Olympus 8mm f/3.5 fisheye for four-thirds, which would be $650+$150 for the Olympus 4/3->m4/3 adapter.

And my $250 lens gives me shots like this:



So, for me, it's worth it. YMMV.

Why don't they just use lenses that can switch between AF and MF which are more flexible depending on the condition? Doesn't it mean that many of the modern function in the camera body will become useless?

Example of manual-only lenses: VOIGTLANDER NOKTON 25MM f/0.95 TYPE I & TYPE II...

Well, typically, the manual-only lens offers some optical feature you can't find in an autofocusing lens. In this case, a "normal" lens with a maximum aperture of f/0.95. Panasonic and Olympus offer f/1.2 and f/1.4, but not f/0.95 25mm lenses.

For some purchasers, it may be as simple as getting Zeiss optics. Some of us also adapt old manual-focus lenses to our new digital cameras just for the fun of using older glass. It's not always about the functionality. Sometimes, it can be about the flavor or just because you can.



5DMkII, adapted C/Y-mount Zeiss Planar 100/2. iso 800, f/2, 1/160s. handheld.

Is a native-mount autofocusing lens a more practical choice? Eminently. Manual lenses are often not the answer for everyone. But every now and then they can still be the right tool.

[Black Pearl]

Cost - ease of design - wide compatibility - size.

I own a Samyang 12mm f2 which cost me £249.

It is manual focus - doesn't matter as I can't recall the last time I had need to move the focus ring
It has a completely manual aperture - doesn't matter as my Fuji doesn't need to view/expose with a lens wide open.

If Samyang had had to design the lens to work specifically with a number of systems the lens would have needed to be far more complex adding to the design cost and the cost to the customer. They would need to make multiple versions, almost completely different in build for each system depending on the aperture actuation, the focus motors/drive and they would need to design, build and licence the electronic compatibility for each system. None of that really matters with the lens as it stands hence its almost ridiculously low rice for the optical performance it offers. I use it most for landscapes/cityscapes where it is used at f11 with the focus ring (which is wonderfully tactile by the way) moved a little way off the infinity mark to maximise DoF. As I said above it is a rare day I need to alter anything on the lens so I literally just bung it on the camera and shoot in ether aperture priority or metered manual.

[DanK]

All other things being equal, I can think of only one reason that I would prefer a manual focus lens, apart from cost. AF lenses generally have very short throws (amount of rotation) for focusing and lousy or no focusing scales on the barrel. Old-fashioned MF lenses typically have longer throws and better scales, which make precise manual focusing easier. That said, I have never bought a manual-focus-only lens for that reason.

Sometimes lenses simply aren't available in AF, perhaps because with a low volume, manufacturers want to keep costs down. An example is the Laowa 15mm macro, which I have been eyeing for some time. It's the only wide-angle macro lens I'm aware of, and it only comes in full manual--only manual focus (which I don't mind for that use) and no automatic aperture (which is a PITA).

[Thlayle]

So here's another thought about why photographers will choose the manual lens. Many of the best lenses out there do not have the ability to correct for "coma aberration", a problem for night photographers whose subject is the night sky itself. Without this correction, many of the stars will end up looking like little spaceships with a distinctive ovoid shape and sharp points at top and bottom.

So I ended up buying an inexpensive Rokinon (Samyang) ultra-wide lens. It is all manual focus on my Canon and has an extremely long throw (which actually seems to make focusing more difficult). No doubt there are some lenses out there with both auto-focus and coma aberration correction, but they sure seem hard to find and are probably much more costly.

[rpcrowe]

I have one manual focus lens, a Vivitar (branded under many names) 7mm f/3.5 Fish Eye.

The reason I purchased this lens was that I wanted to play with a fish eye and 1. This lens was well within my budget for a plaything AND 2. The fisheye has such a great DOF that manual focus poses no shooting problems...

Otherwise, I have no use for a manual focus lens...

[Manfred M]

None of the OEM manufacturers (Canon and Nikon) make this type of lens in autofocus.



Neither do the third party manufacturers - Samyang, Schneider-Kreuznach and Hartblei. If you want to correct perspective, you have to focus manually. The Nikon version only supports fully manual and aperture priority mode. I don't know about Canon, but the third party lenses have to be shot in manual exposure mode.

[mikesan]

My response to the question is that it depends on how one defines "need".

My definition of "need" (as it relates to a lens or any other piece of equipment) is that, in a well defined set of circumstances, absent the lens in question, I would be unable to obtain my desired result. I find that this is a useful definition when considering the purchase of any new equipment.

Applying this criterion to a "manual only lens" (as specified in the OP) would infer that the desired outcome could not be achieved with an autofocus lens. (Manfred supplies a pertinent example.)

Thus one could turn the question around and ask: "do I need an autofocus lens?" Here the answer will depend on the circumstances, including the visual acuity of the photographer.

I think we could elicit a more interesting variety of responses by asking: Why (under what circumstances) do you prefer a manual only lens?"

[xpatUSA]

My first ever true (1:1) macro lens was an early Sigma 50mm f/2.8. It was manual focus only and it also had an aperture ring but, when set to f/32, the camera controlled the aperture. Shoulda kept it, it was quite a good lens.

[Shadowman]

Hi Andrew,

Two questions:
Why do the manufacturers? If there wasn't a market for it they wouldn't manufacture the lens. Quality lenses market themselves, are heavily marketed to appeal to end users. Allow the photographer to capture/create interesting effects. Market value for some lenses never lose value.

Why do end users buy them? See above.

All generalizations to some degree but in a consumer driven society some concepts fit. There are quite a few manual focus lenses that I would love to own but for me the price tag doesn't warrant the purchase. As far as my shooting style, I have a few manual focus lenses, one that now has auto focus functionality (purchased a Nikon 50mm D when I was shooting solely with a crop sensor) and had time to practice manual focusing. I still switch to manual focus occasionally just to compare to the auto focus system.

[William W]

. . . The Nikon version only supports fully manual and aperture priority mode.

Hi Manfred - Happy New Year

I didn't know that, thank you.

BTW I think that is a limiting/limited design.

I don't know about Canon . . .

Canon TS-E lenses mount to all EOS Series Cameras. (See below for explanation of “EF Bayonet Mount”)

Canon TS-E Lenses are NOT capable of Auto Focussing. (Because they are NOT “EF Lenses” – see below for nomenclature of an “EF Lens”). However Canon EOS Series Cameras are capable of “Focus Confirmation” and this can be used with TS-E Lenses, (The little red square with illuminate as the Lens is manually focussed, through the Plane of Sharp Focus. This is the same functionality for any EF Lens when that lens is switched to Manual Focus).

Canon TS-E Lenses have electronic communication to camera and (importantly) also electronic aperture control by the camera. Therefore Canon TS-E Lens can be used in B; M; P; Tv and Av Camera Modes (Bulb; Manual; Program; Shutter Priority and Aperture Priority) . . . and, if you wanted to, any of the basic modes too, including the “Green Rectangle: that being “Full Auto”.

*

Other details for those interested particularly in Canon EOS Series

Nomenclature –

“TS-E Lens”:
T = Tilt
S = Shift
E = Electronic communication to camera and also electronic aperture control

“EF Lens” nomenclature:
“E” = Electronic communication to camera and also electronic aperture control
“F” = Auto Focus capable

“EF-S Lens” nomenclature:
“E” = Electronic communication to camera and also electronic aperture control
“F” = Auto Focus capable
“S” = Short (back-focus)

Notes: All TS-E Lenses have an “EF Bayonet Mount” and thus fit to all “EOS Series” Cameras.

The term “EF Bayonet Mount” is separate to the nomenclature “EF Lens”, but all “EF Lenses” have an “EF Bayonet Mount”.

Where it gets pedantic is an “EF-S Lens” does NOT have an “EF Bayonet Mount”, but rather all “EF-S Lenses” have an “EF-S Bayonet Mount”.

The next pedantic point is ALL Cameras in the “EOS Series” have an “EF Bayonet Mount” but only SOME cameras in the EOS Series have the ADDITIONAL EF-S Bayonet Mount.

The next pedantic point is – the majority BUT NOT ALL of the EOS Series APS-C Sensor Cameras have an EF-S Bayonet Mount

And the last pedantic point is – (to my knowledge) ALL third party lenses which are made to fit Canon EOS Series Cameras, will have an “EF Bayonet Mount”. This means that even if such a lens is made with an IMAGE CIRCLE for an APS-C Format Canon Camera, such lens will still mount and function on any APS-H Format or 135 Format EOS Camera (albeit possibly with an Optical Vignette).

These points are often missed or misunderstood.

WW

[george013]

Hi Manfred - Happy New Year

I didn't know that, thank you.

BTW I think that is a limiting/limited design.





Canon TS-E lenses mount to all EOS Series Cameras. (See below for explanation of “EF Bayonet Mount”)

Canon TS-E Lenses are NOT capable of Auto Focussing. (Because they are NOT “EF Lenses” – see below for nomenclature of an “EF Lens”). However Canon EOS Series Cameras are capable of “Focus Confirmation” and this can be used with TS-E Lenses, (The little red square with illuminate as the Lens is manually focussed, through the Plane of Sharp Focus. This is the same functionality for any EF Lens when that lens is switched to Manual Focus).

Canon TS-E Lenses have electronic communication to camera and (importantly) also electronic aperture control by the camera. Therefore Canon TS-E Lens can be used in B; M; P; Tv and Av Camera Modes (Bulb; Manual; Program; Shutter Priority and Aperture Priority) . . . and, if you wanted to, any of the basic modes too, including the “Green Rectangle: that being “Full Auto”.

*

Other details for those interested particularly in Canon EOS Series

Nomenclature –

“TS-E Lens”:
T = Tilt
S = Shift
E = Electronic communication to camera and also electronic aperture control

“EF Lens” nomenclature:
“E” = Electronic communication to camera and also electronic aperture control
“F” = Auto Focus capable

“EF-S Lens” nomenclature:
“E” = Electronic communication to camera and also electronic aperture control
“F” = Auto Focus capable
“S” = Short (back-focus)

Notes: All TS-E Lenses have an “EF Bayonet Mount” and thus fit to all “EOS Series” Cameras.

The term “EF Bayonet Mount” is separate to the nomenclature “EF Lens”, but all “EF Lenses” have an “EF Bayonet Mount”.

Where it gets pedantic is an “EF-S Lens” does NOT have an “EF Bayonet Mount”, but rather all “EF-S Lenses” have an “EF-S Bayonet Mount”.

The next pedantic point is ALL Cameras in the “EOS Series” have an “EF Bayonet Mount” but only SOME cameras in the EOS Series have the ADDITIONAL EF-S Bayonet Mount.

The next pedantic point is – the majority BUT NOT ALL of the EOS Series APS-C Sensor Cameras have an EF-S Bayonet Mount

And the last pedantic point is – (to my knowledge) ALL third party lenses which are made to fit Canon EOS Series Cameras, will have an “EF Bayonet Mount”. This means that even if such a lens is made with an IMAGE CIRCLE for an APS-C Format Canon Camera, such lens will still mount and function on any APS-H Format or 135 Format EOS Camera (albeit possibly with an Optical Vignette).

These points are often missed or misunderstood.

WW

I'm glad I've a Nikon.

May I add another question. How do you use a manual lens on a modern dslr. One can use the viewfinder or the back screen. I only use the viewfinder. On my first dslr, Nikon D80, I had the matt glass replaced.

George

[Black Pearl]

I'm glad I've a Nikon.

May I add another question. How do you use a manual lens on a modern dslr. One can use the viewfinder or the back screen. I only use the viewfinder. On my first dslr, Nikon D80, I had the matt glass replaced.

George

If you use the viewfinder you can use the focus confirmation 'dot' as that operates independent of a lens being AF or MF.

If you use the rear screen you can use the magnifying feature to 'zoom in' on an individual focus point to help with precise focus. This is actually commonly used with macro work where even though the lens may be AF it will have been switched to MF for greater recision. Some cameras also offer Focus Peaking a feature that highlights the focus area (its edges) with a bight colour - on many Canon models you can add this via Magic Lantern.

[george013]

If you use the viewfinder you can use the focus confirmation 'dot' as that operates independent of a lens being AF or MF.

If you use the rear screen you can use the magnifying feature to 'zoom in' on an individual focus point to help with precise focus. This is actually commonly used with macro work where even though the lens may be AF it will have been switched to MF for greater recision. Some cameras also offer Focus Peaking a feature that highlights the focus area (its edges) with a bight colour - on many Canon models you can add this via Magic Lantern.

Now I remember the dot again.

George

[William W]

If you use the viewfinder you can . . .

Thanks Robin ... I was just starting to write . . .

[Tronhard]

And Now, if that wasn't all confusing enough, we have the EF-M mount which is designed to go on Eos xM MILC (Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Cameras): i.e. EOS 1M to 9M currently. These have a smaller mount to fit a more compact body, but the sensor of an M series body retains the APS-C size crop factor of 1.6.

We are now seeing FINALLY the emergence of MILC being taken a bit more seriously by Canon with the recent release of the EOS 5M. The first MILC camera with an electronic viewfinder and rear screen with interchangeable lenses. This would seem to suggest that Canon are not going to reduce their MILC sensor size to the more common Micro 4/3. The range of EF-M lenses is very small and not of the highest calibre, but there is an adaptor that can allow you to mount EF lenses on the EF-M body.

The EOS 5M is roughly equivalent to the Canon 80D, albeit significantly smaller and with no battery grip so far.