Why only manual primes not autofocus primes? Why only Primes and not zooms?

justmarvin

justmarvin

Well-known member
I've read about, heard from others, and then just accepted the idea that it's best to use only manual quality primes - not zooms and not autofocus - for 35mm adapters. But, I never really understood why, so I'm asking now.

I know we want the best optics possible, and so I am not talking about junk cheapo zooms and autofocus lenses here. I am wondering about the high rated autofocus primes and fixed aperture zooms like those highly spoken about in Kenrockwell.com and other review sites (the ones with the aperture rings ofcourse, not the newer digital G models where the aperture rings are removed). They seem to have just as good optics, and there are fast speeds with fixed apertures available, even for the zooms. So is there any down side to using autofocus primes or autofocus (or manual) zooms?

JM
 
Well the autofocus won't operate on an adapter, so for that reason we avoid lenses without the ability to manually focus. Now what is the reason to avoid zooms in general? Primes will give you better optics and lower F-stop. Why avoid the best of the best in zoom lenses? Cost. You can feel free to get, say, a PL-Mount on your adapter and buy good PL lenses, but you'll be making a huge investment.

some zooms are ok to....I know for sure that some of the wider zooms can compete against wide primes.

And we don't ALWAYS recoil from zooms...I have a zoom lens, and It has it's uses....but I try to stick to my primes.
 
I use an autofocus 85mm 1.8 Nikkor, honestly I bought it because it was a good deal. It works well for me but the amount of travel on the manual focus ring is much less than a manual lens. I have never had an issue with it. I would prefer a Manual 85mm 1.4 because I prefer the loner focus throw on my manual lenses.
 
JM

i use these zooms with AF all the time.

Nikon 80-200 f2.8
sigma 20-40 f2.8
sigma 15-30 f3.5

zooms are useful to recompose your shots without moving the cam. Of course the AF doesnt function on an adapter.

Ted
 
thanks for the feedback guys.

Nick Walters said:
Now what is the reason to avoid zooms in general? Primes will give you better optics and lower F-stop. Why avoid the best of the best in zoom lenses? Cost. You can feel free to get, say, a PL-Mount on your adapter and buy good PL lenses, but you'll be making a huge investment.
Click to expand...

Well, moreso with Nikkors, as that seems more do-able as far as price goes. Like for example, an autofocus zoom here, Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 D - http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm This is one of the high rated zooms in kenrockwell's page, and it's very affordable Since this is a fixed aperture at f/2.8 there wouldn't be any loss regarding speed and it is a low f-stop already. What about optics? Kenrockwell speaks highly of this lens so I'm assuming it's good. Would this readily stack up with the primes such as, for example, an 85, 135, 105, 180, 200 which most filmmaker's buy separately as manual primes. If it does stack up, to me it seems very convenient to just gett the zoom to save the trouble of moving camera and/or switching out lenses and the flexibility of slight adjustments. And the fact that Nikkor zooms are just as affordable, and moreso compared to buying each prime individually within the zooms range.

And another reason to buy an Autofocus zoom -- eventually one would probably want to get a nice Nikon Digital camera (like I did... I got the Nikon d300s which now has video like d90) and the autofocus feature is very nice on Digital cameras.

So then, for the reason above, regarding primes, why not get the Autofocus Primes instead of the manual primes.

If autofocus itself doesn't pose any problems as to image quality, nor does zoom, it seems like getting a quality Nikkor AF zoom gets you the most bang for your buck. And even if getting primes, it seems Autofocus primes would be the smarter.

JM

PS- as for the big film lenses, what do you think of the angenieux 25-250mm f/3.2 zoom?
Those big lenses are kind of confusing. Was reading the red one boards and there are so many different lenses and versions of those lenses it's kind of overwhelming, not to mention the price tag. But i think the angenieux 25-250mm can be had at a good rate used.
 
Last edited:
To me arguments of primes being better than zooms are irrelevant generalizations. It depends on the specific glass and the purposes to which you are using it.

Optically the modern Nikon autofocus zooms have quality as good or better than the older primes ( I own both.) They are very sharp with great contrast. They all offer manual focus as well.

The negatives - They are slower than my primes (2.8), they haver a shorter focus thow on the lens, minimum focus distance is further away and they are heavier.

I shoot lots of interviews and for that work an 80-200 Nikon zoom is much more flexible and useful than my primes. Its almost all I ever need. For a narrative the primes might be more useful, but even then it depends on the shoot. Even in Hollywood some DP's prefer zooms for their flexibility and speed on the set.
 
I'm not one to say that you can't buy a certain lens....My Response was a broad generalization. There are so many products out there, that it's impossible to give one stock answer...plus the fact that we're talking about making art which further confuses matters.

Take a look at the specs, look at the reviews, look at lots of images taken with the lens...and settle on something YOU like :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
Ok, so it seems more sensical that this would be the best combo for a 35mm adapter in both price and functionality (and two highly rated lenses by KenRockwell):

Nikon Autofocus 35-70mm f/2.8, http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/3570.htm
Nikon Autofocus 80-200mm f/2.8, http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm

This is A LOT of savings compared to buying individual manual focus prime lenses! This covers the entire range of 35mm-200mm pretty much. And what would the total cost be? Well you can get the 35-70mm f/2.8 at $350!! And I bought the above 80-200mm for $550. All you need to bring on set is two lenses. Maybe you can also throw in a 50mm f/1.2 AI-S manual prime for low light or high bokeh application as well.

And another thing I never really understood is why do people buy Zeiss lenses? Those are really, really expensive manual focus primes. What do a Zeiss have that a Nikon lens doesn't?

Your thoughts?

JM
 
Personally I don't use the primes for low light situations...or atleast I try to avoid situations where I need to depend on it.

I use these lenses so that I can have superior image quality at a higher F-stop(say 2.8 or 4).

I also think that having two lenses that are both general lenses is just a bad idea if your working on anything except for news, documentary, etc.

This is just my personal choice though...I save the zoom for times when I want to zoom during a shot.

When selecting a lens I try to balance between the following things:
1. Speed
2. Image quality at a higher F-stop
-2a. CA
-2b. edge to edge sharpness
-2c. light falloff
-2d. overall sharpness
-2e. contrast
3. size of lens
4. weight of lens
5. bokeh
6. price
7. manual controls
8. focus travel
9. breathing
10. movement of front element

I'm sure I've skipped over some points, and perhaps I'll ammend it once something slips out of my noggin :)
 
Last edited:
Manual lenses are cheaper in general for better optics. For that $350, I was able to buy a Super Takumar 55mm/ F2, a Pratika 135mm/F2.8, a Zeiss Pancolar 1.8/50mm, a Zeiss Tessar 50mm/F2.8, and a Jupiter 9 85mm/F2. All for under $350. All except 2 at a lower F stop. Manual lenses are built better. They weren't built just for film cameras. The Zeiss ones for instance were built for spy usage. Autofocus lenses are made cheaper, instead of having a fast F stop, the camera makes up for that. The reason why Zeiss is better is because the guys working for them revolutionized the lenses designs. These same designs that are on these autofocus lenses are the same designs from the early 1900's except with autofocus. Why pay for a feature that you can't use anyway?
 
So then what do you guys think of the two lenses I linked to, how do the optics compare to what you guys are thinking. It is definitely much cheaper to go with those two zooms than with a collection of primes (and much much more convenient since you don't have to keep swapping out lenses during the shoot, and offers flexibility of minor focal length adjustments without having to move the entire camera as with a prime to get the right composition or having to swap out the prime for another focal length altogether). These zooms covers a wide range range, and for an extremely good price! $900 can get you 35mm to 200mm and at a constant f/2.8 speed to boot. One of the two lenses that I mentioned has quality ED glass, and if you wanted to replace the $350 for the more expensive AF-S 28-70mm ED IF will give you that nice quality ED glass (although the $350 lens mentioned earlier is much raved about by ken and has good reviews so you probably won't need to go for that extra expense as image quality seems up to par), then there you have it. But if you do go for the other ED lens then that's about $1,000 for that AF-S lens, so the total for the best optics (as far as i know) in Autofocus ED lens zooms would cost $1,500 (or $900 if you went with my original two zooms) -- but that's what you would spend anyway (or much much more) to get a collection of primes to cover that focal range: 28mm, 35mm, 50 or 55mm, 85mm, 105mm, 135mm, 180mm or 200mm. I haven't looked at the quality manual focus zooms and have only mentioned the autofocus because the point of Autofocus (for me anyway) is because I am also interested in photography and autofocus is just great for Nikon digital cams. And, 'cmon what filmmaker wouldn't be interested in general photography, so autofocus seems more bang for your buck.


====== about $900 total can get you these two awesome zooms, the second one with ED glass:

Nikon Autofocus 35-70mm f/2.8, http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/3570.htm
Nikon Autofocus 80-200mm f/2.8 D IF-ED, http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm


====== about $1,500 total can get you these two lenses, both with ED glass:

Nikon Autofocus 28-70mm f/2.8 ED: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/2870afs.htm
Nikon Autofocus 80-200mm f/2.8 D IF-ED, http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm



JM

PS- I still don't get the Zeiss thing. Sure they are good lenses, but how much better are they (if they even are better..or is it just the name) compared to the Nikon Nikkors? And how much more benefit can one get from a Zeiss than from the Nikkors? Zeiss lenses are usually priced way way more than Nikkors anywhere from twice to four times as much as a Nikkor with matching or comparable focal length and speed.
 
Last edited:
I just worked with a 35-70mm f/2.8 and was quite disappointed at 2.8. I thought it looked soft. Ken Rockwell in fact says its soft wide open so be careful depending on your uses. There are 2 80-200's. One has a push pull mechanism and the other has 2 separate rings for zoom and focus. The optics are excellent even at 2.8 on both but I prefer the 2 rings. The push pull is generally cheaper so ask which one it is. There is no difference in the way they are labelled - kind of odd really.

Lenny Levy
 
Hi Lenny,

Yeah I just caught the push/pull vs ring thing on the 80-200. The one I have is the push/pull, where instead of rotating it to zoom, you slowly push the barrel up, the lens doesn't extend or anything so I think it's something I can live with. The optics are exactly the same between the two though right?

JM
 
I think just the longer focus throw alone would make a manual lens worth more than an autofocus one. That can be the difference between hitting focus dead on and have your image be soft.
 
"I think just the longer focus throw alone would make a manual lens worth more than an autofocus one."

Sure its a definite issue to consider but its just one of many. Unfortunately the new Nikons that have great optics are all short throw auto focus lenses. I just don't see the point in making sweeping generalizations.
 
It's a personal preference, of course. For me it's tough to work with lenses that have shorter focus throw even if they have good optic because it's very tough to get the focus spot on even with a high res monitor. I have access to some nice EF L glass that I would never put on an adapter because the focus ring is so slippery and the focus throw so short.

Another thing to consider as well is that newer glass aren't necessarily better. Optically speaking you generally can find older manual lenses that are just as good as the newer autofocus one. With autofocus lenses you're paying more for features that you're not using so for adapter use it's hard to justify the extra expenses.
 
This discussion could go on for all time, lol....but I mine as well let eveyone know my goals when I decided to try out 35mm.

First and foremost I wanted good image quality lenses at a cheap price(who doesn't).

Second I wanted to be able to run ALL my lenses at one universal F-stop that had that Goldilocks quality of DOF, but I also wanted to be able to go outside this universal F-stop on occasion for artistic effect.

Third I wanted good bokeh.

There are some factors I've left out which I mentioned earlier, but this post is more about my main goals, listed in order of importance....everything else is sorta a given....In other words I won't sacrifice any of those other qualities.....some could actually be listed along with my first level of importance(quality)

Lastly I look for that 'something'...it's actually more important then all the rest. If I just plain straight up LOVE the images a lens produces, then I'll buy it....heck even the crappiest of glass can just have the right feel sometimes...I have the oddest combinations of add-on wide angle adapters or telephotos that I put on bad 35mm zooms just because I like the look for certain situations...

The same goes for post processing...I just have certain odd things I do or use for effect...I may not use all of my odder "bag of tricks" for a talking head, but it has it's uses.

Don't get to caught up in trying to find the perfect lens combo to always carry with you....this shouldn't be, in my opinion, a decision which causes you to use the same lenses, no matter what, on each and every project. Every project should be a new and interesting adventure, and you should have an arsenal of tools which you select from to create your art.....this doesn't mean you have to own every lens on the planet, but it does mean you shouldn't have just two zooms. Perhaps you should even find a person or shop that will rent you from their own collection....in this way you can be familiar with lots of glass, have first hand experience which can guide your purchases, and you'll have ALOT of creative freedom when it comes to this side of things.
 
Huy Vu said:
With autofocus lenses you're paying more for features that you're not using so for adapter use it's hard to justify the extra expenses.
Click to expand...

When you do an estimate price for the focal range that the two zooms cover VS. the individual primes to cover that range, you would end up paying more buying individual primes. And, again, I personally feel having autofocus is great because once you get a collection of lenses, I would think a lot would love to venture into Photography at some point, and you already have the best quality, autofocus lens collection at your fingertips, so it does offer some versatility in that regard. I think if you can get the same optics in Autofocus vs. Manual focus, then go for autofocus instead.
 
justmarvin said:
I think if you can get the same optics in Autofocus vs. Manual focus, then go for autofocus instead.
Click to expand...

How many people ends up paying extras for feature that they thing "might" come in handy for that day that they're making the transition? Some people will, but others might never need the lenses for anything more than 35mm adapter work. So if you are serious about crossing over into still photography then sure, make the investment. But if that scenario is "maybe" in some far off future then why spend the extra money now when you can be using it for other things?

It's a fact that a specialized tool gives you better result than a tool that does everything and this is no different. For zoom versus prime, you save on convenience and money, but those zooms are gonna be slower, longer and heavier than prime lenses. There are shooting situations where maybe you can't afford or doesn't have the room to set up more lights and so that extra stop on a prime might make the difference. And a zoom lens doesn't perform equally well at every single focal length so a prime might have an edge over a zoom in that regard. Lots of factors that you need to take into consideration.
 
Huy Vu said:
How many people ends up paying extras for feature that they thing "might" come in handy for that day that they're making the transition? Some people will, but others might never need the lenses for anything more than 35mm adapter work. So if you are serious about crossing over into still photography then sure, make the investment. But if that scenario is "maybe" in some far off future then why spend the extra money now when you can be using it for other things?
Click to expand...

The problem with that rationale is that it doesn't really cost that much "extra." First, compared to buying individual primes: Autofocus 80-200mm ED for much cheaper compared to buying individually... 85mm f/2.8, 105mm f/2.8, 135mm f/2.8, 180mm f/2.8........ well definitely the Autofocus Zoom wins in the price factor here. Second, compared to buying the same lens but in Manual focus vs. newer Auto focus. Just out of curiousity I went and checked how much an f/2.8 would be for the 80-200mm ED but for the old AIS manual lens version and, lol, this guy is pricing it outrageously at $2,600 on ebay: http://cgi.ebay.com/NIKON-AI-S-Zoom...nses?hash=item255664143d&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14 I didn't find any other listings. But if it is in the higher price range, then that's because it's a collectors item (since it's no longer in production) moreso than having better optics. Even though it looks like the newer lenses has improved optics and build, it is way cheaper. Well that was an extreme case. But, in more specific to your point about paying "extra" for something we might or might not use such as the autofocus, I think we need to define how much that "extra" is. I agree with you, if it is a significant sum then it's logical for someone to just stick with the manual over the newer auto lenses. But, if it's not that much difference at all, then why not go for the auto. And even moreso, the individual who has an inkling for photography, then by all means definitely go for the auto. That's how I see things now, as I knew I was interested in photography before, but the advice I got when I was first seeking out 35mm nikkors for my 35mm adapter was to avoid all zooms and auto lenses, and in light of everything discussed, i think we all agree that there is definitely more to it than that.

It's a fact that a specialized tool gives you better result than a tool that does everything and this is no different. For zoom versus prime, you save on convenience and money, but those zooms are gonna be slower, longer and heavier than prime lenses.
Click to expand...

It really isn't that heavy, nor that long. The two lenses I mentioned are being used for hand-held, tourist travel type photography, it's not huge where a tripod is mandatory. (On another note, there are huuuge primes too, mostly teles at fast speeds). And the zoom lenses I mentioned are not slow, it's a fixed f/2.8 speed. Sure it's heavier compared to a dinky prime, but it's not really much of a relevant factor since it's not really that heavy at all. So that rules out your specific points altogether and we're just left with your points of a zoom's convenience and saving money :)

There are shooting situations where maybe you can't afford or doesn't have the room to set up more lights and so that extra stop on a prime might make the difference. And a zoom lens doesn't perform equally well at every single focal length so a prime might have an edge over a zoom in that regard. Lots of factors that you need to take into consideration.
Click to expand...

So maybe one wants a faster speed than f/2.8 just to get a little bit more light for some reason. But then, how often than not? And for those cases, sure, it's nice to have an even faster than f/2.8 prime lens (and i'm all for that even if you have zooms), but even then the ideal thing for a shoot is to be in control of our lights and not be in a situation where we need that extra stop just for the sake of more light. But even then, two zooms plus a super fast f/1.4 or even the fastest f/1.2 speed prime lens thrown in would be a nice setup.

And mind you, a lot of the old filmmaker masters used Cine Zoom lenses back in the day, and I think it's still being done with the big film cams and even the Red One. So when did we depart from the convenience and the good sense of using a nice quality zoom lens for a bunch of primes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for primes too, and whatever floats your boat, but I'm just thinking out loud, and haven't heard a good reason yet for primes. (Maybe there isn't really that good a reason, just like why some people spend a fortune buying the Zeiss brand for their 35mm adapter??).

JM
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top