Nikon's new manual focus fixed-length lenses

[wotalegend]

Two words: Zeiss ZF.

-Laura

Two more words: Cosina Voigtlander.

I have an Ultron 40/2 and Nokton 58/1.4, both chipped for full metering with all Nikon bodies, and also the older Color Skopar 75/2.5, equivalent to AI-S, which is sadly out of production and hard to get now. In terms of bang for buck they are unbeatable. Also available are a 20/3.5 and a 90/3.5, which I'd love to have but can't justify financially atm.

 

[CGW]

After take off, the pilot addresses the passengers over the intercom:

Dear passengers, this is a computer-controlled aircraft without a real pilot. But there is no need to worry. The system is flawless.

crackling sound followed by:

The system is flawless.
The system is flawless.
The system is flawless.
The system is flawless.
The system is flawless...

Please...My assumption--and Nikon's--is that your brain's in play when using electronic focus aids and manual lenses. If you can't sort what's in or out of focus, then you're out of luck.

 

[Pavel+]

It has nothing to do with using a brain. The focus confirmation light is a poor aproximation when the dof is thin. There is a range where it light up and that is assuming the "auto" part of the focus is actually in range and correct.

A good coarse screen with a split prism is far more reliable ...and the way to go.

Btw ... on both my F100 and D700 the Zeiss 85 is unfocusable using the focus confirmation light. It stays on for a good 1/4 inch turn of the lens ... which is, at minimum focus the difference between the eyes or back of the head in focus.
And the screens of the F100 is so clear and bright that there is on way on earth to engage "the brain" and focus on the ground glass. Pathetic situation .... fixed by the aquisition of a F3 with a good split prism screen. Now life is good (and sharp) again!

 

[wotalegend]

It has nothing to do with using a brain. The focus confirmation light is a poor aproximation when the dof is thin. There is a range where it light up and that is assuming the "auto" part of the focus is actually in range and correct.

A good coarse screen with a split prism is far more reliable ...and the way to go.

Btw ... on both my F100 and D700 the Zeiss 85 is unfocusable using the focus confirmation light. It stays on for a good 1/4 inch turn of the lens ... which is, at minimum focus the difference between the eyes or back of the head in focus.
And the screens of the F100 is so clear and bright that there is on way on earth to engage "the brain" and focus on the ground glass. Pathetic situation .... fixed by the aquisition of a F3 with a good split prism screen. Now life is good (and sharp) again!

With my eyesight being not as good as it used to be and not getting any better, I have all but given up on trying to use manual focus lenses on bodies with clear screens designed for use with af lenses, even though I have two chipped CV mf lenses which otherwise work well with them. I have acquired screens with diagonal split prism, which I find nicer than the normal horizontal split prism, for both my F3 and F5. Meanwhile the F100 languishes in the cupboard unless I feel inclined to use an af lens.

 

[Pavel+]

I've recently added an F3 to the F100 for 35 film shooting. What a nice thing it is to have the split. I have three screens with it including the B and E screens which are with no focus aids. It is still much easier with those as they are coarser and the image snaps in a bit. The F100's screen is my one great frustration with MF glass. It is really hard for me - more of a guess really, every time.

The clear and bright screens on autofocus bodies is necessary. The focus array is on top of the prism housing and so light has to pass through the screen to reach them. The brighter and without texture they the screens are the better the autofocus works. Nice for autofocus - but a real step back in versatility.