I'm quite the opposite - but then again, I am not usually trying to capture animals on the move with long lenses. I find that AF ends up being too fiddly for what I mostly shoot - weddings, portraits, landscapes, etc. For these, I find that composing first and fine tuning the focus after generally renders for me, the better image. I like the plain matte screens for this type of work so that I can see the entire surface and decide exactly where I want the focus point based on my composition. AF only gets in the way for this.
I am busy and shoot lots of frames, so I don't think the speed of shooting has much to do with it, mostly the subject matter. Animals on the move, motorsports, action sports, etc do better with AF, most noticeably when long teles are in use. -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, March 29, 2005, 4:13:24 PM, you wrote: HC> i've done the opposite. i wont consider any MF lens worth using unless there HC> is no reasonable AF alternative. thus, the only MF lens i use is the A* HC> 400/2.8. the M 50/1.7 is kept for sentimental reasons but i haven't use it HC> in close to 15 years. i got an recently A 50/2 simply to plug the front of HC> my Super Program, which also hasn't been used in about 10 years. the Limited HC> series are the only lenses i would consider using mostly in MF mode, but why HC> bother when the camera's AF system will focus accurately on what i want HC> 80-90% of the time anyway. using MF more than necessary is just a waste of HC> my time. it's about getting the images i want and being in the way or HC> influencing my ability to capture images as little as possible. HC> Herb... HC> ----- Original Message ----- HC> From: "Francis Alviar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> HC> To: <[email protected]> HC> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 10:17 AM HC> Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid >> Amen! I can't even explain the joy of using a manual >> focus lens with the *istDS. Currently I'm playing >> around with it and the Super Takumar 35mm f/3.5 >> screwmount lens.
