I've fallen for manual focus lenses and I blame all of you!

[gryphon1911]

Some samples - Zhongyi:

These were shot on the Oly PEN-F with Fotodiox Adapter

[Arninetyes]

Same here. When I bought my first DSLR, I bought telephoto and normal autofocus zooms to go with it. Seemed like the thing to do. Two lenses to cover most of the range, and autofocus!! It didn't take long to get annoyed with 1) how slow they were (I couldn't afford the "pro" f/2.8 zooms), and 2) while the autofocus did a great job, it didn't always focus where I wanted.

Eight years later, I have 11 primes (only three are autofocus) and two zooms, both manual focus. More to the point, I've bought and then got rid of five other autofocus lenses, including a few with VR. I have, in fact, bought and sold many manual focus lenses. There's actually only one I regret selling. I had a Nikkor 50/1.4 SC that had been AI'd.

[Arninetyes]

I'm so addicted to manual focus lenses, I've even given new models from brand new companies a try. I must say, I've been wanting to buy a brand new Nikkor 50/1.2 AIS and a new Nikkor 28/2.8 AIS, but I have trouble justifying the expense when I have no need for a 50/1.2, and I already have a Nikkor 28/2.0 AI.

I've been wanting a 14 to 15mm lens for a while, but never liked the level of distortion and chromatic aberration that is inherent in most, and I don't like the prices of the better ones. My last sub-20mm lens was a Tokina 17/3.5 SL, which left purple fringing everywhere there were contrasty edges. I considered a Samyang 14/2.8, but since my Samyang 85/1.4 started jamming its aperture with only about a year's use, I didn't have the confidence to buy another Samyang, no matter how cheap.

I ended up buying an Irix 15mm f/2.4. I haven't had a chance to test the Irix yet, but after I've spent some time with it, I'll post a few pictures.

My favorite manual focus lens is my Nikkor 20/3.5. It's tiny, light, has minimal CA, visible, but not terrible distortion, and it's very sharp for close up subjects and decent at at distance, too. I was in Borrego Springs last week, where there is an "art gallery" that covers a couple hundred acres with 130 metal sculptures scattered throughout. These are two pics using the trusty old 20/3.5. The first is a picture showing a bit of this year's "super bloom", followed by a picture the pair of rams.

[gryphon1911]

I like those. 

Any opportunity to run the 20/3.5 side by side with the newer 20/2.8D AF?  Curious on the IQ differences if any.  I have a 20/2.8, and find that it manual focus' ok.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I gave up on the 20/2.8 AFD (ugly plastic fantastic, poor handling) and took the alternative route with the 20/2.8 AIS instead. The new 20/1.8 AFS is very sharp, but like many of its contemporary siblings, in dire lack of charm and smooth handling.

The small 20/3.5 AI/AIS is excellent for close-ups but not my first choice for more distant subjects as the corners aren't very convincing before f/11 or so, at which point the entire image starts to fall apart. The 20/2.8 output has a nice overall feel to it, but once again, maybe not the candidate for distant landscapes.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The 20/2.8 AIS handles very well on the Df. The quite short focus throw more than makes up for the lack of AF. I literally can focus the lens with my left index finger as its focusing operation is so smooth.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The 20/2.8 AIS has some barrel distortion, but this is mainly caused by its CRC so much less visible for distant scenes. Thus it does architecture pretty well in my view.

Medieval church, Delft, The Netherlands (Df, 20/2.8 AIS)

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The insider's tip for a lens shade for the 20/2.8 AIS: HK-16. Clamps on securely and does not vignette although the clearance is virtually nil. Thus don't make dents in that hood or they might cause blackened corners.

As usual for wide angles the hood is quite ineffective for stray light and strong point light immediately outside the angle of view. However, it does keep fingers and other objects from poking into the front of the lens. Thus worth its while to have on at all times.

[Fons Baerken]

nikkor-ud 20mm f/3.5 as portrayed by 35mm f/1.4ais

[gryphon1911]

Good stuff.    I don't really use the 20/2.8D that much anyway...might use it as trade toward some more proper MF lenses.

[BW]

This weekend I remembered that my brother had Nikon lens. I snatched the little bugger from his camera bag when he wasnt looking and are currently testing it. It is the minute 50 mm f1,8 series E and so far it seem to be an excellent performer. It is so small and unobtrusive and fits the Df perfectly. Highly recomended!

[Bjørn Rørslett]

In optical terms the almost pancake-flat 50/1.8 Nikon SE has little to be ashamed of, indeed. Simpler coatings mean lower contrast and a tad more propensity for flare, that's all. It is also a good performer for IR, if you are so inclined. Will even do a spot of UV if pushed to the task.

Several of the other members of the Nikon SE line in fact are pretty good. The 75-150/3.5 SE became famous from its use by the late Galen Rowell. The 35/2.5 SE is surprisingly sharp and capable, will do excellently in IR as well. The handy small SE zoom with the peculiar range 36-72 mm and a constant f/3.5 aperture is very enjoyable, its main drawback is the longish 1.2 m near limit. It can be reversed for impressive close-ups though. I have also experienced favourable impressions on the 100/2.8 SE, 135/2.8 SE, and 70-210/4 SE.

[Roland Vink]

The series-E 35/2.5 gets praised here, but I tend to read disparaging remarks about the 5-elements AI and AIS 35/2.8, most preferring the 6-element K and AI versions instead.

I find this a little curious, since the Series-E 35/2.5 and 5-element AI/AIS 35/2.8 have very similar optical designs. The SE 35/2.5 uses simpler coatings than the NIC coating on the AI/AIS version. The AI/AIS version is slower and longer overall, so less compromised by the requirements for speed and compactness. Lastly, both lenses appeared more or less at the same time in 1979. Given the similarity in optical layout it wouldn't surprise me if the optics were designed by the same team. In theory, this would suggest the 5-element AI/AIS 35/2.8 Nikkor should perform better than the budget SE 35/2.5.

In my limited experience with the AIS 35/2.8, it performs very well. Compared to the older 6-element version it has some barrel distortion, but the background rendering may be a bit smoother, I haven't really tested this thoroughly though. Overall I think the AIS 35/2.8 is a useful lens. No idea how it does for IR.

I agree the SE 75-150 and 100/2.8 are good lenses, especially if you need high performing and compact telephotos. I expect the SE 135/2.8 is also good but the 1.5m focus limit is rather long, I'd sooner go for the AI 135/3.5 or AIS 135/2.8, they are hardly any bigger or heavier, they focus closer and have better coatings.

[Arninetyes]

nikkor-ud 20mm f/3.5 as portrayed by 35mm f/1.4ais

I have a wonderful old 20/3.5 UD, which was upgraded with factory AI parts. It performs much like my 20/3.5 AIS, though it doesn't do as well close up. The UD is on my "sell" list.

[HCS]

I have a wonderful old 20/3.5 UD, which was upgraded with factory AI parts. It performs much like my 20/3.5 AIS, though it doesn't do as well close up. The UD is on my "sell" list.

Well, this is not the For Sale forum, but drop me a PM if you're selling