<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 5 reasons I love manual lenses</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.retrocamera.net/manual-lenses.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.retrocamera.net/manual-lenses.html</link>
	<description>Old retrocamera equipment in a digital photography world.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:09:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Christiansen</title>
		<link>http://www.retrocamera.net/manual-lenses.html/comment-page-1#comment-37518</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Christiansen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:44:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.retrocamera.net/?p=464#comment-37518</guid>
		<description>Jesus, somebody call ma, really love this blog :-)! But hey bud, I got some bad news, you&#039;re really missing out of a lot of visitors. I&#039;m a blogger myself and I spend a lot of time making and reading them, ones like Manual lenses &#124; RetroCamera. I recently got a new tool and it&#039;s done *wonders* to my entire business, this crazy thing is SO much more powerful and better. It&#039;s only been a week but my revenue has gone up to $258.11 $$CASH$$, all in one day! So want me to do you a favor? Ok, here&#039;s my big secret, where I learned all my tricks: --&gt;&gt;http://doiop.com/TheBlogWealthMakerv2.0 &lt;-- Just giving your site a look I can tell you&#039;ll probably pull in a couple hundred bucks a month if you just spend a few minutes tweaking some stuff. Damn, I feel like I just made someone&#039;s day today. But keep it a secret! I don&#039;t want too many people using it. Nick Christiansen</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jesus, somebody call ma, really love this blog :-)! But hey bud, I got some bad news, you&#8217;re really missing out of a lot of visitors. I&#8217;m a blogger myself and I spend a lot of time making and reading them, ones like Manual lenses | RetroCamera. I recently got a new tool and it&#8217;s done *wonders* to my entire business, this crazy thing is SO much more powerful and better. It&#8217;s only been a week but my revenue has gone up to $258.11 $$CASH$$, all in one day! So want me to do you a favor? Ok, here&#8217;s my big secret, where I learned all my tricks: &#8211;&gt;&gt;<a href="http://doiop.com/TheBlogWealthMakerv2.0" rel="nofollow">http://doiop.com/TheBlogWealthMakerv2.0</a> &lt;&#8211; Just giving your site a look I can tell you&#039;ll probably pull in a couple hundred bucks a month if you just spend a few minutes tweaking some stuff. Damn, I feel like I just made someone&#039;s day today. But keep it a secret! I don&#039;t want too many people using it. Nick Christiansen</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Edyth Yuill</title>
		<link>http://www.retrocamera.net/manual-lenses.html/comment-page-1#comment-5403</link>
		<dc:creator>Edyth Yuill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:08:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.retrocamera.net/?p=464#comment-5403</guid>
		<description>Very instructive posts, you made some good points here and for positive most individuals will agree together with your blog.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very instructive posts, you made some good points here and for positive most individuals will agree together with your blog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pancolart</title>
		<link>http://www.retrocamera.net/manual-lenses.html/comment-page-1#comment-907</link>
		<dc:creator>Pancolart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:28:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.retrocamera.net/?p=464#comment-907</guid>
		<description>...most modern optics beats the heck out of older lenses... WRONG.

When lens reaches around 95 percent of desirable sharpness in it&#039;s DOF then it&#039;s considered useful. When comparing sharpness in that 5% range it&#039;s true modern lenses usually beats older. But this isn&#039;t important for anyone else then lens sharpshooters. The point is in lens design and MF AF difference. Older MF lenses produced in 10.000pcs or even less are nowdays sought due to their unique vision. One could say these are eyes with soul. AF lenses have more then 13 elements which results in compressed detail and fake bokeh. I was sure for a while that folks using top CANON lenses blur their background due to it&#039;s soft character. Well, i don&#039;t like it :)! 5-7 elements optical designs mostly make &quot;harder&quot;, swirly bokeh that i prefer.

Then there is another point in MF lenses. They have faults in special (or not so special) conditions - they are not multipurpose. All new lenses tend (try really hard) to be multipurpose. That takes some of the magic away again. One has to know the classic lens to produce good results! I see so many demo photos of vintage lenses that i know they are soo untrue since photographer used lens in totally unappropriate conditions. One must take into account the angle of light, the color of light... AF lenses admirer hates flares, MF lenses fan seeks and create them.

Many dared to try vintage lenses. They picked a lemon (faulty sample) and gave up sadly. For example: i had 5x Zeiss Flektogon 2.8/35mm. All of them had foggy elements deep inside. Normal thing due to condensation and age. As such they were working on 70% of it&#039;s full potential. When pro-cleaned story changed and photos were superb! I really like to see new plastic AF lenses after 40 years.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8230;most modern optics beats the heck out of older lenses&#8230; WRONG.</p>
<p>When lens reaches around 95 percent of desirable sharpness in it&#8217;s DOF then it&#8217;s considered useful. When comparing sharpness in that 5% range it&#8217;s true modern lenses usually beats older. But this isn&#8217;t important for anyone else then lens sharpshooters. The point is in lens design and MF AF difference. Older MF lenses produced in 10.000pcs or even less are nowdays sought due to their unique vision. One could say these are eyes with soul. AF lenses have more then 13 elements which results in compressed detail and fake bokeh. I was sure for a while that folks using top CANON lenses blur their background due to it&#8217;s soft character. Well, i don&#8217;t like it :)! 5-7 elements optical designs mostly make &#8220;harder&#8221;, swirly bokeh that i prefer.</p>
<p>Then there is another point in MF lenses. They have faults in special (or not so special) conditions &#8211; they are not multipurpose. All new lenses tend (try really hard) to be multipurpose. That takes some of the magic away again. One has to know the classic lens to produce good results! I see so many demo photos of vintage lenses that i know they are soo untrue since photographer used lens in totally unappropriate conditions. One must take into account the angle of light, the color of light&#8230; AF lenses admirer hates flares, MF lenses fan seeks and create them.</p>
<p>Many dared to try vintage lenses. They picked a lemon (faulty sample) and gave up sadly. For example: i had 5x Zeiss Flektogon 2.8/35mm. All of them had foggy elements deep inside. Normal thing due to condensation and age. As such they were working on 70% of it&#8217;s full potential. When pro-cleaned story changed and photos were superb! I really like to see new plastic AF lenses after 40 years.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Do you need autofocus for moving objects &#124; RetroCamera</title>
		<link>http://www.retrocamera.net/manual-lenses.html/comment-page-1#comment-818</link>
		<dc:creator>Do you need autofocus for moving objects &#124; RetroCamera</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2009 09:14:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.retrocamera.net/?p=464#comment-818</guid>
		<description>[...] moving objects? It&#8217;s an argument often raised by people when I write for exemple my article &#8220;5 resons to love manual lenses&#8221;. Well then, I guessmanual focusing is not a skill to learn, and I should really avoid photos like [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] moving objects? It&#8217;s an argument often raised by people when I write for exemple my article &#8220;5 resons to love manual lenses&#8221;. Well then, I guessmanual focusing is not a skill to learn, and I should really avoid photos like [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elle</title>
		<link>http://www.retrocamera.net/manual-lenses.html/comment-page-1#comment-647</link>
		<dc:creator>Elle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:00:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.retrocamera.net/?p=464#comment-647</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not a good photography and I just learn to take a serious pictures but still not good and I don&#039;t give it up, now I have Nikon D60 DSLR one and try to take a lot of picture,may be one day I can take a good picture I think.By the way I&#039;ve read yours and got a lot of ideas and techniques,so thank you for that

Elle</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not a good photography and I just learn to take a serious pictures but still not good and I don&#8217;t give it up, now I have Nikon D60 DSLR one and try to take a lot of picture,may be one day I can take a good picture I think.By the way I&#8217;ve read yours and got a lot of ideas and techniques,so thank you for that</p>
<p>Elle</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mattias</title>
		<link>http://www.retrocamera.net/manual-lenses.html/comment-page-1#comment-344</link>
		<dc:creator>Mattias</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:23:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.retrocamera.net/?p=464#comment-344</guid>
		<description>Muurtegel: Congratulations :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Muurtegel: Congratulations :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Muurtegel</title>
		<link>http://www.retrocamera.net/manual-lenses.html/comment-page-1#comment-326</link>
		<dc:creator>Muurtegel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:16:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.retrocamera.net/?p=464#comment-326</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve just started with photography and I found out that my dad actually has some old Pentax lenses. So i bought a Pentax &gt; Canon converter ring! Can&#039;t wait to start playing with the &quot;new&quot; lense!

I already use Manual Focus A LOT with my kit lens! ^_^</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve just started with photography and I found out that my dad actually has some old Pentax lenses. So i bought a Pentax &gt; Canon converter ring! Can&#8217;t wait to start playing with the &#8220;new&#8221; lense!</p>
<p>I already use Manual Focus A LOT with my kit lens! ^_^</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: What makes a good lens? &#124; RetroCamera</title>
		<link>http://www.retrocamera.net/manual-lenses.html/comment-page-1#comment-300</link>
		<dc:creator>What makes a good lens? &#124; RetroCamera</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:17:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.retrocamera.net/?p=464#comment-300</guid>
		<description>[...] A faster f-stop make the viewfinder brighter. This is important if you use manual lenses like I do, brighter viewfinder means easier to focus. But sometimes there can be other reasones - [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] A faster f-stop make the viewfinder brighter. This is important if you use manual lenses like I do, brighter viewfinder means easier to focus. But sometimes there can be other reasones &#8211; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: I discovered a new world 2008 &#124; RetroCamera</title>
		<link>http://www.retrocamera.net/manual-lenses.html/comment-page-1#comment-286</link>
		<dc:creator>I discovered a new world 2008 &#124; RetroCamera</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jan 2009 23:15:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.retrocamera.net/?p=464#comment-286</guid>
		<description>[...] blog. At the end of the year - 21st December - I reached 4500 unique visitors on my article &#8220;5 reasons I love manual lenses&#8221; Retrocamera [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] blog. At the end of the year &#8211; 21st December &#8211; I reached 4500 unique visitors on my article &#8220;5 reasons I love manual lenses&#8221; Retrocamera [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Helgens läsning och fotolänkar &#124; Bild och foto</title>
		<link>http://www.retrocamera.net/manual-lenses.html/comment-page-1#comment-256</link>
		<dc:creator>Helgens läsning och fotolänkar &#124; Bild och foto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:16:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.retrocamera.net/?p=464#comment-256</guid>
		<description>[...] Photographer har 10 tips hur du kan fotografera med autofocus på ett bättre sätt samtidigt som Mattias på Retrocamera hyllar manuella objektiv. Jag själv använder ofta manuellt fokus samtidigt som jag är enormt fascinerad över Olympus E-3 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Photographer har 10 tips hur du kan fotografera med autofocus på ett bättre sätt samtidigt som Mattias på Retrocamera hyllar manuella objektiv. Jag själv använder ofta manuellt fokus samtidigt som jag är enormt fascinerad över Olympus E-3 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

