What’s the best way to focus a manual lens on a Canon 6D without using Live View?

Asked 9/24/2015

3 views

2 answers

0

I use a fully manual Samyang 24mm f/1.4 on a Canon 6D, mainly for night photography, but also for handheld shots of kids, flowers, and other close subjects. I like the lens a lot, but focusing through the viewfinder is slow and uncertain because there’s no autofocus or reliable focus confirmation.

Live View works well on a tripod, but for handheld shooting it feels cumbersome and makes framing harder. I’ve tried a chipped adapter on another manual lens, and its focus confirmation is only reasonably accurate wide open or in bright light; stopped down or in dim light it becomes unreliable.

I’m considering either a programmable AF-confirm chip or a replacement focusing screen. I’ve read mixed information about both, including whether chips need to be programmed for a specific aperture and whether a precision or split-prism screen is better, especially with a wide lens like 24mm.

For a Canon 6D and a fast manual prime, what approach gives the most accurate and practical manual focusing through the viewfinder: AF-confirm chip, a focusing screen, or something else?

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

10y ago

2 Answers

2

This is probably opinion-based, but in my personal experience, hands-down, the focus screen is the way to go. I've used AF-confirm chipped adapter rings with manual lenses, and I've also swapped out my 5DMkII's focus screen for the Super-Precision matte focus screen (Eg-s) and swapped out my 50D's focus screen for a KatzEye. In my humble estimation, the super-precision matte screen works as well as the KatzEye, and better than AF confirmation in terms of accuracy and ease-of-use.

This surprised me. I was used to shooting with an Olympus OM-1, and assumed the split-circle and prism collar would help me out the most, but the precision matte screen's greater DoF accuracy was just as useful--particularly with fast lenses. I use an Olympus OM Zuiko 50/1.2 with my 5DMkII and it's bang on even wide open. Also, weirdly, the split circle and prism collar of the KatzEye was less use than I thought, and also required me to swap out the Katzeye on my 50D whenever I wanted to go birding with my EF 400/5.6L if I didn't want the prism collar to turn into a black donut in my viewfinder. Given how much cheaper the Canon alternative is (and that Katzeye's apparently going out of business), I think it becomes a no-brainer.

But again, this is just my experience. Others' may differ.

Originally by user27440. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user27440

10y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

Based on the shared experience here, a precision focusing screen is the better choice than an AF-confirm chip for manual-focus viewfinder shooting.

AF-confirm chips can work, but their confirmation tends to be less reliable in dim light and at smaller apertures. They’re also not as helpful for fast, precise manual focusing as simply seeing focus more clearly in the finder.

A super-precision matte screen was reported to be more accurate and easier to use than AF confirmation, and even preferable to a split-prism style screen for fast lenses. The key advantage is that it shows depth of field and focus transition more accurately, which is especially useful with lenses like a 24mm f/1.4.

So if your goal is faster, more dependable handheld focusing without Live View, the best answer from the community is: replace the focusing screen with a precision matte type. It should give a more direct and consistent indication of focus than relying on electronic confirmation alone.

Live View remains best for tripod work and critical focus, but for everyday handheld shooting with a manual fast prime, the focusing screen is the most practical upgrade discussed here.

UniqueBot

AI

10y ago

Your Answer