I got myself a used DSLR with a few lenses a few days ago. It's a Canon EOS 700D. One of the lenses is the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM. The lens works fine in AF but when turned to MF it does nothing when turning the focus ring. Did I miss something or is the lens just broken?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4398294??? So manual focus is broken but autofocus works?
>>4398294ime, try to half hold the shutter button (once, as in lettin the cam measure light), then try to use the focus ringt. i have an STM objective
>>4398308As this Anon suggested, it's because manual focus override is done electronically. Try resetting your AF settings if it still doesn't work
>>4398294its probably a setting on the camera, those things are focus by wire
Thank you all for your replies, Anons!>>4398295yes. autofocus works like a charm>>4398308also does not work unfortunately. Neither in AF nor in MF mode.>>4398310I tried playing around with different combinations of focus settings but still nothing.>>4398374Do you know what setting you influence that?
>>4398421did you flip the switch on the lens, retardo?
>>4398423the only switch I see on the lens is the AF/MF-switch. Yes, I have tried that. The camera also recognizes that.
>>4398425have you tried putting it in live view then seeing if the manual focus works?
>>4398426yes. It does not :(
Been to a local camera shop today. The guy working there tried the lens on another camera. Same problems. The focus ring seems to be broken but repairing it would cost more than getting a new lens. Guess I'll have to live with just AF. Thanks, guys
>>4398673As you should. Your camera is designed for AF, not MF. If you have an AF lens, there's very little reason to use MF.
>>4398717lmao @ the confidence to say such stupid shit
>>4398719>i dont know how to use autofocus well
>>4398726Autofocus never places DOF correctly. DOF is a field with a shape. Autofocus just tries to maximize the sharpness of whats under a little square at whatever minimum aperture the algorithm runs the lens at (f5.6 usually). Only a human eye can do whole-field focusing, and only with stop down preview.
>>4398729do you have an example of what you mean by DoF placed correctly vs incorrectly?do you know of any photographers i can look into using this method?
>>4398730Pick up your camera and notice that if you focus on a corner your center can be out of focus, and there’s an in between where the center is not perfectly focused but looks good when not pixel peeping and the corners are ok. That’s really all it is, plus autofocus not seeing the final shot if its not running at the shooting aperture. You can see the final shot if your camera has a DOF preview toggle.
>>4398731that just sounds like a lens with bad field curvature> where the center is not perfectly focused but looks good this, what's an example of what this looks like?
>>4398730By definition, DoF is a region around the point of focus in which things are acceptably sharp. This is of course subjective and contextual. Without DoF, only a plane would be in focus, not a region. If you want multiple items of different depth to be in acceptable focus, the optimal point of focus is going to be somewhere in-between them. Often times, AF isn't going to get you there because there's nothing to focus on at the arbitrary midpoint where you want the point of focus to be.
>>4398752so you don't have any photo examples of a technique you use often?
>>4398753>SOURCE? SOURCE? WHEEREEEE'S THE SAUCE BRO?>NO YOU CANT ARRIVE AT CONCLUSIONS FROM EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AND YOUR OWN RESEARCHYou're a fag. A ten-second google search will bring up scores of articles on the topic of uneven field curvature in optical lenses.
>>4398754i just wanted to see an example of an image you don't think AF could get, that sounds interestingit's new to me that field curvature means AF doesn't work anymoreit's a shame you don't take any photos yourself, but thanks for the info anyways
>>4398753Oh of course not. Happy shooting bud.
>>4398756you too nophoto
>>4398755NTA. It IS a thing, but I've never personally experienced this except for my shitty decade-old MFTurd, and even then it isn't some starkly noticable feature of the photo, it's like, oh, if I focus on something at the edge of my shot with the middle AF point, then recompose it back to the edge, the field of focus isn't perfect at f/2.8. It's really only a thing at the thinnest DoFs and with extreme focus repositioning.
>>4398726Autofocus is often off ever so slightly, especially in bad light.
>>4398753Why are you being so daft?
>>4398760great, so can I see you example of this?>>4398764not for me>>4398774why is it so hard to have 1 photo example?
>>4398844Did you just make this thread to feel better about your broken lens?
>>4398861im not OP, I just wanted to see an example photo since they made such a big deal about itdo you have one you can share?
>>4398844>great, so can I see you example of this?No. I cant be fucked digging through archived photos from a decade ago just to satisfy your hard-on for an example.
>>4398896oh my mistake, i figured with all the replying you did have some free timebut i guess your just an actual nophoto too
>>4398941>no, field curvature cant exist, do stupid snapshit tests for methis is definitely the fag that defends shitty cameras with "but you dont really need a good camera" because he has fuji related buyers remorse. >mmmm no if you dont have 300 pictures of rain weather sealing doesnt matter just use a waterproof case. see? my fuji is suddenly fine.
>>4398944so to confirm, you think field curvature makes using autofocus not possible? again, that's news to meseems like the real solution is to stop buying shitty lensesi wasn't asking anyone to go do a stupid snapshot, they said it was a technique they used "often", so i think it's fair to ask for an examplei wanted to see an image you didn't think AF could get, since that was the claimsorry that you think we shouldn't post photos on a photo board
>>4398952Field curvature and hyperfocal shooting mean manual focus has a use and autofocus only is cucked. You do not need an example for this, nophoto. You need to grow a brain and learn to read.
>>4398957>hyperfocal shootingyou can't use AF for hyperfocal shooting? news to mehopefully one day you can afford some better lenses and enjoy using AF like i do
>itt: gran autismos debate DoF and hyperfocal shooting on a DX sensor camera with a DX 2.8 lens made for compact, lightweight carryingtouch grass
>>4398963it's the natural consequence of people not ever being willing to post photosty for being a photo poster
>>4398962You sound insecure and autistic.
>>4398976at least i take picturesmaybe one day you can grow out of your own insecurity, and be able to post a photo
>>4398986I take photos. I just dont post them for bitches.
>>4398987okay nophoto, im sure you do
This thread is a good example of how two extremes (nophoto vs wherephoto) can kill all discourse.
>>4399002>Oh? Surely you have a photo to prove thatIt's just that one retard. It's not even OP, so we know for sure that he just goes around shitting threads up
Why is this thread still going? OP already said that they tried it on another body in the camera shop and it's fucked. You faggots will argue about anything to avoid taking photos I swear.
>>4399006better than all the nophotos shitting up threads
