A while ago I bought the 35/1.4. This was one of the lenses I dreamt about for a long time. However, after getting it I was less than thrilled. It didn't seem to be sharp as it was suppose to be. However, as I knew its DoF is supposed to be paper-thin (one of the main reasons I bought it for), I kept on experimenting.
Well, yesterday I got the answer. It's not the lens, it's me. It's me that can't get this damn focus plain in the right place. However, I plea for mitigating circumstances: DoF is ridiculously thin. Look at this picture. Only part of the eye and eye lashes are within the DoF. This is going to be challenging.
Yes - that is what you get a f1.4 - no matter which lens. Amazing isn't it...
If you want more DoF then go to f4 or more and see what you think. There was light available -- the shutter speed was 1/750 sec so you could have used a variety of f stops and compared the results.
Graham, I bought it for the f/1.4. For slower apertures I'll use other lenses. However, getting it right is so difficult its frustrating. I don't remember having that problem with other fast lenses I had (28/1.8, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8). Maybe I was not shooting that close.
Maybe, but this is just a wild idea, you should not focus so much on sharpness. (HAH! Sorry, bad pun, I know.)
I think the shot you've shown is great and the very shallow DoF doesn't bother me at all. The shot doesn't need more of the face sharp in a Count-The-Individual-Hairs way.
Edited by Tentacle on Jan 19, 2008 at 02:27 PM GMT (Reason: horrible typo *blush*)
Looks like distance is the primary culprit here. A similiar composition (although different perspective) can be obtained using higher focal lengths with greater depth of field. This is probably why you haven't seen the same problems with a 50mm/85mm.
The point of using the 35/1.4 or any wider angle/larger aperture lens, in my opinion, is for low light photos where you need a wider angle, or for simply any photo where you need to include more in the photo. For your photo above, which is a closeup candid portrait, I would have reached for my 85/1.8 or 70-200 f/2.8L IS and probably shot at around f/2.8 or f/4 and not have to step as close. This would ensure that the subject is entirely in focus, while the background still has a nice creamy bokeh effect.
Just a thought: I found my 35f1.4 front-focussed quite a bit in tests with my 1Diii. After microadjusting +17 it focuses perfectly on my target at f1.4. Of all my lenses, this is the one needing the most adjustment. Also, there is nothing in front of the subject's eye in the center of the image, but if there was, I'd guess you'd see evidence of front focusing.
I think it's hard to see where the sharp area starts in your sample. Mayby you should try some tests shoting a ruler at eg. 45 degree. This will give you an idea of what DoF to expect and also if the focus is off.
Edited by J Andersen on Jan 19, 2008 at 02:58 PM GMT
DOF at 2 feet with the 35L wide open is ~1/2 inch. DOF at 6 feet with the 85L is ~1 inch and more like ~1.5 inch with the 85/1.8. I agree with Jimmy on this one. Pull out a short tele for this type of portrait. Or stop the 35L down a bit, at least. That said, I have a feeling that the boy's family would like that picture a lot.
Yakim, I think you like being on the edge of everything
Jimmy Ho wrote:
Yakim,
Looks like distance is the primary culprit here. A similiar composition (although different perspective) can be obtained using higher focal lengths with greater depth of field. This is probably why you haven't seen the same problems with a 50mm/85mm.
The point of using the 35/1.4 or any wider angle/larger aperture lens, in my opinion, is for low light photos where you need a wider angle, or for simply any photo where you need to include more in the photo. For your photo above, which is a closeup candid portrait, I would have reached for my 85/1.8 or 70-200 f/2.8L IS and probably shot at around f/2.8 or f/4 and not have to step as close. This would ensure that the subject is entirely in focus, while the background still has a nice creamy bokeh effect.
As I'm sure you have figured out, you will not be successful by focusing and recomposing at f/1.4. Have you tried focusing manually? Not that the variables this introduces are any less prone to error.... If nothing else, this supports the strategy of taking lots of shots to increase the likelihood of getting what you want .
I may be stating the obvious here, but if the object of your exposure is perpendicular to you (as is this child's face) you will want more depth of field...
