Well, I like the picture. It probably should have been spot focussed on the near eye and a slightly stopped down aperture (f3-4 or so) would have brought the model's right eye more into focus and still kept nice background blur. I also like the softness but it may be more due to shake! I would try using Manual more and try different combinations - its fun with a patient victim. DSorry, should have said, with f1.8 or f2 teh focus has to be spot on. I have the Canon nifty fifty and its great fun but very sharp - so you will be very sharp in the wrong place if not spot on!

I play golf and photograph the same way, which means the intended focal point is the right or left ear!

Another thing to note: Proximity to the subject will affect the DoF as well. The closer you are to the subject (and closer to minimum focus distance you are) the thinner the DoF. Conversely, the closer you are to hyperfocal focus (infinity) the wider the DoF is. The best illustration I can give is macro photography. The DoF is incredibly thin (on the order of millimeters, sometimes) even with a relatively closed aperture. This has its upsides and downsides. The obvious downside is that focus is more difficult when up close and at a wide aperture, sometimes necessitating a few steps backward. On the plus side, you can always stop down for tight crops to F/2.8 or even f/4 to increase the DoF which helps focus and still maintain a fair amount of background blur and bokeh.

DOF is the enemy... Not the lens.. per sey...

Simple to understand, and under 10K words.

Shoot the same image, at the far end. Same pose, same lens. Compare..

Wow! I've never gotten so many responses to a picture before I should just rip them out of camera and throw them on here more often !!! ^^;;;


Seriously though, thank you all for your answers. I am going to make my wife pose for a few experiments here in about an hour - will post those results. I am going to try it again at the same distance with different aperatures.


You think this picture is over exposed? hm. I need to get a light meter. =/

Ian Bower wrote:
Wow! I've never gotten so many responses to a picture before I should just rip them out of camera and throw them on here more often !!! ^^;;;


Seriously though, thank you all for your answers. I am going to make my wife pose for a few experiments here in about an hour - will post those results. I am going to try it again at the same distance with different aperatures.


You think this picture is over exposed? hm. I need to get a light meter. =/

... well everyone loves to talk about gear and specs whether they admit it or not

I used to own the 50/1.8. I found it to be a sharp lens wide open; not as sharp as say 35L or 135L... but certainly not soft. As mentioned, when shooting at 1.8 the dof is thin, so you have to adjust accordingly. Longer lenses (85, 135 for example) are actually a little easier to use wide open since you are further away from the subject most of the time.

BTW, I found the AF on the fantastic plastic unreliable and sold it for the 50/1.4 - which I didn't find much better. Eventually I sold that one and ended up with the 35L.

I'd heard rave reviews about the Canon 50mm f/1.8 so I bought one to check if it really was that fantastic. NOT. Contrast is so so, wide open it's soft. I think most of those opinions came from people with kit zoom lenses who'd never experience the beauty of high end glass. Perhaps this is the same for the Nikon f/1.8.

People have already made the comment about shooting 1/60 second. Without a tripod and a static subject you're going to have problems often.

Focus and recompose MAY be another culprit here but if you look at the image 100% zoom you should be able to see where the lens focused and whether or not that area is sharp and contrasty. I'm guessing you might be disappointed.

Btw, I focus and recompose at f/1.2 on my 85L all the time. With experience you will get much more accurate.

Ian Bower wrote:
Wow! I've never gotten so many responses to a picture before I should just rip them out of camera and throw them on here more often !!! ^^;;;


Seriously though, thank you all for your answers. I am going to make my wife pose for a few experiments here in about an hour - will post those results. I am going to try it again at the same distance with different aperatures.


You think this picture is over exposed? hm. I need to get a light meter. =/

You don't need light meter. You can just see that the face is very pale without the surface texture, and especially the further side of her face looks solid white.

You should keep checking the histogram and see how much is clipped out. In this shot I guess only the face matters and it's the brightest area of the frame, so you can clip blacks but you mustn't clip the highlights at all.

Michael Sessio wrote:
I'd heard rave reviews about the Canon 50mm f/1.8 so I bought one to check if it really was that fantastic. NOT. Contrast is so so, wide open it's soft. I think most of those opinions came from people with kit zoom lenses who'd never experience the beauty of high end glass. Perhaps this is the same for the Nikon f/1.8.

The praise is more about cost/benefit. The 50mm f/1.8 is the cheapest new lens in the Canon lineup. Every other 1987-era prime is at least $150 more expensive and the cheapest zoom (18-55 IS) is at least $50 more expensive.

If you're comparing the "plastic fantastic" to an L prime, of course you're going to be disappointed (especially considering the 85 f/1.2 is 18-20x more expensive). The 50 f/1.8 is soft at f/1.8 (it's to be expected with a cheap prime), but sharpens up remarkably by f/2.8. Moreover, the softness of the f/1.8 doesn't render the lens unusable either.

Jacob D wrote:
Ian Bower wrote:
Wow! I've never gotten so many responses to a picture before I should just rip them out of camera and throw them on here more often !!! ^^;;;


Seriously though, thank you all for your answers. I am going to make my wife pose for a few experiments here in about an hour - will post those results. I am going to try it again at the same distance with different aperatures.


You think this picture is over exposed? hm. I need to get a light meter. =/

... well everyone loves to talk about gear and specs whether they admit it or not

I used to own the 50/1.8. I found it to be a sharp lens wide open; not as sharp as say 35L or 135L... but certainly not soft. As mentioned, when shooting at 1.8 the dof is thin, so you have to adjust accordingly. Longer lenses (85, 135 for example) are actually a little easier to use wide open since you are further away from the subject most of the time.

BTW, I found the AF on the fantastic plastic unreliable and sold it for the 50/1.4 - which I didn't find much better. Eventually I sold that one and ended up with the 35L.


thanks Jacob. 50mm is a lot Narrower than I thought it was going to be anyway =/ I bought the 50mm thinking I would use it as a walk around. Light, Fast, Sharp, it sounded perfect.

Now i'm not so sure.

I am thinking about getting a 35 mm Prime as a walk around. the Idea is that I want to force myself to use only one focal length in the interest of making myself see differently. Instead of being able to rely on a zoom you know?

Anyway - I digress. Pretty soon here I am gunna go do some shooting

Thanks for your comments.

jdben622 wrote:
^ comparing a $500 macro lens to a $100 plastic-o?


Naw, you can get it for $300. Anyways, I dunno much about Canon/Nikon lenses, just what I've heard and read (dpreview, etc.).

Ian Bower wrote:
thanks Jacob. 50mm is a lot Narrower than I thought it was going to be anyway =/ I bought the 50mm thinking I would use it as a walk around. Light, Fast, Sharp, it sounded perfect.

That's what I thought at first, but I just didn't use it much on my Rebel. However, once I got my 5D, the 50 f/1.8 became a great lens for general photography.

I know that Nikon makes a 35mm f/1.8G which is supposed be to the crop cameras what the 50mm f/1.8 was to the film cameras of yore.

Focus for the eye and I would also suggest spot metering for the face.

Mind if I ask what you mean by spot metering?

Ian Bower wrote:
Mind if I ask what you mean by spot metering?


It's a different metering mode. Spot metering will only measure the light on the active AF point. Other metering modes includes center weighted and average metering. I recommend reading your instruction manual for your camera to learn about metering modes.

kakomu wrote:
Ian Bower wrote:
Mind if I ask what you mean by spot metering?


It's a different metering mode. Spot metering will only measure the light on the active AF point. Other metering modes includes center weighted and average metering. I recommend reading your instruction manual for your camera to learn about metering modes.


Holy Crap. Just when I think I have all of the buttons and knobs figured out!!! I'm going to go find it right now!!

hi,
i'm using 50 1.8 as my walk around lens.
for me, i found that this lens is 50-50.
sometimes sharp enough to satisfy my newbies level.
and sometimes soft.

and i found it most of the soft part because of low light.
and anyway. you used 1/60th shutter speed, dont you think camera shake could caused this??
and also, at 1.8, there was a possibility you moved yourself a bit between AF confirm and shutter click, hence the "almost sharp" hair focus.. coz that's what always happened to me.

anyway, i just had my shot that i think the most sharpest that i ever got.. pm me if you want to see. wont dare to post the pic here.. still new :P

Ian Bower wrote:
Mind if I ask what you mean by spot metering?


In any situation where the camera is not metering what is under the active AF point make sure you understand what it is metering. If you are in any of the auto-exposure (not "M") modes this is important to grasp. You may want to meter off a face, but inadvertently meter off a wall instead, or vice versa etc... This is where you need to AE lock or use other button customization (I don't know what Nikon offers) that allows you to separate AF and/or AE from the shutter release.

kakomu wrote:
Ian Bower wrote:
Mind if I ask what you mean by spot metering?


It's a different metering mode. Spot metering will only measure the light on the active AF point. Other metering modes includes center weighted and average metering. I recommend reading your instruction manual for your camera to learn about metering modes.

Depends on the camera, actually. Lower end Nikons meter off the center focus point no matter which focus point is active.

I took some test shots with the 50 1.8

I put it on a tripod and set it to aperature priority. I stopped down 1.8 - 8.0

It seems like the Lens took the best shot at 4.5 at 2.5 feet from my subject

I'm so glad I found this thread. Controlling the DoF is one of the thing that's bothering a newbie like me. I'm still learning but I feel like I'm getting better. An yes, Ian, a handy DoF calculator is very useful. I use an Android phone and there are a few programs (FREE).