Elijah wrote:
Set your AF to continuous AF mode. Then go to menu and select for "AF-ON button only" for focusing (forgot the exact words, I don't have the camera on me) and just use the AF-ON button to focus, take your thumb off the AF-ON button, recompose & shoot.
I've been using this method for years now and that's the way I shoot 98% of the time, especially at weddings.
Great. That is how I am currently set up. But how do I actually do the recompose part? Do I move my body and the camera on the same plane? The DOF is so thin that if I just pivot the camera, the focus plane misses my target.
Related, I should set my camera such that the exposure is calculated when I press the shutter after the recompose?
chuhsi1 wrote:
Great. That is how I am currently set up. But how do I actually do the recompose part? Do I move my body and the camera on the same plane? The DOF is so thin that if I just pivot the camera, the focus plane misses my target.
Related, I should set my camera such that the exposure is calculated when I press the shutter after the recompose?
Yes, you literally rotate the camera body CCW or CW, making sure the camera sensor stays on the SAME axis (think of a vertical axis that goes right in the center of the sensor)
You basically want to keep your sensor on the same plane, while rotating the camera. I hate explaining things on forums or texts. I wish I could physically show you...
chuhsi1 wrote:
Great. That is how I am currently set up. But how do I actually do the recompose part? Do I move my body and the camera on the same plane? The DOF is so thin that if I just pivot the camera, the focus plane misses my target.
Related, I should set my camera such that the exposure is calculated when I press the shutter after the recompose?
Set the Fn button to lock exposure. That's the only thing that's a pain in the ass about focus/recompose, unless you're shooting manual, you lose the exposure you want.
Jason_Brook wrote:
Here's the kicker; it's not soft by any means.
Guys - I'm not trying to start a fight. Both of you are probably better photographers than I am (been consistently impressed with your work Jason). Here's the thing: I own the 50mm f/1.4G and the 85mm f/1.8G. Both of these lenses are very sharp for me and have really nice bokeh. My keeper rate is high with them. I've shot a bit with the 85 f/1.4G and it seems be just as sharp with better contrast and really nice tone. People seem to get consistently nice results with all three of those lenses.
That said, there are a lot of images in this thread that just look soft to me. Call that pixel-peeping if you want, but it makes me wonder if people are struggling with good technique with a lens that wide open, if the lens is more sensitive for some reason to the variability of body/lens alignment (factory manufacturing variation), if the lens itself doesn't tend to be as sharp as its brothers, if the lens has more sample variation from the factory or even that folks need to fine-tune this lens more than others. Maybe the answer is greater or lesser degrees of several of those?
At the end of the day, some of you are doing some really strong work with this lens, but I see others that look like good intentions but less than they could be. Since that seems to be more true of this specific lens more than any other I've seen, it seems like a fair topic. If you'd rather have that debate outside this thread, I understand it (and will abide), but it isn't named a "shots" thread.
(and fwiw, I'll always take the "get out and shoot" advice! )
The get out a shoot advice worked best for me cause that's when I would find my best shots by pure accident. Then after a while I kept 'accidentally' getting better shots and then Started to realize where I was seriously faulting on technique. Especially with this lens cause this one makes you work for the shot!! Get sigma if you want it easy :P
JAson must have a magic hand and robotic eye cause his shots a fun along with hardcore and Elijah. (We lost Joseph lol). Though im suspecting it's his Df cause his images just went to higher level since throwing away his D4
M635_Guy wrote:
Guys - I'm not trying to start a fight. Both of you are probably better photographers than I am (been consistently impressed with your work Jason). Here's the thing: I own the 50mm f/1.4G and the 85mm f/1.8G. Both of these lenses are very sharp for me and have really nice bokeh. My keeper rate is high with them. I've shot a bit with the 85 f/1.4G and it seems be just as sharp with better contrast and really nice tone. People seem to get consistently nice results with all three of those lenses.
That said, there are a lot of images in this thread that just look soft to me. Call that pixel-peeping if you want, but it makes me wonder if people are struggling with good technique with a lens that wide open, if the lens is more sensitive for some reason to the variability of body/lens alignment (factory manufacturing variation), if the lens itself doesn't tend to be as sharp as its brothers, if the lens has more sample variation from the factory or even that folks need to fine-tune this lens more than others. Maybe the answer is greater or lesser degrees of several of those?
At the end of the day, some of you are doing some really strong work with this lens, but I see others that look like good intentions but less than they could be. Since that seems to be more true of this specific lens more than any other I've seen, it seems like a fair topic. If you'd rather have that debate outside this thread, I understand it (and will abide), but it isn't named a "shots" thread.
(and fwiw, I'll always take the "get out and shoot" advice! )...Show more →
No worries; no fight/argument/debate is happening here.
Here's the reality; the 58 is a finicky lens that requires solid technique for multiple reasons. I'd argue that in regards to focal length, 58mm is going to put people in a thinner DoF than they'd be in with an 85. Assume both wide open; an 58mm at 6ft has a thinner DoF than an 85mm at 10ft. With 50 vs 58, that 8mm of compression in my opinion makes a hell of a difference and I think it amplifies the OOF problems. The 58 as a lens is definitely harder to use than others; the AF does seem to be less consistent than others. It has a lot of CA as well which will really make any OOF image very noticeable (it's called some kind of flare, but the name is slipping me)
M635_Guy wrote:
Why can't the lens be sharp and render beautifully?
Hi Lee!
It IS sharp and renders beautifully. The only distance where it's "hazy" is at MFD, and only at 100%. I think this is inherent to the lens' design. This is not unique to the 58G either, in fact the 70-200 f/4 does the same. It focuses very close (~3 ft) but it's soft at that range.
The 58 1.4G is optimized at medium/portrait distances. This is where the magic happens
That said, there are a lot of images in this thread that just look soft to me. Call that pixel-peeping if you want, but it makes me wonder if people are struggling with good technique with a lens that wide open, if the lens is more sensitive for some reason to the variability of body/lens alignment (factory manufacturing variation), if the lens itself doesn't tend to be as sharp as its brothers, if the lens has more sample variation from the factory or even that folks need to fine-tune this lens more than others. Maybe the answer is greater or lesser degrees of several of those? ...Show more →
A combination of all that. IMO, the 58G has a very steep learning curve. I remember when Jason first got his 58 and was having difficulties at first, but no one seems to remember anymore because he mastered the lens and now just produces fantastic art with it. The 58G is one of those lenses that you have to learn inside and out and know EXACTLY what it can and it can't do. It's not a lens like the 85 1.4G where you point, shoot and go Ohhhhhh bokehhh! The 58 1.4G will make you work on your composition and in today's world of instant gratification, people don't like that.
If I don't forget (or likely just feel too lazy) when I get home I'll post up some mfd i took recently of my boy at the ferry bulding in SF. Where readers are invited to count eyelashes.
.............But how do I actually do the recompose part? Do I move my body and the camera on the same plane? The DOF is so thin that if I just pivot the camera, the focus plane misses my target.
Related, I should set my camera such that the exposure is calculated when I press the shutter after the recompose?
I'll share my very simple and lousy technique if anyone's interested
I don't use AF-On..I only use center AF point, half-press the shutter button to acquire focus, then hold the AE/AF-L to lock both exposure and focus, then compose and shoot. As long as you don't move the camera back and forth, you'll be ok.
My settings are: AF-C, Release priority, set a3 to off and Single point. That's it.
Also, you need to learn when to press the shutter. When you hear the lens focusing (wzzt wzzt..) you need to know WHEN it has actually landed the focus. With AF-C, the lens sometimes chatters as it constantly "fine tune" the focus. You need to know exactly when to shoot. This is the difference between getting a focused shot vs a defocused shot with this lens.
See, with manual focus glass you won't have to worry about any of these
)
