This topic is in the 2008 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 200835/1.4 – This is ridiculous
p.1 #135/1.4 – This is ridiculous
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.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
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.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
 |
||
 |
||
|
Jan 19, 2008 at 01:38 AM
p.1 #235/1.4 – This is ridiculous
100% crop. No PP.
Edited by Yakim Peled on Jan 19, 2008 at 10:45 AM GMT
Edited on Jan 19, 2008 at 01:45 AM
Edited by Yakim Peled on Jan 19, 2008 at 10:45 AM GMT
|
||
 |
||
|
Edited on Jan 19, 2008 at 01:45 AM
Jan 19, 2008 at 01:40 AM
p.1 #435/1.4 – This is ridiculous
Wow yeah, you can see why AF picked that area, specifically. That is some amazingly thin DOF!
Looks like it's gonna take some work to master AF with that lens!
Looks like it's gonna take some work to master AF with that lens!
Jan 19, 2008 at 01:43 AM
p.1 #535/1.4 – This is ridiculous
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.
Edited on Jan 19, 2008 at 01:50 AM
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.
Edited on Jan 19, 2008 at 01:50 AM
Jan 19, 2008 at 01:49 AM
p.1 #635/1.4 – This is ridiculous
I'll try it on the 1D. I think my chances of getting it right might improve. I need any AF help I can get.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Jan 19, 2008 at 01:51 AM
p.1 #735/1.4 – This is ridiculous
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.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Jan 19, 2008 at 01:55 AM
p.1 #835/1.4 – This is ridiculous
hey, that's nothing! try the 50mm 1.2, and then, to top it off the 85mm 1.2. DOF is so narrow, you have to focus on a single eyelash...
Jan 19, 2008 at 02:41 AM
p.1 #935/1.4 – This is ridiculous
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*)
Edited on Jan 19, 2008 at 07:27 AM
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*)
Edited on Jan 19, 2008 at 07:27 AM
Jan 19, 2008 at 04:21 AM
p.1 #1035/1.4 – This is ridiculous
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.
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.
Jan 19, 2008 at 04:22 AM
p.1 #1135/1.4 – This is ridiculous
Agree with Jimmy's post.
Yakim- thanks for sharing.
Yakim- thanks for sharing.
Jan 19, 2008 at 04:31 AM
p.1 #1235/1.4 – This is ridiculous
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.
Jan 19, 2008 at 07:23 AM
p.1 #1335/1.4 – This is ridiculous
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
Edited on Jan 19, 2008 at 07:58 AM
Edited by J Andersen on Jan 19, 2008 at 02:58 PM GMT
Edited on Jan 19, 2008 at 07:58 AM
Jan 19, 2008 at 07:56 AM
p.1 #1435/1.4 – This is ridiculous
shrink1 wrote:
hey, that's nothing! try the 50mm 1.2, and then, to top it off the 85mm 1.2. DOF is so narrow, you have to focus on a single eyelash...
With my 85 1.2 I have to foucs on the front of an eyelash to have the far side of the same lash in focus
hey, that's nothing! try the 50mm 1.2, and then, to top it off the 85mm 1.2. DOF is so narrow, you have to focus on a single eyelash...
With my 85 1.2 I have to foucs on the front of an eyelash to have the far side of the same lash in focus
Jan 19, 2008 at 07:57 AM
p.1 #1535/1.4 – This is ridiculous
Yakim Peled wrote:
It's not the lens, it's me.
Yakim,
I'm full of admiration for the fact that:
a) you didn't automatically rush to print with the assumption that the problem must be with the lens; and that
b) you were man enough to admit your eventual findings.
We need more of that...
Edited on Jan 19, 2008 at 09:26 AM
It's not the lens, it's me.
Yakim,
I'm full of admiration for the fact that:
a) you didn't automatically rush to print with the assumption that the problem must be with the lens; and that
b) you were man enough to admit your eventual findings.
We need more of that...
Edited on Jan 19, 2008 at 09:26 AM
Jan 19, 2008 at 09:24 AM
p.1 #1635/1.4 – This is ridiculous
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...Show more →
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...Show more →
Jan 19, 2008 at 09:28 AM
p.1 #1735/1.4 – This is ridiculous
Yakim,
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.
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
.Jan 19, 2008 at 09:32 AM
p.1 #1835/1.4 – This is ridiculous
Yakim Peled wrote:
Well, yesterday I got the answer. It's not the lens, it's me.
Yakim.
Thankfully not another "my lens is backfocusing" post.
I am also challenged when I use this lens, but I wouldn't give it up for anything.
Good post, Yakim.
Well, yesterday I got the answer. It's not the lens, it's me.
Yakim.
Thankfully not another "my lens is backfocusing" post.
I am also challenged when I use this lens, but I wouldn't give it up for anything.
Good post, Yakim.
Jan 19, 2008 at 09:54 AM
p.1 #1935/1.4 – This is ridiculous
Yakim, I see a 50 f/1.0 in your future.
Edited on Jan 19, 2008 at 09:55 AM
Edited on Jan 19, 2008 at 09:55 AM
Jan 19, 2008 at 09:55 AM
p.1 #2035/1.4 – This is ridiculous
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...
Jan 19, 2008 at 10:03 AM