Focus issues with the 50mm lens

[Wuzzygirl]

i've been having some real focus issues with my 50mm lens. I love to shoot with the aperture wide open in natural light but it's so hard to nail the focus. I've been practicing a LOT and i see a little progress anyway *grins*

These were all taken at f/3.5 and ss 1/80.

TFL

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h50/Wuzzygirl/Landon.jpg

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h50/Wuzzygirl/Landon_2.jpg

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h50/Wuzzygirl/Savannah-1.jpg

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h50/Wuzzygirl/savannah_2-1.jpg

[Christine]

are you talking about the background of the pictures being fuzzy? They look pretty good to me. As far as I know, the lower the F-stop the shallower your depth of field, so it is a matter of focusing in on your subject, but then anything behind or in front will be out of focus. Personally, I take mine to an F1.8 on something like a flower, or a portrait, since it really makes a nice focus on your subject. Feel free to discount anything I say about photography, however, because I am just learning, myself. :D

[Christine]

and btw, the little girl (dd?) has gorgeous eyes!

[Wuzzygirl]

*grins* i never discount anything that anyone passes along to me. that is the only way you learn and i am always learning. If not for Jennifer, I would have given up my camera a year ago. but she encouraged and advised and taught and i love her :)

I know that the larger the f stop, the shallower the depth of field. I've been working on focusing with the wide open aperture because i've seen others take gorgeous photos with this lens wide open and i'm determined that i'm gonna be able to do it LOL...did i mention that i'm stubborn? *grins*

thanks for the compliment on Savannah's eyes. she is my great-niece and the little boy is my grandson Landon. when they see my camera, they automatically grin at me. i've trained them well LOL

[Tina]

Both gorgeous children, and lovely photos.

I DO know what you mean about having focusing issues /w the 50mm tho.

You'll think you are perfectly focused and it looks good on the lcd, but once you pop them in the computer, they are fuzzy.

Just practice, that's the best advice i have to get used to the nifty 50!

[maryjos]

Keep in mind that the closer you are to the subject, the narrower the DOF is as well. So if you are shooting from far back with a 200mm at f/2.8 you will have a lot more of the subject in focus than if you are using a 50mm at f/2.8 with the same amount of subject in the frame. This is why if you take a 1:1 macro shot of a flower you often need something like f/8 to get a single flower all in focus. Also you don't mention what camera you are using and how you have the focus sensors set (or maybe you are doing manual focus?), but I very often use just the center focus point so I can precisely control what the camera focuses on. Otherwise, particularly if you have a narrow DOF to begin with, you may find your shots have the wrong area in focus versus the part you consider most important (the face for portraits for instance.)

[Karen]

I think you nailed the focus on the 3rd one Pam, her eyes look sharp as, the other photo of her looks pretty good too :)

On the first one the focus is on his arm, and on the second his jeans and shoe look pretty sharp, keep at it and you will keep improving :)

[Emma]

I hate to say it, but my Nikons have had the same issue of not focusing where I lock. Jennifer mentioned her Canon is better about focusing on the lock and not wandering off! So we just have a bit more of a challenge with this. One thing to remember is shooting children with a very narrow DoF is HARD because if they move AT ALL you get blur.
However, what seems to be happening here is not that, but the camera just not grabbing what you lock on. Be extra vigilant there, be very precise about what's in the center when you lock your focus (I aim for the nearest eye very carefully). But with moving kids, sometimes you have to be too fast, and that imprecise lock can give you in focus arms or jeans, and OOF faces.

Maryjos, correct me, but it's my understanding that the DoF is narrower the longer the focal length. So if you back up, you need to zoom in to crop the same shot, which gives you a narrower field. Doesn't that negate getting a wider DoF by getting farther away?

[maryjos]

Maryjos, correct me, but it's my understanding that the DoF is narrower the longer the focal length. So if you back up, you need to zoom in to crop the same shot, which gives you a narrower field. Doesn't that negate getting a wider DoF by getting farther away?

Yes, sorry for mis-stating that a bit. All things being equal, the wide angle will have more apparent DOF. But the further back you are, the more DOF you will get as well. The end result, if the image is kept the same size in the viewfinder is that the two basically cancel each other out and you get pretty much the same amount of DOF at all focal lengths (not more as I stated, sorry). What I find though is that you have less issues with the focus changing the further back you are (this is mostly an issue with subjects moving towards you), and the flattening of the image that you get with a telephoto also tends to work to your advantage for portraits. Also note that with true wide angles, the area that is in focus is about two times more in the back of the focus point versus in front of it. This is great for landscapes, but not so much what you want with portraits. Lots of things to consider for sure!

[maryjos]

One other thing I should mention to be careful with is changing the zoom length after you have locked the focus. Obviously this won't be an issue with the 50mm, but I do see this a lot when people are using a zoom, they forget to zoom *first* and then focus and as a result, it isn't quite right.

[Emma]

I do like the 50 for indoor, close portraits, but I really prefer the 85mm, even indoors if I can back up enough. I love the short telephotos, most of my shots' EXIF data shows I usually shoot around 65-100 (I take mostly portraits).

But I do think this is more of an issue with the Nikon, and we just have to be really careful we lock precisely and do not move, or relock if the subject moves even a little. Slows down the process, though. If you're using a flash, you have to wait for it to recharge anyway, so no fast "modeling" shots! If you want to shoot fast, you can't use such a narrow DoF. Locking focus is just too critical.

[maryjos]

Yes, around 80-100mm is my sweet spot for portraits as well. Part of it too is that I like really candid shots and that's a little easier to do if you aren't too close. :)

[Emma]

well, in summary of the sum total of the sum of my knowledge on this subject, I don't think it's the lens! I think it's the camera and the narrow DoF. I have this issue with all my lenses, so does Jennifer, tho not as much as me, which gives me hope that skill will overcome!

[Wuzzygirl]

*grins* when you said that you didn't think it was the lens, I was SURE you think it was just me Emma LOL! I get really good photos with this lens and a smaller aperture. I just want to learn how to use it wide open and get what i want in focus. I think with the pictures of Landon, he was moving and i was much closer to him than i was Savannah, therefore, most of him is OOF. Of course, Savannah just stands still and smiles for me when i want to take her picture. I call Landon my little tornado *grins*. 'nuf said LOL

Thanks to all of you for responding. This place is just awesome for the sharing of info and knowledge.

[Emma]

LOL!, Yeah, it's just you.

You CAN get nice narrow DoF shots with this setup, but you have to shoot more precisely. Really be careful about locking focus, and don't lament missing shots because the kids are moving quickly. It won't matter if you catch them if they're OOF. Each shot has to be methodical. Really focus on that near eye, and try the different focus modes on the camera to see which you prefer.

[Avril]

wow I think you nailed it with the 3rd photo Pam...I too am trying hard to focus properly...so I found this thread very interesting!!!