Graininess w/ 50mm.

NateS · Aug 13, 2010

Maybe...just maybe the culprit is the change in DOF. I find that OOF areas show grain more than in focus areas. With your kit lens, you couldn't open the aperture as wide meaning that more of the image was in focus. Now you have areas that are completely out of focus and blurred together and those types of areas show grain more in my experiences.

In macro (what I shoot) if I bump to say ISO 800, I get a lot more grain than base, but 90% of that grain is in the blurred background areas.

On your first shot and crop....I see absolutely no grain at all...not sure what you see there. ....On the second shot I don't see much grain, but what I do see is in the blurred background portions. If you are seeing "grain" on the main subject, then you might be mistaking added detail from a sharper lens for grain..?

Edit: I can clearly see the pores on the skin and small hairs in the skin on the 50mm f1.4 shots and I can't see anything like that on your kit lens shots you just posted. I'm betting it's the fact that there is more detail, not more grain.

cailinp · Aug 13, 2010

NateS said:
Maybe...just maybe the culprit is the change in DOF. I find that OOF areas show grain more than in focus areas. With your kit lens, you couldn't open the aperture as wide meaning that more of the image was in focus. Now you have areas that are completely out of focus and blurred together and those types of areas show grain more in my experiences.

In macro (what I shoot) if I bump to say ISO 800, I get a lot more grain than base, but 90% of that grain is in the blurred background areas.

On your first shot and crop....I see absolutely no grain at all...not sure what you see there. ....On the second shot I don't see much grain, but what I do see is in the blurred background portions. If you are seeing "grain" on the main subject, then you might be mistaking added detail from a sharper lens for grain..?

Very, very good point. I guess I just wasn't expecting that. The eye whites in my other photos always seemed "smooth". The ones with the 50mm seem so grainy to me. But it could be due to more sharpness and detailing showing through. Hmmm.

Edit: I can clearly see the pores on the skin and small hairs in the skin on the 50mm f1.4 shots and I can't see anything like that on your kit lens shots you just posted. I'm betting it's the fact that there is more detail, not more grain.

Very, very good point. I guess I just wasn't expecting that. The eye whites in my other photos always seemed "smooth". The ones with the 50mm seem so grainy to me. But it could be due to more sharpness and detailing showing through. Hmmm.

Josh66 · Aug 13, 2010

NateS said:
On your first shot and crop....I see absolutely no grain at all...not sure what you see there. ....On the second shot I don't see much grain, but what I do see is in the blurred background portions. If you are seeing "grain" on the main subject, then you might be mistaking added detail from a sharper lens for grain..?

Edit: I can clearly see the pores on the skin and small hairs in the skin on the 50mm f1.4 shots and I can't see anything like that on your kit lens shots you just posted. I'm betting it's the fact that there is more detail, not more grain.

That's pretty much the same thing I was thinking - especially on the first one.

I think you might be confusing the skin texture with grain.

benlonghair · Aug 13, 2010

cailinp said:
Am I just being way to critical?

IMHO, yes.

tirediron · Aug 13, 2010

cailinp said:
Am I just being way to critical?

That's my guess.

cailinp · Aug 13, 2010

Another example. The only difference in these photos is the aperture. Both at 50mm and ISO 250. They non grain is with my 18-55 kit lens.

_DSC0310-2-2 by CailinP, on Flickr

DSC_0036-2-3 by CailinP, on Flickr

Josh66 · Aug 13, 2010

The first one looks slightly out of focus.

The second one looks pretty sharp. Are these what you consider grainy?

Robin Usagani · Aug 13, 2010

why do you like ISO 250 so much? Is it really necessary to be that high? Just wondering.

djacobox372 · Aug 13, 2010

Your kit lens just has less contrast and isn't as sharp, which smooths the image more.

Better lenses have higher contrast and are sharper, I really don't see any noticeable grain in your 50mm shots, just crispy sharp images.

Aayria · Aug 13, 2010

It takes a while to get used to how tack sharp the 50mm can be. It's also a bit more difficult to get a correct, even exposure shooting wide open. I've shot almost every day with my 50 since I got it, and I still struggle with this at times. Bottom line, when your exposure and focus are dead on, this lens will amaze you. But if your exposure and focus are off by even a hair, it's much more obvious to a critical eye, and will drive you to keep at it...which is a good thing! =)

Enjoy the lens!

cailinp · Aug 13, 2010

Aayria said:
It takes a while to get used to how tack sharp the 50mm can be. It's also a bit more difficult to get a correct, even exposure shooting wide open. I've shot almost every day with my 50 since I got it, and I still struggle with this at times. Bottom line, when your exposure and focus are dead on, this lens will amaze you. But if your exposure and focus are off by even a hair, it's much more obvious to a critical eye, and will drive you to keep at it...which is a good thing! =)

Enjoy the lens!

Thanks. I love your work so I'm glad to hear from you! Any tips for mastering exposure and focus with the 50?

KmH · Aug 13, 2010

The difference in the photos you have posted is the exposures.

The first ones you posted are somewhat underexposed and the second set are somewhat over exposed.

Underexposure results in more image noise.

Google ETTR - Expose to the right.

invisible · Aug 13, 2010

NateS said:
Maybe...just maybe the culprit is the change in DOF. I find that OOF areas show grain more than in focus areas. With your kit lens, you couldn't open the aperture as wide meaning that more of the image was in focus. Now you have areas that are completely out of focus and blurred together and those types of areas show grain more in my experiences.

I was scanning the thread to see if someone had already posted this. Look no further, the above is the main reason for the extra noise you see. Using high ISO coupled with ultra-wide apertures is a slippery slope, especially if you're shooting with a full-frame camera. You will always notice more noise in the out-of-focus areas.

A simple test would be to crank the ISO quite a bit (say, 1600), and then take the same shot using five or six different apertures, from ultra wide to stopped down quite a bit. (Make sure to do this in a fairly well-illuminated room.) Then take a look at the interplay of bokeh and noise in each of the images.

Someone also commented on this lens being sharper and more contrasty than your kit lens. I agree that this makes the noise more noticeable as well.