Help me decide...

ScottMac · Oct 20, 2013

sarah_19_nz said:
I think my main problem is that I don't have much room (studio space) I have a max of 4 meters between me and the model. This is quite limiting right? an 85mm would be too long?? even at 70mm I don't think i could get back far enough?

Sarah, you seem to be tackling the problem from the wrong angle... If you have a whole bunch of issues and want to solve each and every one with a "perfect solution", then you need to start with the one issue that seems to be the CAUSE of many of the other issues...... RESTRICTED SPACE IN YOUR STUDIO ..... solve this one, and the lens selection is no longer defined by the restrictions brought on by limited space. If you are unable to resolve this space issue, all other decisions (lenses or otherwise) will simply become compromises to (in your eyes) a perfect solution to your current concerns - Good Luck :wink:

TheFantasticG · Oct 20, 2013

Just read the op and not the rest of the thread

58 1.4G
Or
85 1.4G

And a really awesome tripod.

Bam.

/thread

pgriz · Oct 20, 2013

sarah_19_nz said:
I think my main problem is that I don't have much room (studio space) I have a max of 4 meters between me and the model. This is quite limiting right? an 85mm would be too long?? even at 70mm I don't think i could get back far enough?

That's when you open the door and go into the hallway.

sarah_19_nz · Oct 20, 2013

O.K... Do I have the permission to post some example photos here so you can see what I mean about my 50mm 1.8d (or my technique) just NOT doing it's job?? I took some more snaps of just my family yesterday and I am still not happy. I want opinions on WHAT is the problem... ME or the lens, or the camera?

sarah_19_nz · Oct 20, 2013

ScottMac said:
sarah_19_nz said:

I think my main problem is that I don't have much room (studio space) I have a max of 4 meters between me and the model. This is quite limiting right? an 85mm would be too long?? even at 70mm I don't think i could get back far enough?

Click to expand...

Sarah, you seem to be tackling the problem from the wrong angle... If you have a whole bunch of issues and want to solve each and every one with a "perfect solution", then you need to start with the one issue that seems to be the CAUSE of many of the other issues...... RESTRICTED SPACE IN YOUR STUDIO ..... solve this one, and the lens selection is no longer defined by the restrictions brought on by limited space. If you are unable to resolve this space issue, all other decisions (lenses or otherwise) will simply become compromises to (in your eyes) a perfect solution to your current concerns - Good Luck

really my main problem/issue is that my photos are not tack sharp like I would expect them to be with my 50mm 1.8d. The 'Space' restriction I mentioned was when people were suggesting an 84mm or a 70-200mm zoom lens, in this case my 4 meter long studio space isn't enough but for a 50mm it is plenty!... I want to know if changing/updating my lens will help my images gain clarity and crispness. Orrr perhaps it is just my bad technique.

odagled · Oct 20, 2013

35-70mm 2.8D is really sharp. Before I had my 85mm 1.8G I used to shoot the 35-70mm at 70mm at f4 for portraits.

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum

sarah_19_nz · Oct 20, 2013

Not sure if I am allowed to post a link to some pics so you can see???... admin don't hesitate to remove if necessary. Flickr: sarah_19_nz's Photostream

Photo 1: Using plenty of window light. Sharp enough viewed at 50% but at 100% not tack sharp. Why can't the eyes be TACK sharp at 100%?? (please don't tell me I had to use an f stop of at least 3.5!)... (F2.8 ISO 125 Shutter 100)

Photo2: Using studio lights, and RIGHT up in his face TACK sharp right? But I don't want to get this close to my clients! Also f stop of 11 but sometimes/mostly I want a shallow depth of field for that bokeh ...(F11, ISO 200 Shutter 100)

Photo 3: Take in open shade, plenty of light, not tack sharp, plenty of noise at 100% ...(F.3.5, ISO 200, Shutter 320)

Photo 4: Taken in open shade, clear enough at 100% but not crystal clear.... (f 4.5, Shutter 320, ISO 125)

Sooooo in conclusion I feel like I need to have AMAZING light (studio lighting) and/or be at an fstop of at least 6-7 or greater to get TACK sharp images using my 50mm 1.8d. What if I want to take a photo at an F stop of say 3.5 so I have a nice shallow depth of field and beautiful bokeh? What am 'I' doing wrong? I'm sure other people have clearer images than this? or am I being silly and expecting too much? Perhaps it is just my inability to choose the correct settings? I thought I was getting pretty good at that though

. Tell me what you think? DO you think a different lens would give me different/more pleasing results? Or do I need to learn to use my 50mm to its greater potential.?

THANKS in advance.

PaulWog · Oct 20, 2013

sarah_19_nz said:
Not sure if I am allowed to post a link to some pics so you can see???... admin don't hesitate to remove if necessary. Flickr: sarah_19_nz's Photostream

Photo 1: Using plenty of window light. Sharp enough viewed at 50% but at 100% not tack sharp. Why can't the eyes be TACK sharp at 100%?? (please don't tell me I had to use an f stop of at least 3.5!)... (F2.8 ISO 125 Shutter 100)

Photo2: Using studio lights, and RIGHT up in his face TACK sharp right? But I don't want to get this close to my clients! Also f stop of 11 but sometimes/mostly I want a shallow depth of field for that bokeh ...(F11, ISO 200 Shutter 100)

Photo 3: Take in open shade, plenty of light, not tack sharp, plenty of noise at 100% ...(F.3.5, ISO 200, Shutter 320)

Photo 4: Taken in open shade, clear enough at 100% but not crystal clear.... (f 4.5, Shutter 320, ISO 125)

Sooooo in conclusion I feel like I need to have AMAZING light (studio lighting) and/or be at an fstop of at least 6-7 or greater to get TACK sharp images using my 50mm 1.8d. What if I want to take a photo at an F stop of say 3.5 so I have a nice shallow depth of field and beautiful bokeh? What am 'I' doing wrong? I'm sure other people have clearer images than this? or am I being silly and expecting too much? Perhaps it is just my inability to choose the correct settings? I thought I was getting pretty good at that though . Tell me what you think? DO you think a different lens would give me different/more pleasing results? Or do I need to learn to use my 50mm to its greater potential.?

THANKS in advance.

Here's what I see... and I don't really have the answer to everything.

Photo 1: Looks a smidge front-focused from the eyes (very negligible). More-so, it looks like your 1/100 shutter speed resulted in a little bit of shake blur (just enough to not get the tack sharp look).

Photo 2: So no problems with this photo right?

Photo 3: Did you upload the original JPEG from the camera, or perhaps an edited RAW file? You can end up getting noise in a shot once you start editing the photo (ex. if you bump the exposure value up in lightroom). Otherwise, I'm stumped and I'd like to know the answer too.

Photo 4: The rear of the pink pool looks to be tack sharp, the rest looks off. I'm not sure.

sarah_19_nz · Oct 20, 2013

PaulWog said:
Here's what I see... and I don't really have the answer to everything.

Photo 1: Looks a smidge front-focused from the eyes (very negligible). More-so, it looks like your 1/100 shutter speed resulted in a little bit of shake blur (just enough to not get the tack sharp look).

Photo 2: So no problems with this photo right?

Photo 3: Did you upload the original JPEG from the camera, or perhaps an edited RAW file? You can end up getting noise in a shot once you start editing the photo (ex. if you bump the exposure value up in lightroom). Otherwise, I'm stumped and I'd like to know the answer too.

Photo 4: The rear of the pink pool looks to be tack sharp, the rest looks off. I'm not sure.

Photos shot in RAW, opened in lightroom. Only VERY minor adjustments made, in fact I think just white balance adjusted and nothing more. If I DO touch the exposure it is always a TINY slide across. I am SO careful with my focusing (placement, always on the eyes), I have even fine tuned it in camera. I have a steady hand and usually brace the camera onto my body somehow for even more stability. I agree that photo one is probably some shake, should have bumped the shutter up and used a smaller aperture)

Thanks for looking!

sarah_19_nz · Oct 20, 2013

GAH I am even more angry today, even with my studio setup my images are still soft! I wonder if it could be my camera? although I have checked the AF fine tuning. I'll use my mums d90 tomorrow and do some more testing.

tirediron · Oct 20, 2013

You can post all of your own shots you want!

tirediron · Oct 20, 2013

Looking very carefully at the images you've linked to, the point of focus does indeed appear tack sharp, but you're using large apertures, and therefore, your DoF is relatively shallow. For instance, using a 50mm lens at f2.8, your DoF is only 4"; if your focus is on one eye, and the face is at a 45 degree angle to the lens axis, it would be easy for the far side of the face to be soft. Do a test series at f8-11 and see if you like the results better. You can use very shallow DoF, but it takes practice, and to get it right, you need to have the composition and point of focus spot on. I don't think there are any gear issues here.

sarah_19_nz · Oct 20, 2013

Just now...test... 50mm with d7000. Was even 'softer' with my kit lens on for comparison. Shot using 2 soft boxes in studio setting, plenty of light. (f7.1, shutter 200, iso 200)

Help me understand what I'm doing wrong?

tirediron · Oct 20, 2013

Are you shooting raw or jpg? raw images almost always need some degree of sharpening in post, if .jpg, what are your in-camera settings? Where was the point of focus for that image?