Beginner Focus on 35mm 1.8

Ok that image is amazing, every time I think yes I'm getting their albeit shuffling slowly, I learn I know absolutely nothing and actually I suck! Practice practice practice it is! X
 
Lauraloo83 said:
Ok that image is amazing, every time I think yes I'm getting their albeit shuffling slowly, I learn I know absolutely nothing and actually I suck! Practice practice practice it is! X
Click to expand...
We've all been there, I still miss focus sometimes :)
 
I've got the same lens on my D3200, i got it a couple of weeks ago and it is like you have to learn all over again. At 1.8 i was missing focus constantly as i'd never had that DOF before and didn't really know what i was doing with it. What i found myself doing was finding a subject and taking the same photo at every F stop up to about f8 ish to see how it all worked compared to the kit lens which is much more forgiving.

This was shot at 1.8 and it is pretty sharp but i could show you loads that aren't because i'm doing it all wrong.

Untitled by Si Robinson, on Flickr
 
Thank you! I've also found an article on holding the camera badly, I think I'm also guilty of that too! I'll have a go at what you suggested :)
 
I tend to use longer lenses but the idea is the same.
I took this pic last week and just show it as I can view the exif data.
The focus point is at 3.2m, with depth of field extending 5.8cm in front of the focus point to 6cm behind.
This was at f5 at 155mm on a 55 -200 lens.
You can see (on Flickr) that the tip of her nose and the left hand cat ear are just out of focus.
I was focusing on the left eye with this angle to emphasize the DOF. If her face was more acutely turned I would have focused more on the bridge of her nose to get both eyes in focus.

060 by Ken, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
How do you know all those measurements? Experience? That picture is gorgeous, I can't believe how technical it is to take photos lol x
 
TCR4x4 said:
Never used a hood on my 35mm and never had any issues with it. In my experience, lenses that need a hood come with one. Rather than buying more stuff, the op just needs to learn how to use what she has.
Click to expand...
Second hand lenses don't always come the hood they were originally supplied with. You're lucky to have got some lenses which don't need a good. I've got at least a dozen lenses, about half of them modern lenses. Some of them are quite remarkably good at resisting flare, to the eyes of someone who used to shoot a film SLR. They all came with hoods, and they're all improved by using the hood when shooting against the light, even the best of them.
 
Lauraloo83 said:
I've just been looking at my images and it seems all animals or mini humans are out of focus and objects I think are in focus. Perhaps I need to increase aperture as you suggested before. The only shame is I wanted the shallow depth of field to creat the bohek effect I've seen. [emoji16][emoji16][emoji16]
Click to expand...
You can get that, with sharp focus, but you have some learning to do.
 
Lauraloo83 said:
How do you know all those measurements? Experience? That picture is gorgeous, I can't believe how technical it is to take photos lol x
Click to expand...

If I want to see all the exif data I use Jeffrey's exif data.
Just upload a pic from your laptop and wait...
You can get basic info just by right clicking on a pic and selecting properties or see some info on Flickr.
The post processing programs, like photoshop and so on, give you exif data too, but I find Jeffrey's easy to use as I have a link in my Navigation bar on my browser.

It's not rocket science! It's a hobby.
This is just the way I find works for me, it's not necessarily the correct way.
I find this kind of working distance suits me and I can still interact with the subject.
In this case at the Edinburgh Fringe it was BUSY- at 3 metres loads of people step in front of you. Thousands of people milling about.
You have to keep an eye on the background to check that nothing will spoil your pic. A half a metre step to left or right and the change in angle can fix this.
Working conditions:
The Royal Mile during the Fringe by Ken, on Flickr
 
I love this lens but have had lots of shots at f1.8 where I have missed the focus I wanted, especially taking shots of the kids as they move so fast.

Shooting at f1.8 you have a pretty narrow DOF which doesn't give you much room for getting it wrong. Not the best example (but all I had from facebook) but you can see on the photo below how much my eldest (on the bottom) is out of focus yet is not much further forward than the other two.

View attachment 44516

I have lots of shots where I have one eye in focus but not the other. It does take alot of practice (which I still need) but you will get used to it.

Also, don't be afraid to shoot at a higher f-stop, you can still get nice bokeh depending on the distance you are taking the photo at and the amount of seperation with the background, try around f2.8 or so and you will have a bit more leeway in the DOF.
 
I have the same lens but with the D3100. The lens is one of the best I have. I am no expert but hopefully some of this advice will help.

On the first shot there is a lot in the scene, therefore maybe changing to F2.5 would have made your subject sharper.

On the second shot you posted, the subject is so close to the camera that the aperture of f1.8 has captured only the child's nose. If you had set it to f3.5, then the whole face would have been tack sharp. However when you change the aperture this reduces the amount of light coming into the sensor. Therefore you have to increase your ISO (camera sensitivity to light) so that you don't get blurry shots due to hand shake.

Also can I also ask why you have your white balance setting configured to manual? I either set this to automatic or one of the preset options.

Keep posting, don't give up. :)
 
Read up on Depth of Field, and 'selective focus'. your problem is a combination of issues, but your disappointment with the 35/f1.8 I suspect is largely not understanding what it's strengths are.

But first, 'Infinity Focus'. This is the distance beyond which a lens will make pretty much everything, no matter how far from the camera 'sharp'. Most camera lenses, though offer a range of 'variable focus' shorter than that, starting from a 'closest focus' point.

Depth of Focus is the zone of acceptable sharpness in-front and behind the point you actually focus on, and is a % of the focus distance. So, in theory, if you have a large Depth of Focus, and a relatively 'near' infinity focus distance; you can almost have a 'focus free' lens, the Depth of Field so deep that it starts close enough to the camera, and extending so far away, everything you can see is 'acceptably' sharp. But, where focus distance is within the 'variable focus range' and the Depth of Focus doesn't extend to infinity focus, you get a 'Focus Zone' with near and far subjects loosing sharpness.

Now, with longer focal length lenses, their nearest focus distance, and their infinity focus distances tend to go further away from the camera, and so the range of variable focus between them, becomes larger, while the 'depth of focus' for any given aperture tends to become smaller.

Meanwhile, a lens is a lens no matter what camera its mounted on, and its focal length, near and infinity focus and the DoF it offers are proportional to that focal length. BUT, if we put a smaller 'frame' or 'sensor' behind the lens, the picture you get in that frame, is 'cropped' and gives a smaller angle of view than if the frame were larger.

So, if you want really sharp photo's, 'everything' no matter how near or far from the camera rendered in 'sharp' focus, you can exploit this idea of a 'focus free' lens, by using an incredibly small frame or sensor, that gives a 'normal' angle of view from an incredibly short focal length, that inherently has a very very close focus distance and tends to infinity very near the camera; and in fact, this is exactly what 'camera-phones' often rely on, rather than a mechanical focus mechanism.

BUT, if you don't want photo's with total front to back sharpness, you actually want a shallow depth of focus to be able to throw distracting back-grounds out of focus and emphasize the subject, then, smaller sensors and shorter lenses aren't so helpful, and but while they have larger sensors than camera-phones, 'consumer' DSLR's do have smaller sensors and shorter lenses, and while you can achieve 'selective-focus' effects with them, due to the added 'zoom' of the crop-factor, you have to stand back further, increasing the camera to subject distance, which inherently will increase the Depth of focus too, or you have to get up closer and use a wider angle lens.,., that inherently offers greater depth of focus as well... SO the only other way to compensate and reduce the depth of focus and get a more exaggerated selective focus effect is to open up the aperture... which on most 'kit' lenses on consumer DSLR's are frequently quite restrictive... typically around f4.5/5.6 or so. Making 'faster' (larger aperture, lower f-number) lenses, though, is expensive; The Nikon 35/f1.8, then was designed as a low-cost crop-camera lens, that sacrificed 'zoom' for a fast maximum aperture, which has a few other advantages, but being able to more readily utilize it to explore shallow DoF effects, where the smaller sensor and shorter focal lengths are working against you, is chief amongst them.

Meanwhile, at close subject distances, DoF can be very shallow, even at moderate apertures, f5.6 or f8. With a 'normal' angle lens, Camera to subject distance to 'frame' a head and shoulders may be as little as 'arms length'.. I have long arms, so for me that's about 1m, and at f8, on a 35mm lens, the DoF would extend from about 75cm to 1.5m, At f4, from 90cm to 120cm, a 'range' of just 30cm, 'just' enough to get nose and ears 'sharp'... BUT open up to f1.8? that DoF falls to almost nothing, a few mm either side of the focus point.. NOW you focus on the eyes, and the nose and ears are blurry.

So, even if you nail your focus, working that close, that wide-open, you are likely to get such a shallow DoF that very little is 'sharp'... it's a feature of the lens, not a 'fault'.

And the fact that you say that your shots were 'disappointingly un-sharp' sort of implies you are missing the point of it, that fast aperture is significantly there so that you can make photos significantly un-sharp... but where you don't want them to be! And discovered the 'tricky bit' getting the sharp bit where you want it! Focus IS critical, but, understanding how DoF works, and how much you need and how to get it is more so. Getting to grips with the focus modes is only part way to solving the problem. Knowing how shallow the DoF will go as you get closer and as you open up, or how deep it will get as you move away or close down, is the key.
 
Karl12347 said:
I have the same lens but with the D3100. The lens is one of the best I have. I am no expert but hopefully some of this advice will help.

On the first shot there is a lot in the scene, therefore maybe changing to F2.5 would have made your subject sharper.

On the second shot you posted, the subject is so close to the camera that the aperture of f1.8 has captured only the child's nose. If you had set it to f3.5, then the whole face would have been tack sharp. However when you change the aperture this reduces the amount of light coming into the sensor. Therefore you have to increase your ISO (camera sensitivity to light) so that you don't get blurry shots due to hand shake.

Also can I also ask why you have your white balance setting configured to manual? I either set this to automatic or one of the preset options.

Keep posting, don't give up. :)
Click to expand...
Hi thank you for the advice, it definitely helps! The white balance is set to the cloud mode as I like the warmer feeling of the photo. Is that wrong to do?

L x
 
Teflon-Mike said:
Read up on Depth of Field, and 'selective focus'. your problem is a combination of issues, but your disappointment with the 35/f1.8 I suspect is largely not understanding what it's strengths are.

But first, 'Infinity Focus'. This is the distance beyond which a lens will make pretty much everything, no matter how far from the camera 'sharp'. Most camera lenses, though offer a range of 'variable focus' shorter than that, starting from a 'closest focus' point.

Depth of Focus is the zone of acceptable sharpness in-front and behind the point you actually focus on, and is a % of the focus distance. So, in theory, if you have a large Depth of Focus, and a relatively 'near' infinity focus distance; you can almost have a 'focus free' lens, the Depth of Field so deep that it starts close enough to the camera, and extending so far away, everything you can see is 'acceptably' sharp. But, where focus distance is within the 'variable focus range' and the Depth of Focus doesn't extend to infinity focus, you get a 'Focus Zone' with near and far subjects loosing sharpness.

Now, with longer focal length lenses, their nearest focus distance, and their infinity focus distances tend to go further away from the camera, and so the range of variable focus between them, becomes larger, while the 'depth of focus' for any given aperture tends to become smaller.

Meanwhile, a lens is a lens no matter what camera its mounted on, and its focal length, near and infinity focus and the DoF it offers are proportional to that focal length. BUT, if we put a smaller 'frame' or 'sensor' behind the lens, the picture you get in that frame, is 'cropped' and gives a smaller angle of view than if the frame were larger.

So, if you want really sharp photo's, 'everything' no matter how near or far from the camera rendered in 'sharp' focus, you can exploit this idea of a 'focus free' lens, by using an incredibly small frame or sensor, that gives a 'normal' angle of view from an incredibly short focal length, that inherently has a very very close focus distance and tends to infinity very near the camera; and in fact, this is exactly what 'camera-phones' often rely on, rather than a mechanical focus mechanism.

BUT, if you don't want photo's with total front to back sharpness, you actually want a shallow depth of focus to be able to throw distracting back-grounds out of focus and emphasize the subject, then, smaller sensors and shorter lenses aren't so helpful, and but while they have larger sensors than camera-phones, 'consumer' DSLR's do have smaller sensors and shorter lenses, and while you can achieve 'selective-focus' effects with them, due to the added 'zoom' of the crop-factor, you have to stand back further, increasing the camera to subject distance, which inherently will increase the Depth of focus too, or you have to get up closer and use a wider angle lens.,., that inherently offers greater depth of focus as well... SO the only other way to compensate and reduce the depth of focus and get a more exaggerated selective focus effect is to open up the aperture... which on most 'kit' lenses on consumer DSLR's are frequently quite restrictive... typically around f4.5/5.6 or so. Making 'faster' (larger aperture, lower f-number) lenses, though, is expensive; The Nikon 35/f1.8, then was designed as a low-cost crop-camera lens, that sacrificed 'zoom' for a fast maximum aperture, which has a few other advantages, but being able to more readily utilize it to explore shallow DoF effects, where the smaller sensor and shorter focal lengths are working against you, is chief amongst them.

Meanwhile, at close subject distances, DoF can be very shallow, even at moderate apertures, f5.6 or f8. With a 'normal' angle lens, Camera to subject distance to 'frame' a head and shoulders may be as little as 'arms length'.. I have long arms, so for me that's about 1m, and at f8, on a 35mm lens, the DoF would extend from about 75cm to 1.5m, At f4, from 90cm to 120cm, a 'range' of just 30cm, 'just' enough to get nose and ears 'sharp'... BUT open up to f1.8? that DoF falls to almost nothing, a few mm either side of the focus point.. NOW you focus on the eyes, and the nose and ears are blurry.

So, even if you nail your focus, working that close, that wide-open, you are likely to get such a shallow DoF that very little is 'sharp'... it's a feature of the lens, not a 'fault'.

And the fact that you say that your shots were 'disappointingly un-sharp' sort of implies you are missing the point of it, that fast aperture is significantly there so that you can make photos significantly un-sharp... but where you don't want them to be! And discovered the 'tricky bit' getting the sharp bit where you want it! Focus IS critical, but, understanding how DoF works, and how much you need and how to get it is more so. Getting to grips with the focus modes is only part way to solving the problem. Knowing how shallow the DoF will go as you get closer and as you open up, or how deep it will get as you move away or close down, is the key.
Click to expand...
Wow thank you for all this information! you clearly know your stuff, im going to probably re-read this later to fully get my head round it (just on my lunch break). Genuinely I appreciate how much everyone has tried to help me, you are absolute stars!
 
SteveSc said:
I love this lens but have had lots of shots at f1.8 where I have missed the focus I wanted, especially taking shots of the kids as they move so fast.

Shooting at f1.8 you have a pretty narrow DOF which doesn't give you much room for getting it wrong. Not the best example (but all I had from facebook) but you can see on the photo below how much my eldest (on the bottom) is out of focus yet is not much further forward than the other two.

View attachment 44516

I have lots of shots where I have one eye in focus but not the other. It does take alot of practice (which I still need) but you will get used to it.

Also, don't be afraid to shoot at a higher f-stop, you can still get nice bokeh depending on the distance you are taking the photo at and the amount of seperation with the background, try around f2.8 or so and you will have a bit more leeway in the DOF.
Click to expand...
I love this style of photo, thank you for your advice. This photo isn't tack sharp but I think its just gorgeous!
 
ST4 said:
AF fine tune? F1.8 shooting isn't hard.
Click to expand...
Don't think the D3xxx series have that

Laura, it is just a case of practise now :) We all cock up, one of the benefits of digital is it doesn't cost much (which in my case is just as well :cool:) - Concentrate on your holding technique, aim to get as steady a platform as possible and try and breath easy when shooting - it is very much like shooting a rifle fwiw ... The lens is a lovely lens and for the money and absolute bargain, when I shot DX I really enjoyed using it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
ST4 said:
AF fine tune? F1.8 shooting isn't hard.
Click to expand...

Sort of agree with this in the sense that it probably is worth double checking that the lens is focussing okay with a test shot before you get too disheartened with your technique. It's a used lens, who knows if the AF is accurate?

As Steve says, some cameras allow you to compensate for AF inaccuracy by adjusting AF fine tune. Forget about that for now though as your camera may not even have that option.

What it would be worth doing is just testing the AF accuracy using a static subject. Stick an inanimate, immovable object about half a meter in front of the camera. Stuff with text works well as its easy to see whats sharp and what isn't. Try to eliminate the possibility of camera shake by resting the camera on something. A table works well here! With the lens at f/1.8, focus on part of your subject and take a picture. Make sure you use the viewfinder for this and not live view. Live view uses a different AF system. Upload it to your PC and check the area you focused on is sharp.

It's almost certainly fine but it would be really disheartening to apply all the technique in the world and then find out your lens was the problem all along. The above test will take 5 mins and will put your mind at ease.

One other thing that maybe has been mentioned but I didn't spot it. Without seeing exif data I can't say for sure but there is a high likelihood that your focus drive mode is AF-S. What that means is that when you half press the shutter to auto focus, once the camera has acquired focus it will lock it. Therefore if you keep your finger half pressed down and your subject moves before you take the pic, the picture will be out of focus. There are loads of techniques to this but a simple option if you want a higher keeper rate is to just hold the shutter all the way down so that the camera will take a pic as soon as focus is acquired.
 
There are a number of factors that can influence successful focus. Subject contrast is one of them.
Were you focusing on the face - ideally an eye - with the shots you posted?
You need to be quite quick between achieving focus and taking the shot, it is very easy to move yourself an inch or two after focussing and even though your subject hasn't moved the camera has - and you are out of focus. Posture can help with this, as can technique.

And, as folks above have said, do some good lens tests just to rule it out.

ST4 said:
AF fine tune? F1.8 shooting isn't hard.
Click to expand...
Not when you have been doing it for a while. It is when you are still learning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top