Is it Difficult to Shoot with 50mm F1.8?

[Oberon]

I can't seem to simulate the problem on my 7D. My picture is slightly soft but no where as soft compared to the two posted.

Old man, hand shaky liao. I used f1.8 but at 1/100 with flash at around 3 meters.

 

[ziploc]

I'm a Nikon user so can't help you with a Canon pic, but here are the pictures from my 50/1.4 for reference sake:

100% crop (the word "iMac" is near the center of the frame), iso1600, f/1.4 & 1.8, 1/125, focusing point is at the nose of the soft toy, shooting distance is about 2.5m. No post processing nor sharpening done.

 

[Poseidon88]

use shutterspeed min. 1/200 or 1/250

for 1/50 you need a tripod to get sharp images.
no on can make "free-hand" and sp 1/50 sharp images!!!

 

[Valkarian]

meh. not impossible, just very difficult =D

it feels like it's not focused rather than handshake..

 

[davidnn99]

i found that if i defocus by pointing at a nearby object and then focus on the subject, i get better results with the 50mm 1.8

 

[GlenWXQ]

I was free this morning so i did some "tests" to compare sharpness at f1.8 and f2.8, the results are actually quite interesting

ISO 640, f/1.8 1/125s

the 100% crop,

ISO 640, f/2.8, 1/60s

the 100% crop

looking at both 100% crops (focus was on the centre right, border of where the red/orange meet), the f1.8 shows much less detail than the f2.8 (without any post processing), while also giving a rather shallow depth of field (not the entire lobster was in focus). Instead, the f2.8 show greater detail and managed to get a better (in this case) DOF for the subject.

IMO, this lens is still usable at f1.8, provided you are willing to do a bit of post processing, the 2 photos above were actually post processed using lightroom (except the 100% crop, those were uneditted) using my usual 30s tweak (lighting, exposure n sharpness). Although the f1.8 pic still looks less sharp then the f2.8 pic, it is still usable and considered sharp if you didnt compare it to the f2.8

i think the most likely problem for this lens is the need for a "fast shutter" of at least 1/(50x1.6) = 1/80s due to the lack of IS, as well as the sometimes inaccurate AF (the lens focuses and focuses.... sometime i dont even know at which time it focuses correctly)

 

[ageha]

My 14 year old copy of the 50mm f/1.8 mkII is sharp at f/1.8, at least much sharper than the portrait posted here.

 

[Mythmaker]

Shutter speed of 1/60 is a little too slow assuming you are using a crop body (50 x 1.6 = 80). Maybe you should try 1/80 and above to confirm.

I am using a crop body. Canon 550D.

So, I took the same shot again in daylight. f1.8, 1/320, ISO200. Shot at 2.5m.

Looks much better. I think I'll shoot at night again without flash to see if it's indeed the lack of shutter speed.

 

[ageha]

I am using a crop body. Canon 550D.

So, I took the same shot again in daylight. f1.8, 1/320, ISO200. Shot at 2.5m.

Looks much better. I think I'll shoot at night again without flash to see if it's indeed the lack of shutter speed.

To me it doesn't look sharp.

 

[Turbonetics]

this picture looks much better than the previous 2..
the focus seems to be on the centre of the purple crown which looks sharper than any other area..
try pushing 3-4 stop up your aperture value and the picture should look much sharper and detailed.

 

[Valkarian]

everything other than the crown and perhaps the yellow blade looks out of focus. is 1.8's DOF so thin!
anyhow if by increasing shutter speed gives you a sharper picture, pros the thing was moving or your hand was moving when taken lol.
just my two cents correct me if im wrong pls =X

 

[ageha]

everything other than the crown and perhaps the yellow blade looks out of focus. is 1.8's DOF so thin!
anyhow if by increasing shutter speed gives you a sharper picture, pros the thing was moving or your hand was moving when taken lol.
just my two cents correct me if im wrong pls =X

I don't think f/1.8 is that thin. Maybe the figure is 1:1 real size scale.

 

[Mythmaker]

this picture looks much better than the previous 2..
the focus seems to be on the centre of the purple crown which looks sharper than any other area..
try pushing 3-4 stop up your aperture value and the picture should look much sharper and detailed.

I think TS asking whether it's supposed to be soft at f1.8...

f2.8 onwards is pretty sharp, we're just verifying on f1.8...

(I think)

everything other than the crown and perhaps the yellow blade looks out of focus. is 1.8's DOF so thin!
anyhow if by increasing shutter speed gives you a sharper picture, pros the thing was moving or your hand was moving when taken lol.
just my two cents correct me if im wrong pls =X

Actually the DOF at 2.5m is 14cm deep, which is more than enough to get the model in focus

 

[Wizongod]

Yea, Mythmaker, you're right, I'm trying to verify if F1.8 is supposed that soft. Looks like there's one person (the one with the lobster) that can do sharp shots at F1.8, so it may be handshake, or an AF focus problem. I'll do some tests soon.

 

[Mythmaker]

The only problem is, he never say the lobster is how far away...

If it's like 0.5m away, f1.8 is actually pretty sharp...

 

[Turbonetics]

Yes,the distant between the object and camera plays a major part in sharpness too..

 

[Anthony Lee]

Both examples are definitely OOF. The Canon 50f1.8 cannot this bad so either it's operator's fault or lens needs calibration to camera.
Even if it's an f1.2 lens, if used correctly at f1.2 it should be at least decently sharp at the center.

This was shot at f1.2.

Sorry, I meant the first 2 photos posted at the beginning of this thread as I didn't see the 2nd page.

 

[Mythmaker]

Both examples are definitely OOF. The Canon 50f1.8 cannot this bad so either it's operator's fault or lens needs calibration to camera.
Even if it's an f1.2 lens, if used correctly at f1.2 it should be at least decently sharp at the center.

This was shot at f1.2.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6098/6288190087_e0a3ba6f68_b.jpg[IMG]

Sorry, I meant the first 2 photos posted at the beginning of this thread as I didn't see the 2nd page.[/QUOTE]

Judging from the depth of field, this is not taken from 2.5m away.

The lobster DOF is also not at least 14cm, so it's probably irrelevant as well...

 

[jakedgreatz]

I am using a crop body. Canon 550D.

So, I took the same shot again in daylight. f1.8, 1/320, ISO200. Shot at 2.5m.

Looks much better. I think I'll shoot at night again without flash to see if it's indeed the lack of shutter speed.

bro i think your having a lil problem. "handshake" or "camera shake" use tripod, better yet set it to timer, set your focus and fire away. then check the results if it's the same with this. if it's still the same image that im seeing here, then i think it might be a faulty nifty fifty.

 

[Valkarian]

Yea, Mythmaker, you're right, I'm trying to verify if F1.8 is supposed that soft. Looks like there's one person (the one with the lobster) that can do sharp shots at F1.8, so it may be handshake, or an AF focus problem. I'll do some tests soon.

OH it's a lobster (, ._. ),