the 50 and blur

thebaz

as i've said before i'm experimenting on just using my 50 mm , f1.8 lens , the only one i have , having sold my other lens the 18 -70 -- what i'm noticing is that i'm getting a much higher % of blurry shots - example below

A few come out spot on , but a lot are getting binned , i use P or manual (correct exposure) and up the ISO ... is it looking likely that my experiment will have to end soon, and i'll have to stump up for a more rounded lens (18 -200) or is there some tips for using the 50 more accuratly ??

ladgie353

That picture was shot at 1/50th, so I assume you are going for the 1/focal_length rule (?)

This is fine to stop blur from your end but not from the subject's end. If you have a very dynamic subject (kids or candids) you would need to crank up the speed (1/250 at least judging by my old rangefinder).

Hope that helps.

hmboards

The EXIF shows 1/125, f/5.6.

I can't see the blur in the size of the image available on flickr, is it the kids that are blurred (from movement) or the whole image ? That lens has a good reputation so it's worth getting to the bottom of the problem before deciding on a different lens.

EDIT: I just had a look at some of your other recent shots, like the ones in Noctors. On some of them the shutter speed is definitely low enough to cause blur. As an experiment try using Aperture Priority for a while, with the aperture set to f/1.8. The camera will pick a shutter speed to match - keep an eye on it and increase the ISO if it goes below 1/125. You will have much shallower depth of field (which will probably suit most of your portraits anyway), but as an experiment it might give you better results.

thebaz

hmboards wrote:

The EXIF shows 1/125, f/5.6.

I can't see the blur in the size of the image available on flickr, is it the kids that are blurred (from movement) or the whole image ? That lens has a good reputation so it's worth getting to the bottom of the problem before deciding on a different lens.

EDIT: I just had a look at some of your other recent shots, like the ones in Noctors. On some of them the shutter speed is definitely low enough to cause blur. As an experiment try using Aperture Priority for a while, with the aperture set to f/1.8. The camera will pick a shutter speed to match - keep an eye on it and increase the ISO if it goes below 1/125. You will have much shallower depth of field (which will probably suit most of your portraits anyway), but as an experiment it might give you better results.

thanks for the advice , i'll try using A mode , as you say at 1.8 for awhile !

As a matter of interest , if the above shot was done at f1.8 do you think the results would be better -- know it would be definitly be better for close up potraits ?

Thanks

hmboards

I'm not too sure - I can't really see the blur in the photo at that size (view all sizes option isn't available for it in flickr).

Paulw

Even with my fast lenses, I would seldom shoot at under f/2.8. In fact, the majority of my photos would be taken at f/4.5-5.6, especially close portraits. I find that this gives me a sharper focus on my subject and nice blur on the background. Of course, it also depends on how close/far you are from your subject.

With the dull weather, on a cloudy day, I would normally set my ISO to 200-400. Only using ISO 100 on those nice clear days. This helps give me a faster shutter speed.

But, I guess it's down to knowing the strengths of your camera and lenses.

thebaz

Paulw wrote:

Even with my fast lenses, I would seldom shoot at under f/2.8. In fact, the majority of my photos would be taken at f/4.5-5.6, especially close portraits. I find that this gives me a sharper focus on my subject and nice blur on the background. Of course, it also depends on how close/far you are from your subject.

With the dull weather, on a cloudy day, I would normally set my ISO to 200-400. Only using ISO 100 on those nice clear days. This helps give me a faster shutter speed.

But, I guess it's down to knowing the strengths of your camera and lenses.

on the 50 i usually have it set to f 5.6 , i have never actually gone down to 1.8 .
Its just i seam to be binning a lot more on the 50 , than i would have done with say the 18 - 70 -- maybe its a trickier lens to master !!

hmboards

I would rarely shoot at f/1.8 either, as you do get shallow DOF and it may be a little softer than around f/5.6 or f/8, but if you need the light then go for it. Some of your pub shots were at 1/25 seconds which is bound to cause motion blur. I couldn't see the ISO setting in the EXIF to confirm if you had already pumped that up.

On my 300D I avoided higher ISO because it was very noisy. The photo below was f/2 on the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens. DOF is less of a problem the further you are from the subject, and I think most of your portrait type shots are taken from a greater distance than mine below (I was pretty close!)?

As an experiment it's definitely worth trying out the different apertures available.

thebaz

yeah thats lovely quality -- i have a nikon d50 , the iso goes to 1600, but told never push it to the top, the ones in the pub were at iso 800 , but the apperature was too low , as you say .
I plan to go back to the pub , with a flash , but i could try a few with f 1.8 , and no flash -- the lighting in the pub was diabolical unfortunatly , might be fun bouncing flash in there , i'd say digs have been thrown for less

magicbastarder

you can get away with softness at wide apertures more easily with fast film; i've never really shot at a wide aperture and high ISO on my DSLR (two reasons - it's an olympus, which do not perform well at high ISO, and i don't have a fast lens for it), but film seems more forgiving and more flattering in such situations.

thebaz

it must be the tradesman , rather than the tools --
took this , today of some early morning revelers , and the quality seams fine - it was done at f5.6 , but the shutter speed seams the key

ThOnda

I don't want to offend you, but dou you know how press the trigger?
Most of the blurry pictures are caused by movement when you press the button. The way I've been told to do so is to place finger on the edge of trigger and just sway the tip of the winger. I don't know if "sway" is the correct verb. You don't want to have straighten finger and pulling him down to the trigger. Don't make movement of the whole finger, because you would move/shake the camera too.
However I think you know that. The typing above is for newbies only

thebaz

i'm begining to think i'm crazy , if i wasn't already , went back to noctor's with the flash , and tried out shooting at f1.8 , did a combo , while the lighting is still not perfect , i'm happy with my results , and ain't going back , results on

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thebaz/

crazy B.

hmboards

Ah don't give up now - you should try going back with some studio lights next time

Fair play to you. I think you deserve an award for bravery with some of the situations you shoot!

DaireQuinlan

Yeah by the sounds of things it might just be your technique (ooer !). I've had really awful shots trying to manually focus a 50 1.8 in dim light, so much so that I've switched to a 24 2.8 for a lot of my handheld low light stuff, more latitude for error with the wider angle. I'm assuming though you're using AF so that shouldn't be a problem. You might be, as Thonda pointed out, moving the camera when you're depressing the shutter button. I've got an FE2 with a smooth mechanical shutter button, no problems there. I got an F4 about 6 months ago with an electrical shutter button and I've found myself literally twisting the camera as I depress the button, I've no idea why, so I've had to school myself to very deliberately not do that when I'm taking the shot. A lot of shots that ought to have been pin sharp were coming out with motion blur because I was doing that.

thebaz

hmboards wrote:

Ah don't give up now - you should try going back with some studio lights next time

eh i think that might be pushing it a bit , i'm not completly mad yet ---

i kind of like some of the imperfections , in the ones i got last night , the lighting inside was truely woefull , tried bouncing flash off a pale brown ceiling --- maybe i could have pushed the iso to 1600 -- kind of hard to remember eveything when you have a pub full of punters staring at you


Daire -- they were all done using auofocus , not sure if i'm moving camera at snap time, as this is only a new issue i've notice with the 50 recently -- but i'll bear it in mind (try to keep my elbows tucked in to my belly )

Thirdfox

hey thebaz, I was wondering where you got your f1.8 from? It seems like all the stores are prohibitively expensive! (you can get them for E70 in the US, E80 in China - but all the shops I've seen are 130+ here )

Also, do you know where to get the SB600 for a price that isn't a complete rip-off?

Thanks!

Cabaal

Thirdfox, if your refering to the Canon 50 1.8 MKII then try kea-photo, http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Kea-Photo

I got mine last week for 90e which included DHL shipping, I could have gotten it cheaper but I needed the fast shipping so that alone was 26e

hmboards

thebaz wrote:

i kind of like some of the imperfections , in the ones i got last night , the lighting inside was truely woefull , tried bouncing flash off a pale brown ceiling --- maybe i could have pushed the iso to 1600 -- kind of hard to remember eveything when you have a pub full of punters staring at you

Imperfections do seem to suit the scene. It might be worth checking if your flash behaves differently in different camera modes. With the Canon DLSRs, if you use aperture priority it assumes you only want fill flash. So in a dark setting you could end up with a really slow shutter speed (to suit the ambient light) and an underexposed image. Whereas if you use manual shutter and aperture settings the flash will output enough light to give a proper exposure. I'm not sure if Nikon work the same way...

Fenster

The 50mm f/1.8 is a disappointingly soft lens, which figures as it's all of 80 yo-yo's. If you have some cash, splash out for the 50mm f/1.4

thebaz

Fenster wrote:

The 50mm f/1.8 is a disappointingly soft lens, which figures as it's all of 80 yo-yo's. If you have some cash, splash out for the 50mm f/1.4

kind of saving for the 18 - 200 lens , that'll cost 6 to 7 big ones !

hmboards -- i'm not going back , i think theyve seen eneogh of me , they wondered was i undecover

thirdfox - use Nikon , got my sb 600 from DarrenG , and bought the lens from Conns off Grafton St (price wasn't too bad)

TelePaul

Fenster wrote:

The 50mm f/1.8 is a disappointingly soft lens,

Think that softness is grand for alot of portrait work.

Muineach

TelePaul wrote:

Think that softness is grand for alot of portrait work.

so much for "warts and all"

DonkeyStyle \o/

Just got myself one of these 50mm 1.8's... whatever about it being soft, I have to say it kicks my kit-lenses ass in terms of sharpness and overall picture quality.
/happy bunny

Thirdfox

thebaz wrote:

thirdfox - use Nikon , got my sb 600 from DarrenG , and bought the lens from Conns off Grafton St (price wasn't too bad)

Thanks...I may get a friend to pick up one in China while she's over...maybe a second hand AIS 50mm for my D40 (manual focus anyway )

thebaz

Fenster wrote:

The 50mm f/1.8 is a disappointingly soft lens, which figures as it's all of 80 yo-yo's. If you have some cash, splash out for the 50mm f/1.4

eh i was just thinking for what i do , would the 50 mm f1.4 be better , than splashing out on the 18 - 200 ?

and do sigma do a version , or would i be better sticking to the Nikon version ?

Cheers

melekalikimaka

thebaz wrote:

eh i was just thinking for what i do , would the 50 mm f1.4 be better , than splashing out on the 18 - 200 ?

and do sigma do a version , or would i be better sticking to the Nikon version ?

Cheers

http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3282&navigator=4

thats as close as sigma gets. mneh

nilhg

melekalikimaka wrote:

http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3282&navigator=4

thats as close as sigma gets. mneh

Not quite,

I have this, a bit shorter than yours but a lovely lens. Cost me about €320 from HK.

thebaz

nilhg wrote:

Not quite,

I have this, a bit shorter than yours but a lovely lens. Cost me about €320 from HK.

Mmm - half the price of the 18 - 200 , different lens but might suit my needs better !

digitalbeginner

nilhg wrote:

I have this, a bit shorter than yours but a lovely lens. Cost me about €320 from HK.

I was really taken by this, a near 50mm fixed lens (with crop factor of 1.5 built-in to bring me back to the majority of shots I took in my film days) but reviews on Fred Miranda.com talked of double and triple returns before they got a lens that worked. How's yours working out?

Dave

nilhg

digitalbeginner wrote:

I was really taken by this, a near 50mm fixed lens (with crop factor of 1.5 built-in to bring me back to the majority of shots I took in my film days) but reviews on Fred Miranda.com talked of double and triple returns before they got a lens that worked. How's yours working out?

Dave

I did see that but heard that the situation had improved before I bought mine.
I'm happy with it, I think all the shots here were taken with it.

digitalbeginner

Those shots look great! Can't see any quality issues there. I think any remaining issues are with Nikon D200's. DigitalRev on their eBay shop say this:

Due to the combination of the Nikon D200 camera with this lens can cause improper exposure, Please contact Sigma local shop for free upgrade if this lens you buy is for Nikon D200 Camera. And the Lens function properly with any other D-SLR cameras

If I remember correctly, Baz has a D50 and I don't think there are any issues with the combination of this lens and this camera. If that's the case then this would certainly be an option to consider. The benefits of the f1.4 aperture are obvious in terms of extra shutter speeds and it also means that the 45mm focal length equivalent on the D50 would only need 1/45 sec to prevent camera shake (lower if you're really carefull), which an f1.4 could easily give you in modest light.

But for me the real benefit for Baz would be in the fact that (as I was taught in college) the 50mm lens on 35mm cameras came about because it more accurately matched the field of vision of the human eye. In other words what you see with your eye is matched by a 50mm focal length. Bearing in mind the kind of photography that Baz is creating a name for himself would really benefit from this comination of aperture/higher shutter speeds/quality glass/field of view similar to the human eye. I think that's a slam dunk with the 30mm Sigma 1.4.

Or maybe I'm wrong But if I get a satisfactory answer from DigitalRev about the issues with the D200, then I'm buying one!

Dave

nilhg

Mine is on an Olympus E500 so its a little longer but seems to be ok, it will come into its own from now on as the winter comes in.

thebaz

i've decided to scrap plans for the 18 - 200 , and am now going to get a f1.4 lens for my Nikon -- while i have the cash now , i want to make sure i get the right one

i'm looking at this for 300 euros -- seam about right ?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Sigma-30-mm-30mm-f-1-4-EX-DC-HSM-lens-for-NIKON-NO-TAX_W0QQitemZ230161765181QQihZ013QQcategoryZ3343QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem


any suggestions appreciated !

Thirdfox

I heard there were focus issues with it (rear focus?) Tried it out while in Tokyo - seemed very nice - bokeh and AF speed etc.

If you are thinking about selling off your f1.8...

edit:
Here's what Rockwell (I know!) had to say about the bad:
Bad News:

1.) Design flaw causes the manual focus confirmation light in my Nikons not to work properly during manual focus override. Furthermore, another defect causes my cameras to ignore my manual focus override in AF-C mode and revert to autofocus. These can be worked around by manually setting my Nikons to manual focus, which eliminates some of the usefulness of instant manual focus override.

2.) AF often focused slightly in front of my subject with my D200, potentially significant at the large apertures for which you buy this lens. I worked around this by pointing my AF sensors at something behind my subject if it was critical. This isn't a problem for real, live 3D subjects. This effect varies from sample to sample and camera to camera. It was fine on my D40.

3.). AF didn't focus beyond about 50' (20m) on my D200. I worked around this by setting focus manually using the accurate infinity mark on the focus scale. It was fine on my D40.

4.) Miscalibrated diaphragm lead to overexposed images. I worked around this by setting exposure compensation to -0.7 more than what I would use with other lenses.

thebaz

actually for 300 euros i can get the Nikon 50 , 1.4 from Germany ,

http://www.technikdirekt.de/main/en/foto/fotodigital/objektive/obj-nikon/646497/-/Article.html?

would the Sigma be much better ?

bit confused

janmc

You can get a better price on the Nikon 50 1.4 on KeaPhoto - I just bought one recently from them and it is fantastic.

PaulieC

IMO Baz, you'd be better off getting the Sigma 30mm 1.4 instead of the Nikkor 50mm 1.4. With the Sigma you're getting a different focal length that would complement the 50 you already have. If you went for the 50MM 1.4 all you're adding to your current gear is an extra half-stop, which I doubt is vital for street photography anyway...

thebaz

cambo_gueno wrote:

IMO Baz, you'd be better off getting the Sigma 30mm 1.4 instead of the Nikkor 50mm 1.4. With the Sigma you're getting a different focal length that would complement the 50 you already have. If you went for the 50MM 1.4 all you're adding to your current gear is an extra half-stop, which I doubt is vital for street photography anyway...

cheers Paul, i'm thinking thats what i'll do get the sigma 30

Roen

Well considering the 1.5 crop on your Nikon the 30mm will give the equiv of a 45mm. Closer to the FoV that a 50mm would give you on a FF. Happy days

thebaz

Roen wrote:

Well considering the 1.5 crop on your Nikon the 30mm will give the equiv of a 45mm. Closer to the FoV that a 50mm would give you on a FF. Happy days

think i'll purchase this for under 300 - Kea get rave review here

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Sigma-30mm-f-1-4-f1-4-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-NEW-6B_W0QQitemZ200147721788QQihZ010QQcategoryZ4687QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting

m_stan

This does look like a great lens, but I have to question if you are doing the right thing by looking at a second prime lens.

Would you not get better scope out of a zoom lens with a nice range ? In particularly, I have a 17-85mm lens on my Canon 400d and it's a great everyday carry-around lens - nice and wide and has the ability to do some zooming.

I also have a nifty fifty and love it, but find its very restricted and like the flexibility of my other zoom lenses.

I know you are on Nikon, and not sure what is available in this range but before you splash out on another prime, is it not worth reconsidering the zoom option ?

Just a thought.

thebaz

m_stan wrote:

This does look like a great lens, but I have to question if you are doing the right thing by looking at a second prime lens.

Would you not get better scope out of a zoom lens with a nice range ? In particularly, I have a 17-85mm lens on my Canon 400d and it's a great everyday carry-around lens - nice and wide and has the ability to do some zooming.

I also have a nifty fifty and love it, but find its very restricted and like the flexibility of my other zoom lenses.

I know you are on Nikon, and not sure what is available in this range but before you splash out on another prime, is it not worth reconsidering the zoom option ?

Just a thought.

I'm not totally happy with the quality of my nikon 50 , but i like the idea of shooting at 35 mm , i think its good discipline as well, and i'm learning a lot more than when i had the luxury of a zoom -- think creativly on my feet !!!

m_stan

thebaz wrote:

I'm not totally happy with the quality of my nikon 50 , but i like the idea of shooting at 35 mm , i think its good discipline as well, and i'm learning a lot more than when i had the luxury of a zoom -- think creativly on my feet !!!

I hear ya. When I got my canon 50, this was the one thing I found most striking aside from the quality of the images produced. It was a whole different thing having to learn to deal with framing a shot without the luxury of a zoom lens and this does indeed instill a new way of thinking.

Good luck with your purchase. The 30 looks like a very nice piece of kit on the face of it. Look forward to seeing the results.