DOF vs Non L lens softness

Mnemosyne

So I've been using my 50 f/1.4 a lot lately, at 1.4.

Now, I know the DOF at that aperture is razor thin, but I'm not shooting up close to the subject. More like 10 feet away or so. But my photos are coming out soft and fuzzy, even at 100 ISO.

So I'm wondering if it's the aperture that's hurting me, or just the fact that it's not the L version? I've used my 17-55 f/2.8, and they tend to be a little sharper, even though I am shooting at 200 or so to compensate for the aperture.

I just like really blurred out backgrounds

ivar

Posting some examples with exif would be a great help

I'm not a fan of shooting at f/1.4, unless really needed. It is making things unnecessarily difficult for you, I think. If you need it for the light, go for it.
That having said, it will be softer at f/1.4 compared to say f/4, but that lens should not be 'soft'.

Granted this is on a full frame camera and situations can/will differ, but I just posted this shot, shot with the exact same lens:


Shot at f/5.6, I think the background would qualify as 'blurry'. You don't need 1.4 for that

Te Amo

It's definitely the aperture. The f/1.4 version of this lens is every bit as sharp as the f/1.2 version. I've used both, and while the build quality of the L is fantastic, I think the f/1.4 version is every bit as good for the price.

As mentioned above, try stopping down a bit. You will notice a considerable difference.
Shoot the same image at f/1.4, f/2.8, and f/4 without changing any other settings besides the aperture. Then open them on your computer to see the difference. (It's hard to tell on the LCD sometimes). I think you will be pleasantly surprised as the subject sharpen up, without losing any of the great BOKEH this lens offers.

Best of luck

pathfinder

Check out DOF Master, too, like we talked about. A full frame camera with a 50mm lens, subject at 10 feet, f1.4 has ~1.02 feet depth of field according to the online calculator but that seems excessive to my general feel for dof.

I agree with Ivar, I find shooting with aperture wider than f2.8 challenging enough, let along f 1.4. I do like my 85 f 1.2 though, occasionally.

Mnemosyne

Well, typically I try to place people in ways that the background is many many many feet away, for the bokeh, but sometimes you don't have that luxury. But if 2.0 - 3.5 can have the same effect, I guess I can sacrifice then

craig_d

If the issue is really softness, then probably AF isn't focusing exactly where you want it to. But (without having seen any samples) I'd be inclined to suspect spherical aberration is the real issue. I've never seen a lens that didn't have a bit of the "soft focus" effect (i.e. not OOF, but with a kind of cloudy glow around things) at f/1.4.

divamum

I think it's a 50mm 1.4 thing - there are plenty of complaints about it being soft unless you stop down a little. I've found that in really good light with a high contrast subject you can get a good shot wide open (on my copy at least) but in general the sweet spot on mine seems to kick in around 2.0. I find I'm still learning how to reallly nail these kinds of shots they way they are in my head - getting there, but shooting this shallow is always a little bit of a crapshoot since when I get "in the moment" I start moving, or the subject does, and even a slight turn will take one eye out of the sweet spot. But, like you, I like to blur out the bg and often shoot supershallow - I just have to make sure I concentrate like crazy on where my focus point is.



This one also at f2.0, but standing quite a lot further away (first one maybe 3ft away, this one probably 6-8ft)