Unhappy with nifty fifty

[bdtracey]

Hey all,

DW bought me the Canon nifty fifty for Christmas and I'm having a tough go with it. 95% of my shots are out of focus. I know that this lens works best when stopped down some but I'm even getting poor results at f/3.5.

I've seen some peoples pictures shot wide open that I can't touch at even f/4 or f/5.6! My main reason for wanting this lens was for it's low-light capabilities but I just can't trust it. I'd rather take a gamble on my 18-55 kit lens. Unfortunately I don't have any examples on this computer with EXIF info but I'll put some on here hopefully tonight.

Has anyone else experienced this?

 

[oogieboogieman]

Can you post a picture? It would help us figure out what may be wrong. I love my 50mm!!

 

[handicap18]

Post some pictures. Also what auto focus mode are you using? Is the camera choosing the focus point(s) or are you? Do a focus test against a wall. Find something easy to focus on against a wall and make sure it is in focus and can focus on it. Then move away after that.

 

[annnewjerz]

Jann is a Canon shooter and has also had some gripes with her nifty fifty. She has said that she can get tack sharp results with it, but has to stop it down a lot I believe.

 

[Alztybrn]

I am a Canon shooter as well...have the same problems, and as a result, pretty much leave it in the bag. I have a 2.8 Siggy that does really well for me.

 

[bob100]

Hey all,

DW bought me the Canon nifty fifty for Christmas and I'm having a tough go with it. 95% of my shots are out of focus. I know that this lens works best when stopped down some but I'm even getting poor results at f/3.5.

I've seen some peoples pictures shot wide open that I can't touch at even f/4 or f/5.6! My main reason for wanting this lens was for it's low-light capabilities but I just can't trust it. I'd rather take a gamble on my 18-55 kit lens. Unfortunately I don't have any examples on this computer with EXIF info but I'll put some on here hopefully tonight.

Has anyone else experienced this?

mine seems to work pretty good (but I don't use it much)
keep in mind there is an extremely narrow DOF at f1.8 - like less than an inch
here is one pic "wide open" at f1.8 with a Canon XSi

 

[GrillMouster]

Post a picture.

Are you hand-holding? Light conditions (bright, dim, indoors/outdoors)? Shutter speed? Moving subject or stationary? Were you using the center focus point? Were you using the center focus point, locking focus, then recomposing? We need information, and we need a picture to help.

 

[Chikabowa]

Post a picture... But I have heard that a lot of Canon shooters have problems with certain lenses; this one being one.
However, most of those who have had those issues, send the lens into Canon for calibration, and it comes back perfect.

 

[zackiedawg]

I'd suggest downloading a focus test sheet (google search and you'll find plenty). Then take a shot at the recommended angle (usually in the vicinity of 45 degrees) focusing on the center of the test sheet with the camera mounted on a tripod, to eliminate any human contribution. If the whole thing is out of focus, you may have a big problem with the lens. If the focus seems to be a little forward or in back of where you aimed...just a simple adjustment should do the trick - not that bad of an issue. If the center is perfectly focused, sharp as a tack...then you can pretty much deduce that the lens is fine.

As others have said...the band of focus is unbelievably narrow. Focusing on the tip of a person's nose will have the rest of their face out of focus, when wide open. Also, when folks say these lenses are sharp stopped down, they're usually referring to much more than 3.5 - more like F8-11.

Still, you should be able to get good center sharpness and plenty usable results even wide open.

 

[bdtracey]

Thanks for all of the input!

I've used it mainly hand held indoors to shoot DS who, until lately, doesn't move around a whole ton so mostly stationary pictures. Or it'll be pictures of my dog when she's sitting still. I wish I could upload a pic right now but they're on my other computer with all of th EXIF data. I always pick my own focus point, 9 times out of 10 I use the center point unless I'm trying to get creative.

For example, the other night DS was standing naked holding onto the bathtub watching it fill with water (so cute!). So I pulled out my camera, to try it out; if I remember correctly I was shooting at about 1/80, f/2.8, ISO 200. I was focusing right on his bum crack and it was still out of focus. I was even using the floor to stabilize my hands. I'm not sure if I can post this one or not but I'll find something similar.

I'm definitely going to try and do the focus test! If I do have to send it in for calibration does anyone know how long this takes?

Thanks for all of your help!!!!!!

 

[handicap18]

If your using it indoors wide open with no flash, you'll want to bump up your ISO higher than 200. Even at f/2.8 to get 1/80th shutter must have a good amount light in your bathroom. I typically don't use anything under ISO800 if I'm shooting indoors with no flash.

Just something to think about.

 

[bdtracey]

Ah, good point! I never thought of that!!! It's much easier to clean up a little bit of noise in PP than to de-blur. Great tip!!!

 

[jann1033]

Hey all,

DW bought me the Canon nifty fifty for Christmas and I'm having a tough go with it. 95% of my shots are out of focus. I know that this lens works best when stopped down some but I'm even getting poor results at f/3.5.

I've seen some peoples pictures shot wide open that I can't touch at even f/4 or f/5.6! My main reason for wanting this lens was for it's low-light capabilities but I just can't trust it. I'd rather take a gamble on my 18-55 kit lens. Unfortunately I don't have any examples on this computer with EXIF info but I'll put some on here hopefully tonight.

Has anyone else experienced this?

yes yes yes...i gave up on it for a few yrs( till most of my other lenses broke) but now i love it. since you can't take it back just use manual focus ( i use it for anything under 5.6). mine autofocuses fine above that but is very iffy below it ....out of curiosity see if your pictures are tack sharp at f22 +or so . mine is ok from 5.6 on focus wise but not really tack sharp till it gets to 18 or so. then is it my sharpest lens by far but is pretty much the exact opposite of what the reviews say, sharp when it isn't supposed to be awful when it is supposed to be sharp

with my lens it isn't a problem of back or front focus( tried that when i got the lens and found it was out of focus most of the time) it's the actual auto part of the focus mechanism that people have problems with( or from what i have read). occasionally mine focuses right under 5.6 but not enough to trust it.
mine is out of warranty but since yours still is you might be able to send it in and hope it doesn't work when they check it( i could tell you a long winded laboriously detailed account of the 6+month long search for a working 28-135 IS lens that i endured with canon and their repair guys but it would scare you into never sending a lens in for repairs ) it works fine(mine does) with manual focus so it's far easier for me to just use that at f4 and under. so you aren't nutty like i thought i was for 4 yrs.( well in my case, at least i was right about the lens ) and a number of lens have the same problem, we just happened to get a bad one. i'm thinking of buying another one locally so i can try it out first since i like the one i have for the upper f regions but really can't see all that well to manual focus all the time. most don't have the problem so chances are good i'll have the best of both worlds that way.

if you do send it in, if you get it back and it doesn't work still go straight to the department above customer support, i think it is called customer resolution. i just kept getting a run around from the tech guys till one woman ( hmm could be the reason since the men all acted like i was a dimwit but i digress) sent me to customer resolution after 6 months of headaches, sending it back and forth etc. then they actually ended up giving me a new lens and body since they couldn't figure out which was causing the problem

 

[mabas9395]

Is there a part of your photo that IS in focus (maybe a little bit in front or behind your subject)? Or is the whole thing out of focus?

 

[bdtracey]

That is some great info Jann!!! I think the highest I've gone with the aperature is around f11 which wasn't too bad but I was outside. I guess what really blows me away with some peoples pictures with this camera is that they're taking shots of moving subjects wide open at 1/30. I truly cannot see myself doing this!!!

Alright...here come the examples. They're all of my dog Daizy.

This one is at 1/30, f/1.8, ISO 800

1/25, f/1.8, ISO 800

1/30, f/2.5, ISO 800

I have some of my little fella but DW doesn't like me posting pictures of him online

Surprisingly, after looking at a lot of the pictures that I initially thought were poor whilst chimping they're not as bad once they're uploaded. Usually what I'll do is take a bunch and then start looking at them on the camera and zoom in on the eyes which are 99% of the time fuzzy. Like I said earlier I never let the camera select my focal point.

Thanks for all of the comments, info and insight! I really think that I've learned more on these boards than on POTN.

 

[zackiedawg]

Yeah...actually I don't think you're too bad. Most of those samples I would tend to blame on slight motion. 1/30 wasn't enough to freeze subtle movement. The last photo is the closest to the dog being still, and it appears to have pretty sharp focus around the end of the snout. But because it's a bit underexposed, you are getting some loss of sharpness from the noise. As you go back to the eyes, it looks like the shallow depth of field comes into play - the focus was around the snout/nose, so it's already starting to fall off by the eyes. Now, if you can prove you focused on the eyes, you've got a bit of front-focus. Otherwise, it just may be that the focus ended up on the snout instead of the eye.

Looks like you might need to bump to ISO1600 (if you can) in that low of light, and get the shutter speeds at least to 1/60...if not higher. It would seem the noise would be much worse from 800 to 1600...but noise actually gets worse in underexposed shots than properly exposed shots. A properly exposed shot at ISO1600 can have less visible noise than an ISO800 shot that's badly underexposed.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

A properly exposed shot at ISO1600 can have less visible noise than an ISO800 shot that's badly underexposed.

Excellent point.

 

[jann1033]

try taking some test shots of the couch or something that doesn't move at different stops inside and out and see if there is a big difference in the actual focus( taking into account dof). mine are blurred all over, ie there isn't any point really in focus rather than them just looking like maybe i just missed what i wanted in focus on (although that was what i was assuming i was doing for a long time). with mine it doesn't act like ( feel) it's hunting for focus, it just doesn't focus at all.

 

[GrillMouster]

So far it looks to me that he problem is that you're hand-holding at 1/30 second. At that slow a shutter speed camera shake will be apparent in the image.

The general rule for shutter speed is to use the inverse of the focal length. Your lens is fixed at 50mm, but its effective focal length on a crop camera body is 80mm (because of the 1.6x crop factor). Therefore, it's a good idea to use a shutter speed of 1/80 or faster to avoid blur due to camera shake. That's not to say that you don't need to worry about camera shake at 1/80...that's the MINIMUM speed. You should still try to stabilize your camera in your hands as much as possible by using good technique. You can do better by doubling the speed to at least 1/160 sec. That may sound fast, especially when you see other people posting images taken hand-held at slower speeds. Keep in mind that some of those images were taken with flash to freeze the action, and that all of the images, when shrunken for posting on the web, appear sharper and less noisy than they do when viewed at their original size 100%.

If the subject is moving, even a little, you'll want a faster speed, maybe starting at 1/250, but it really depends on how fast the subject is moving. For instance, a person walking wouldn't need as fast a shutter speed as a race car would need.

Of course, when you increase the shutter speed you'll need to compensate for the loss of light reaching the sensor by either of the following or a combination of them:
use a wider aperture
increase the ISO
add light (natural or artificial) or move the subject to the light

 

[bdtracey]

Thank you so much for all of the help!!!!

zackiedawg - I really didn't realize that about the ISO but after thinking about it, it makes sense!

jann - I'm definitely going to try shooting the couch.

GrillMouster - That rule of thumb sounds great! Time to put it into action.

I think I should also start shooting in RAW. I'm a little intimidated by it to tell you the truth because I don't get a whole ton of time to PP.

Thanks again!!!!!!