Before and After

[Dizzy Photographics]

I've been struggling to understand why i cant get the focus right with the new lens i got, 50mm 1.8. This is just one of about 40 i took today that was even remotely close to being in focus. The original is quite OOF while the processed one seems to be a LOT better. Is it really?

[stevemack]

The original is very soft indeed but the processed one is 100% sharper.

steve.

[Seesee]

I think from what I've heard the cheaer 1.8's vary in results quite a bit. I also notice your shutter speed is 1/197.4 which is OK normally unless the child moves a little, at those shutter speeds some softness/blurr occurs easily. Curious the shutter speed seems so low ?.....it looks like bright light, but maybe it wasn't.

[Dizzy Photographics]

It actually wasnt real bright...i too was suprised that it came out so light. He was sitting in shade adn there was a tinsey bit of morning rays coming through from the side...barely touched his face. Am going to give it another try. He is quite flighty and i guess if it doesnt take much movement to get that softness then i am going to continue to have issues with photographing him lol

[Big Pix]

increase your ISO and stop down at least to f4 or 5.6. This will increase your DOF and sharpness.....

[wideangle]

Were you shooting these as JPG or RAW, you will find that the images need quite some sharpneing up if shooting them as RAW to get them looking good.

[deasty1]

I have major focus issues with my 50mm 1.8.
It's the cheapest lens I own, and the worst value lens I own.
Canon shouldn't even be allowed to sell these things.
My "L" series lenses are all beautifully sharp, and I have no other issues with focusing with them,
but if I want a sharp picture with the 50mm, I need to fire off about 6 shots in the hope that one of them is in focus. Most of the time I'm still disappointed.

[old dog]

the second is sharper but I rekon you should bump the dark side of levels a bit and lower the light side to give it a bit more oomph. Cute little fella.

[dbax]

I have major focus issues with my 50mm 1.8.
It's the cheapest lens I own, and the worst value lens I own.
Canon shouldn't even be allowed to sell these things.
My "L" series lenses are all beautifully sharp, and I have no other issues with focusing with them,
but if I want a sharp picture with the 50mm, I need to fire off about 6 shots in the hope that one of them is in focus. Most of the time I'm still disappointed.

well thats a surprise.
I love my 50mm 1.8, yep its cheap, and it doesn't have IS which is the major issue that I've read people have with this lens, they are all used to the IS.
I don't normally shoot portraits so I suppose it might be something different?
Put it on a tripod and do some tests is my advice, learn about the lens.

[fillum]

The original is quite OOF while the processed one seems to be a LOT better. Is it really?
Yes the second image is significantly sharper. This is normal if the image was shot as raw format because no sharpening is applied in camera. If the image was shot as a jpeg check your in-camera sharpening settings. The second image looks sharp enough to me which is the important thing, it doesn't indicate to me any problem with the lens.

Regarding the exposure, if a reasonable chunk of the background was in darker shade than the subject then the meter can cause the subject to be overexposed. It appears you also had your exposure compensation set to +3 which will cause the scene to be slightly brighter than the meter indicated.



Cheers.

[mcmahong]

I think from what I've heard the cheaer 1.8's vary in results quite a bit. I also notice your shutter speed is 1/197.4 which is OK normally unless the child moves a little, at those shutter speeds some softness/blurr occurs easily. Curious the shutter speed seems so low ?.....it looks like bright light, but maybe it wasn't.

How can you tell what the exposure settings are from the photo?

[dbax]

How can you tell what the exposure settings are from the photo?


There are EXIF readers that you can down load that shows the camera setting of a photo, I use Opanda, but there are many others, many are free, Just google Exif reader.
BTW I can't see the Exif on these photos:confused013

[clm738]

I can't see EXIF data either on these photos. Where did you get the +3 exp. comp. from?