Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

It's close enough unless one is going to pixel peep. In the composition Greg used it doesn't matter. Sure, focusing on the nearest eye is the correct way of doing it but I bet the client has no idea that the focus was on the bridge of the nose, doesn't matter.

What does matter is the lens difference. A 50mm 1.4 on a full frame at 3 feet away has a DOF of 1/2 inch. On a 35mm 1.4 your DOF at 3 feet is over double that of the 50mm. That's huge when your trying to get 2 eyes in focus.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

In my professional shooting, dead on focus when shooting targets of opportunity is about zero so i usually throw the focus to an area that does not matter and let the whole frame go soft.
The ladies love it.
But this post is about pixel peeping and a silly millimeter does matter.
The OP is going to have a cow when he realizes that 85/1.8 likes f4.

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

Agreed, the 85/1.8 loves 4.0 - 8.0

Broome Brothers Loc: Topeka Kansas

I have the 2.8 and will be happy to trade you straight up if you want.

streetmarty Loc: Brockton, Ma

Yup got the Nikon 85mm 1.8D and was immediately blown away with the fast focus. I'm very happy with the photos and will post some new Portraits for your critique in a couple of days. Thanks Beercat and the rest of the help from the HH's! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

:thumbup:

dawgtired Loc: Raleigh, NC

I rarely comment on this site, but I'd like to add my two cents to this discussion. Yes 1.4 has a very shallow DOF, but depending on what you are trying to accomplish, that can be a blessing or a curse. The problem I see with what you are trying to do is there is too much depth to deal with and it just won't work. You need to have both eyes on the same focal plane at 1.4 or else one will be in focus and the other out. Trying to capture a sharp photo when the baby (who by the way is precious) is photographed at 1.4 and at that angle...not gonna happen. Take a look at the photographs by one of my favorite guys. He, like me, shoots wide open most of the time with Leica, but regardless of the system 1.4 is going to be 1.4. I just mention Leica since they have a lens at 0.95 and he has some great shots that show what can be done at such a narrow DOF. If you click on this link http://photographsbypeter.com/?s=noctilux , you'll see what I mean. Here is a picture of an older gentleman and Peter goes into detail about the rendering of that lens at that DOF. The image is gorgeous, as usual, but you can clearly see the eyes are in focus but little else. Hope this helps. http://photographsbypeter.com/

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

He's a great and talented photogerapher, but unless I'm missing something he doesn't seem to share his camera settings at all. Sometimes he shares what lens he uses, other times not. Also he shoots film. Don't see how his site can improve my pics in any way without any info on his f stop and exposure settings, and probably without me using film like he does.
Bob

dawgtired Loc: Raleigh, NC

Why do you think he only shoots film? You may not have looked at his site very much, but he's used mostly an M9-P which certainly isn't film. He's also experimented with other digital cameras along the way, but seems to always get back to the M9. Right now he is shooting film with an M3, but by far the majority of the images on his site are digital. As far as camera settings, I've communicated with him often and I can assure you he shoots wide open, most, if not all of the time. That should be pretty evident by the shallow DOF in his images.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Maybe I don't know where to look. I clicked on the images tab on his site and there is a vertical stack of his images. There's no info on any of them, what camera, what lens, what setting. How would I know what images came from a dslr?
I looked at a couple of his recent blog entries, all the pics (maybe recent ones) are all shot with film, some tell what lens (all quite esoteric lenses), some don't.
I would guess he shoots film because it creates a more artistic look than a dslr would. His site is great for looking at great pics, but not much use for a dslr user who wants to improve. None of his lenses would work on a Nikon dslr camera. I'll go out on a limb and say none of his film images could be exactly reproduced on any dslr with any lens.
Bob

dawgtired Loc: Raleigh, NC

Bob, if you scroll down to the bottom of his homepage "images", you'll see a pull down menu under "cameras and lenses". There you will be able to search Peter's images by camera, lens, etc. There are even a couple of I-phone images as well as I recall. There are Nikon images, Zeiss Otus images, and I believe one with the same lens this post is about. If you see an image that appeals to you, the camera, lens, etc., are all posted on the left of the photograph. If you click on say Summilux 35, it should pull up all the photographs taken with that lens. Same thing with the camera listed as being used. Let me know if you have any other questions. Peter's site has some amazing photographs. I guess he strikes a chord with me, one being an amateur, and two, he loves taking photographs of the most important thing in life to him, his family.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Thanks Dawgtired,
The index and search feature lays it all out. I realized I was wrong about film vs dslr though as Peter's shots with the Nikon D800E and the Zeiss 55mm f1.4 Distagon Otus lens are every bit as good as any of his film shots. I guess it's the lens that counts the most. Of course that is a $4,000 lens. He also took a pic with the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 that I also own. That's a $100 lens (on ebay) and the results are nowhere as breathtaking for Peter or for me.
I also like fooling around with old lenses. Attached is a pic of one of my grandchildren taken last summer. It's with a Mamiya 40mm f3.5, 1/200 sec, iso-100, f3.5, attached to a Nikon D3100 with an adapter. A bit soft all over and nothing in sharp focus, but the lens does give a certain character to the shot. Thanks for all the info. Great website.
Bob

(Download)

greg vescuso Loc: Ozark,Mo.

Thanks for posting this link, all these shots being taken wide open just show off a color rendering so vibrant but natural, and I believe you are getting a more artistic feel to these images shooting wide open even if the focus is very minimal.

streetmarty Loc: Brockton, Ma

Thanks for the help.....I don't understand the picture posted of the little girl which is out of focus, I mean not even one eye is in focus, very cute girl however. What am I missing here? Anyway very very happy with the 85. :thumbup: :thumbup:

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

If you pixel peep you can count the eyelashes. I'm not sure if this is out of focus or just a very soft lens wide open. Some soft lenses are used for portraits as they obliterate all the pores and blemishes (not that a little child would need that). This lens is from a Mamiya 645 film camera and used on the Nikon D3100 with an adapter. I just posted it as an example of a different look an old lens can get.
Here is a similar look from Peter's website which was referenced above.
https://prosophos.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/aura.jpg
Bob