Golden Rule Loc: Washington State

Shot has no post processing. Shot a Nikon D750, shutter 1/320 at 2.0, ISO 100. I just got this lens and it is consistently giving me soft eyes although I am autofocusing on the eyes. The ground beneath is sharp and this is happening with every shot I take. Does anyone have a clue as to the problem? I have never had this problem with my 24-70mm/f2.8 or 70-200mm Nikkor lenses so I don't want to blame user error....yet!

1/320at 2.0 ISO100

(Download)

1/2500 at 2.0 ISO100

(Download)

DNW

I wonder if you need to fine tune the lens? Have you done that?

Golden Rule Loc: Washington State

No, I have never tried to fine tune a lens.

DNW

Try the web-sites: froknowsphoto.com or backcountrygallery.com

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I use the 85mm 1.4 with no problems.
But, as can be expected, depth of field is narrow when the lens is wide open.

Kuzano

The minute variable between mount tolerances, plus or minus for both the lens and body CAN add up to either a front focusing combination or a rear focusing combination. Before fine tuning particular lenses came out in digital, it was possible to get a lens/body combination that did not match up properly when considering plus/minus tolerances for each piece. One shortcoming of the "assembly line" process and second, the short circuit of no actual testing to match on All combos of lens/cameras boxed and sent to market gives results like you are describing. Even the fudge factor in tolerance to prevent lenses and camera bodies from galling and seizing up for good, ie Stuck Lens.

It was not unusual during the film era and early digital to have to send camera bodies and particular lenses in to the support desk and have either the camera body mount, and/or the lens mount shimmed for precise fit and sharpness in the image.

So the question becomes again.....

Have you fine tuned your lens to the camera body.

Have you even tested your lens and camera for front/back OOF. There are kits for doing this and also explanation on how to DIY for proper front/back focus.

Ah! the wonder of the assembly line and the failing of mass production on optical devices. Thank god for ILC in the modern world. Or should we have stuck with fixed lenses altogether.

Just how sloppy is your lens in the mount, or is it too far one way or the other. I have sent lenses and bodies in to the MFR for proper shimming to focus in my 50 years of photography.

Bottom line.... Not every new lens properly fits every new camera body.... even when purchased as a kit. Sometimes the plus/minus tolerances are just not right for each other. Hence selective fine tuning in the programming in the bodies and the lenses.

Best get on the internet and find out how to set up a test for focus. Secondly take yourself out of the equation with tripod and remote release. Don't touch any component of the test.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

How far away from the dogs face are you when you shot these?

At f/2 the range of sharp focus could be very small and rocking back and forth, moving, the dog moving slightly...anything could throw it off.

Edited to add: I just looked closely at the second shot; the plane of focus is at the collar which seems to be about the eye distance also.

Don't drive yourself mad with pixel peeping. It sure appears that there isn't anything wrong except shooting wide open at a moving subject hand-held and then pixel peeping it to death.

Ratchet the aperture down one more notch, move back 2 feet and try again. :)

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Looks like DOF is to shallow.....the head is ok, but the back end is soft. Same with the ground.....Sharp at the front feet, soft at the rear....Your DOF is only about .7 feet at those settings if you were 10 feet away...... at 20 feet you would have about 3.4 feet.....i'm guessing you were about 10 feet away? Just my opinion according to Hyperfocal pro on my phone......Photopills say a little different https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof but not much.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

No need to fine tune lens. The issue is depth of field.
Shoot at F5.6 or F8 and problem is solved.

Golden Rule Loc: Washington State

I want shallow depth of field so f2.0 is reasonable sense it is a f1.4 lens.

Golden Rule Loc: Washington State

Yes, about 10 feet away from the dog. I wanted sharp eyes and the body starting to go a bit soft is okay. But every shot was sharp in front grass, soft on the paws and then it seemed to get a little less soft halfway up the body and soft in the eyes again.

Golden Rule Loc: Washington State

I figured hand held at 1/2500 should be fast enough and I was kneeling to be on a lower plane about 10 feet away from the dog. The eyes are definitely soft as well as the hair around the muzzle and eyes.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

The Nikon 85mm f1.4G is Nikon's best 85mm. It costs $1800. For that price, it is suppose to be sharp. Some say it is overpriced, and that you are better off saving money, getting the 85mm f1.8G. And some have said that the Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art lens is sharper the the Nikon's 85mm f1.4G. I hope you figure out your problem. But, I think you may be doing something wrong? Good luck.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Narrow depth of field appears to be the problem; not shutter speed.
Experiment at f4, 5.6 for better results.

Golden Rule Loc: Washington State

Okay, I'm convinced I need to fine tune the lens and after watching youtubes perhaps all of my lenses, ha!