Max aperture for portrait at 75mm?
@nz D.R.
Just wondering what the recommended max aperture for a close up portrait is at
75mm?
I just bought a Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 lens (the legendary one that many people say
is tack sharp) and stuck it on aperture priority mode F2.8 and every shot looks
like bad camera-shake even though the shutter speed was 1/500 or more. Wanted a
nice blurry background, not blurry subject. My cheapo US$140 Sigma 28-70 F2.8-4
seems sharper at max aperture. Is my depth of field so small that I should not
rely on the autofocus of my F80? Or just too small in general? Or had I got a
dud lens?
:-(
D.R.
@nz D.R.
"D.R." <D.R. @ NZ> wrote in message news:TPDfd.15$i54...@news.xtra.co.nz...
This is the lens:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=187&sort=7&thecat=29
Rob Novak
>nice blurry background, not blurry subject. My cheapo US$140 Sigma 28-70 F2.8-4
>seems sharper at max aperture. Is my depth of field so small that I should not
>rely on the autofocus of my F80? Or just too small in general? Or had I got a
>dud lens?
You didn't state a focusing distance.
DOF at f2.8 on a 75mm lens focused at five feet is about two and a
half inches.
At ten feet, your DOF is a little less than a foot.
A 70mm lens @ f4 will have a slightly wider DOF, about 4 and a quarter
inches at five feet.
--
Central Maryland Photographers' Guild:
http://www.cmpg.org
@nz D.R.
"Rob Novak" <rob....@NOcomSPAMcast.net> wrote in message
news:3g5un05bcsks8oiuq...@4ax.com...
I'm standing between 5 and 10 feet away depending on the situation. Most times
zoomed to 75mm.
Is there a generic rule of thumb for portraits that take into account aperture,
focal length and distance?
Larry CdeBaca
"D.R." sees it!!
----
I have the same lens, and the same camera (N80).
"Tamron SP AF ASPHERICAL XR Di LD IF 28-75 mm 1:2.8 MACRO 67"
Sounds like something else is awry. Like you're not telling the whole story.
Lens or camera was dropped, shots were made hand-held without benefit of
tripod. Not installed correctly.
There is a rotating ring near the base of the lens. If you look at the side
of the lens,
you should see three scales:
75 60 50 35 28 [LOCK]
| <------------ white line (see below)
32 22 16 11 8 5.6 4 2.8 <-- the ring locks
on 32; maybe yours isn't?
32 22 16 11 8 5.6 4 2.8
Line the 32 mark under the white line -- a miniature button should pop out.
I go to work in 7 hours so I must head off to bed. I can't take the chance
of waking the wee weef to find the lens manual. Check the manual for proper
attachment to Nikons, or go to tamron.com and hunt.
Hope this helps.
Hi people,
:-(
D.R.
"D.R." <D.R. @ NZ> wrote in message news:TPDfd.15$i54...@news.xtra.co.nz...
@nz D.R.
"Larry CdeBaca" <lcde...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0sOdnRZYjIN...@comcast.com...
> Mail bounced when sent to the poster, so replying to the group in hopes that
> "D.R." sees it!!
Inbox so full of spam already, didn't want to DOS my ISP by providing my email
to more harvesters. ;-)
> I have the same lens, and the same camera (N80).
> "Tamron SP AF ASPHERICAL XR Di LD IF 28-75 mm 1:2.8 MACRO 67"
Yep that's it.
> Sounds like something else is awry. Like you're not telling the whole story.
> Lens or camera was dropped, shots were made hand-held without benefit of
> tripod. Not installed correctly.
Hand held at shutter faster than 1/250 if I recall. I can normally get sharp
images with my 70-300 at that shutter speed.
> There is a rotating ring near the base of the lens. If you look at the side
> of the lens,
> you should see three scales:
>
> 75 60 50 35 28 [LOCK]
> | <------------ white line (see below)
> 32 22 16 11 8 5.6 4 2.8 <-- the ring locks
> on 32; maybe yours isn't?
>
> 32 22 16 11 8 5.6 4 2.8
>
> Line the 32 mark under the white line -- a miniature button should pop out.
> I go to work in 7 hours so I must head off to bed. I can't take the chance
> of waking the wee weef to find the lens manual. Check the manual for proper
> attachment to Nikons, or go to tamron.com and hunt.
I will check that tomorrow when its daylight here. :-)
Many thanks.
D.R.
me
How blurry are we talking about here? Is the blur softly focused or is it
smeared in some direction? Can you post examples made with this lens and a
lens that you feel isn't blurry under same/similar conditions? Was the
subject moving quickly? Is this an autofocus lens? If the subject is moving
is the focusing motor working fast enough to keep up? I *always* focus on
the eyes. If autofocus is the focus on the eyes?
Carl
> I think it's more a matter of staging. Remember that 2/3 of your DOF
> is behind the subject, so if you want to blur the background nicely
> the subject needs to be closer to the camera than the backdrop.
>
Call me Mr Picky, but if the subject wasn't closer to the camera than
the backdrop, wouldn't the backdrop obscure the subject? Only joking!
> Use the lens' DOF scale, if possible. If not, find an online DOF
> calculator and run some numbers for your setup. For a 75mm lens
> focused at 8ft., DOF at f2 is 4.8 inches. Step that aperture up to
> f5.6, and your DOF is 1.2 ft. Put 4-5 feet between your subject and
> your backdrop, and you should be fine, I'd think.
>
@nz D.R.
"Rob Novak" <rob....@NOcomSPAMcast.net> wrote in message
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:15:07 +1300, "D.R." <D.R. @ NZ> wrote:
>
> >Is there a generic rule of thumb for portraits that take into account
aperture,
> >focal length and distance?
>
> is behind the subject, so if you want to blur the background nicely
> the subject needs to be closer to the camera than the backdrop.
>
> calculator and run some numbers for your setup. For a 75mm lens
> focused at 8ft., DOF at f2 is 4.8 inches. Step that aperture up to
> f5.6, and your DOF is 1.2 ft. Put 4-5 feet between your subject and
> your backdrop, and you should be fine, I'd think.
Yep 4-5 should be fine, one would think. I got an email response from Tamron USA
after emailing them the description of my problem. They have forwarded my email
to Japan who will tell me where to send my lens to get it "adjusted". :-)
@nz D.R.
"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
news:10nvbsn...@corp.supernews.com...
Pics seem more like very soft focus. The lens is a macro lens so one would
presume you can get very close and have at least the point that you have focused
on being sharp. Here is an example. I focused on the eye at F2.8 and had a
reasonably fast shutter speed (at least 1/250 if I recall).
http://radel.inet.net.nz/soft.jpg
One thing I notice is when I focus on an object in continuous focus mode, that
when I move the focuspoint around the persons face that there seems to be no
adjustments made by the lens. It must think the eye socket is the same distance
as the end of the nose. I usually point at the eye socket to focus and then
recompose at little.
I got an email response from Tamron USA after emailing them the description of
my problem. They have forwarded my email to Japan who will tell me where to send
my lens to get it "adjusted". Or is it just my technique?
@nz D.R.
> "D.R." sees it!!
Hi Larry.
Here is a sample pic taken a F.2.8 (not a flattering photo though). Pic looks
really soft to me.
http://radel.inet.net.nz/soft.jpg
The wee button you mentioned as sticking at out the F32 mark. Most lenses give
an error on the F80's LCD if not set to min aperture on the ring.
D.R.
me
1/250 is plenty fast enough.
> http://radel.inet.net.nz/soft.jpg
It's hard to tell but it looks to me like the point of focus is the ear. I
could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time eithier.
> One thing I notice is when I focus on an object in continuous focus mode,
that
> when I move the focuspoint around the persons face that there seems to be
no
> adjustments made by the lens.
Does your other lens make adjustments when you do this? They have almost
identical focal length and zoom range so I see no reason why they wouldn't
act exactly the same unless there's something wrong with the Tamron (or my
reasoning).
> It must think the eye socket is the same distance
> as the end of the nose. I usually point at the eye socket to focus and
then
> recompose at little.
>
> I got an email response from Tamron USA after emailing them the
description of
> my problem. They have forwarded my email to Japan who will tell me where
to send
> my lens to get it "adjusted".
Yes, I would want it *adjusted* too.
> Or is it just my technique?
Could have used some fill flash but otherwise I agree. Hope you get this
problem worked out to your satisfaction.
Good Luck!
me
Dominic Richens
>
> Here is a sample pic taken a F.2.8 (not a flattering photo though).
> Pic looks really soft to me.
> http://radel.inet.net.nz/soft.jpg
The ear is perfectly in focus, so the camera just mistakenly focussed on a
point about 15cm behind her nose.
--
Dominic Richens | dom...@alumni.uottawa.ca
"If you're not *outraged*, you're not paying attention!"
Petros
Looking at the photo, I wondered whether you have the lens set to
continuous mode focus, since the center (her neck) is more or less in
focus together with her ear. Does the same problem happen when you
focus manually?
--
Petros
Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos
@nz D.R.
"Petros" <retepe...@safenet.pl> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bead712c...@news.individual.de...
I have tried both. I pointed at the eye and pressed the shutter. It's like the
lens thinks the subject is a few inchs behind where I point and focus. Of course
and smaller apertures things sharpen up. Pretty much two rolls of film were
filled with soft photos, whereas I never got that with my el cheapo Sigma. The
main shots that were soft were all close-ups, but the lens is a macro so that
should be ok. Just as well I didn't get rid of it for now. I have dropped the
lens into the Tamron distributor with some sample pics for testing.
@nz D.R.
"Rob Novak" <rob....@NOcomSPAMcast.net> wrote in message
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:01:11 +1300, "D.R." <D.R. @ NZ> wrote:
>
> >Here is a sample pic taken a F.2.8 (not a flattering photo though). Pic looks
> >really soft to me.
> >http://radel.inet.net.nz/soft.jpg
>
>
> It appears the "smart" auto-focus has keyed on the ear. Since DOF is
> so shallow at that focal length, distance, and aperture, the rest of
> the face is slightly soft.
>
> AF on the eyes. Use AF lock, and then recompose. Lock the AF sensor
> to a single point if your camera uses multiple AF points. Close down
> the aperture a little bit to give yourself a few more inches leeway in
> your DOF.
>
> I don't think this is a lens problem.
Hi Rob,
Thanks for the reply and the tips. I always use the center AF point 99% of the
time, and pretty much never ever use the 5 point AF features. I have been burnt
in the past by having a perfectly focused background and out-of-focus subjects.
;-)
Actually with our Coolpix 4300 the same thing happened even when putting onto
manual center-sensor-only AF. Background sharp, subject blurred. My workaround
is to press the Flower (macro?) button on the Coolpix for any portrait or photo
where people are in it almost. Seems to do the trick. ;-)
The Tamron agent put the 28-75mm lens on a projector and decided that one side
was soft. They don't have the US$16250 machine to adjust the lens, so they opted
to sent the lens to Japan and give me a new replacement. I think I better throw
some film through my camera and test this lens before using it for anything
special. One of the films that was disappointing with the lens was of my mothers
60th. :-(
D.R.
@nz D.R.
"D.R." <D.R. @ NZ> wrote in message news:TPDfd.15$i54...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Thanks for all the replies! :-)
I took it to the Tamron agents (co-incidentally the NZ agents are in my town)
and they put it on a projector and concluded that the lens was soft on one side.
Even though these lens can be adjusted to fix, they don't have the US$16250
machine to do it, so I got a new replacement. They say that they rarely have any
issues with these lenses, but if anything would go wrong it's normally this and
can be easily adjusted. My old lens has gone to Japan for adjustment (and I
guess will be re-sold?).
Now to test it. Wishing I had a D70 instead of my F80 for this purpose. I hate
the waiting game at the lab. ;-)
D.R.