Originally Posted by jho288
You can't expect much more than a thin sliver of the frame to be in focus as f/1.2. That, combined with the fact that very few lenses are completely sharp wide open (the 85L not being one of them), and I'd guess that your results are typical for that lens. Just figured out how to view the shot, looks like about what I'd expect at f/1.2.
I don't know what you're looking for in terms of sharpness, but this shot was taken with my 5DII and 27-70L (btw, this is not a crop, I positioned myself as to have her face fill the frame, thus using far more pixels per inch than if I had shot much wider and had to crop down to this composition. If this were a crop of a larger image, I couldn't rightly expect tack-sharp focus to this extent)
<table id="Inbox" cellspacing="0" width="100%"]
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="30%"]Camera:</td>
<td>[b][url="/cameras/canon/eos_5d_mark_ii/]Canon EOS 5D Mark II[/url][/b]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="30%"]Exposure:</td>
<td>0.005 sec (1/200)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="30%"]Aperture:</td>
<td>f/5.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="30%"]Focal Length:</td>
<td>70 mm</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
ISO Speed:
</td>
<td>
100
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
As you can see, the area around the eye is in sharp focus, but her nose isn't. I was shooting pretty close to the MFD to get the composition I wanted, but shooting at f/5 gave me the sharpness I wanted. If I had shot at f/2.8, I'd probably have lost most of that sharpness.
You have to remember, as somebody else pointed out, you are almost never going to view a shot as large as you can on a computer screen. Try getting prints of a few of your tack sharp shots and see that sharpness "disappear", then get a print of one of your non-tack sharp shots and compare. I'd be willing to bet they will make very similar prints, depending on the size.
Prints can't display at the same insane resolution as a 100% crop on a compute screen can. Looking at a grab at 100% on a screen would essentially be the equivelent of putting your nose up to an 11x16 print. Prints (like televisions) are meant to be view at a distance, combined with the "loss" of resolution when in print, and that tack sharp shot isn't quite as important.
I think that subject framing is also a major factor. In my photo above, it is important that her eye be in sharp focus because her eye fills far more of the frame than in your shot. I would assume that in my shot, having the eye larger in frame also makes it easier to achieve that tack-sharp look.
<div>
Which is exactly my point. Pixel peeping is fun, but it can get out of hand IMO. Sometimes reminds me of little boys in the middle school locker room. Tack sharp does matter, but only to an extent, and only in certain situations. In the photo you provided, your subject rather small in the frame, and you shot wide open (typically the softest part of the lens), so yes, she isn't tack sharp. But when it comes down to it, does she need to be in this shot?
</div>
Reply With Quote