# 1.2, 1.4, 1.8 Lenses Depth of field shallowness Problem



## Balwazer (Jan 31, 2012)

Hello all

I mainly shoot fashion and beauty.

I was wondering what is the big deal about lenses that have such a big aperture like f/1.2, When you eventually going to use at least f/6.0 or f/8 to keep at least both model eyes in focus.

Last shoot I had, I was using my 70-200 lens at f/6 and I was shooting a for a makeup shoot and most of the shoots one of the model eyes were completely sharp and the other is slightly out of focus, specially when the model turn her head. so if using a bigger aperture will make it worse. So what is the point of the big aperture portrait lenses?!!

a fashion and beauty photographer told me to get the Canon 85mm 1.2 because it produce a creamy out of focus backgrounds, and I assume that it does that when used at f/1.2

So what do you think? when it is possible to use such a big aperture? I shoot mostly with strobes.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 31, 2012)

Balwazer said:


> Hello all
> 
> I mainly shoot fashion and beauty.
> 
> ...



I use a relatively large aperture, but I don't shoot wide open. If you were shooting on the long end of the 70-200, your DoF is going to decrease even at the same aperture.


----------



## IgsEMT (Jan 31, 2012)

Balwazer said:


> Hello all
> 
> I mainly shoot fashion and beauty.
> 
> ...



I don't disagree w/ you on stopping down *but* by the same token, why not use 18-200 as one lens and nothing else?  Don't get me wrong, I'll go far to defend that lens, but only so far  Faster lenses have a history of producing superior results.


----------



## KmH (Jan 31, 2012)

The optics of the wide aperture prime lenses have to be made to a higher standard than slower lenses.

Prime lenses can be corrected more precisely for optical aberrations than zoom lenses can.

Many photographers use way too shallow a DoF, particularly newbies, because they lack technical understanding and experience in doing photography.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 31, 2012)

Balwazer said:


> I was wondering what is the big deal about lenses that have such a big aperture like f/1.2,... what is the point of the big aperture portrait lenses?!!



I never quite understood it myself.  Using shallow depth of field (selective focus) is a very important element in many types of photography.  

I noticed when SLRs became SO commonplace, the chatter about brighter lenses really exploded.  My suspicion is when SO many people entered into the realm of more serious photography, the first real difference they noticed in thier results was the wonderful separation they achieved when shooting at wide apertures in low light situations.  This is a HUGE difference from shooting with the once common point and shoot.

Combine this zeal with the constant use of short lenses (wider than normal), it became necessary to shoot wide open to perceive any separation of the subject from the background.

Well, anyway...  that's my musing about it all. 

-Pete


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 31, 2012)

KmH said:


> Many photographers use way to(o) shallow a DoF, particularly newbies, because they lack technical understanding and experience in doing photography.



There...  that's what I was saying.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 31, 2012)

It depends on many different things... Focal length, distance to subject, Subject distance to background, what you want the background to look like, quality of the lenses, where you focus, how well you understand DOF... etc..

Usually lenses are sharpest stopped down 2 to 3 Fstops from wide open... so a 1.2 is going to give you more options for low light even stopped down, than a F4 lens would.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 31, 2012)

Christie Photo said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Many photographers use way to(o) shallow a DoF, particularly newbies, because they lack technical understanding and experience in doing photography.
> ...



Yep.. I hear "but that is what the Pro's do" all the time! Newbies want good Bokeh.. but don't understand that there more to it than just a wide aperture!


----------



## analog.universe (Jan 31, 2012)

I like to shoot in the dark, or close to it, a lot of the time.  With a 1.4, in dim settings, I'm getting nice shutter speeds and ISO under 2000.  Sure, my dof is shallow, and my subject's nose is out of focus, but if all I had was an f4 (or worse some vari-zoom at 5.6), then all I'd be shooting are black frames.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jan 31, 2012)

You got to remember shooting wide open when your subject is far will give you pretty deep DOF.  When I am in a dark church, sometimes I just set it wide open to keep shutter fast.  When I shoot something closer, thats when I start thinking about DOF.


----------



## KmH (Jan 31, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Christie Photo said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...


And don't get that bokeh is not adjustable like DoF is.


----------



## KmH (Jan 31, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> You got to remember shooting wide open when your subject is far will give you pretty deep DOF.  When I am in a dark church, sometimes I just set it wide open to keep shutter fast.  When I shoot something closer, thats when I start thinking about DOF.


What do you do about the softer focus from being wide open?


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 31, 2012)

KmH said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > You got to remember shooting wide open when your subject is far will give you pretty deep DOF.  When I am in a dark church, sometimes I just set it wide open to keep shutter fast.  When I shoot something closer, thats when I start thinking about DOF.
> ...



Live with it?


----------



## jake337 (Jan 31, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Schwettylens said:
> ...



Call it soft focus?  Selective sharpening?


----------



## CCericola (Jan 31, 2012)

If they made an 18-200 with the same precision, care and quality of professional lenses then for studios work it would be fine. But they don't. Everything about that lens is inferior and is not a professional lens. I didn't buy the 70-200 2.8 only because it could go to 2.8. It is QUALITY glass and Precision elemments. Being able to go down to 2.8 in a dark venue is just a benefit of professional glass. The 50mm comes in 2.0, 1.8, 1.4 and 1.2. Does the f number really matter? not really. The lens quality makes a difference. I would take a Zeiss 50mm 2.0 over a Canon 50mm 1.2L any day because I have used both and I prefer the quality of the Zeiss lens.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jan 31, 2012)

KmH said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > You got to remember shooting wide open when your subject is far will give you pretty deep DOF.  When I am in a dark church, sometimes I just set it wide open to keep shutter fast.  When I shoot something closer, thats when I start thinking about DOF.
> ...



Well.... sometimes I can get away with slow shutter, sometimes I cant.  The only thing I can do is open up the aperture or bring the ISO even higher OR both.  My lenses are plenty sharp wide open though.  Better be wide open than have motion blur.


----------



## MReid (Jan 31, 2012)

Depends on the look you are going for, and the application. 
I have never shot a portrait at greater than F4. I shoot most of my stuff wide open or close to it. I choose my backgrounds accordingly.
As long as the eyes are sharp the rest is gravy...if you know what you are doing it is not a problem.

All the lenses I use for portraits are very sharp wide open.


----------



## Garbz (Feb 1, 2012)

Balwazer said:


> I mainly shoot fashion and beauty.



So to translate. "I mainly shoot subjects that are required to be tac sharp from front to back, I don't understand why people buy lenses that give narrow depth of field!"

The answer is simple, not everyone shoots fashion and beauty. Shallow depth of field is a great way to draw attention to a very specific item in a deep complicated and distracting background. Think bird in a tree, you're interested in the bird and not the tree. 

What's the fuss about f/1.2 lenses? It lets the people who want to get a specific look, attain their specific look. It may not work for you but damn it works for many others.


----------



## Balwazer (Feb 1, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> You got to remember shooting wide open when your subject is far will give you pretty deep DOF.  When I am in a dark church, sometimes I just set it wide open to keep shutter fast.  When I shoot something closer, thats when I start thinking about DOF.



Good point


----------



## Balwazer (Feb 1, 2012)

CCericola said:


> If they made an 18-200 with the same precision, care and quality of professional lenses then for studios work it would be fine. But they don't. Everything about that lens is inferior and is not a professional lens. I didn't buy the 70-200 2.8 only because it could go to 2.8. It is QUALITY glass and Precision elemments. Being able to go down to 2.8 in a dark venue is just a benefit of professional glass. The 50mm comes in 2.0, 1.8, 1.4 and 1.2. Does the f number really matter? not really. The lens quality makes a difference. I would take a Zeiss 50mm 2.0 over a Canon 50mm 1.2L any day because I have used both and I prefer the quality of the Zeiss lens.



Thank you CCericola, I think this is the answer I am looking for


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 2, 2012)

KmH said:


> The optics of the wide aperture prime lenses have to be made to a higher standard than slower lenses.
> 
> Prime lenses can be corrected more precisely for optical aberrations than zoom lenses can.
> 
> Many photographers use way too shallow a DoF, particularly newbies, because they lack technical understanding and experience in doing photography.



Me.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 2, 2012)

That's why VR is important even in 24-70mm 2.8.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 2, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> That's why VR is important even in 24-70mm 2.8.



Why is VR important on a 24-70 f/2.8? If you're going to shell out the money for a 24-70, I'd expect that you'd also know how to hold a camera to reduce shake. 

Personally, I've never had a reason to have IS or OS or VR or whatever on a shorter focal length than 100mm, and even then most of the time I have it turned off.


----------



## KmH (Feb 2, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > That's why VR is important even in 24-70mm 2.8.
> ...


Absolutely and for me extend that out to 200 mm.

Image stabilzation is more of a marketing gimmick than a feature needed on lenses of 200 mm focal length and less. 

Nikon VR explained


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 2, 2012)

KmH said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



Thanks for the information.


----------



## Garbz (Feb 3, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Why is VR important on a 24-70 f/2.8? If you're going to shell out the money for a 24-70, I'd expect that you'd also know how to hold a camera to reduce shake.



Amazingly the effects happen to stack. My hands are far more steady than my girlfriends, but not 4 stops more steady. Now if her hands were as steady as mine, or I had VR I could shoot handheld in an even wider range of scenarios.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 3, 2012)

VR actually stabilizes the AF too, so you need not worry if your focus point is changed due to hand shake. But upon seeing the link, I think VR isn't as important as I thought it was.


----------

