Is my lens soft?

[maylis_curie]

<p>Hello everyone,</p>

<p>after receiving good advice on another part of this forum, I am coming to the portrait specialists with the following issue: I am practicing my portrait skills, and am getting worried that my lens may be soft as I don't seem to get the desired sharpness even in good lighting conditions.<br>

My lens is a Canon IS_USM 18-105, about a year old, which I use on my 5d MkII.</p>

<p>Here is an example of the problem. Exif data: f4, 1/1250s, 400 ISO, 45mm. BUT it doesn't look quite sharp to me. Am I right? Or just imagining it? When I see fantastically crisp images I think mine just cannot compare... Am I doing something wrong or is my lens soft?</p><div></div>

[SCL]

<p>How much post processing sharpening are you using, if any? Also it appears that your point of focus is not in the plane of the child's eyes, but rather in front of the eyes (from looking at the sharpest point on the railing). Are you using autofocus or manual focus? If autofocus, which point are you using? Mosp photogs will use only the central point and nail the kid's eyes as the point of focus.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>It's a little hard to tell, since the image is down-sampled to a small portion of the original resolution, but it seems OK. What you're missing, when you compare it to what I'm guessing you're comparing it to, are:<br /><br />1) Lighting. The light on the subject's face is very flat (was this in the shade?), which makes for relatively low contrast. You can make up for some of that by pushing contrast after the fact, but there's nothing like controlling the light add a little dimensionality.<br /><br />2) You're probably a little underexposed on the face, and aren't really getting any catch lights in the eyes. Positioned right, you might have been able to catch a little of that mottled sunlight with a reflector - which would add some spark to the eyes, and sculpt the face just a bit. <br /><br />3) In post, you've got plenty to work with, even as-is. How do you normally handle image sharpening? <br /><br />4) You might have given up some of that shutter speed (say, bringing it down to 1/250th), and thus <em>lower</em> the ISO so that you retain more detail and stop down a notch more so that you can sharpen up the lens. <br /><br />Aside from that, I'd probably have backed away a bit, and used that lens at closer to 75mm or so. That would have helped with the overall proportions/perspective.</p>

[maylis_curie]

<p>Thank you for your feedback, I will definitely try to change my method a bit.<br>

To answer the various questions:<br>

-This photo is straight out of the camera, no post processing at all.<br>

-Yes this was taken in the shade, at about 5pm (we are in Texas, very strong sunlight).<br>

-When I post process I use Lightroom. I adjust the tone, add a bit of saturation if needed, smooth the skin and sharpen (I use the sharpening slider). See an example attached.<br>

-I can't stop down any more with this lens. F/4 is as wide as it will get. I'm seriously considering buying a lens that would be better suited to portraits. Any advice on this very welcome (I would be looking at spending around $500).</p>

<div></div>

[maylis_curie]

<p>Oh, and yes, I am using the central point of the autofocus. I find it very frustrating though, because I never seem to get it focused onto the eye properly. Is there a trick I don't know about?</p>

[anthony_bridges]

<p>Nice photo, Maylis. The baby is really cute.</p>

<p>What a previous poster listed about stopping down the aperture means to choose a higher aperture number to give you more depth of field. It sounds counter intuitive. Stopping down actually means selecting a higher aperture number. If you are shooting F/4.0, the area of full sharpness is smaller than F/5.6 or F/8.0.</p>

[markus maurer]

<p>A fast 50/55 mm prime should be less that $500 and sometimes manually focussing on the eyes is more precise than autofocus which might get the nose instead.</p>

[jyoungman]

<p>Maylis, stopping down means using a smaller aperture. That is, moving away from f/4 a bit, towards f/8. <br>

Matt made some good suggestions. Since you're clearly trying to isolate the foreground, it's worth noticing that the subject is so much closer to the camera than the background that you could afford to use a slightly smaller aperture (see Anthony's comment) without much loss of subject isolation - even if you move away a bit.</p>

[alfredo_gotay_cordero]

<p>Check out the Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM lens. About $650 and can double as a sport/candid lens. For tight shots you really don't need a fast prime to blur away the background. If you plan to shoot a lot of full body portraits of adults then a fast prime is a must.<br>

To cover all your portrait needs I would add the following to my bag (~$750)<br>

- Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM - for almost all your portraits ($650)<br>

- Canon EF 50mm F1.8 - for full body and group shots ($99)</p>

[SCL]

<p>I applied a little sharpening and it improved the eyes quite a bit.</p><div></div>

[maylis_curie]

<p>Ok, so my problem might be solved by either focusing manually (will try) or have a larger aperture.<br>

I also tend to up the exposure by 2/3 or even 1 stop as I think it gives the baby portraits a nice light. Would it help not to do that do you think?<br>

Below is an example (post-processed-adjusted the tone, sharpened, added vignetting) of a portrait at f/6.3, 1/125s, ISO 400.</p>

<p>I was looking at two possible lenses: the EF 85mm f/1.8 and the EF 50mm f/1.4. They would both be within budget... but I'm now wondering if I really need either?</p><div></div>

[SCL]

<p>You might think about some fill flash if you are going to be doing a lot of back lighted portraits in (even overcast) sunlight, so that you don't blow the highlights or have the subject too dark. (Just noticed the arm holding the back of the kid in your recent shot).</p>

[maylis_curie]

<p>Thanks Stephen, I do have a good speedlight, so I could certainly practice using it.</p>

[wogears]

<p>Just needs the right processing, IMO. First I corrected exposure, then smoothed out the skin tone a bit, dodged the eyes and sharpened. Many times, a lack of sharpness is really a lack of local contrast.</p><div></div>