Nikon 50mm F1.8G lens setting

[Sohaib Siddique]

<p>i have nikon D3200 with 50mm f1.8G and please suggest me some setting:<br>

Daylight Portrait ?<br>

Daylight Landscape ?<br>

and in close range things ?</p>

[alan_olander1664878205]

<p>There are no "best settings". For each situation, the settings you will use will be determined by the light available, the depth of field you need/want, the "look" you want, and other things. In general, portraits are often shot at wider apertures to limit depth of field. Landscapes and close-ups often require smaller apertures to increase depth of field. Aperture, shutter speed, and ISO all need to be considered for each image you take.</p>

[Sohaib Siddique]

<p>you means for portrait us small f stop like 1.8 and 2.8 and for landscape 16 ?<br>

another thing when capture something really close and my aperture on 1.8 even on 2.8 i cant focus whole area which i want ?</p>

[paul_wheatland]

<p>I usually turn off AF switch when I want to focus manually on a particular portion of the subject during a close up composition!</p>

[Sohaib Siddique]

<p>thanku paul i will try </p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>If you have trouble with manual focusing because of the small viewfinder, an alternative to Paul's suggestion is to switch to back button focus. It takes some practice to get used to this, but you can leave focus on continuous servo, but still spot focus and recompose as you would in single servo mode.</p>

<p>Remember that the view you get is always at full (1.8) aperture, and you won't know what your depth of field is until you see the picture, so try to focus on what is most important initially.</p>

<p>The D3200 does not have a depth of field preview, but there is a somewhat clumsy workaround. If you set the aperture you want to try first (in M or A mode), then switch to Live View, the LV display will use that aperture. Although the aperture for exposure will still change correctly, the aperture for view will not until after you shoot. Live View will always use either the aperture you were in when you entered it, or the aperture of the last shot made while you were in it. </p>

<p>If you prefer the viewfinder, you can switch Live View on and off for depth of field preview. It's clumsy, and limited by the resolution of the display, but somewhat effective. </p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<blockquote>

<p>another thing when capture something really close and my aperture on 1.8 even on 2.8 i cant focus whole area which i want ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This sounds like a Depth of Field issue to me. Something that comes to play often in close-up or macro photography. In simple terms, for a given camera and lens combination, the "depth of field" (how much of the image is in focus) is dependent on the aperture used and the distance the subject is from the camera. The wider the aperture and the closer the subject is, the more shallow the depth of field is. The only way around it is to use a smaller aperture, which may require higher ISO or the use of a tripod, or to back up some and then crop the image in post.</p>

<p>That's a pretty simplistic explanation. There's a lot of more detailed info on the web.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>Many people seem to be afraid to close down a lens even in macro mode because they're afraid of diffraction, but I suggest you try several different apertures, including those that are usually avoided, because the effect of diffraction can vary from nasty to virtually nothing depending on the light and the subject, and often the gain in depth of field is worth the slight loss of sharpness.</p>

<p>Here is a quick and dirty comparison of close up shots of the same subject at settings of F 2.8 and 22. The lens is an 85/2.8, the camera a D3200 on a tripod, ISO 100, Aperture priority, natural light. manual focus. As you can see there is some loss of sharpness at 22, but this is a straight crop down to 350 pixels square, with no post processing at all. </p><div></div>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>And for reference, this is the original from which the crop was taken.</p><div></div>

[alan_olander1664878205]

<p>I think he's asking about depth of field. Yes, at a wide aperture like f/1.8, 2.8, or even 5.6, the depth of field is very shallow meaning the area in focus will be small, front to back. At very close distances, even f/16 or smaller may not give you enough in focus.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>And here's the same thing, at F64. Above F22 the nose softens up a lot, but the depth of field certainly improves.</p><div></div>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>By the way, a little too late to edit, in that last shot, the setting was a nominal F45, seen as 64 by the camera.</p>

[Sohaib Siddique]

<p>thanks all really helping, thx alan to clear my concept.</p>

[Sohaib Siddique]

<p>one thing more if i cover a object like 2 - 3 meter away can i shoot with 2.0 or 2.8 Aperture ?</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>That will depend a little on the object, but in general, a 35 mm. lens at that distance will give you a fair amount of depth of field even wide open. I don't have the lens in question, so used a 35/2.8 manual lens for this.</p>

<p>The 700 pixel limit on images here makes it a little difficult to illustrate because resolution is reduced so, but I put my tripod on a tape measure at the 9 foot mark (a little under 3 meters) and focused on the 3 foot mark, shooting down at an angle, which puts the distance of camera from object at about two meters. This detail shows that one can get a fair amount of depth of field at that distance. Three meters is a pretty sizable distance for a 35 millimeter lens, and depth of field will be fairly generous. </p><div></div>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>Here's the whole shot, with camera on tripod about a meter high, over the 9 foot mark, aimed at the 3 foot mark. You can't tell sharpness from this low res JPG. Of course, since you have a digital camera, the best way to find out what works best for you is to try it yourself. Put an object of your choice on a table, stand back and shoot it at different apertures. Decide what suits you. Take a zillion shots and erase them when you're done. </p><div></div>

[Sohaib Siddique]

<p>Mathew Currie i will try your method , according to your 1st pic depth of field i two feet, from 4 to 3 feet and 3 to 4 feet, </p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>Depth of field is relative, and depends a little on how sharp you need things. For maximum sharpness it's probably closer to a foot, say between 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 feet, but fair for two feet. For a 50 mm. lens it's probably closer to six inches.</p>

<p>I used a 35 mm. lens for this, and a 50 will give you shallower depth of field. Brain cramp, forgot which lens you were using!</p>

<p>Here's a very handy on-line DOF calculator. You can plug in the focal length and the camera type. Find your nominal focusing distance on the left vertical, and your aperture on the top horizontal, and where they intersect will be the DOF range.</p>

<p>http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html</p>

<p>I should add, too, that since depth of field increases with distance, it is always greater behind than in front of the focal point. </p>

[Sohaib Siddique]

<p>thanks for it </p>