Help with focus issue with new lens

[glen_h]

For any who might be too young to remember, here's one example of a DoF scale on a (now antique) Nikkor lens:

[ATTACH=full]1279392[/ATTACH]

 

(snip)

 

For any who are curious, this is, perhaps, Nikon's worst-ever lens, the infamous 43-86mm/3.5, mounted on an even more antique Nikkormat EL. Can you say "Nikon shuffle", anyone? Condition on both would be listed as "heavy brassing and other signs of extensive use and wear." They both still work...;)

 

I had thought about buying that one when I bought my FM, but instead bought the AI 35/2.0, which I still like.

 

Not so many years later, I bought a used AI 35-70, which I usually like.

 

I notice that for that on you push (extend) for longer focal length and pull for shorter focal length.

 

I do have the AI 80-200 like this one:

 

Nikon Ai-S Zoom Nikkor 80-200mm F4 Lens With Filter & Caps | eBay

 

which you will notice from the picture, you push (extend) for shorter focal length, and pull

for longer focal length. The DOF lines curve the other way.

 

This always seemed backwards to me, but I get used to it after a little while.

[Gary Naka]

For any who might be too young to remember, here's one example of a DoF scale on a (now antique) Nikkor lens:

[ATTACH=full]1279392[/ATTACH]

Note that the f numbers on the aperture ring are color coded to the DoF scale lines. f/3.5 is the largest aperture, and so has the narrowest/shallowest DoF on the scale (in green). f/22, in white, is the smallest, and has the broadest/deepest DoF. This is a push-pull zoom, extended to its maximum focal length. Also note how the DoF narrows in at all aperture settings as the focal length of the lens increases. You can read the anticipated DoF directly off the range scale on the focus ring. In this case, at the current f/8 setting, the DoF would extend approximately from 7 feet to 8 feet from the focal plane. You can see that switching to f/22 would increase the DoF to cover an area from just over six feet to just beyond nine feet from the focal plane, but would require an additional three stops of shutter speed for the same exposure (assuming you don't change film speed /sensor ISO). For any who are curious, this is, perhaps, Nikon's worst-ever lens, the infamous 43-86mm/3.5, mounted on an even more antique Nikkormat EL. Can you say "Nikon shuffle", anyone? Condition on both would be listed as "heavy brassing and other signs of extensive use and wear." They both still work...;)

 

That was my first Nikon lens, and it served me very well, I still have it.

I replaced it with the better version 2 of the 43-86, and later with the 35-105.

[Gary Naka]

I had thought about buying that one when I bought my FM, but instead bought the AI 35/2.0, which I still like.

 

Not so many years later, I bought a used AI 35-70, which I usually like.

 

I notice that for that on you push (extend) for longer focal length and pull for shorter focal length.

 

I do have the AI 80-200 like this one:

 

Nikon Ai-S Zoom Nikkor 80-200mm F4 Lens With Filter & Caps | eBay

 

which you will notice from the picture, you push (extend) for shorter focal length, and pull

for longer focal length. The DOF lines curve the other way.

 

This always seemed backwards to me, but I get used to it after a little while.

 

I used the 43-86 for so many years, that I never thought about the direction of the push/pull. It was muscle memory.

 

But now you have me curious about my other zooms, and which direction the push/pull ring goes for long FL.

[Jean-Claude]

Mastering the depth of field is an absolute need to understand a little bit photography. On top of the good very documentatiion, as usual, from JDM above, here some more:

https://photographylife.com/what-is-depth-of-field

 

It is easy to understand but it will take lots of practice to get proper results, because the distance between you and your subjects will change, as you will change lenses, aperture...

Shoot RAW so you can check later the f stops you used especially if you photograph is blurred where it shouldn't:)

[BeBu Lamar]

I'm glad for you. It was the most difficult for me, and it remains the biggest challenge for beginners that I know. Once understood it is clear and makes sense, and can be readily applied. It's just that initial leap of understanding that so many find a challenge.

Depth of field is easy to understand. You need not do the calculation just knowing a small aperture gives you more depth of field is enough. However, in Holly case I don't think it would applies as she just bought the expensive f/2.8 lens and I thought the purpose is to have shallow depth of field.

[William Michael]

. . . 'The bigger the aperture number, the bigger the depth of field.' We might want to supplement that with 'The longer the lens, the shallower the depth of field', or 'The wider the lens the deeper the depth of field', but that's about all anyone needs to know. . .

 

The vast majority of shots I have made are of people.

 

Everyone will have their own view of what the simplest need to know is and my "simple" for DoF is the following -

 

Provided the FRAMING and the CAMERA FORMAT stay the same, then for any given APERTURE the DoF will be the same.

 

Hence, (as one example), many years ago to make my life simple and for the image to be 'safe' where DoF was concerned, these Practical Guidelines came from the Photographic Theory that I learned at College.

 

As guidelines, they do away with any thinking about Focal Length and Subject Distance, which for me is 'simple'.

 

I learned three key apertures for 135 and 645 Format Cameras - subsequently, with digital, I now also have a set for APS-C Cameras.

 

Here is one example for Portrait Orientation for 135 Format (aka "Full Frame"), I have a similar set for Landscape Orientation, note also the beauty in the progression of the numbers. The DoF has been rounded to be 'safer' (i.e. smaller) and for the technically minded the CoC used is 0.025mm:

 

 

 

 

WW

Edited February 5, 2019 by William Michael

[rconey]

It looks as if the dog was moving toward you. Focus on the eyes is usually correct, but if there is any delay the zone of focus is shifting down the dog's body. If the camera has a high continuous shooting mode, this is a time that "spray and pray" (i.e. a burst of images) makes sense. Then throw away the bad ones. Oh, and yes f5.6 or f8 will make it easier by giving wider depth of field. More artsy but more difficult to use narrow depth of field like f4 with a moving object.

[JAPster]

Looks like the subject was in motion (leaping forwards) when you snapped the picture. In the fraction of second between the moment you focused on the subject and the moment when the shutter actually stripped, the subject had moved forwards, and the focus point was now on the subjects back half.