Julie please delete this if its too much, I posted in the Rebus thread about f stops why f4 for the foto etc but thought it’d be easier to show the examples in a new post than link images.
I am sorry guys for hogging the blog , please excuse me.
Okay here are some examples where I have gotten the f/stop way wrong and used my lens too wide open etc, you’ll see what I mean with most of the dog almost being bokeh or vice versa.. they are gawd awful!
This example shows the central point sharp but nothing else the depth of field is way to shallow.
The lens maybe at the maximum of 2oomm whichI find ok for portraits but the f stop in this is 2.8 (way wrong) , now the light was diabolical for this shot, it was winter and horrible so hand held I had to use 2.8 to allow enough light into the camera . But its no use I should have used a higher f stop and taken a tripod to hold the camera steady , this would have allowed a slower shutter speed and as such the proper exposure an depth of field. So I used 2.8 to hand hold the camera but sacrificed the foto. Shrunk down (small) the foto is useable but not as a print. (taken on the Sigma 70-200mm which has no VR 🙁 )
So here it is this example shows the centre area sharp the rest almost bokeh.
Here is another example showing the opposite with sharp rear ground and bokeh nose lol.
f3.2 not good for the shot 🙁 totally my fault
#
Above a Bazi von der Urbecke daughter
Here is a shot thats the opposite with too high an f stop(only just but too high never the less) and as such it doesn’t have just quite enough depth of field. Its much more noticeable when you see the foto larger, you almost get away when seen as a smaller shot like below, but I was very disappointed its just flat, if I’d got it f stop right it’d have been a real beauty of a photo.
I did have other examples that were worse with the dog as sharp as the background but they are in the cyber dustbin now lol
Above a dog much debated on the database Ch Ice v Steinhauerberg (stunning in the flesh)
For me these examples below are the sweet zone f 5.6, the f stop I would use 99% of the time at 200mm for head shots if the light was good enough ,I love the depth of field this achieves in a portrait.
Above a Bravos v Steffan Haus daughter
Above a Karats Ulk daughter
So it would be round f5.6 when ever I could Julie at 150-200mm:):) Its taken 2 years of bugging anyone who would let me take a heashot so that I could practice to find the sweet spot. So now I am more aware and conscious of this 🙂
Depth of field linky http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
I am gonna make some time to read this , because I could do with learning more about this in general.:)
I certainly don’t mind the tips! Maybe you can help me pick a lens for my future camera? Nikon D90. I’d like to purchase body-only. The kit lens (18-105 VR) is nice but I want something a little better that covers the same rage. I was thinking the 18-200VR, but I’m open to suggestions. I am reading about the Tamron 18-270mm VC, but I’m not sure if it works with the D90. Then there’s also some 70-300s, however when I’m just screwing around with the dogs indoors (like the pics on this blog) I’m using the 18-135 kit lens that came with my current camera so I want a lens that lets me do my everyday stuff without having to constantly switch (currently I go back and forth between the 18-135 and the 55-200VR).
Liesje ,I’ll have a think for you , I know Julie will have some suggestions too . For a good review of the Tamron 18-270mm , see here http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_n15/
The review is split into 4 .
1.Introduction, 2. Design and Operation, 3. Test Results & 4.Conclusion and Samples
Lin,
Great examples! Thank you so much. I bought a Sigma lens and it was garbage. I still have it anyone want it they can have it! Since then I will only buy Nikon lenses.
For lies, the Nikon AF 18 – 200 VR is a great all purpose lens.
“I am sorry guys for hogging the blog , please excuse me.”
Never a problem!
Okay, as a non-photographer – I think that is all fascinating. Without you pointing out the differences, I would not have noticed or understood the issues. I will have a much more critical (and understanding) eye now! Thank you!
Jaime