If you didn't seemy other post in equipment board, I bought a Tamron DiII SP AF17-50mm F/2.8XR
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7116/7...6791764e_b.jpg
Printable View
If you didn't seemy other post in equipment board, I bought a Tamron DiII SP AF17-50mm F/2.8XR
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7116/7...6791764e_b.jpg
looks like it was a good buy.
Have to agree. A lens I would be interested in!
Looks like some great results with that lens... I'm guessing you are at f2.8 here... just remember, just because you can go to f2.8 doesn't mean you have to :laughing:
Congrats on this purchase but I have to ask....why are the eyes not sharper here? They should be the sharpest part of this image.
How was this image focused and what was the shutterspeed. I see no exif data.
Ahhh makes sense then. You will never get the full benefit of a lens if your shutterspeed is borderline.
1/60 minimum is what I would recommend. Up the ISO till about 800 and that may help you reach the 1/60. And if the light is still too low, change the location or add flash. In this case I'd say change location.
In general, Shooting portraits at anything less than 1/60 is a good recipe for soft eyes regardless of the lens you use. This is primarily because people nave a natural "movement" especially kids and pets :)
The type of lens is a SEPARATE issue. If you were shooting with a long lens, say 300mm, the "rule" is 1/the focal point of the lens. In that case the shutterspeed would need to be around 1/300 if the shot were handheld.
You use a 17-50 lens...so in theory some people say that if you were shooting a rock (that has zero movement) you could shoot at 1/17 if you were at the widest part of that lens. BUT....sorry....because you are a human, you will introduce your OWN movement into the exposure at this speed UNLESS the camera is on a tripod....so again in this case I'd say 1/60 minimum handheld.
Hope that makes sense. Please prompt me if it does not, as we are discussing one of the keys to good photography here.
Here is one I took just seconds later. I nailed the eyes, but the lens distorted (bubbled) her face.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7212/7...28d9e64a_b.jpg
look how sharp her hair is around her face. That's where the focus seems to be - about 1cm higher than her eyes are relative to the plane.