I love my Canon Rebel T6 and take portrait pictures in Av mode with a 50mm in 1.8 Av. I'm using auto focus in the 'focus on center point' mode. I make sure that the center point focuses on the face so the face should be the sharpest part of the picture. However, it isn't. Usually the auto focus misses by a couple of inches (focus and sharpness is best about 2 inches closer to the lens) when it comes to the sharpest part of the picture. So the face is never 100% sharp. Any thoughts on what I'm doing wrong?
Why aren't faces sharp in my f/1.8 portraits even though I'm carefully using center-point autofocus?
-
2Exactly which lens do you have? Specifically, is it the new-ish (2015) STM version of the lens, or the older non-STM version? – David Richerby Sep 23 '19 at 11:08
-
2Just to check - are you using focus and recompose? – Wai Ha Lee Sep 23 '19 at 11:51
-
Possible duplicate of Why are my photos not crisp? – xiota Sep 23 '19 at 19:34
-
See my answer re mount effects. Try a very thin piece of paper with sutable holes as a gasket between the lens and camera. That should have the effect of making the front focusing WORSE - but the degree of change gives an idea of how much spatial shift is needed to correct the error - if that's what is wrong. – Russell McMahon Sep 24 '19 at 10:56
7 Answers
You're not doing anything wrong. You're just finding the limits of the camera/lens combination you are using.
The EF 50mm f/1.8 (in various versions) has been known as the "plastic fantastic" for a long time. For what it can do at what it costs, it is a fantastic value. But it isn't really a fantastic 50mm prime lens when compared to many others that, admittedly, cost a little to a lot more.
One of the weaknesses of the EF 50mm f/1.8 II is that it has fairly large steps between each focus motor position when compared to other Canon lenses. In fact, it has the largest steps of any Canon EF lens on the market. This means if you are trying to focus on something that is in between one step and the next, the camera has to decide whether to go slightly past your subject or slightly in front of your subject.
- Another weakness of the EF 50mm f/1.8 family is that they need to be stopped down a bit to reach their maximum center sharpness. Wide open at f/1.8 even the center of the image is a little soft compared to when the lens is stopped down a few clicks.
- Your Canon EOS Rebel T6/1300D is another piece of Canon gear that is a pretty good value but the low price comes with the caveat of giving up some of the things higher priced cameras offer. One of those features is AFMA (Autofocus Micro-Adjustment) that allows the end user to calibrate their cameras AF system to a particular lens. If a lens consistently misses in front of the desired subject, AFMA can be used to tell the camera to focus a little further than what it otherwise would.
If you are shooting from a tripod¹ there is a way to increase the accuracy of your camera's AF, but it comes at the cost of slower AF and using the rear LCD in Live view to compose your shot instead of being able to use the optical viewfinder. When you are shooting in Live View the camera uses contrast based autofocus from the signal it is receiving from the main imaging sensor. When you shoot through the viewfinder the camera uses a dedicated phase detection AF sensor because the mirror that reflects the scene into the viewfinder blocks light from reaching the main imaging sensor.
Another thing you can try to do is stop down to f/2.2 or f/2.8 where center sharpness increases significantly from f/1.8. At f/2 the lens is a little better than wide open, but it's still noticeably softer than even narrower apertures. You're still going to have fairly shallow depth of field when shooting at "head shot" or "half body" portrait distances with a 50mm lens at f/2.2 or f/2.8.
For a more general survey of the various things that cause blurry images, including focus issues as well as other things, be sure to check out: How do I diagnose the source of focus problem in a camera?
¹ So that you don't risk camera movement that changes the camera-subject distance between focusing and exposure, which is all too easy to do when holding a camera away from one's body to use Live View handheld.
- 175,039
- 10
- 209
- 561
-
2+1 As a keen user of the 50mm 1.8 I agree with Michael that sharpness is best a few stops down (2.2, 2.8 etc.) which is still usually enough for the required light/bokeh effect – Xander Sep 23 '19 at 09:03
-
1
-
If the issue is really with coarse focus motor steps... it should also be impossible to get satisfying focus manually, given this lens appears to be fly-by-wire.... – rackandboneman Sep 23 '19 at 10:00
-
1This answer assumes the newer (2015) STM version of the 50mm f/1.8, rather than the older f/1.8 II (or, less likely, the original f/1.8). I've commented on the question requesting clarification of that. (cc @rackandboneman; the non-STM versions aren't fly-by-wire.) – David Richerby Sep 23 '19 at 11:11
-
2@ths Because you're trying to accurately focus with very narrow depth of field, so you want to make sure the camera doesn't move before you press the shutter release. Without a tripod, live view makes camera movement more likely than it would be using the viewfinder because you're holding the camera away from you so it's not well braced. – David Richerby Sep 23 '19 at 11:14
-
6@ths For the type of microfocus adjustments needed, you couldn't reliably maintain the focus and composition handheld while also looking into the LCD. At F1.8, an inch can make a difference. A tripod will allow you to maintain a reproducible position while you dial it in. The hard part will be keeping your subject frozen .... – David M Sep 23 '19 at 11:14
-
1@rackandboneman The lens with coarse AF steps is the EF 50mm f/1.8 II, which is carefully identified in the answer regarding that issue. The lens with 'focus-by-wire' is the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM. It's not clear at all which lens the OP is using, but there are a lot more of the former in circulation than the latter. – Michael C Sep 23 '19 at 17:48
-
1@DavidRicherby This answer assumes no such thing. In one place this answer specifically mentions the EF 50mm f/1.8 II to avoid confusing it with the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM. Everything else regarding the lens in the answer more or less universally applies to the EF 50mm f/1.8, EF 50mm f/1.8 II, and EF 50mm f/1.8 STM. – Michael C Sep 23 '19 at 17:59
-
I meant to suggest manual focus as a fault-finding aid... but the II version would sabotage it. – rackandboneman Sep 23 '19 at 21:21
-
@rackandboneman The "II" version is not 'focus-by-wire'. It has a direct mechanical connection between the focus ring and the focus mechanism. Moving the focus ring while AF is switched on can damage the focus mechanism. Moving the focus ring while AF is switched off allows as precise focus as the user's hands can move it. The STM is the 'focus-by-wire' lens that limits manual focus to the same sized steps as the focus motor. – Michael C Sep 23 '19 at 21:24
-
all things considered, getting impressive sharpness wide open is a tall order for a lens in that price range. in that price range, you'll have to reach for more vintage glass to get that kind of sharpness ;) I used the same lens for years and was only happy with portraits shot at f2.8! – ChumiestBucket Sep 23 '19 at 21:36
-
1LOL. The EF 50mm f/1.8 II debuted in 1990. It is vintage glass! Even better built film era lenses with reputations of being very sharp usually needed to be stopped down one or two stops to be their sharpest. We just forget that part about them in the age where expectations are crazy that a lens must be just as sharp wide open as it is at any other aperture. To build such a lens requires making it the size and weight of a mayonnaise jar and charging a four figure price for it. – Michael C Sep 23 '19 at 21:41
-
@MichaelC isn't the kind of "unsharp" you'll get from a vintage lens wide open usually considered sharp enough or even desirable for portraiture (with a single face dominating the frame, not an action shot with 20 faces in it) - IF one is not actually out of focus? – rackandboneman Sep 28 '19 at 20:21
-
@rackandboneman Not really. What you are describing is the "soft focus' effect which is considerably different than just general blurriness. Soft focus lenses allow sharp light rays passing through the center of the lens while partially restricting the more out of focus rays near the edges of a lens by means of apodization filters, a "sink strainer" type of plate, vaseline smeared around the edges of the lens, etc. How do I achieve soft, dreamy, old-like photos? (May be thru film) – Michael C Sep 29 '19 at 06:34
It might be best if you post an example image, but in any case, there are a few things to bear in mind.
First, shooting at such wide aperture provides very little leeway between the near and far limits of depth of field. Using a depth of field calculator, you will find that at 6 feet from the subject, only 4 inches will be in focus. Should your lens be off, or you focus on the nose, you risk having other parts of the face potentially out of focus. Stand a little further back and you can gain an inch or two. In any case, f/1.8 is likely much too wide open for best results.
Second, your shutter speed may be impacting your image quality as well. Be sure to have a fast enough shutter speed to correct for hand shake, generally 1/60- 1/80 is a lower limit without any image stabilization.
Finally, I find that the best images of a face start with the eyes in focus. This is where we naturally look, and having the eyes out of focus will impact the image quality tremendously. In this case, you should use a focus point on the eye, and open the aperture enough to provide some reasonable depth of field, allowing the nose and ears at least to also be in focus. Don't focus on the nose, focus on the eyes. It might help to choose a single focus point, rather than a group, which might cause the camera to choose a focus you don't actually want.
- 14,792
- 1
- 34
- 58
Typical AF problems (classic, not live view AF):
- body and lens, while both within specification, are badly matched, exacerbating each other's problems.
- => use a body with microfocus-adjustments.
My 70-200 f/2.8 was always soft at f/2.8 (and I often have a bare minimum of light), but a new body with micro-focusadjustments made it a whole new lens with a really enjoyable f/2.8. - => send the combination in for tuning (as a combination)
- => use a body with microfocus-adjustments.
- Focus and then rotate the camera to frame the photograph causes the plane of focus to move away.
- => use a different AF point with less rotation needed.
- => restrict the technique to long lenses, where a 1°-5° rotation already moves everything out of frame
- Assuming the AF active area is just as large as the marker in the viewfinder.
- => Understand that the AF area is likely 3 times as wide and as high.
- => Understand that the AF marker in the ground glass is an approximation, especially in more affordable cameras.
- Focussing on the wrong spot in the face, often in combination with the large AF area.
- => Try focussing on the leading eye, as that is the most important part of the image to be in focus.
- => Make sure you do not accidentally get the nose: the AF is likely to choose the closest object it can see. With f/1.8 the nose can really move your focus far away.
- Too long of an exposure time causes object movement and/or camera shake, making the photo look soft/out of focus.
- => Try 1/200s and 1/500s at 50mm f/1.8. If that improves things, you have found one (partial) solution. You probably will prefer sharp but a bit noisy to little noise--all blur.
- => Flash (without the HS/Highspeed mode) can also help freeze movement. The less the flash power asked for, the shorter the flash is on. However, flash photos that look natural is a completely new skillset.
The glass of the lenses of your 50mm itself is clean, I assume?
The 'ultimate' test: tripod, static target, lots of light, moving the focus on the lens little by little by little, taking photos. Find the sharpest one (JPEG image size can be a rough estimate, blurry photos have less info and therefore need less space.) That would be about the sharpest the lens can provide in these circumstances. It may just not be "good enough" anymore for what you want it to do.
And you could try focus stacking, but that only works properly with stuff that does not move. Photographers using macro or loupe lenses tend to use that, as your field of depth is incredible to theirs --- a human hair width can be all the "in focus" area they can get from a single exposure ...
Personally, I like tight portraits ("just the face" kind) but from a longer distance away, using a tele lens. That is not everyone's cup of tea, obviously.
- 31
- 1
There are a lot of good detailed answers here, and they are correct, but I'd like to key in on a simpler truth. At f/1.8, there isn't enough depth of focus to get your subjects whole face in focus. If you focus perfectly on their eyes, the image will look good, but if you are focused a little in front or a little behind, it will be obvious that you've missed focus.
It is simply easier to get your subject properly in focus if you stop down to f/2.4 or higher. There are plenty of times when shooting at the widest aperture possible is good, but more often than not stopping down a little will give you a more consistent result.
- 11
- 1
Try to get further from the subject. It increases focus area, in comparison to shorter distances.
A source of knowledge: https://digital-photography-school.com/depth-of-field-and-the-importance-distance-to-subject-plays/
- 121
- 5
Usually the auto focus misses by a couple of inches (focus and sharpness is best about 2 inches closer to the lens) when it comes to the sharpest part of the picture.
Based on your description, the lens is "front focusing". You can determine by how much) see below) and MAY be able to alter it.
To determine if a lens is front or back focusing, and by how much:
Find a scene / object / surface with a regular pattern that extends away from you over a 'suitable' distance. This may be a wire mesh or a chain made of links or a cobble surface or a woven material or ...
Note a focus point about half way along the surface (or at a distance that suits once the concept becomes clear).
Aim at the surface at an angle of around 20 to 30 degrees (or whatever suits once the concept becomes clear) so that parts of the surface cover a range ahead of and behind the focus point.
Focus on the selected point and take a photo or few.
Examine photos and determine where the focus point is compared to where you expected.
Calibrate camera if you can. Allow for it if you can't.
Note that lens demounting-remounting will affect the result - hopefully but not necessarily only slightly. Seating the lens home vigorously as you mount it can help achieve consistency. The REALLY enthused MAY consider a suitably thin shim on the mount or other invasive solutions, but this would usually not be considered.
Adding a thin paper shim (rice paper or similar as a test) with suitable holes in it will probably make the front focus extent worse, but give you some idea of what sort of changes are required. The camera may have an in-body adjustment to allow the focus sensors to be moved. Or the lens MAY be able to be persuaded to very slightly reduce the seating palne to lens distance. Not something most are likely to wish to 'play' with.
Focus demonstration of a food grater using the method described above.
The focus point is very clearly seen, and can be checked against what was intended.
Full frame. f/2.8, 70mm.
- 19,630
- 1
- 44
- 79
-
-
@MichaelC I suspected so - but the visual alignment check is still useful. Then there is manual playing :-). – Russell McMahon Sep 24 '19 at 07:09
-
1Shooting at an angled object without a properly aligned flat target parallel to the camera's image plane is not a reliable method for checking back/front focus. There are several possible ways that one can get false results because the camera decided to focus on something different than what is showing directly below the AF "point" in the viewfinder. – Michael C Sep 29 '19 at 06:37
-
@MichaelC Yes, the method 'has it's issues' - but it's still useful for intended use, with "due care". A single shot may mislead. A little intelligent experimenting will allow good results. The target can be, if desired, a series of flat faced pillars or palings, or ... . Having permanent live view with an electronic viewfinder helps. (eg only: Sony SLT or newer) – Russell McMahon Sep 29 '19 at 09:54
-
Most mirrorless cameras that use the main imaging sensor to AF should have no front/back focusing issues unless something is causing the lens to move between AF and exposure. In such a case, perhaps one should check that one is not inadvertently moving the lens' focus ring? – Michael C Sep 29 '19 at 14:39
-
@MichaelC Yes, for full mirrorlesses. I thought about my comment before posting. | The pellicle mirror SLT's I mentioned do of course still have the issue because they divert (typically) ~= 30% / half a stop of light to the phase-focus sensors. | Mirrorless cameras with contrast focusing should never have the problem, and mirriorless cameras with phase detection sensors in the main sensor should not either - BUT eg both my Sony NEX-5N & Alpha 6300 mirrorless have an "AF microadjust" feature . [Why needs investigating ...]. – Russell McMahon Sep 30 '19 at 00:22
-
@Russell_McMahon It's for speed. The camera can go ahead and begin to close the shutter curtain (or clear the sensor if you're using electronic shutter) in preparation for the exposure while the lens is still being moved to the desired focus position without taking a "confirmation" AF reading. The calibration is for the amount of difference between the distance the lens was instructed to move versus the distance the lens actually moved. – Michael C Sep 30 '19 at 07:14
This is how I take sharp photos on my Rebel (Canon 200D) with 50mm 1.8 STM lens:
- Try to keep the shutter speed high (beyond 1/125) at the cost of ISO.
- Set camera to a single point AF that is closest to eyes of your subject in the composition.
- Always use Optical viewfinder, compose & click your shot. LCD viewfinder is less reliable for this lens, more specifically, when taking hand-held shots. Use a Tripod if you prefer LiveView/LCD viewfinder with remote shooting equipment (wired/wireless switch or companion app on your smartphone/PC).
- If possible, stop down to 2.2, 2.5 or 2.8 from 1.8 f-stop/aperture in order to extend the focus area around your subject.
- Don’t be too close to your subject as it will narrow the focus area.
- Use manual mode for the fine grained control over aperture, shutter speed and ISO.
- Use a stable tripod, ideally with wired or wireless remote release, compose shot, lock focus and leave the camera alone. (Suggested by Michael C).
Hope this helps.
- 101
- 2
-
Re: #3. Live View shooting is no less reliable than Viewfinder shooting. The steps of the AF motor are equally coarse either way. You can just see the effect of this easier on the larger rear LCD than you can in the smaller viewfinder. – Michael C Jan 08 '22 at 21:48
-
#7. Use a stable tripod, ideally with wired or wireless remote release. – Michael C Jan 08 '22 at 21:49
-
@MichaelC #7 Your words ring so true. Tripod helps a big deal. #3 You are better informed and definitely more experienced so I do not question the veracity of your statement, but in my experience, I was able to take sharper photos with the smaller optical viewfinder using single point AF almost every time whereas LCD live view finder failed me on several occasions. Here is a photo (unedited) taken through optical viewfinder, but the same shot was a disappointment/hassle with Live View LCD touch focus. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ix95ofxnkggouf3/IMG_8883.JPG?dl=0 – programmer Jan 09 '22 at 15:12
-
The difference may have been in your technique, rather than hardware limitations. Were you using a tripod with Live View? Tapping the LCD to set AF point might very well lead to inconsistencies between the distance the camera was to the subject when focus was locked compered to the distance the cameras was held from the subject when the photo was actually taken. – Michael C Jan 09 '22 at 16:23
-
You're also less likely to have as much camera motion when holding the VF to your eye than when you are holding the camera out in front of your body far enough to be able to see the LCD. Is the other image blurred due to being out of focus or due to camera or subject motion? I've found that it doesn't take much in the way of breeze to move subjects such as your example enough to ruin perfectly focused shots taken from perfectly stable tripods. – Michael C Jan 09 '22 at 16:24
-
Reading up on your thoughts, I understand that: 1. You need a Tripod to ensure you don’t loose focus due to unavoidable motion once you’ve locked it, but in practical situations, you don’t always have a Tripod handy. With Optical viewfinder, you can skip this requirement and still get a perfectly sharp photo, particularly comparing them when trying to lock focus on some slender subject in a crowded scene. 2. Unlike LCD VF, Holding VF to your eye gives additional stability, which again makes the optical VF more reliable in my humble opinion. – programmer Jan 10 '22 at 03:05
-
So although it’s about technique and isn’t a hardware difference, which I didn’t point out in the first place, it basically boils down to the opinion that LCD viewfinder is generally less reliable to get sharp photos when compared to optical viewfinder unless you get add-on equipment because the ultimate purpose is to get a sharp photo and whatever makes it easy and reliable is better. You can get hand-held sharp shots with optical viewfinder whereas it’s much hassle with a LCD VF. Nevertheless, it is just a personal experience and may not apply as a fact. – programmer Jan 10 '22 at 03:19
-
To answer your queries, the photo in my example is a hand-held shot taken in backyard with closed walls so there is only a distant possibility of breeze moving the subject partly because the subject is a withered/dried/hard stem of a sesame plant. No, I wasn’t using a Tripod for my shots with LCD VF as well. Like I said before, the subject motion was less likely, so camera motion could be culprit but still with LCD, camera was struggling to focus on the point where I was trying to (the focus point that you see in my example shot). – programmer Jan 10 '22 at 03:52

