Canon 10D + 50mm f/1.4 Focus Test - Opinions Please

[scottbergerphoto]

These pictures are an unscientific focus test of a 10D and Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens. The camera was set to Center Focus Point only, Single shot AF, RS80N3 cable release. The images were shot large JPEG(sharpness +2), transferred to my computer, and cropped slightly to 8x10, levels adjust, converted to web size. No USM. The focus point is the face of the pretty lady with the pink tag. I would appreciate your evaluation of:
1. Sharpness of photos.
2. Depth of field especially in f stops 1.4 - 2.8
3.Focus
The pictures are located at:
http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/50mm_f_14__focus_test
I didn't want to force you to download 7 pictures to view this post.
I appreciate your asessments.
Scott

[JZaun]

Scott, I am a beginner but you sold me on the 50mm 1.4.. I saw great images from the lowest to highest f# I also saw the depth of field change with each change of the f stop from shallow to deep. I LIKE IT... got to have one!

Thanks for that review.
JZaun

[maderito]

Scott -

Nice demonstration of the 50/1.4 lens.

1. The results mirror my own experience. Minnie is soft at 1.4 and 2.0 and begins to look sharp at 2.8. From 4.0 onward, the she loooks great! I typically try to stop down to at least at 2.8 and only go to 2.0 or lower when low lighting obligates.

2. The online DOF calculator ( http://dfleming.ameranet.com/dofjs.html ) shows that the DOF at f1.4 is less than 1/3 inch and at f11 about 2 inches. So despite stopping down, you can't get Minnie and her friends all in focus and sharp. (I'm assuming you're shooting from about 3 feet away - camera to central subject).

3. The image contrast is also terrific.

Where you worried that there were problems with these images?

[scottbergerphoto]

Thanks for your efforts to look and comment. Woody, I thought as you do, that the images at f/1.4 and f/2.0 are a little soft. I also noticed that the DOF was biased to the front in those images as opposed to the back, which is the usual distribution of DOF, 1/3 front and 2/3 back.
Scott

[defordphoto]

Nothing wrong with these samples. Looks like the lens is performing as it should. Now go shoot some real pictures! ;)

[scottbergerphoto]

Nothing wrong with these samples. Looks like the lens is performing as it should. Now go shoot some real pictures! ;)
Thanks Jim. I'm a real fuss a** for clarity(image wise and opinion wise). I wanted to be sure I shouldn't be getting more from this lens. As to taking real pictures, it's been too freaking cold!
Scott

[scottbergerphoto]

Nothing wrong with these samples. Looks like the lens is performing as it should. Now go shoot some real pictures! ;)
I posted this same question on Rob Galbraith's forum. A couple of posters said that they got sharp pictures at f/1.4 and f/2.0. Has anyone here had that experience?
Scott

[Belmondo]

Scott:
Your test mirrors my experience with the 1.4 lens. It performs adequately wide open, but really doesn't shine until it's stopped down at least two f-stops. I hope a lot of the newer people pay close attention to these pictures as an illustration of how aperture affects depth of field.

It might be unscientific, but it's graphic.

Good job.

Thos.

[SWPhotoImaging]

Whatsa matter, you don't have any rulers? :wink: