Focus problem shooting WV Ball

[aiea1]

I just aquired a Canon EF 85mm f1.8 , I took several shot at the Women's Volley Ball game . center focus block was right on but pictures all come out soft. comments please help.
Like should I spend $$ to get it calibrated or is it me ?
Camera Model Name
Canon EOS 30D
Shooting Date/Time
10/26/2007 20:50:53
Tv(Shutter Speed)
1/800Sec.
Av(Aperture Value)
F2.0
Metering Modes
Evaluative metering
Exposure Compensation
0
ISO Speed
1600
Lens
EF85mm f/1.8 USM
Focal Length
85.0 mm
Image size
3504 x 2336
Image Quality
RAW
Flash
Off
White Balance
Auto
AF mode
AI Servo AF
Picture Style
Standard

[coleygm]

That's wierd...the 85 1.8 is notorious for giving new owners fits because the wide aperture demands tack focus....but in this case, you seemed to be right on. ...and at 800th of a second, shouldn't have had a problem freezing the action.

I'd say you have a calibration issue, but you'll want other's to chime in before you go down that road.

[Gatorboy]

I wouldn't use this as an image to determine if it needs calibration. That focus screen is just an overlay onto the image. For all you know, you could have focused on some other location, and moved the camera as you hit the shutter.

[aiea1]

I wouldn't use this as an image to determine if it needs calibration. That focus screen is just an overlay onto the image. For all you know, you could have focused on some other location, and moved the camera as you hit the shutter.
I hear you , But I know that is where I focused, and all the other shots came out similuar.

Also, I failed to mention I aqured the lens second hand a cpl weeks ago..
My bad luck.

[disneydork06]

interesting...I don't know about your gear but my stuff usually requires a split more of a second to focus correctly on an object...so I just can't point and shoot I have to wait a bit to actually get the clarity. just a thought that you might have the same thing...

[royv]

I hear you , But I know that is where I focused, and all the other shots came out similuar.

Also, I failed to mention I aqured the lens second hand a cpl weeks ago..
My bad luck.

No warranty left?

[aiea1]

No warranty left?

None. It looks like I will send it to Canon Service Center, Irvine, Ca and eat the repair cost of $128 plus shipping.

Our local Canon Service Center does not calibrate lens :(

[n1as]

The words on the right (Verizon, Hawaii) sure seem sharp. Looks to me like the lens focused further away than where the center is. Did you by chance have the camera set to center focus zone only or was it set to pick from one of the 9 points? The evidence to me suggests it simply picked the points further away.

I just got my 85 f/1.8 tonight. So far test pics have been right on, but it's too early to tell.

- Keith -

[George E.]

To ease your mind; stand three cereal boxes on a table in a "vertical stair-step fashion". Set to central AF point and f/1.8. Lock onto middle box and shoot. You should see the middle box in clear focus and the other two out of focus since the are in front of and behind the point of focus.

The volleyball picture isn't a good test. Too many variables. You could have easily shifted the camera a fraction left or right and hit focus on something else and swung the camera back at the second you fired the shot. The AF does take a fraction of a second. Just like the other posters said.

George

[NeutronBoy]

Looks ok to me - f2 @ ISO 1600 is asking the camera to perfrom - a lot. My advice would be fire bursts using the continuous drive (maybe you have already). Use a monopod or tripod - anything to increase your chances of a sharper shot.

[Drive4show]

I was taking some shots this weekend , same lens. Same problem.... you beat me to the punch.
217214

Had a lot of them oof . Glad to know I'm not the only one , but would love to know what's going on.
G

[aiea1]

To ease your mind; stand three cereal boxes on a table in a "vertical stair-step fashion". Set to central AF point and f/1.8. Lock onto middle box and shoot. You should see the middle box in clear focus and the other two out of focus since the are in front of and behind the point of focus.

The volleyball picture isn't a good test. Too many variables. You could have easily shifted the camera a fraction left or right and hit focus on something else and swung the camera back at the second you fired the shot. The AF does take a fraction of a second. Just like the other posters said.

George
Done / tripod and timmer used

http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc67/aiea1/BoxTest.jpg

http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc67/aiea1/Boxtest2.jpg

[aiea1]

center focus point only. focused on the Black" A" in the second line of the center Box text

[madplower4]

I had the exact same problem, noticed while shooting volleyball using the 85 1.8.
Exchanged lenses, same problem. Called Canon, sent it in to be recalibrated under warranty, and got it back in 4 weeks problem solved.

[aiea1]

Shipping lens to Canon this morning for repair

[dmwierz]

Shipping lens to Canon this morning for repair

David -

Good luck and I hope this solves your problem but the shots you posted of the cereal boxes look OK (are the results not what you had expected? Looks to me that the box in the middle is sharp and the others are outside the DOF), and in my experience, 99.9% of AF issues are NOT hardware related - they are user related. Focusing a DSLR on fast moving subjects with wide apertures is hard, and even the best shooters have occasional issues with AF. Add to this the fact that volleyball is one of the more difficult sports to shoot under ideal conditions and I would have been surprised if you had not had issues.

I can't tell you how many times I was convinced I had kept the focus point glued to the subject, but it turned out in the fraction of a second from pressing the AF button to hitting the shutter my camera grabbed something else. Learning to use C Fn 4-1 helped a lot, as did shooting thousands and thousands of images.

Even when your shot SHOWS the AF point where you thought it was, as was pointed out above, it still could be inaccurate. Shooting an 85mm lens at that distance from the subject, f/2.0 aperture and low light is going to require robot-like precision and some luck to not have the AF point grab something behind it. The background is extremely busy and the camera could have very easily focused on something else. The focus "blip" itself is more than a foot wide, for goodness sake! so the smallest bit of movement on your part and your AF point is on the floor, or somebody behind the intended subject, etc..

Let's say you were 50 feet away from the girl serving. At f/2.0 and 135 mm effective focal length (85 x 1.6 approx) your DOF is only 19 inches, which appears to be smaller than the area represented by your AF blip.

What's the old adage?

It's a poor carpenter who blames his tools

Like I said, I hope the trip to Canon is worth the time, money and effort. Personally, I would have taken more than "several" shots before deciding it was the lens, and not me.

[aiea1]

Thanks to all for your comments and help.

I didn't think the third box should be so clear,
All the shots I took at the game had the background in pretty good focus...
The lens is on its way already

[George E.]

Looks like it hit focus on the "A". You can't ask for much better then that. Don't get caught up in chasing perfection. The rear box might look sharper then the front box because the lettering is larger?? Again, too many variables. At f/1.8 the DOF is pretty small and what you were shooting at was in sharp focus; you should be good. Funny how the lenses AF better with practice :lol:

Let us know how it works out for you.

George

[George E.]

This is the arrangement I use to see if I'm hitting focus. This is not the test shot. Boxes are only about 1 inch thick and stacked back to back. (Done in VERY dim kitchen at night, sorry) Shots are JPEGs straight from the camera.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2191/1805824313_76e073b174_o.jpg

This is a test shot at f/1.8 with my 85mm Canon. I aimed for the center box. Looks like it hit its mark.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2381/1805824365_9872e844f5_o.jpg

George

[dodorouthier]

The second pct seems fine no?
I am also having problems wih my new 1.8
I was aiming on no 5
217455

[George E.]

If you were using center AF in servo, the center of the frame looks to be either #5's hair or the arms; both are really tough for AF since they lack sharp contrast. If you want player #5 lock AF on that big sharp #5 on her back or the stripe on her shoulder, then recompose. Again, practice really helps.

George

[dodorouthier]

If you were using center AF in servo, the center of the frame looks to be either #5's hair or the arms; both are really tough for AF since they lack sharp contrast. If you want player #5 lock AF on that big sharp #5 on her back or the stripe on her shoulder, then recompose. Again, practice really helps.

George

I will...sharpness is not my forte...I thought my pictures were good untill I looked at pro photos... I have a long way to go!!!! I guess it feels better to blame the equipment!

[Gatorboy]

Shipping lens to Canon this morning for repair

Based on your cereal box images, this is a waste of your and Canon's time. Your more controllable test shots (cereal boxes) show a perfect working lens.

[dmwierz]

Based on your cereal box images, this is a waste of your and Canon's time. Your more controllable test shots (cereal boxes) show a perfect working lens.


Dave, FWIW, I agree 100%.

Nothing personal, David, but like I said earlier in this post, sports photography can be very challenging, and rarely are problems hardware in nature (unless you consider what is located between our ears as being hardware - sometimes my head seems hard as a rock).

That doesn't mean lens problems do not happen, but the cereal box shots you posted demonstrate that, with stationary subjects, the lens is working fine.

Add in moving subjects, varying distance to the subjects, bad lighting, small depths of field, uniforms with low contrast, etc, and what you end up with is a difficult situation in which to shoot. And the only way to work through a situation like this is to shoot hundreds and hundreds of images under every situation possible.

[slyone]

Thanks again for the good/seasoned advice for all us sports shooters newly entering the Dslr game! I too find myself on this patch of the road and have realized it will take patience and practice to get there!:)

[Drive4show]

Many thanks to everyone who posted here... I've got one whole season left before my son is done VB. Many miles to travel and not a lot of time to learn to do this sport as well as I hope. I'll keep trying , though.:D

[Vigants]

Since there seem to be some folks willing to weigh in on things on this thread, I'd like to ask you to look at some shots of mine.

Recently been having a large number of OOF shots of daughter's soccer. Assumed it was me and kept trying harder but getting fewer keepers. In the past I could usually analyze an OOF shot and find out what the camera really did lock focus on, but recently it seems that although the focus is accurately on the subject, the result is just - soft. Really soft.

I thought I would be in the middle of Canon and Sigma pointing fingers at each other, but to my surprise Canon seems to think the shots are not so bad. I am frankly astonished because I think what I've posted is crap.

Please have a look. If you choose Original size - which I assume means 100% crop - they look horrible to me. I'm trying not to get fixated on the pixel level detail, but this softness is bad enough that my wife (not a techie at all) says that all my shooting looks fuzzy to her lately. 20D (parameter #1) w/ Sigma 70-200 ISO 800, Aperture varies between 2.8 & 5.0.

http://www.just4kicks.smugmug.com/gallery/3732533#214310648


As a comparison, have a look at

http://borrowlenses.smugmug.com/gallery/3711079#212728085.

Which is more along the lines of what I am expecting, sharpness wise.

Canon repair looked at the slop I took and said that AF is tracking well and I should turn up the sharpness on the body . . . I feel like screaming! Sigma tested the lens and said it was working fine.

I did the test on the bike to eliminate some of the variables of shooting soccer. I agree that the AF is tracking okay (focus does not seem to be in front of or behind the rider). Next I'll be doing still life (maybe cereal boxes :)) with the Sigma and my 17-85 from a tripod to see what the sharpest result is that I can get out of each lens.

Right now I mostly just want confirmation that the bike shots are really soft and that I am not going nuts or expecting too much. Thanks.

[swrtoad]

As mentioned above "Great advice IMO"
Learning to use C Fn 4-1 helped a lot, as did shooting thousands and thousands of images.


I use a track, track, track, burst, burst, track, track, technique (with the "*" button) in all of my sports photography. IMO, this helps tremendously to assure that you keep the AI Servo and Center focal point on your COI. If your not using C fn 4-1 or 4-3, you may want to check it out......

dmwierz, as always, great feedback........

[CarrieW]

Interesting. Love all the samples.

[dmwierz]

Vigantis - hard to tell what happened with your shot since you didn't give the shutter speed or your AF scheme, your focal length or the distance to the subject, etc.. It does appear soft, but you're comparing it to a shot of a stationary subject.

There are dozens (if not more) reasons why action images can end up out of focus, and only one of these is that there is something wrong with your lens/camera. All the other ones are because of operator error, camera set-up error, challenging lighting or other environmental conditions, lens being used outside of its "sweet spot", etc...

BTW, almost any image will appear "soft" when viewed at 100%, especially straight out of the camera.

Here is 100% crop of a shot straight out of my MkIIn:

http://www.pbase.com/dmwierz45/image/88296593.jpg

and here is the shot after post processing:

http://www.pbase.com/dmwierz45/image/76517955.jpg

As you can see, the 100% crop looks "soft", but when viewed as a complete photo, it's a pretty sharp capture.

[Vigants]

Vigantis - hard to tell what happened with your shot since you didn't give the shutter speed or your AF scheme, your focal length or the distance to the subject, etc.. It does appear soft, but you're comparing it to a shot of a stationary subject.

There are dozens (if not more) reasons why action images can end up out of focus, and only one of these is that there is something wrong with your lens/camera. All the other ones are because of operator error, camera set-up error, challenging lighting or other environmental conditions, lens being used outside of its "sweet spot", etc...

BTW, almost any image will appear "soft" when viewed at 100%, especially straight out of the camera.

Here is 100% crop of a shot straight out of my MkIIn:

http://i.pbase.com/o3/67/552767/1/88296593.lCwPlznM.GCND6451100.jpg

and here is the shot after post processing:

http://i.pbase.com/o6/67/552767/1/76517955.eGlCQ8Sk.NovakDjokovic02401APR07.jpg

As you can see, the 100% crop looks "soft", but when viewed as a complete photo, it's a pretty sharp capture.

Your images didn't some thru but I'd love to see them if you can post links.

All the bike shots were 20-30' away, AI Servo, ISO 800 - apertures, FL and speeds are all part of the Smugmug detail. The flower stills have cheered me up a bit so I plan to redo the bike shots with more light (& lower ISO & higher shutter speeds)

[dave kadolph]

Would like to see these images also.

I just got the 85 based on reviews.

And was dissapointed by the results --Is it possible that the focus speed of "the brick" is much faster--which were all dead on?

Most of the 85 images were soft --even when opened up to the same 2.8 aperature as the 24-70

[dmwierz]

Would like to see these images also.

I just got the 85 based on reviews.

And was dissapointed by the results --Is it possible that the focus speed of "the brick" is much faster--which were all dead on?

Most of the 85 images were soft --even when opened up to the same 2.8 aperature as the 24-70


Weird, they were there yesterday, and appear to be there now....weird.

As for the 85, it is a VERY fast focusing lens. I've used it in dark gyms shooting HS basketball under ambient light and loved the way it worked, so again I'd need to know more details about the circumstances under which folks were having issues. There are more variables in this equation than just the lens.

[dave kadolph]

A little background

I have been shooting SLR's since 1975 and digital since 2002

These were shot with a gripped XTI--AV mode--ISO 1600--custom function 4 option 3--unprocessed

The 24-70, 70-200 2.8, and 50 1.8 that I use can be interchanged with no exposure compensation.

I use center weighted average metering because the black and white seats, uniforms, and lit scoring table wreak havoc on partial or evaluative mode.

And this is what I am used to seeing from the 24-70

[dave kadolph]

2'nd post to add images

Upgraded to the 85 based on reputation--and wanted to pick up a little shutter speed to clear up motion blur.

The regular season had ended but the powderpuff game was on--I was a little selective to spare you the images of men in pink spandex briefs.

The portrait type stationary shots turned out well but anything with motion--and much S-L-O-W-E-R--motion than the girls-- turned out soft to OOF and generally overexposed.

We ended up dumping about 50% of them--they were unusable.

Any insight would be appreciated

[dmwierz]

Dave,

I understand your frustration, but like I said above, there are many, many variables in the AF equation and a "bad lens" is not only the least likely, it's also not the problem I think you were experiencing with you 85mm shots.

Your shutter speed of 1/160 is nowhere NEAR fast enough to stop action at any level, let alone the age of the volleyball players you show.

Exposure Time: 1/160 sec
Exposure Program: Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating: 1600
Lens Aperture: f/2.0
Exposure Bias: 0 EV

Your histogram (below) also shows probably at least a 1/3 stop overexposure, with clear highlights blowing out (as can also be easily seen in the white background looking nuclear on your shots). This isn't helping with the soft look of the shot.

With a high ISO shot like this, once you blow out the highlights, there is no way to reclaim the detail that's lost. When I shoot high ISO, I err on the under-exposed side and use noise reduction software to smooth out the inevitable noise.

I'm guessing the proper exposure for your image should have been around f/2.0, 1/250s and ISO 1600.

I also see that your shot was taken in aperture priority, and I'd suggest going with manual when lighting is tough like this. Otherwise, your shutter speeds are going to be all over the place. Plus, as your shots show, the camera can easily be fooled by bright and busy backgrounds.

[dmwierz]

Dave,

Just took a look at your second 24-70 shot, and here's what it shows:

Lens (mm): 70
ISO: 1600
Aperture: 2.8
Shutter: 1/250
Exp. Comp.: -0.3 (why are you using - EC in a dark gym?)
Flash Comp.:
Program: Aperture Priority

While I wouldn't say the shot is tack sharp, it's better. This is probably due to the higher shutter speed and the more correct exposure. Check out the histogram of this shot below.

I'd work a little on your white balance, too. Might try a custom white balance (one of the best investments you can make is a simple gray card, available at any photo store).

[dave kadolph]

Dennis

I will try and find the 18% grey card that I have tucked away somewhere--a remainder of the film days.

And get out and shoot some more with the 85--This was the first time out with no prior practice.

What would you advise to get the shutter speed up to where it should be--a mk3 is a little bit out of the price range LOL.

Thanks for the professional review.

It's great of you to take the time to help fellow members out.

[Croasdail]

Weird, they were there yesterday, and appear to be there now....weird.

As for the 85, it is a VERY fast focusing lens. I've used it in dark gyms shooting HS basketball under ambient light and loved the way it worked, so again I'd need to know more details about the circumstances under which folks were having issues. There are more variables in this equation than just the lens.

I will absolutely second this.... it is not the lens at issue here. AI Servo on the 20/30D is very temperamental, it takes some getting used to. There are literally hundreds of threads on this issue with you-name-it sport. Even with center focus point only, it is easily tricked into tracking what ever is of high contrast in the background. Keep at it, you'll figure out it's little nuances.

[aiea1]

I have just received my 85mm back from CSC @ Irvine. they said that the AF assy was incorrect and the AF did not operate properly said electoral adjustments and cleaning was carried out. So I don't feel like I wasted my money or Canon s time. Here a cereal box test just made, save set up as the first one I posted.

Thank you all for your help and Esp to Dennis, I guess it was 5% lens and 95% operator error. I have a lot of shooting to do to come up with some keepers in volleyball

Mahalo

[AdamLewis]

Not to get you down, but I honestly think the picture looks the same as the first one. Canon will tell you something is wrong with your lens if it means they can fix it and charge you. If you think there is a problem, they will tell you there is.

That being said, I really think the original pictures you posted were fine. The first test you posted is a horrible one to use ( as are all 45deg tests IMO ) for the reason Ill try to illustrate here. The rear object will always look more in focus while the front object will always look more out of focus. This is because the actual plane of DOF is perpendicular to the optical axis of the lens. Since the serial boxes are at angles to that plane, this causes the top of the last box to be closer to the DOF plane than the front box which therefore makes it look more in focus.

The second test you did, where the objects are more in line with the optical axis is not only more valid, but shows less of a problem with the lens.


EDIT: Also, I should add if you look at the grass in the first picture, it is a better indicator as to the front/back focusing of a lens. As you can see, the box in the middle lies pretty much in the middle of the plane of sharp grass, so the lens seems to be doing well enough.

Like others said, I think its more just inexperience rather than a faulty lens. A lot of people come up with the idea that their lens has a problem solely because someone else on here posted theirs did ( when in all actuality, it may have not ) and the fever just spreads.

[dharmon]

I must be missing something. Your test shot looks like it should to me. Seems the lens is focusing correctly. Help me learn by explainig what it is I'm missing please.

[Mr B Pix]

I also recently bought the 85/f1.8 for my kids Basketball, Indoor Soccer, and Gymnastics. What I have read (and starting to confirm) is that the 85/f1.8 is designed to focus tack sharp only up to ~20 feet to the subject. Shooting on a crop at 20 feet wide open the DOF is razor thin (only 1.13 ft). Even at 40 feet the DOF is only 4.55 ft. My shots of 30+ feet do seems a bit "soft", but only if you want to pixel peep. The problem is that at that distance we start to want to crop the picture, making everything look a bit softer (especially if it was shot at ISO 800 or 1600). Everything within 20 feet is simply awesome (assuming you can hit the AF with such a small DOF).

For the price and my expectations of this lens, it is almost perfect. I am starting to look at the 135/f2 for those "hard to reach" shots across the gym.

[dmwierz]

I also recently bought the 85/f1.8 for my kids Basketball, Indoor Soccer, and Gymnastics. What I have read (and starting to confirm) is that the 85/f1.8 is designed to focus tack sharp only up to ~20 feet to the subject.

Mr. B - Care to elaborate on this statement? I've never heard nor experienced this.

The 85 f/1.8 lens, like any large aperture lens, will necessarily produce relatively small depths of field. I have never heard that this lens is "designed to focus tack sharp only up to -20 feet". The farther the subject distance is, the larger the depth of field. This is optics, not lens design.

What you may be experiencing, and what others may be reporting is that any lens will have more difficulty obtaining and holding its sharpest performance at longer distances.

FWIW, this lens has been a stellar performer for me out to around 50 feet. Granted this would not be a tight shot on the volleyball court or basketball court, but I've not had any of the problems you mentioned. Anything beyond 50 feet I switch to my 70-200 or something longer because shooting longer than this with an 85mm lens is, IMO, over-shooting the lens.

[Mr B Pix]

I know, it sounds weird. This is where I have been reading about the distance limitations. Seems to follow to what I have been getting on my XTi. I will be the first to admit, I'm still new with this lens and need more practice. Don't get me wrong, I REALLY like this lens!
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=25158003

I agree with you in that once you get above 40-50 feet you switch to the 70-200. You also have a big advange (ISO and AF) with your 1D Mk IIn. It also appears that you have a nice set of lenses to boot.