Can't re-compose with fast lenses (35 1.4L...) ?

I know a professional wedding photographer that says you can't re-compose with fast lenses, like 35 1.4L.

Did he mean only 35 1.4L or also 85 1.8, 135 f2L for example?
Maybe it's only with f1.2 - f1.4 lenses where dof is very narrow ?

Didn't notice this actually, maybe I was lucky that pics are reasonable sharp

Maybe this will explain it a bit

http://digital-photography-school.com …he-focus-recompose-method

The basic cause, which seems to have eluded many of the commentators on that site, is that the plane of sharp focus (a.k.a. focal plane) is literally (almost) a plane (i.e. flat like a big sheet of glass) and not curved (like a sphere). So when you recompose, the object that you focused on, while still the same distance away from the camera, is no longer in the focal plane, because the focal plane moved when you re-aim the camera/lens.

I use focus-recompose at times, and I run into this issue more often than I'd like. So I'm trying to get into the habit of selecting off-center focus points that require really small/no recomposing.

shinksma

Thanks, so a 1.4 is almost impossible to re-compose, and the 85 1.8 still to thin ? So I f you do a model shoot for example you should select immediately select a side focus point for example.

Maybe the 70-200 2.8L IS II shouldn't be a problem at f2.8, it still thin but not so extreme.

35L 1.4 can't use for recompose wel if you are using wide apretures. I am not happy with the performance when the lens is used on 5DII in low light at wide apretures because it forced me to use the center AF point. The outer AF points are not reliable and recompose method is not working well in the sitaution.

I have recomposed at f/1.4 on the 5D2 and get good results, as long as it is not a close up when the DoF becomes really thin. I cannot post any shot just now because I am on vacations, but it is not impossible. Make sure your subject is still and take several shots if possible.

I would say its quite possible to recompose with the 35 1.4 but is certainly hard especially if you can't determine where the focal plane is. I have done it for a some time now and actually get most of them in focus. Since my 5Dc share the same af points which are not the best off the center. Its more knowing what you body movement is doing and predicting where the focal plane is then taking the shot (multiple usually), along with manual focusing to get the right adjustment at times. This of course all just depends how much the distance you are from it also. The longer focal lengths are much harder to do i.e 135 and 85 wide open I find much harder but only when they are getting close to their MFD.

Compensate with a touch of manual input

If you think the 35L is tricky to recompose with, you should try the 85L II.

I guess this is the reason to why many 5D2 owners upgraded to the 5D3.

sebr wrote in post #14784572
I have recomposed at f/1.4 on the 5D2 and get good results, as long as it is not a close up when the DoF becomes really thin. I cannot post any shot just now because I am on vacations, but it is not impossible. Make sure your subject is still and take several shots if possible.

I second this. But it's still possible at a close range, but you may have to move your body a bit to compensate for that.

Interesting!

I think the OOF caused by focus-recompose is grossly exaggerated, it doesn't really make that much of a difference. I think what happened was that years ago some theoretical armchair photographers spread paranoia over this issue and nowadays we all accept it as truth, even though in practice it rarely makes a difference

35 @ f/1.4:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Excellent examples smorter !

JelleVerherstraeten wrote in post #14784793
I second this. But it's still possible at a close range, but you may have to move your body a bit to compensate for that.

I actually agree with you, it is just that it is more difficult at close range...

shinksma wrote in post #14778868
The basic cause, which seems to have eluded many of the commentators on that site, is that the plane of sharp focus (a.k.a. focal plane) is literally (almost) a plane (i.e. flat like a big sheet of glass) and not curved (like a sphere). So when you recompose, the object that you focused on, while still the same distance away from the camera, is no longer in the focal plane, because the focal plane moved when you re-aim the camera/lens.

I use focus-recompose at times, and I run into this issue more often than I'd like. So I'm trying to get into the habit of selecting off-center focus points that require really small/no recomposing.

shinksma

+1
Not a lens problem, a depth of field problem. Crank the DOF to the same place as the lens that don;t have this "problem", and it performs the same. Shallow DOF is a two-edged sword...

smorter wrote in post #14785201
I think the OOF caused by focus-recompose is grossly exaggerated, it doesn't really make that much of a difference. I think what happened was that years ago some theoretical armchair photographers spread paranoia over this issue and nowadays we all accept it as truth, even though in practice it rarely makes a difference

^
...After all, film SLR shooters had relied on centered focus aids to focus and then had to reframe, yet the recompose issue was not really raised in significance until later when AF comes along.

Quite some time ago I did a spreadsheet for focus-recompose error on FF cameras (shallower DOF) with different FL lenses at different distances. This shows the amount of focus error and how much tolerance can be compensated by DOF (using lens manufacturer standards for DOF calculation) For example, at 5' distance and shifting the point of focus 15 degrees (1.34'), 50mm f/2 has insufficient DOF zone to compensate adquately (pink field indicates when DOF zone is inadequate to compensate; the subject is at 4.83' while DOF zone does not cover that near distance adequately to fool the eye.