Does this work

I took the camera out on the dog walk the other morning. The 18-55 lens that was on it has got a broken AF so needs to be manually focused.
I wanted to try and get pics of Ruby (the dog) whilst she was moving, basically to see how easy or hard it is to manually focus on moving target. Quite hard as i found out, especially if the subject is coming straight at you. Anyway back to the point of "does this work", as you can see in this shot her eyes are in focus (well nearly) but her muzzle and ball are out of focus. Would it make a better shot if her whole face was in focus or left as is?

It looks to me that her left ear is in focus but her eyes are not. It's fine if the muzzle and ball are out of focus but you want to get the eyes tack sharp, which I realize wasn't going to be easy having to manually focus on a moving subject. Another option would've been to have a smaller aperture so you have a wider focal range.

DGStinner wrote in post #17399935
It looks to me that her left ear is in focus but her eyes are not. It's fine if the muzzle and ball are out of focus but you want to get the eyes tack sharp, which I realize wasn't going to be easy having to manually focus on a moving subject. Another option would've been to have a smaller aperture so you have a wider focal range.

+1 to all, but I think you meant "depth of field" rather than "focal range."

I agree the focus looks like its on the left ear with the focus falling after the eyes. I shoot dogs at the dog park all the time and cant imagine trying to use Manual Focus to get action shots of dogs. Either keep trying or buy a new lens with good AF.

The canon 85 1.8 or 100 f2 or relatively cheap and great action lenses. The AF on them is real fast and they are a good length for shooting dogs. I now use a 70-200 or 135 f2 for my dog park shots.

It would make it better if there was more of her face in focus. With manual focus, try pre-focusing on a patch of grass that she might be running through. and keep shutter at 1/2000.