Question About Aperture (Page 4): Diffraction thresholds also depend on sensor size. The larger the sensor...the more wiggle room there is. Diffraction thresholds will usually kick in...

Canisdirus

Diffraction thresholds also depend on sensor size.
The larger the sensor...the more wiggle room there is.

Diffraction thresholds will usually kick in after these f stops by sensor size.

Medium format: f/16
Full Frame: f/11
ASPC: f/10
4/3: f/8

All are subject to lens design and quality variables...as usual.

Alphabravo2020

CHG_CANON wrote:

I went and randomly pulled five lenses from this list where the technical specs are provided, including the aperture blade count. Where did you get the false idea Canon uses an even number?

https://global.canon/en/c-museum/series_search.html?t=lens&s=ef&y1=2012

I'm not as familiar with Canon as Nikon but I know a couple of the their 50mm lenses used an even number.

Here it is on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009XVCZ/ref=as_li_qf_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=photogrconcen-20&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=B00009XVCZ&linkId=1d00cce819a67b1e520f45aaee447187

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Alphabravo2020 wrote:

I'm not as familiar with Canon as Nikon but I know a couple of the their 50mm lenses used an even number.

Here it is on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009XVCZ/ref=as_li_qf_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=photogrconcen-20&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=B00009XVCZ&linkId=1d00cce819a67b1e520f45aaee447187

Fair enough, still current models at 50mm 'feature' 6-blade apertures: 50 f/1.2L, 50 f/1.4. The newest 50 f/1.8 model has been updated to 7-blades. The newest RF 50 f/1.2L goes with 10-blades, so Canon isn't convinced an 'odd' number applies to 50mm?

Alphabravo2020

User ID wrote:

You should fact check your historical posts and avoid mashing together scraps of legend.

No facts here other than my observation that AA organized Group f/64. The rest is just my musings which I qualified as such. However, I do appreciate your clarifications and knowledge.

Al Beatty Loc: Boise, Idaho

Hi Group,
I'm not sure if my terminology works for the "techie types" on the group but I've found every lens/camera combination seems to have a "sweet spot" where the picture is the sharpest. At least it does for the macro pix I shoot for books, articles, and catalog illustrations focused on the fly-fishing industry. Take care & ...

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

billnikon wrote:

It is really up to the photographer...
...

How about that.

Tote1940 Loc: Dallas

Miss ability to use hyperfocal distance at small apertures
Old lenses ( really old) had markings with acceptable DOF at each aperture
In zooms it was a mass of lines, on fixed lenses two colored tabs that moved with aperture showing how much you could use DOF
Remember that DOF is a relative term , how much blur is acceptable
Diffraction does occurr so there is a point of diminishing returns

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Sorry I'm late to the party. Too many chores at home.

From last year: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-645702-1.html#11204153

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

jradose wrote:

I have read numerous articles, and watch numerous videos about not using F/22, due to diffraction, claiming to not shoot smaller than f/16. But, Bryan Petersen, whom I respect very much, says he often shoots at F/22, or even higher if camera allows. Wondering what other Hoggers think about it?

Photographers, like people in other fields of interest tend to follow the wisdom of successful members of that field. BP is as successful as anyone else today. If he, and many others want to shoot at f/22 who are the unknown critics you cite? This is known as perpetuating "shaggy dog" stories. Would your equipment let you operate at f/22 if it was "not usable?" Remember reading about draining the camera's battery b/c you leave the ON/OFF switch in the ON position continuously? Same old wives tale. How much diffraction are you getting at f/22 v. f/16?

User ID

Gene51 wrote:

And lo and behold, so does F5 and F6.3

Lotta variables, even including the price of the lens and its age. Some will render starbursts at most stops, others only at their smallest stops.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

It depends on the lens, too. Always avoiding f/22 doesn't sound like good advice. Shoot the way you want and look at the results.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

jerryc41 wrote:

It depends on the lens, too. Always avoiding f/22 doesn't sound like good advice. Shoot the way you want and look at the results.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

It works well in getting a star burst effect when shooting into the sun.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

gvarner wrote:

It works well in getting a star burst effect when shooting into the sun.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Diffraction occurs at any aperture. It occurs when the size of the aperture is of the same order of magnitude as the wavelength. It is more noticeable when that aperture is smaller. However, assigning an arbitrary f-stop doesn't make sense. An aperture of f/16 on one focal length lens is different than f/16 on another focal length lens. It's not the f-number it's the aperture.

I've shot at f/64 and saw no noticeable degradation of the image.
--Bob

jradose wrote:

I have read numerous articles, and watch numerous videos about not using F/22, due to diffraction, claiming to not shoot smaller than f/16. But, Bryan Petersen, whom I respect very much, says he often shoots at F/22, or even higher if camera allows. Wondering what other Hoggers think about it?