Posts: mwsilvers | Ugly Hedgehog

Eyes wrote:

You Had me at: "All lenses are sharp at f8"
But, Good Report as it is!
Thnx!!

Most of my lenses achieve maximum sharpness by f/5.6. For them I reserve f/8 to f/11 for greater depth of field. Since these are fast prime lenses, mostly with a minimum aperture of f/16, I rarely use an aperture smaller than f11 to avoid diffraction which can be very visible in the type of images I capture.

Dec 18, 2023 09:29:06 #

burkphoto wrote:

I would agree that the majority of lenses are USAB... (show quote)

Dec 17, 2023 13:29:15 #

imagemeister wrote:

"GOOD" glass is the lenses you cannot afford

True, but I'll bet many of us have wasted a lot of money purchasing multiple unsatisfactory lenses we could afford rather than invest that money in a lens we "couldn't" afford. Probably for most of us, the equipment journey has been much more expensive than it otherwise might have been if we had the foresight to make the right decisions from the outset.

Check out Close Up Photography section of our forum.

Dec 17, 2023 00:34:54 #

bikinkawboy wrote:

Correction #2. F8 is the largest aperture, F32 is the smallest. I have one in the other room. I got it off eBay for a total of $38 years ago in like new condition. In high contrast scenes such as snow it has copious amounts of purple fringing but is actually a fun lens to play with considering it cost me $38. Probably wouldn’t be as much fun had I paid $100. Had I paid $200 I probably wouldn’t have a single good thing to say about it.

From my perspective either a lens is good or it is not good regardless of how much it costs. The least expensive lens I have ever owned is the tiny TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 manual focus prime lens with a Nikon Z mount purchased new for only $66 USD on Amazon last year. It also turned out to be one of the sharpest lenses across the frame that I have ever owned. I also have owned very inexpensive lenses that were truly mediocre. While purchasing a cheap bad lens is a much less painful investment, IMHO, it has no added value just because it was cheap, and I would most likely discard it. Why waste time with a mediocre optic when better options are available?

Dec 16, 2023 23:18:25 #

pj81156 wrote:

Like most of you I read lens reviews before I buy ... (show quote)

Even if we assume that your lenses are all pin sharp across the image from edge to edge at f/8, your one size fits all approach does not address the desirable ability to vary DoF, or the best way to capture images in low light photography using natural light, or the creation of out of focus backgrounds behind your subjects, or the ability to control IO levels, or the creation of lovely bokeh.

You suggest this so we can get reasonable images using potentially mediocre lenses. That may work for many people, especially those with less experience or on a limited budget. However, by self-limiting how you use a lens you are eliminating much of the creative results of a good lens in the hands of someone who knows how to use it. Most of my lenses are fast primes. I use the aperture best suited for the results I am trying to achieve. If I was going to follow your approach, I might be better served using a good quality point and shoot.

Dec 16, 2023 03:36:28 #

What size memory cards do you normally use?

I also use 128gb cards, It seems that so far it is the preferred size based on the responses up to now. I rarely come anywhere near filling it, but it nice to know I have the extra space if I need it, especially if I decide to capture some video.

Dec 14, 2023 13:37:20 #

Longshadow wrote:

According to the cropping person's requirements, desires, and/or restrictions.
Maybe others not so much.

I agree completely. That why I said it could make a difference. However, based on what and how I shoot, and the MF prime lenses I use, diffraction is clearly visible at the minimum aperture in many of my images. My very fast MF primes, all with maximum apertures of f/1.2, have a minimum aperture of f/16 except for one which goes to f/22. For all of them, the affects of diffraction start to become visible past f/11 and image crops at the minimum of f/16, (and f/22 on one lens) start to look noticeably softer with the loss of significant amounts of the fine detail I require. This of course can vary from image to image depending on lighting and content. When out and about doing street photography as a general rule I never use a smaller aperture then f/11.

Check out Bridge Camera Show Case section of our forum.

Dec 13, 2023 20:25:10 #

DToole wrote:

The clearest inset (focal point) seems to be obvious at F8. Would it make a difference to the entire photo? Probably not.

It could make a hell of a difference in a heavily cropped image.

Dec 13, 2023 20:18:15 #

Blenheim Orange wrote:

Not at all. I hope it didn't seem that way. Diffraction can be an issue, as Paul says. It depends.

Dec 13, 2023 12:11:09 #

imagemeister wrote:

The 100% thumbnails could have been a more detailed area making for easier to SEE results tho !

I think the difference is a pretty clear in the 100% crops. Just compare f/8 to f/32 and the loss of fine detail in the f/32 becomes very obvious. That does not mean that we should not use f/32, only that we need to be aware of the potential downside of diffraction on our images and decide whether the trade-off is worth it.

Dec 13, 2023 12:04:06 #

larryepage wrote:

They also show that diffraction does not necessarily "destroy" an image when it is viewed the way it was intended to be viewed.

The "way it was intended to be viewed" is the key to whether diffraction will be an issue or not. In most cases it probably won't make any significant difference, but in many others it may.

Check out Traditional Street and Architectural Photography section of our forum.

Dec 13, 2023 11:50:19 #

JohnSwanda wrote:

I do pixel peep, and my tests shooting closeups don't show any effect from diffraction that a little sharpening won't fix.

Look at the extreme loss of fine detail in his bottom left 100% crops of the images when comparing the f/32 version to the one at f/8. There is no way a little sharpening will recover the almost complete loss of fine detail at f/32. As I said earlier, diffraction may be a much more significant issue in heavily cropped images. If you want sharp crops that retain all of the original fine detail, I would avoid using apertures that cause diffraction.

F/8

F/32

Dec 13, 2023 11:36:07 #

Blenheim Orange wrote:

People who believe that diffraction matters a lot think that my example proves their point, while people who do not believe that diffraction much matters think that my example proves their point.

Does diffraction matter? It depends.

Agree, it mostly depends on what your capturing and what your expectations are for the results. It is likely that in most cases diffraction will not matter much or at all. However in other cases it may matter a lot, especially in heavily cropped images.

When comparing the the bottom left inset portion of your images at f/8 and f/32, by f/32 almost all the fine detail is so softened it is no longer present. I believe that if you uploaded both of those images with store original, the softening and loss of fine detail would be significantly more obvious than it already is. So yes, diffraction can make either a significant difference or no difference at all depending on the use case of the image.

Dec 12, 2023 11:29:22 #

small squares in photos

Carl1024 wrote:

when shooting with Canon EOS 80D?

Sounds like pixelation when zooming into an image at a very high magnification level.

Dec 12, 2023 11:21:15 #

New lens

Since this is her first post after all these years, perhaps she doesn't understand the posting process or how this forum works and somehow thinks she's responding to something she read in another thread.