Sweet Spot for Landscape Photography: Having problems with the (often published) recommendation(s) of how to "squeeze the maximum levels of image sharpness out of your lens by simply...

Jsykes

Having problems with the (often published) recommendation(s) of how to "squeeze the maximum levels of image sharpness out of your lens by simply stopping your lens aperture down 2.5 to 3-stops from the lens's maximum aperture" i.e. for a lens that has a maximum aperture of f/3.5, the sweet spot of your lens resides somewhere between f/8 and f/11.

Using my 18-55mm kit lens and its' max aperture of f/3.5, two F stops would be f/4.5 and three F stops f/5.6.

Comments?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Jsykes wrote:

Having problems with the (often published) recommendation(s) of how to "squeeze the maximum levels of image sharpness out of your lens by simply stopping your lens aperture down 2.5 to 3-stops from the lens's maximum aperture" i.e. for a lens that has a maximum aperture of f/3.5, the sweet spot of your lens resides somewhere between f/8 and f/11.

Using my 18-55mm kit lens and its' max aperture of f/3.5, two F stops would be f/4.5 and three F stops f/5.6.

Comments?

F3.5 + 2 stops = f7.1, 3 stops = f10

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I'll stop down to f/32 or 64. I'm sure lenses have a particular f-stop at which they are "more" in focus than at other stops, but if it takes lab equipment to see that, I'd not worry about it. If it doesn't take lab equipment to see it, you probably have a bad lens.
--Bob

Jsykes wrote:

Having problems with the (often published) recommendation(s) of how to "squeeze the maximum levels of image sharpness out of your lens by simply stopping your lens aperture down 2.5 to 3-stops from the lens's maximum aperture" i.e. for a lens that has a maximum aperture of f/3.5, the sweet spot of your lens resides somewhere between f/8 and f/11.

Using my 18-55mm kit lens and its' max aperture of f/3.5, two F stops would be f/4.5 and three F stops f/5.6.

Comments?

Larry Powell Loc: Columbus OH

You do not mention what ISO or shutter speeds you are using. Try a shutter speed of 200 and aperture of f8. An ISO of 400 or less should accommodate those settings in average light. If not crank up the ISO a bit. Shooting hand held vs tripod or even monopod might be a factor as well. This past weekend I helped a lady having a difficult time getting sharp images. I noticed she would look at her subject and suddenly press the shutter release without ever seeing an in focus indicator.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

If you're shooting landscapes, you will usually have time to try more than one aperture. If you use a tripod, you'll reduce the potential of focus being an issue as you compare your results. This is a great opportunity for you to go out and test your equipment for results that are most pleasing to you. Don't get hung up on numbers: you may find that a more shallow depth of field will be to your liking in certain compositions or conditions (for example, fog). "Maximum sharpness" does not necessarily equate to an interesting, memorable photo.

Jsykes

Thanks

I am seeing f/3.5>>f/4.0>>f/4.5>>f/5.6>>f/6.7>>f8.0>>f/9.5>>f11

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Jsykes wrote:

Thanks

I am seeing f/3.5>>f/4.0>>f/4.5>>f/5.6>>f/6.7>>f8.0>>f/9.5>>f11

Those are not full stops. See:
https://shuttermuse.com/f-stop-chart/

.

Jsykes

Thanks

whwiden

Sharpness will vary from lens to lens at different f stops. It will also vary from center to edge. DXOmark labs has tested various lenses and their performance at different settings. You might look at those results.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Jsykes wrote:

Having problems with the (often published) recommendation(s) of how to "squeeze the maximum levels of image sharpness out of your lens by simply stopping your lens aperture down 2.5 to 3-stops from the lens's maximum aperture" i.e. for a lens that has a maximum aperture of f/3.5, the sweet spot of your lens resides somewhere between f/8 and f/11.

Using my 18-55mm kit lens and its' max aperture of f/3.5, two F stops would be f/4.5 and three F stops f/5.6.

Comments?

Generally with Landsapes you want huge DOF. Minimum is f16, many recommend f22.

Try to have something in the near firld to focus on : 6 ft.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

IDguy wrote:

Generally with Landsapes you want huge DOF. Minimum is f16, many recommend f22.

Tryto have so ething in the near firld to focus on : 6 ft.

what about diffraction?

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Strodav wrote:

what about diffraction?

Overworked issue. Bryan Peterson generally uses f22 of higher.

PeterBergh

Strodav wrote:

what about diffraction?

IMHO, as long as you are not a serious pixel peeper and do not print enormous enlargements, diffraction is of minor importance.

If diffraction is important to you, you have to use the DLA (diffraction-limited aperture; around F5.6 to F10, depending on number of megapixels in the sensor and the sensor size) or a bigger opening. If the DLA does not give you enough depth of field, the easiest remedy is focus stacking.

As part of their testing, The Digital Picture give the DLA for some the camera bodies they test. The most recent table I have seen is in their review of the Canon EOS R.

Also, Photography Life have an article on diffraction.

Bipod

Jsykes wrote:

Having problems with the (often published) recommendation(s) of how to "squeeze the maximum levels of image sharpness out of your lens by simply stopping your lens aperture down 2.5 to 3-stops from the lens's maximum aperture" i.e. for a lens that has a maximum aperture of f/3.5, the sweet spot of your lens resides somewhere between f/8 and f/11.

Using my 18-55mm kit lens and its' max aperture of f/3.5, two F stops would be f/4.5 and three F stops f/5.6.

Comments?

Unmount the zoom--it's a convenience lens: more flare, lower contrast, less sharpness, more aberrations.
All zoom designs are a compromise -- and can have from 20 to 30 or more surfaces! Zooms are a necessary
evil for sports photography. phorotjournalism and some wildlife, but worthless for landscapes or large prints.

Instead, mount a prime focus--such as used by Ansel Adams, Minor White, Sebastiao Salgado,
Bruce Barnbaum, etc. You could start with a 50 mm prime -- sharp, constrasty and inexpensive!

Landscapes by Bruce Barnbaum:
https://rockynook.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Screen-Shot-2015-07-02-at-3.04.17-PM.png
http://www.afterimagegallery.com/barnbaumswiftcurrent.jpg

Also, check out The Art of Photography by Bruce Barnbaum.
https://www.amazon.com/Art-Photography-Personal-Approach-Expression/dp/1681982102?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q

IDguy Loc: Idaho

PeterBergh wrote:

IMHO, as long as you are not a serious pixel peepe... (show quote)

No, the easiest solution is higher fstop. As you note, diffraction is overrated. The masters of sharpness, like Ansel Adams, belonged to the f64 group.

Focus stacking isn’t easy. You have to know how to take the images and process them. Neither is trivial.

But I might try focus stacking since my Z6 automates the first step.