Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Is lens diffraction still an important consideration with the newest/bestest lenses?

I did a little test with my M4/3 Panasonic and 14-140 mm lens last year and it was quite obvious that f/8 or f/11 produced better results than f/22.

As with the improvements in low light/noise, does the type (zoom, prime, focal length) of lens and/or price affect diffraction now as much as in the past? I try to always suggest that people do their own controlled tests, but I'm curious.

Thanks!

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

It hasn't been since the emergence of Photoshop which can mitigate over 90% of the effect of it.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Yes, diffraction is alive and well.

Bob Mevis Loc: Plymouth, Indiana

I don't see it with my lenses. People still experience it. I've thought about it now because I'm saving for the Nikon 200-500 f5.6.

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

Diffraction is physics. You can't eliminate it in lens design.
If it be possible to reduce it in software, it were possible to improve focus as well.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Our buddy Jimmy Chin has a nice high-level explanation here: https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-lens-diffraction-in-photography#what-causes-lens-diffraction. Note, there is a relationship between pixel size and pixel density of the camera that is separately related to experiencing diffraction, beyond the more 'traditional' issue of light waves interfering with each other as they pass through a small opening (aperture) at the back of the lens.

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

I don't think it's gone away but as others have mentioned, PP has come a long way and a lot of these old issues are less so nowadays. I don't do much PP so I am forced to test each lens and camera combination and try to establish their sweet-spots and go from there.

Getting the image as sharp as I can (s.o.o.c.) is my 2nd priority after getting the shot and that's the best I can hope for. Generally , if you invest in Good Glass , you get nicer images that you can enlarge. And I always pray for Happy Accidents when no one is listening.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I appreciate everyone's comments!

Paul, thank you for the link and for broadening an already confusing topic

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Linda From Maine first and formost, thank you for your service to defending our nation... rest assured there are indeed many here (including myself) who truly appreciate this... Also I lived in the Yakima area back in the late seventies... an enchanting region back then...

(What's the latest on the lens diffraction "issue"?) Linda it really isn't an issue as others have mention... it is simply a property of the "Wave" nature of light. In layman's terms "Diffraction is the slight bending of light as it passes around the edge of an object. The amount of bending depends on the relative size of the wavelength of light to the size of the opening. ... Optical effects resulting from diffraction are produced through the interference of light waves."

That said, Linda if you have done serious macro (true macro) photography you would be keenly aware that the "opening" of a lens is controlled primarily by the distance of the subject to the lens... a.k.a. If a 100mm macro lens is "Focused" at infinity and the lens is f/2.8. As you focus towards 1:1 the maximum aperture changes to f/5.6 more or less. This Increase in magnification results in your camera reporting back smaller and smaller apertures. Why?

The physical aperture diameter doesn't decrease - it's still the same - but the effective focal ratio does actually change to f/5.6 since the lens is twice as far from the sensor at 1:1, than it is at infinity focus. We are accustomed to thinking of f-stop as being the lens focal length divided by the objective diameter, but for exposure purposes, it's actually lens-to-image distance divided by the objective diameter. Also As with exposure, diffraction softening is actually a function of the ratio (lens-to-image distance) (diaphragm diameter) rather than (lens focal length) (diaphragm diameter).

However, in macro photography, DOF is the main problem and you will often obtain a "perceived acuity" by stopping down, even when exceeding the diffraction "limit." It's quite common to work at f/22 or narrower for macro; just keep in mind that there is little point in switching to a camera with a very fine sensor pitch in those cases. Also replace "objective diameter" with "diaphragm diameter" when the lens is not wide open.

Linda your inference to "...suggest that people do their own controlled tests..." is what I feel is a valid suggestion in my humble estimation. Anything short of upper level college physics course work in wave phenomena will leave one confused at best...

Bottom Line? For my work, I focus on simply exceeding my client's expectations, I would urge you to follow suit (or if you don't play bridge, do likewise). Remember beauty is in the eyes of the checkbook holder...

All the best on your journey Linda

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

Just my take on diffraction. I use to shoot lots of macro in the F/22 range. After reading hundreds of post on the negatives of diffraction I dialed back to F/16. Going further and then stacking my macro shots I opened my aperture even further to F/9. That said when I go back and view my images I can see the results of diffraction, ONLY when I increase my images too 100% when viewing on my computer screen. I'm in the same state of mind when it comes to the affects of higher ISO's. When viewed at what I'm guessing at the proper distances my images rarely show diffraction and or noise. It's only when I pixel peep that I'm disappointed. In fact I would love to know some type of formula that would allow me to crop an image to whatever size I choose to print and then Increase said crop image on my screen to represent the printed size and then to view at whatever the correct distance to determine if it's an issue, or if my pixel peeping is actually the cause of my concerns. If you can't see it then it's not there. If your like me Linda I have my nose pressed up to the screen viewing at 100% looking for fault... Where do we draw the line?????????
P.S. I see fault in everything P.S.S. I hate blanketed statements about diffraction and noise.....
Macro thought me there is a fine line to balance aperture, noise and diffused light.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Have you ever used haze reduction and clarity in Photoshop and Lightroom to mitigate any effects?

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Are you remembering that with m4/3 the aperture is subjected to the same crop factor as the focal length etc? F/22 for an m4/3 camera is significantly smaller than f/22 on a FF camera (if my thinking is correct it would be the equivalent of f/32 on a FF camera).

I'm not an expert on the subject but I suspect that the significance of diffraction rises exponentially as the aperture decreases. With a FF camera, diffraction starts to become detectable above f/8, becoming gradually more significant as you increase the f-stop through f/11 and f/16. However, by the time you get to f/22, diffraction has the potential to become significantly more noticeable, and I suspect its significance increases rapidly above that.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

According to one school of thought, diffraction is more significant now because better lenses and higher resolution sensors are more revealing.

pesfls Loc: Oregon, USA

I too use m4/3 part of the time. Olympus. I have learned that the two lenses I have, 7-14 and 12-40 , both f2.8 behave a little differently. The 12-40 behaves better at smaller aperatures. With the 7-14 I keep it at f8 or larger. At least that’s my observation with what I own.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Thanks, Thomas. Interesting to hear about the macro connection as I've never been interested in that area.

As for checkbook holder, alas...or yippee, depending on your pov, the photographer/client is one and the same here