Question About Aperture: 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...

leftyD500 Loc: Ocala, Florida

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?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I shoot what I want for what I want to accomplish. If I want ƒ22, I shoot ƒ22.
I don't care about any possible diffraction it may cause.
If it was so bad, why would they make it available and not simply stop at ƒ16?

Opinions.....

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Diffraction is real and the image is degraded slightly. Photography however is an art of compromise. If the DOF is necessary to make the photo more successful then it's probably worth the trade, especially since post processing methods can mitigate the damage due to diffraction better than they can mitigate not enough DOF.

BebuLamar

When I need the depth of field I would use the smallest f/stop I have. I don't really care about diffraction. I shot at minimum aperture much more often than at maximum aperture.

srt101fan

Ysarex wrote:

Diffraction is real and the image is degraded slightly. Photography however is an art of compromise. If the DOF is necessary to make the photo more successful then it's probably worth the trade, especially since post processing methods can mitigate the damage due to diffraction better than they can mitigate not enough DOF.

Good question, instructive reply. As in so many technical issues in photography, it would seem that this might be another case of "it depends on the type of photographs you take",

Not knowing much about diffraction, can someone please tell me what kinds of images suffer most from diffraction?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Didn't we discuss this exact same question for 6-pages on March 8, 2021?

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-688517-1.html

Wasn't the best suggestion that you take your lens(es) and your tripod and create a testbed of images you then review on your computer at their 1:1 pixel level details? Then you can make your own decision. What did you discover via this testing since March 8, 2021?

wide2tele Loc: Australia

CHG_CANON wrote:

Didn't we discuss this exact same question for 6-pages on March 8, 2021?

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-688517-1.html

Geez...lol

Best to not shoot at f22 or wide open either if you are fussy. Best to stick to f8/f11. Case closed before 6.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

"Best" is relative.

wide2tele Loc: Australia

Longshadow wrote:

"Best" is relative.

You'll be pushing us on to page 2 soon.

yorkiebyte Loc: Scottsdale, AZ/Bandon by the Sea, OR

CHG_CANON wrote:

Didn't we discuss this exact same question for 6-pages on March 8, 2021?

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-688517-1.html

Wasn't the best suggestion that you take your lens(es) and your tripod and create a testbed of images you then review on your computer at their 1:1 pixel level details? Then you can make your own decision. What did you discover via this testing since March 8, 2021?

...and STILL the best answer!

~ I tried this a few years ago with several of my Nikkor G lenses. Zoom - not my primes. I was taken aback by the noticeable diffraction at F/11 (not horrible, but noticeable) and above (very noticeable). Just one reason I rarely shoot above F/8 on any lens. 55mm Micro Nikkor a noteable exception!

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

I think digital changed some thinking. Before digital, photographers like Ansel Adams shot at the smallest aperture possible, doing so to get the sharpest overall photo possible. For pixel peepers, you get absolute sharpness at around the middle of the aperture range like 8 but for a much smaller part of the picture.

Quixdraw Loc: x

I don't spend much time pixel peeping, and usually shoot around F 11-14 when the light is good. Have shot at the max, F22 or maybe higher (can't recall if I've used F32). I haven't seen any effect even in DDL. I take my chances to get the DOF and photo I want.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

On lenses the center (between the larges f stop and the smallest f stop) is the sharpest a lens will be. The to ends the quality will fall off. This is a generalization for all lenses The quality of the lens you start with is how bad the image quality is to begin with as well as how much is the fall off. If f22 or f32 is needed use them. If the lens manufacturer put the on the lens the make it should be usable or they would not put them on the lens. All lenses are not f1.5 because that lens was not made to work at that setting.

User ID

yorkiebyte wrote:

...and STILL the best answer!

~ I tried this a few years ago with several of my Nikkor G lenses. Zoom - not my primes. I was taken aback by the noticeable diffraction at F/11 (not horrible, but noticeable) and above (very noticeable). Just one reason I rarely shoot above F/8 on any lens. 55mm Micro Nikkor a noteable exception!

Any single exception to the reigning myth unravels the myth. There is no magic in the 55 Micro.

It’s true that most lenses are at their sharpest in the midrange of apertures, but so what ?

I suspect that the reason a user finds the 55 Micro seems to defy the rules is that user stops down for very close shots. The effective FL of a unit focusing 55mm at 1:1 is 110mm.

Alphabravo2020

wmurnahan wrote:

...photographers like Ansel Adams shot at the smallest aperture possible, doing so to get the sharpest overall photo possible...

Nice rabbit hole there. I learned that Ansel formed a club called Group f/64. This makes me wonder about the aperture control on the Zeiss/Hasselblad equipment he was using. If he was shooting that small then I'd suspect that the aperture was carefully machined. The modern bladed variable iris aperture causes a lot of lens effects due to being non-circular and non-uniform thickness.