Sweet Spot for Landscape Photography (Page 5): 👍👍 Well said!

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

John Gerlach wrote:

Both diffraction and AF micro-adjusting your autofocus lens seem to have the same issues among photographers. Many say neither is a problem, and other swear by paying attention to both. I use all expensive L Canon lenses with the Canon 5D Mark IV and Canon 1DX Mark II. While sharpness certainly isn't everything, it really does not make any sense to me to shoot images that aren't as sharp as they could have been had I paid more attention to my shooting procedure. In both cases - diffraction and AF microadjustment - if you just shoot at f/22 or don't microadjust your lens and camera, then most likely the results will be suitable for you and many will say look how sharp they are. Indeed, they do look fairly sharp and you assume that is the best your gear can do. But, unless you run a test and evaluate, you won't realize how good the image results really can be. Decades ago I tested diffraction by shooting a flat target at f/8 and f/22, and the difference in sharpness due to a loss of sharpness from diffraction is significant to me. Therefore, I try to avoid stopping down much, and never past f/16. I usually focus stack when I can as it is so easy to do and process. Three years ago when I tried a new Canon lens and the results weren't quite as crisp as I expected (they still looked fairly sharp), I decided to AF micro adjust it (first time I tried it) and discovered the lens needed a -9 adjustment to correct for a little backfocus. Since then, I have tested at least 20 lenses (mine and clients) and none have had best focus at the zero default setting, and I don't expect them to. These adjustments aren't huge, but they do give your sharper images. By using the sharper apertures around f/8 and using lenses with proper AF microadjustment, it truly is amazing at the sharp photos you get. If you never see how well your gear can really do, then you don't miss it. But if you don't want to give up quality, and sharpness matters to you, then don't neglect those sharpness factors. It truly is up to what you hope to desire. Diffraction is real and you can see it when properly compared, and lenses most likely benefit from AF microadjusting - all of mine did with two different cameras. Just saying.....

Both diffraction and AF micro-adjusting your autof... (show quote)

👍👍 Well said!

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

All one has to do is view a few of his video, that you referenced, to see how much mis-information he and his wife purvey on the web. I'll rest my case there.
--Bob

IDguy wrote:

ot

Tony Northrup is highly repected by most photographers.

To qualify to make such a derogatory statement you’d have to share with us your hundreds of free videos and dozens of published books that demonstrate your superiority. Otherwise, you make yourself look foolish.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

rmalarz wrote:

For some reason, the 28~300 I have works just fine at any f/stop. Proof has been posted here numerous times.

Keep digging.
--Bob

I don't recall seeing anything from you posted at full resolution. It's usually greatly reduced in size so you have never proved anything about sharpness.

Reducing your image in size may keep others from stealing them but they don't even do justice to your 4x5 film images.

Even this one at f/32 doesn't look as sharp at 1296x1038 as it should. The diffraction limit for 4x5 is about f/45.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

rmalarz wrote:

All one has to do is view a few of his video, that you referenced, to see how much mis-information he and his wife purvey on the web. I'll rest my case there.
--Bob

Please do. Your disparaging comments just make you look foolish and disturb the thread. I’m adding you to my ignore list.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

IDguy wrote:

Overworked issue. Bryan Peterson generally uses f22 of higher.

Picked up Bryan Peterson's book Exposure Solutions 3rd edition back in September, which inspired me to try some local landscapes (Brazos Bend State Park 10/12/18) at higher f stops. Here are a couple of shots that convinced me I needed to study this a bit more because the f8 shot is far better than the f22 shot. The top shot is at f22 and the bottom shot at f8. You don't have to pixel peep, just go to full screen and look at the egret to the left of the scene and the small dark bird on the left branch of the dead tree as well as the dead tree. Have another at f2.8, which is also better than the f22 shot. I have another 1/2 dozen examples from that outing and there is no question that the f8 shots are significantly better than the f22 shots. They were taken with a D7200 and a Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 at 35mm. Any suggestions on how I can get better results at f22 would be appreciated.

(Download)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

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?

It is difficult to get the full potential of a sensor when you are stopping down past the point where sharpness is limited by diffraction.

The better the lens, or the smaller the format, the wider the aperture you can use with excellent results.

To maximize the performance of your sensor, get a different lens you can use at f/2.8 to f/4. Lenses with f2.8 or faster maximum aperture generally perform better on small formats like APS-C, DX, Micro 4/3... For instance, I have three f/2.8 lenses that all perform best at f/4, but are sharp at f/2.8 through f/5.6. f/8 shows barely visible diffraction. f/11 shows noticeable diffraction. f/16 is getting soft. f/22 is, for my purposes, not usable. That's why I own two neutral density filters.

To test for diffraction, photograph a full double-page spread of newspaper taped to a wall. Put the camera on a tripod, turn off all image stabilization features, and use aperture priority automation. Set the lowest ISO possible without using "extended" ISO. If your camera has a mirror with a lock, lock it up. Make a series of exposures at each full aperture on the lens. Evaluate each at 100% (pixel for monitor dot) magnification in your best image processing software. You should quickly locate the point at which sharpness deteriorates, and also the sharpest aperture on the lens.

You should repeat the test four times on a zoom lens, at even mm intervals from wide to tele. 18, 24, 35, and 55mm is about right on your zoom.

Another thing to think about is your sensor. If it has an anti-aliasing filter, it reduces sharpness a tiny amount. Cameras without AA filters produce sharper images, but tend to generate more moire when photographing small patterns such as herringbone tweed clothing.

Siemienczuk

Perfect. I just did the experiment two weeks ago. I was sharing Bryan Peterson's f/22 advocacy with a friend, a retired photographer. One of his setups is the same as mine, D7200 with 18-140 kit lens. He strongly felt that f/11 for this lens is the sweet spot. So I went to the Portland Japanese Garden with a tripod and took a number of shots with need for foreground thru background focus with f/11, f/16 and f/22. I had to get the camera practically on the ground to pull foreground in close enough to need the deepest DoF. Shooting roughly at hyperfocal distance, in every instance, viewing the images side-by-side on a 24 inch monitor, one image jumped out as superior: always the f/11. I also taste wine; you can't compare until you go side-by-side. So take your gear to a good location for landscape, do the test, and report back.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

rmalarz wrote:

All one has to do is view a few of his video, that you referenced, to see how much mis-information he and his wife purvey on the web. I'll rest my case there.
--Bob

Usually people try to make their case before they rest it. Asking someone else to go do the research and draw your conclusions is just lazy.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

I just had someone who does photographs for the Nikon Company tell me that Nikon won't accept any image taken above F/8. I always wonder why all lenses just aren't made to be perfect at specific f/stops and that's it, don't make the other f/stops. It doesn't make sense to me that companies produce gear with multiple f/stops and then say "don't use them."

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

burkphoto wrote:

It is difficult to get the full potential of a sen... (show quote)

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

Siemienczuk wrote:

Perfect. I just did the experiment two weeks ago.... (show quote)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Strodav wrote:

...Any suggestions on how I can get better results at f22 would be appreciated.

You can't. f/22 on small sensor cameras with medium to high resolution produces significant diffraction that limits sharpness. f/8 is usually near the borderline between optimum sharpness and diffraction for APS-C cameras.

That said, defeating autofocus, using a Depth of Field Calculator on a smartphone, and focusing at the hyperfocal distance for the aperture you do use, are all worthwhile strategies for landscape work.

whwiden

It is very useful to know the performance characteristics if the individual lenses that you use-- at least on the margin. My experience is that content, framing, shot discipline are far more important--particularly for printed photos, framed and viewed at an appropriate distance for the size of the photo. I would tend to error on the side of greater DOF--particularly with longer lenses--for landscapes or wildlife--than risk out of focus areas that are better presented in focus. Lenses like a 28-300mm can be decent at f/8 to f/11 in print. They particularly fall down for wider open shots. At f/16 and above, pixel peepers will tend to fault even the better lenses. I fault the super zoom most for inconsistent performance at different aperatures as well as inconsistent performance across the frame at many aperatures. Used in a narrow aperatures band on a camera with decent high ISO performance, one can get some nice results. That being said, a good prime can be better--but what price convenience?

jackinkc Loc: Kansas City

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?

I always use f/8.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

IDguy wrote:

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.

Using a guy who belonged to the f/64 group as a poster child for the aperture you should use on an APS-C camera is just ludicrous.

YES, you can use f/64... on an 8x10 view camera with a 300mm normal lens! But on a full frame camera of 20-24 MP, you'll want to use f/10 or so. On an APS-C camera, make that around f/7.1. On a Micro 4/3 camera, diffraction sets in around f/5.6! It pays to use a Depth of Field calculator app on your computer or smartphone.

I worked in a photo lab in all sorts of roles, for a school portrait company for three decades. We tested equipment constantly to find its optimal range of operation. We never tested a digital camera that didn't exhibit at least some visible diffraction at f/16. The original Canon 5D was limited at f/13 or so.

Our panoramic senior class group photographers HAD used f/64 on our 8x10 group portrait cameras, for decades, with fantastic results. But when they switched to Canon dSLRs, and couldn't get to f/64 on the lenses we used, they tried f/32. Have you ever seen an image where everything from a few feet to infinity was equally *fuzzy*? I've seen hundreds of them! They were all taken at f/32 with a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens on a Canon EOS 5D. Using the same rig at f/8 or f/11 and focusing at the hyperfocal distance provides VERY sharp results.

One guy lost a $70,000 account by using f/32. It's like pushing rope or herding squirrels to get 300 high school seniors back onto an athletic field for a panorama, not to mention dealing with the angry principal, teachers, and yearbook advisor. So...

When that $#!t hit the fan, I had to run a series of tests to PROVE to the guy that he could use f/8 or f/11 and still get plenty of depth of field at 50mm. (The hyperfocal distance at f/8 is 34 feet. That gives you DOF from 17' to over a mile from the camera. Focus at 26', and DOF is 15' to 108'. The hyperfocal distance at f/11 is 25'. DOF is 12.5' to infinity...)

I printed foot-wide sections of a 20" by 60" panorama of the same scene, taken at f/32, f/22, f/16, f/11, and f/8. f/32 was mush. f/22 was dreamy. f/16 was soft. f/11 and f/8 were usable... in fact they were gorgeous if you stood back about five feet from the print.

Our photo consultants had a huge library of examples of failures. We had example after example of the diffraction problem.