Shooting at f/64

But since this is a "beginner" forum, it's probably worth explaining this paragraph:

Thanks for expanding on that Bill.

I know my posts can get a bit wordy, and I didn't want to stretch anyone's attention span!

So in a week or so I will have a 135mm F/2.8 lens that allows me to shoot at F/64 on 35mm. My SLR's are currently being serviced so I have been using my legacy glass on my Olympus EM1 MkII.

Clearly the diffraction is going to be 'off the charts' but if you were going to shoot with this lens at that aperture, what kind of shots would you be considering?

Snow Gum Dance, Charlotte Pass

Gelatin-silver photograph on Ultrafine Silver Eagle VC FB photographic paper, image size 24.6cm X 19.5cm, from a 8x10 Fomapan 100 negative exposed in a Tachihara 810HD triple extension field view camera fitted with an Apo-Nikkor 610mm f9 lens working at f128.

This is an extreme example of the capacity of large format photography to work at very small relative apertures and still deliver sharp images. Yes, diffraction is present but because this picture is not enlarged but rather contact printed it still contains detail finer than the eye can see.

I don't know about diffraction with a large format lens. On a "normal" 300mm large format lens, at f/64 the aperture opening is over 3/16 inch about the same opening as 50mm lens set a f/8.

This all may not be pertinent to the discussion but is a bit interesting.

I enjoy ultrawide angle photography with objects in the foreground within inches of the lens. Through 35mm, 6x6, 4x5, and DSLRs I have been using the smallest apertures for maximum depth of field out to infinity. Trading loss in resolution for sharpness throughout the frame is definitely worth it. More recently I have started using medium apertures with focus stacking when I can. Many of my images also have the sun in them and depending on the lens I get much better sunstars and reduced flare at the tiniest apertures.

I like to think that Ansel Adams has influenced my photography and I have always strived to achieve the results of the f64 group, and will continue to do so.

I don't know about diffraction with a large format lens. On a "normal" 300mm large format lens, at f/64 the aperture opening is over 3/16 inch about the same opening as 50mm lens set a f/8.

 

[ATTACH=full]1377335[/ATTACH]

 

This all may not be pertinent to the discussion but is a bit interesting.

Doesn't refraction also depend on the size of the film - as in 35mm vs 4x5 and the enlargement of the print? Contact printing an 8x10 shot at f64 is different than shooting 4x5 at f/64 and than enlarging it to let's say 16x20"

Ah, hmmm... Why, if a lens stopped down to F22, (or higher) has diffraction of images shot at that aperture, what is the purpose of even having the capability to shoot closed down so far?

 

Can somebody post an image shown this type of diffraction from f22 or. higher, please?

When I got my 8mm fisheye lens for my D500 I played around with it some:

You won't see much effect of having used it at f/22 here because the shot is not enlarged that much. I went for that f/stop because I wanted to bring the DOF to within the MFD (minimum focusing distance) to create a more dramatic perspective. Getting closer actually magnifies the detail more and compensates for what is lost from diffraction, so it's a balancing act for close-up photography and the overall DOF is part of the equation too.

When I got my 8mm fisheye lens for my D500 I played around with it some:

I love that shot, Tony. Very Image Bank!

When I told a friend that i usually shot my 8x10 negatives at f/64 he said that I must get tremendous depth of field. Not so, The depth of field on 8x10 at f/64 is about the same as f/16 on35mm film.

It goes to show that even experienced photographers have to recalibrate their expectations when dealing with, or talking about, large format. I do, anyway. Cameras are not all the same, and the myth that they are does not help in our understanding of how they work.

Ah, hmmm... Why, if a lens stopped down to F22, (or higher) has diffraction of images shot at that aperture, what is the purpose of even having the capability to shoot closed down so far?

(snip)

If your objects are flat, that is a good question.

But in most cases, you need some depth of field, and so stopped down will be sharper,

over the depth of the actual subject.

For pinhole cameras, there is an optimal size for the pinhole, depending on the focal length

(funny to call it that). You minimize the size of the pinhole plus the amount of diffraction.

Otherwise, for actual lenses, and given the resolution of film and such, in most

cases f/22 wasn't bad. Now with the highest resolution digital sensors, you can see it.

But then again, they are removing the optical low-pass filter, as sensors get

better than lenses. Most cheaper cameras never had the LPF, as the lenses

weren't good enough to need one.

If your objects are flat, that is a good question.

 

But in most cases, you need some depth of field, and so stopped down will be sharper,

over the depth of the actual subject.

 

For pinhole cameras, there is an optimal size for the pinhole, depending on the focal length

(funny to call it that). You minimize the size of the pinhole plus the amount of diffraction.

 

Otherwise, for actual lenses, and given the resolution of film and such, in most

cases f/22 wasn't bad. Now with the highest resolution digital sensors, you can see it.

But then again, they are removing the optical low-pass filter, as sensors get

better than lenses. Most cheaper cameras never had the LPF, as the lenses

weren't good enough to need one.

When I look at some of my old P&S 4MB and 8MB photos, they look pretty good. Sharp, colorful, etc. OK, I couldn't blow them up to 20". But if kept small, they're great. Plus, the DOF is outstanding.

When I look at some of my old P&S 4MB and 8MB photos, they look pretty good. Sharp, colorful, etc. OK, I couldn't blow them up to 20". But if kept small, they're great. Plus, the DOF is outstanding.

Yes, for ordinary use f/22 is fine. I have never thought I needed to worry about it in ordinary use.

Just a few days ago (before I saw this) I got out my Nikon AI 55/2.8 that I haven't had out in years.

(So long that the focus ring is very stiff to turn.) I had forgotten until then that it goes to f/32.

When I was young (Nikon F days, not yet F2), my father borrowed a Nikon F and,

I presume, 55/3.5, and extension tube. As well as I remember (maybe 50 years ago),

it goes to f/32, but the extension tube had numbers down to f/45. I will have to look

for a picture.

In any case, if you need the depth of field, that is usually more important than diffraction.

Years ago, I was TA for an optics lab, which had as one lab that tested lens resolution with

the usual USAF resolution targets. I only remember one group doing it, but not the results

that they got. I had to hand spool TP2415 for them to use.

I suspect that getting focus close enough is more of a limit than anything else.

Yes, for ordinary use f/22 is fine. I have never thought I needed to worry about it in ordinary use.

 

Just a few days ago (before I saw this) I got out my Nikon AI 55/2.8 that I haven't had out in years.

(So long that the focus ring is very stiff to turn.) I had forgotten until then that it goes to f/32.

 

When I was young (Nikon F days, not yet F2), my father borrowed a Nikon F and,

I presume, 55/3.5, and extension tube. As well as I remember (maybe 50 years ago),

it goes to f/32, but the extension tube had numbers down to f/45. I will have to look

for a picture.

 

In any case, if you need the depth of field, that is usually more important than diffraction.

 

Years ago, I was TA for an optics lab, which had as one lab that tested lens resolution with

the usual USAF resolution targets. I only remember one group doing it, but not the results

that they got. I had to hand spool TP2415 for them to use.

 

I suspect that getting focus close enough is more of a limit than anything else.

The thing with small sensors of course, is that you get huge DOF with landscapes without a need for small apertures. When I shoot even my 1" sensor camera, I mainly leave it on P mode and let the camera do the work. Only when I shoot MF film do I worry about DOF.

Yes, for ordinary use f/22 is fine. I have never thought I needed to worry about it in ordinary use.

 

Just a few days ago (before I saw this) I got out my Nikon AI 55/2.8 that I haven't had out in years.

(So long that the focus ring is very stiff to turn.) I had forgotten until then that it goes to f/32.

 

When I was young (Nikon F days, not yet F2), my father borrowed a Nikon F and,

I presume, 55/3.5, and extension tube. As well as I remember (maybe 50 years ago),

it goes to f/32, but the extension tube had numbers down to f/45. I will have to look

for a picture.

 

In any case, if you need the depth of field, that is usually more important than diffraction.

 

Years ago, I was TA for an optics lab, which had as one lab that tested lens resolution with

the usual USAF resolution targets. I only remember one group doing it, but not the results

that they got. I had to hand spool TP2415 for them to use.

 

I suspect that getting focus close enough is more of a limit than anything else.

I had a generally excellent 50 mm f/4 Pentax macro lens that produced results that looked like they hd been shot with a pinhole at the minimum f/32 that could be set. At wider f/stops it performed extremely well.

The thing with small sensors of course, is that you get huge DOF with landscapes without a need for small apertures. When I shoot even my 1" sensor camera, I mainly leave it on P mode and let the camera do the work. Only when I shoot MF film do I worry about DOF.

I have a hard disk/SD card camcorder with auto focus. Once when I was using it, I couldn't figure out what it was showing on the view screen. I finally figured out that autofocus had found the dust on the skylight filter. It was still a little out of focus, but close enough. I am not sure how the aperture works, there is no setting for it.

The thing with small sensors of course, is that you get huge DOF with landscapes without a need for small apertures.

Indeed. In fact many small sensor cameras limit the smallest aperture available - compact digitals rarely allow an aperture smaller than f/8.

I've also seen a few compacts that 'fake' a small aperture by using an ND filter. You can tell they do this by the fact that the depth of field alters not a jot when you change from, say, f/3.5 to f/9.1 (For some reason they also choose strange aperture numbers).