Nikkor 24mm and 35mm????

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by chris_antidote, Jul 20, 2011.

  1. Why do both these cameras only stop down to f 16? and not f 22? A lot of newer Nikkor Lenses aren't stopping down to a traditional F22? And I'm wondering why that is??? Any thoughts.....
     
  2. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    It is actually quite common that fast f1.4 lenses only go down to f16 on the other end. Moreover, now we are in the digital age, diffraction becomes a pretty serious problem at f16; there is little point to use f22.
     
  3. Both my Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D and 35mm f/2.8D stop down to f/22. Not sure i understand your question. When seeking maximum DOF and quality with either of these lenses, f/22 does not deliver. I doubt that I ever stop down beyond f/11-12.
    Dave
     
  4. The reality is that once you stop down beyond f/11 you start to get diffraction and this causes issues with DSLR sensors. Basically you lose sharpness and resolution the farther you stop down.
    RS
    EDIT: Shun beat me to it.
    RS
     
  5. Small iris diameters on under 50mm focal length lenses exhibit too much diffraction.
     
  6. OK, wish you had been clear with your question.
     
  7. assuming you mean the 24 and 35 AF-S 1.4s, they're G lenses, so no aperture ring = cant be used on film cameras. digital cameras suffer from diffraction, which can kick in at f/13 or before. so using f/22 on a DSLR would result in degraded image quality.
     
  8. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    assuming you mean the 24 and 35 AF-S 1.4s, they're G lenses, so no aperture ring = cant be used on film cameras​
    Eric, you know better than that. :)
     
  9. Eric, you know better than that. :)
    well, you can use them, you just cant control aperture from the ring. probably should have said not a good idea to use them on film cameras.
     
  10. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Eric, have you heard of the Nikon F80/N80, F100, F5, and F6? G lenses work perfectly fine on those film SLRs which have sub-command dials.
     
  11. You forgot the F4. :)
     
  12. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I didn't. The F4 does not have a sub-command dial; in fact, it does not even have a main command dial. If you mount a G lens on the F4, you cannot use the A and M metering modes. The F4 also does not have Flex Program. Therefore, while you can mount a G lens on the F4 to take pictures, the restrictions are so serious that I wouldn't describe it as "work perfectly fine."
     
  13. The N55,65, and 75 can also use G lenses. Just throwing that out there, although it's completely off topic.
     
  14. diffraction becomes a pretty serious problem at f16; there is little point to use f22​
    depends entirely on the focal length ie, diffraction at f16 is going to affect an image shot with a 50mm lens a lot more than it will a 300mm lens. lens size of a 50mm @ f16 is roughly 3mm, and on the 300mm @ f16 it's over 18mm - that's a big difference.
     
  15. Eric, have you heard of the Nikon F80/N80, F100, F5, and F6? G lenses work perfectly fine on those film SLRs which have sub-command dials.​
    Heh, this is why I can't bring myself to buying a G lens, or even the new Zeiss lenses that are sans the aperture ring. I use my old cameras a lot, especially the smaller FM/FEs. I'd even pay extra for the lens if it came with an aperture ring. Ever try to change aperture using a command dial in movie mode? Not happening. I have a 35mm f/1.4 AIS that I had the ball bearings taken out of so the aperture ring moves smoothly. Is Nikon even considering where the motion picture market is going? They used to make movie cameras. They need to find some of those guys for some guidance on how to make a workable lens. Whoo; that felt good to get off my chest<g>.
     
  16. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    even the new Zeiss lenses that are sans the aperture ring​
    Exactly which Zeiss lenses are you referring to?
    In the context of the Nikon Forum, the Zeiss ZF lenses in the Nikon F mount have aperture rings. The first generation of ZF lenses are effectively Nikon AI-S lenses; the second generation with electronic contacts are the equivalent of AI-P lenses. All of them have traditional aperture rings.
     
  17. On the F22 issue, a lot of landscape photographers would take issue with "never" assertions. When extended depth of field is the only way to include the necessary scene elements, then one must make a choice between DOF and the loss of resolution or sharpness from diffraction. One makes choices, and balances the consequences. F22 gets used a lot, and on cameras where diffraction results. What was that "club" that Ansel Adams spoke of? Oh yeah, "Group F64." Film registers diffraction too. The real question is what image is desired, what aspects of it are most important, and what tools are available.
     
  18. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    In the digital era, a lot of the convensional wisdom has changed. If you need a lot of depth of field, stopping down to a very small aperture is not the only way any more. Software to perform stack focus continues to improve, and there are also those tilt-shift lens that can modify the focal plane to achieve near/far sharpness. Prior to 2008, Nikon only had shift lenses but never tilt in the F mount.
     
  19. uh oh, now i've done it. who says no one uses film anymore?
     
  20. software is one thing, but for those who love the craft of photography, getting it right in camera is a rewarding part of the process. Having said that, on most lenses that one would take a landscape image on (the majority would be under 50mm, the best aperture to get the best balance between contrast, depth of field, and diffraction limited spot size, the maximum aperture would never exceed f11. For a 35mm lens for example, usually the best aperture would be from f8 to f11, and my go to aperture is F9.5. This changes if you like to use the hyperfocal technique, which is usually only optimal if you having something in the foreground which is the most critical element.
     
  21. @ Michael, Bob, Eric, et al
    I've always thought Shun was very authoritarian with his moderation .... on the other hand he is an authority in matters Nikon. :) He runs a tight ship ya know.
    Go Shun!
    I almost feel the urge to ask about the D700 replacement ... that'll end the thread. ;-)
     
  22. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I almost feel the urge to ask about the D700 replacement ... that'll end the thread. ;-)​
    Clive, that would probably only end your post. :)
    It is very easy to understand me: I love great photography, knowledge about photography/equipment, and facts. That is why I hate rumors, misleading information and I do have a tendency to correct wrong information.
    Back to the OP's question, having the minimum aperture at f16 on fast f1.4 lenses is nothing new. The 35mm/f1.4 AI-S from the 1980's only goes down to f16. I always assume that Nikon would rather not provide too many mechanical stops.
    Nikon still provides f32 on most macro lens where there is occasional need for more depth of field with some (a lot?) compromise on diffraction. The 105mm/f2.8 AF-S VR and 60mm/f2.8 AF-S macro lenses both can go all the way down to f32; the new 40mm/f2.8 DX AF-S macro only goes down to f22, though.
    00Z4Sm-381831584.jpg
     
  23. For what it's worth, I just want to sympathise with the OP. Sometimes "universally blurry" looks better than selective sharpness - and it ought to be possible to convolve out the diffraction. That said, I tend to avoid small apertures like the plague, mostly because I don't want to spend all my life cleaning my sensor - one advantage of film is that cruft doesn't get the chance to build up. I may revisit that position when I eventually get a field camera...
     
  24. As has been noted by others, older f/1.4 Nikkors have a smallest aperture of f/16 also; nothing really new. If you need a smaller aperture, PC-E Nikkors offer f/32 at infinity (and even smaller effective apertures in close-up range).
    Diffraction isn't anything new and it's not limited to digital cameras. (Why would it be?)
    How severely sharpness is degraded depends somewhat on the lens. I have obtained very sharp images at f/22 with the 45 PC-E on 12 MP FX (I stopped down that far because I needed a slow speed to blur water). In any case I sometimes use a combination of tilt and a relatively small aperture (f/11) to get everything in focus in landscape photography. Using a larger aperture with tilt sometimes creates an odd impression of sharpness declining in the vertical direction and I try to minimize this by stopping down.
    In an f/1.4 lens you should expect the best sharpness around f/4-f/5.6. f/16 is already far from optimal. I would just use another lens if you must use a smaller aperture.
     
  25. it ought to be possible to convolve out the diffraction.
    If you use deconvolution what you get is (like with any other type of sharpening) substantially increased noise.
    That said, I tend to avoid small apertures like the plague, mostly because I don't want to spend all my life cleaning my sensor -
    Yeah, this is true at the smallest apertures it's almost impossible to get a clean image. I normally photograph people at apertures from f/1.4 to f/4, and there most dust spots are invisible. However, in landscape, architecture and especially macro photographs, they do show themselves. Fortunately usually their number is such that they can be cleaned out in post-processing, but sometimes a spot appears in a critical part of the image.
     
  26. the easiest way to decide on aperture is to assess a scene, decide what the smallest item is in the scene that you want to render acceptably sharp, and adjust your aperture size to the same size. at inifinity, everything that is the size of the aperture will be rendered with the same resolution, diffraction aside. To simply focus half way between the closest and farthest points of required 'sharpness' is not the answer either.
    Hyperfocal Scene
    [​IMG]
    Infinity Scene
    [​IMG]
    Hyperfocal Foreground
    [​IMG]
    Infinity Foreground
    [​IMG]
    Hyperfocal Mid
    [​IMG]
    Infinity Mid
    [​IMG]
    Hyperfocal Far
    [​IMG]
    Infinity Far
    [​IMG]
    It is hard to pickup on the original shots, and I haven't cropped in the far background, but the silo in either shot is rendered the same. Even though you may think that the inifity focus may render it sharper, diffraction has limited the spot size. The lens used here was a Leica-M Summilux 1.4/35mm ASPH @ F9.5, giving me a lens size of around 3.7mm. If I had have used F5.6, the diffraction limited spot size would have been smaller, however the foreground detail would have slightly suffered. The foreground was more important in this shot than the silo. I perhaps therefore could have used f11, which would have improved the foreground at the expense of the silo. If this were a critical shot, I may taken one shot at each of the two apertures.
     
  27. Clive, If Shun was an authoritarian, he would have closed this thread long ago.<g>
    Shun, the ZF.2 version of the new 35mm f/1.4 does not have an aperture ring. In fact, my preference would be that lens makers not only include an aperture ring, but also a release to allow the aperture to be adjusted without clicks. Probably not a huge deal, but if the industry keeps going the way of adding motion capture with still, it's something to think about.
     
  28. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Shun, the ZF.2 version of the new 35mm f/1.4 does not have an aperture ring.​
    Oh boy, I have checked most ZF.2 lenses and they all have an aperture ring, except for the 35mm/f1.4. As they say, there is always something new to learn every day.
    And that lens also only goes down to f16.
     
  29. Possibly off-topic but why do DSLRs have this diffraction issue at narrow apertures when film SLRs did not? Or what is the specific design component in a DSLR that causes this?
    Thanks.
     
  30. I have checked most ZF.2 lenses and they all have an aperture ring, except for the 35mm/f1.4.
    The 35/1.4 ZF.2 does have the aperture ring. For some reason the image of the ZE (Canon mount) 35/1.4 was originally distributed in place of the ZF.2 version (of course you could tell that it's the Canon mount lens because it had the opposite direction of focus). This has been corrected at least here:
    http://lenses.zeiss.com/photo/en_DE/products/slr/distagont1435.function.html
    If you click on ZF.2 it will show the Nikon mount version with aperture ring.
    why do DSLRs have this diffraction issue at narrow apertures when film SLRs did not?
    They do not. But more people pixel peep than they did with film.
     
  31. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    So this whole Zeiss 35mm/f1.4 ZF.2 has no aperture ring stuff is only due to wrong information from a misplaced image? Plenty of ZF users are those who own old manual-focus film SLRs. Not having an aperture ring does not make sense at all.
     
  32. Off topic: this thread explains why I like the Pentax 50 f/1.2 on the mirrorless cameras so much. It goes to f/22 :)
    On topic: regardless, the masses are correct. I find that on most of my lenses, on digital bodies, shooting below f/16 should only be done if you need a very long shutter speed, or you're checking the sensor for dust. I also use f/16 and f/22 a lot to "meter" a shot for flash exposure before taking an image with my Hasselblad.
    Diffraction stinks, but you can chalk that up to being one of the prices you pay to see your images instantly, and to be able to shoot over ISO 3200 with usable results. I think it's a perfectly reasonable trade-off.
     
  33. Just so happens I wanted to test my 24mm AF (non-D) on my tripod mounted D5100. Magnified live view on the tree. This lens get trashed a bit for digital. I have center crops from 5.6, F8, F11 and F16 to test diffraction. Looking at the markings on the bottom cut limb F8 is the winner but I don't see this horrible drop at F16.
    00Z4j5-382121584.jpg
     
  34. 6.7 is my go to f stop on a 24mm. That lens has a HEAP of DOF, and I can't see why anyone would need to use f16 or above.
     
  35. I find that on most of my lenses, on digital bodies, shooting below f/16 should only be done if you need a very long shutter speed, or you're checking the sensor for dust. I also use f/16 and f/22 a lot to "meter" a shot for flash exposure before taking an image with my Hasselblad.
    And your digital body has also a 6x6 or 6x4,5cm sensor? Lucky you! After all, if you were comparing between different sizes of capture devices you would be comparing the formats and not digital vs. film regarding the effects of diffraction, but you wouldn't do that would you.
     
  36. The answer is simple. The lens designer decided that f/16 is as far as the aperture is allowed to go to maintain acceptable sharpness or IQ. The lens could have been made to stop to down f/22 or f/32, but the predicted image quality would not have been worthy of the "Nikkor" name tag. So, the lens maker said f/16 is the limit for the particular lens design. Don't worry - be happy.
     
  37. Ilkka, I think you misunderstood me. I'm not using a digital MF - I'm using a digital body to fire lights and test exposures before recording on an MF film camera. If I had a digital MF, I'd just chimp with that instead :)
    And yes, I know I should be using a proper meter. But I tend to use at least two gridded or snooted lights, and a 'polaroid exposure' is just much easier to check light placement. I find that if I overexpose by a single stop (or two, with some black and white films), the MF negs look perfect. This is why I like having f/22; because I can shoot a digital image at f/22 that looks correctly metered, and be sure my Hassy will be correct at f/16.
     
  38. I didn't. The F4 does not have a sub-command dial; in fact, it does not even have a main command dial. If you mount a G lens on the F4, you cannot use the A and M metering modes. The F4 also does not have Flex Program. Therefore, while you can mount a G lens on the F4 to take pictures, the restrictions are so serious that I wouldn't describe it as "work perfectly fine."​

    You missed a couple more Shun Cheung: F5, F6
     
  39. ...and there are also those tilt-shift lens that can modify the focal plane to achieve near/far sharpness. Prior to 2008, Nikon only had shift lenses but never tilt in the F mount.​
    Not quite true. I believe the 85mm PC was released in 1999. That lens, incidentally, stops all the way down to f45.
     
  40. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    You are right, Chris. I forgot about the earlier version of the 85mm PC.
     
  41. Do the internal workings of a TS lens do anything to reduce diffraction?
     

Share This Page