Best lenses for shooting stopped-down (long exposure)

[rjpierrard]

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>I'm looking to build a setup that is primarily designed around shooting long exposures at smaller apertures from f/11-f/22, and I'm hoping for some suggestions about which are best in that range. (Yes, the kit will include several quality ND filters, but depth of field is also useful in these shots.) This will be for full-frame, and I do shoot from wide angle to telephoto for these types of shots, so a range of focal lengths is appreciated!</p>

<p>Given what I've found online so far, most lenses seem optimized around f/5.6; the best when stopped-down appear to be (by focal length):<br>

28mm: 28/1.8G<br>

35mm: 35/1.8G<br>

50mm: 50/1.8G<br>

85mm: 85/1.4G, followed by the 85/1.8D<br>

The Sigma 105mm and 150mm macros look to be quite good across the board.<br>

*sources from dxomark and photozone; lenses considered (mostly due to price range):<br>

35mm: out of 35/1.8G, 35/1.4G, 35/2D<br>

50mm: out of 50/1.4D, 50/1.4G, 50/1.8D, 50/1.8G<br>

85mm: out of 85/1.8G, 85/1.8D</p>

<p>I would really like to see some data or recommendations about older manual focus lenses, as I already use these a lot, and can't find much in the way of quantitative data on them. Third party lenses are also great if they perform at these smaller apertures.<br>

Info on wide angles would also be great, though I'm looking at the Nikon 17-35/2.8D due to the useful property of zooming when shooting wide angle, and having a filter thread.</p>

<p>What I'm currently using:<br>

Nikon 50/1.8D, Nikon 105/2.5 AIS, Nikon 200/4 AIS, on a D90.</p>

<p>What I'm also looking at:<br>

Nikon 24/2.8D, Nikon 300/5.6 AIS</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>

[hapien]

<p>First that comes in mind is tessar desing. With tessar image quality should improve when stopping down all the way to f/11, after that some diffraction and when stopping down more, pointy light sources become stars. Nikon has 45mm GN nikkor and 45mm P nikkor in this design.</p>

<p>I allways thought that AF 50mm f/1.8D is at its best at f/8, but someone here Finland had sample that was tested in focus bed with computational analysis and it proved to be best around f/3.5.</p>

<p>If You would like to try D90 in this project, the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G DX draws very nicely when stopped down heavily. Something I noticed in Turkeys bright sun. This on 10Mpix D200.</p>

<p>You have read photozone and dxomark, so You have lots of comparative data at use. But in practice, when stopped down moderately, all lenses are very good and what is left to choose is focal lenght and density of ND filter. Equipment You are currently using are all good, so it is easy to built up from there.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>All lenses are going to be soft at f/16 and beyond - it's a fact of optical physics. An effect called diffraction limits resolution and no amount of juggling with lens design can change that. Light is bent slightly as it passes the edge of the iris diaphragm, and as the iris hole becomes smaller the ratio of "bent" to "straight" light becomes greater, resulting in image degradation.</p>

<p>The theoretical limit of resolution is dictated by the size of Airy disc produced by diffraction. This is the smallest spot size that can be imaged by a lens at a given aperture and is given by the formula F-number x 0.00114mm. So at f/16 the smallest point that any lens can image is 16 x 0.00114 = 0.0183 mm. This translates to about 54 line-pairs per millimetre resolution. A good lens can easily image in excess of 100 lppmm at f/5.6 and the theoretical resolution limit of a camera like the D810 is just over 100 lppmm. This means that shooting at f/16 would be like going down to a 10 megapixel camera from a 36Mp one.</p>

<p>So if it's sheer resolution you're after, then invest in stronger ND filters of good quality and just use lenses that perform well at mid to wide apertures. Forget the 50mm f/1.8 and buy a 55mm Micro-Nikkor. The 200mm f/4 doesn't have brilliant resolution either.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>To Robert the OP, which camera body/bodies are you planning to use?</p>

<p>One way or another, as both responses above pointed out, once you are down to f11, f16, diffraction is going to dominate such that your images will be, at best, somewhat unsharp. Therefore, if you are indeed planning to use very small apertures, there is no point to get really high-quality lenses, especially those expensive f1.4 ones.</p>

[scott_murphy5]

<p>Personally I would not go any smaller than F/11 and use a high quality ND filter to get your exposures where you want them. Past f/11 diffraction is going to noticeably soften image quality, especially in the corners. The only downside to using filters on long exposures is you may get reflections of point sources off the filter. If the focal length is short, you might be able to see them in the image.</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>Robert, you might find this rather surprising, but if you can lay your hands on a Tamron SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4 zoom, give it a try at the smaller apertures. Its performance may surprise you. It certainly surprised me.</p>

<p> </p>