Do you shoot landscapes with wide apertures?

[curiousgeorge]

I've always shot landscapes at f8 (was the sweet spot for my 17-40) but my new 17-55 performs best at around f4.

So I'll probably end up shooting most of my landscapes at this aperture.

I was wondering if anyone else shoots landscapes at this aperture.

Aside from the DOF problem, it seems a little odd to me.

[robonrome]

i generally don't like to drop below f11 as the sort of shooting i do involves very close foreground interest... I guess for for more expansive distance shots F4 wouldn't be a problem:confused:

[rdricks]

I typically do not go below f/8. Most shots are f/11 - f/22. For my shooting, I am setup with an f/4 lens collection and it is great. I will have the occasional shot where I drop below f/8, but it is a small percentage of my shots.

[homersapien]

Wow...I'm not sure how well shooting at f/4 is going to work for landscapes. Even on a crop camera, shooting at 17mm, F/8 does not produce enough DOF for many of my shots. I usually work at f/11, maybe f/16 depending on the lens. Diffraction starts to creep in at f/16 and smaller.

If your 17-55mm isn't producing acceptable results at f/8, f/11, and f/16, it's time to send it in for repair, or buy a new lens!

[curiousgeorge]

I typically do not go below f/8. Most shots are f/11 - f/22. For my shooting, I am setup with an f/4 lens collection and it is great. I will have the occasional shot where I drop below f/8, but it is a small percentage of my shots.
At f22 I'd imagine diffraction would be quite significant, do you sacrifice some IQ loss to get the DOF?

My 17-40 peaked at f8, after which diffraction appeared to set in.

Wow...I'm not sure how well shooting at f/4 is going to work for landscapes. Even on a crop camera, shooting at 17mm, F/8 does not produce enough DOF for many of my shots. I usually work at f/11, maybe f/16 depending on the lens. Diffraction starts to creep in at f/16 and smaller.

If your 17-55mm isn't producing acceptable results at f/8, f/11, and f/16, it's time to send it in for repair, or buy a new lens!
Well it depends on the distance of the subject, if the subjects are all in the same plane why shouldn't f4 be enough?

I haven't tried anything smaller than f11, but at this aperture the IQ is still very good, just not as good as at f4.

[rdricks]

I don't really see any problems with diffraction in my shots. If a shot calls for f/22 or even f/32 I go for it. I don't want to sound like I am minimizing anything, but personally I think a lot of people look too close at 100% crops for issues rather than getting the shots.

That said, I do make sure I have good equipment. When I switched from my film system I started from scratch with Canon gear. I made a decision at that time to buy the best lenses for my photography style. The 17-40 is right up there, and should be able to produce some excellent shots.

[The_Camera_Poser]

I don't really see any problems with diffraction in my shots. If a shot calls for f/22 or even f/32 I go for it. I don't want to sound like I am minimizing anything, but personally I think a lot of people look too close at 100% crops for issues rather than getting the shots.



Here here. Pixel peeping is evil.

[curiousgeorge]

Yes, I do look at 100% crops. If I only looked at the fit to screen size then I would never have made the observations I did.

I think it's a good way to spot any potential problems with the lens and if you're going to print large then you need to know any limitations.

[The_Camera_Poser]

I look at them too, but too often. I find that I go to the 100% view as the first thing I do when I find a picture I like, and I'm not sure that's a good thing.

[curiousgeorge]

I agree, but I think it depends on what you ultimately want to do with the image.

[rdricks]

I quite often blow photos up to 16"x24". I don't usually go larger than that for my purposes. If one lens is "slightly" softer than another I really will not notice it near as much as if the DOF is not correct. DOF blur is noticeable at any size.

However, if there is any chromatic aberration, I will pick that out right away on an enlargement. Good lenses make all the difference when it comes to that issue.

[5Dmaniac]

curiousgeorge,

People often get confused about optimal aperture, diffraction and what it takes to get the shot! There is no way you can do landscape shots at f/4 - no matter if it is the sweet spot of your lens or not. You HAVE to stop down to get the DOF that you need. Taking good pictures is not about the technical optimal aspect of a lens or even the camera! Stop pixel peeping at 100% and go out and use your gear at whatever f/stop, shutterspeed it takes. I often shoot at f/16 and yes, f/8 would have been sharper, but the DOF would have been to shallow.

[DigitalSpecialist]

I fully agree with Maniac, i for one usually drop my stops to F16, or smaller like an F32 if possible. You will notice your colors get more vibrant with a larger dof too!

[rdricks]

So in essence, what several of us are saying is that by limiting yourself to the "sweet spot" of that lens (f/4), you are not in the "sweet spot" for landscape photographs. DOF is key for landscapes.

[weka2000]

Most of mine are F16 with the 17-40 on FF

[S.Horton]

It depends upon the focal length and subject.

As for you guys at f/22 and above, don't you notice diffraction?

[curiousgeorge]

curiousgeorge,

People often get confused about optimal aperture, diffraction and what it takes to get the shot! There is no way you can do landscape shots at f/4 - no matter if it is the sweet spot of your lens or not. You HAVE to stop down to get the DOF that you need. Taking good pictures is not about the technical optimal aspect of a lens or even the camera! Stop pixel peeping at 100% and go out and use your gear at whatever f/stop, shutterspeed it takes. I often shoot at f/16 and yes, f/8 would have been sharper, but the DOF would have been to shallow.
I know you're right, it's just hard for me coming from a 17-40 where the sweet spot was f8 and was my normal aperture for landscapes.

Now it's going to be even harder to move away from that sweet spot. But yes, the deterioration of sharpness is not that much at all.

[rdricks]

It depends upon the focal length and subject.

As for you guys at f/22 and above, don't you notice diffraction?

To be completely honest? I have never noticed diffraction in my landscapes from using f/22 to f/32.

[curiousgeorge]

To be completely honest? I have never noticed diffraction in my landscapes from using f/22 to f/32.
Surely you would if you checked your images at 100% though.

[rdricks]

That's kind of the point I tried to make in post #6. For my uses, I don't see any issues with diffraction. Now, what is my use? I enlarge to 16x24 quite often. I rarely go larger than that. With an 8MP camera, at 16x24, I am not viewing the image at 100%. It is quite a bit smaller.

If you were blowing up photos to extremely large sizes for close viewing, that might be something else. But the joy of SLRs is being able to adjust the system for your own needs. And at 16x24, diffraction is not an issue (for me). ;)

[sandro9mm]

my 17-40 @ f16 doesn't show any problems... wait I'll look for the a sample

[curiousgeorge]

That's kind of the point I tried to make in post #6. For my uses, I don't see any issues with diffraction. Now, what is my use? I enlarge to 16x24 quite often. I rarely go larger than that. With an 8MP camera, at 16x24, I am not viewing the image at 100%. It is quite a bit smaller.

If you were blowing up photos to extremely large sizes for close viewing, that might be something else. But the joy of SLRs is being able to adjust the system for your own needs. And at 16x24, diffraction is not an issue (for me). ;)
That's fair enough, but I think the difference between f8 and f22 on a 17-40 is probably the same as the difference between the 17-40 and the kit lens at f8 (in terms of sharpness).

[S.Horton]

That's kind of the point I tried to make in post #6. For my uses, I don't see any issues with diffraction. Now, what is my use? I enlarge to 16x24 quite often. I rarely go larger than that. With an 8MP camera, at 16x24, I am not viewing the image at 100%. It is quite a bit smaller.

If you were blowing up photos to extremely large sizes for close viewing, that might be something else. But the joy of SLRs is being able to adjust the system for your own needs. And at 16x24, diffraction is not an issue (for me). ;)

16x24 is pretty large........ So.........

I think there's a gotcha -- When I looked at your website, I think that you're a pro (or as experienced as one), and you know precisely where to focus in the frame -- I'll also bet you know exactly how much contrast to apply and how to control sharpening for output at a specific size. My guess is you're also not a pixel-peeper because you know what gets printed and what does not as well. ;)

I can shoot the 24-70 L at f/22 and never see a problem @100%. The 16-35 II @16-18MM wide I have to crop anyway because the corners and edges fall apart, and when I'm that wide DOF is huge, so I get away with f/16, sometimes f/11 or f/13 and the prints are great if the right post-process is used.

Primes, that's another story, isn't it -- And if you happen to have a prime which is critically sharp at small apertures and sharp corner-to-corner, well, you have the perfect tool.

:cool:

@Curiousgeorge - Hope all's well with you in Iceland -- Good article in NatGeo about your country; noticed the financial news. Keep shooting, nice website on a beautiful place to live!

[S.Horton]

BTW, article on diffraction for reading pleasure.......
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/diffraction.html

[rdricks]

That's a pretty good article. I think he hits the nail on the head when he says to use the smaller apertures only if you need the additional DOF or slower shutter speeds. That is the key.

BTW, thanks for the comments on my shots :). I have been doing this for a while, around 20 years. And my typical values are f/11 - f/16. But I don't hesitate to go smaller if it is what it takes to get the shot. After all, when the right moment hits, you may never get another chance. Better f/32 and a photo than no photo at all. ;)

[curiousgeorge]

@Curiousgeorge - Hope all's well with you in Iceland -- Good article in NatGeo about your country; noticed the financial news. Keep shooting, nice website on a beautiful place to live!
Thanks! My time here is coming to an end, after 14 months. Can't complain, it's been like a long holiday and I've seen a lot of places.

[HappySnapper90]

My landscapes, either with film or my 5D, are at f16+. For those that say diffraction will ruin your photo at f22, that's just pixel peeping. The negative effects of small apertures are really not visible in prints even of large size.

You can pixel peep at 200% on a computer screen all you want claiming never to go smaller than f8, but that doesn't do you any good in the print world.

[keitaro]

BTW, article on diffraction for reading pleasure.......
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/diffraction.html

i was just about to ask about diffraction! thanks!

[Buggbairn]

On some occasions I like to "think outside the box"

We can get all to used to shooting with maximum DOF , rule of thirds, lead in lines etc etc.

This scene leant itself very well to a wide aperture setting. Shot at f4.5

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v344/weejoe/barnsnesslighthouseduotone.jpg

[Laramie]

Great use of narrow DOF. There are times where the foreground is your focus and the background merely adds to the shot and doesn't need to be in focus.

Nice shot.

On some occasions I like to "think outside the box"

We can get all to used to shooting with maximum DOF , rule of thirds, lead in lines etc etc.

This scene leant itself very well to a wide aperture setting. Shot at f4.5

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v344/weejoe/barnsnesslighthouseduotone.jpg

[GregSteer]

I've just started taking more landscape shots myself, and I'd say the one thing I've picked up from here is "stop the pixel peeping" - which is something I generally have been doing to check sharpness on peoples faces - I'll train myself out of it for landscapes!

[JCH77Yanks]

I've just started taking more landscape shots myself, and I'd say the one thing I've picked up from here is "stop the pixel peeping" - which is something I generally have been doing to check sharpness on peoples faces - I'll train myself out of it for landscapes!

Yeah, landscape pixel peeping wil drive you nuts... especially if you shoot where there might be alot of haze or moisture in the air - you'll trick yourself into thinking that your lens is a "soft copy".

[Laramie]

Yeah, landscape pixel peeping wil drive you nuts... especially if you shoot where there might be alot of haze or moisture in the air - you'll trick yourself into thinking that your lens is a "soft copy".

Agreed. Haze in the sky has made my doubt myself and my equipment a time or two when I was starting out.

[Nacnud]

BTW, article on diffraction for reading pleasure.......
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/diffraction.html
I tripped across this excellent article earlier in the year when I was researching a talk on Critical Sharpness.
Diffraction seems a bit esoteric until you realise that table is talking about the quality of a 10x8 inch print - i.e. a 'normal' size prints.
I illustrated my talk with 100% crops of test shots I had taken at different apertures - really made them sit up and think!

The table also illustrates the significant DOF advantage of a full frame sensor (or film - LOL) and why the medium/large format boys get away with f64 etc.

[bestfromnw]

most of mine f8, f11... sometimes f22-32 if i have a subject(tree or something) in front and i want to get max dof from background....as far as diffraction - nothing that a little unsharp mask cant fix

[S7000]

Will shoot landscapes at anything from F/11 - F/22. Obviously depending what I'm after in a shot, but as it's been said, you get much more vibrant colours, and I find a much nicer picture overall.

You shouldn't limit yourself to a "sweet spot" on a lens because it wont let you get creative.

[hexa]

I too see aperture as a creative control, not as an IQ maximizer :) Although it's good to know which apertures give you the best possible sharpness, you really should forget such things when trying to express yourself.

I shoot most of my landscapes with f/11-f/16, but sometimes f/1.4 does the trick, like here (http://hege.1g.fi/kuvat/maisemat/03.jpg). Or then sometimes f/22 is needed to get The shutter speed, like here (http://hege.1g.fi/kuvat/maisemat/01.jpg).

[Ultimate CC]

here is a f/4 shot from a helicopter
http://danhonovich.com/img/v3/p602235729-4.jpg

[dr1ft]

DoF at f/4, 14mm, when focused at 8.5 feet is from 4.5 feet to infinity (on a 1.6 crop). Why can't you shoot landscapes at this f stop if your closest composition subject is 5 feet from you?

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

[LearnSLR Guide]

DoF at f/4, 14mm, when focused at 8.5 feet is from 4.5 feet to infinity (on a 1.6 crop). Why can't you shoot landscapes at this f stop if your closest composition subject is 5 feet from you?

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html


Hahaha you can... i was just reading this entire thread and came across your comment as the last post.

Not one person on this entire thread mentioned hyperfocal distance.... pretty sad and shows the narrow apeture users have no clue what they are talking about.

Diffraction creates alot of softness and loses details, why would you use a narrow aperture then necessary? F8 is more then adequate on that 17-40 to get amazing DOF. For people who say it is to shallow... perhaps its to shallow if you are focused on infinity or the subject matter is too far away... if you used the hyperfocal distance you would have no problem with DOF. Given that it extends from half the hyperfocal point distance all the way to infinity. When you need greater details in the far end, you can lower your COC of your equation which will necessitate moving the hyperfocal point back, losing some of the upfront focus but providing greater detail on the far end. no change in aperture required.

[cyruz]

hey curious, i recently got this lens as well and have been playing around to find the "sweet spot". I have had really good results from f/4 to f/5.6 for wide angle shots, but not for landscapes. for car meets and family shots, even zoomed in all the way that range seems to be the sharpest.

but for landscapes, i have been shooting f/8 to f/16 and still seem to getting good sharpness across the entire pic.

[curiousgeorge]

hey curious, i recently got this lens as well and have been playing around to find the "sweet spot". I have had really good results from f/4 to f/5.6 for wide angle shots, but not for landscapes. for car meets and family shots, even zoomed in all the way that range seems to be the sharpest.

but for landscapes, i have been shooting f/8 to f/16 and still seem to getting good sharpness across the entire pic.
In terms of DOF I would agree with you, but I've been pixel peeping, and I notice a deterioration in IQ even from f3.5 to f4, and it continues to get worse as you stop down.

[bestfromnw]

diffraction is OVERRATED. f/22 with kit lens on nikon d200
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v618/g4hacker/water3.jpg

100%crop near the center no PP
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v618/g4hacker/test.jpg

[curiousgeorge]

diffraction is OVERRATED. f/22 with kit lens on nikon d200


100%crop near the center no PP

You need to show it next to a shot taken at f8!

[bestfromnw]

You need to show it next to a shot taken at f8!

why would i take a shot like that at f8:rolleyes:? shutter speed wouldnt be slow enough for water and DOF wouldnt be good enough to capture all of the detail

[curiousgeorge]

why would i take a shot like that at f8:rolleyes:? shutter speed wouldnt be slow enough for water and DOF wouldnt be good enough to capture all of the detail
I didn't say you should take a shot like that at f8! :rolleyes:

You're completely missing the point. You are saying that there are no issues with shooting at f22. You posted a picture trying to demonstrate your point. But a single picture is useless with nothing to compare it to. Your image looks soft anyway, and I suspect it's because of diffraction.

The point I was making was that you need to show a picture at f8 next to this one to prove your claim.

I understand why you used f22 to get a longer shutter speed, but that's completely irrelevant in the context of this thread.

[bestfromnw]

I didn't say you should take a shot like that at f8! :rolleyes:

You're completely missing the point. You are saying that there are no issues with shooting at f22. You posted a picture trying to demonstrate your point. But a single picture is useless with nothing to compare it to. Your image looks soft anyway, and I suspect it's because of diffraction.

The point I was making was that you need to show a picture at f8 next to this one to prove your claim.

I understand why you used f22 to get a longer shutter speed, but that's completely irrelevant in the context of this thread.

image is not soft by any means... remember it was shot with nikon d200 and d200's are known to use VERY conservative sharpening... if i shot the same image with my 5d+24-70 at f/22 it would be razor sharp.

the point i WAS making is that diffraction does not make such a big difference at f/22. i've shot shots at f8 and f22, and f22 shot looked as sharp. lenses that AFFECTED by diffraction past f11 ARE macro lenses.

if you think that you'll get better results from your lenses at f/4 or f/8 more power to you, im not here to argue.

[Trev_P]

So whats wrong with shooting f4, manual focus, using live view and DOF preview to get an idea of overall sharpness? You could even 'bracket' the focus (near and far) and blend exposures in PP if the image is static.