D800 - Lenses Used for f16-f22 Shooting
- Thread starter cjackson
- Start date
Ciao,
I don't have a D800 but I did try ZF 2/35 at that apertures on a D700 - being very close to my son I wanted to exploit the wider dof possible.
I love a lot this lens (and in general all my Zeiss lenses.. they give to me - apparently - a true to life look I can't find elsewhere)
Look for yourself
f/22
f/16
f/13
f/13 again
I don't have a D800 but I did try ZF 2/35 at that apertures on a D700 - being very close to my son I wanted to exploit the wider dof possible.
I love a lot this lens (and in general all my Zeiss lenses.. they give to me - apparently - a true to life look I can't find elsewhere)
Look for yourself
f/22
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
f/16
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
f/13
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
f/13 again
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
for landscapes?
I have yet to see any lens that doesn't hit diffraction quite obviously as soon as I step north of f/11, and with most I prefer not to go smaller than f/8, unless I know I won't be printing big.
It may simply be an issue of how much acuity are you willing to lose to get those apertures? If it's for maximum dof on a tripod (landscapes / architecture), look into a pc-e.
It may simply be an issue of how much acuity are you willing to lose to get those apertures? If it's for maximum dof on a tripod (landscapes / architecture), look into a pc-e.
I've used all of my wide to standard lenses above f16:
24-70 f2.8
14-24 f2.8
Sigma 35 f1.4 (only goes to f16)
If I'm on a tripod and need everything in focus, f16 (or more!), focus a third of the way into the scene, and don't worry about it. I find obsession with pixel-level sharpness silly. Diffraction is a non-issue for me because depth of field should determine the aperture, not a sharpness chart.
24-70 f2.8
14-24 f2.8
Sigma 35 f1.4 (only goes to f16)
If I'm on a tripod and need everything in focus, f16 (or more!), focus a third of the way into the scene, and don't worry about it. I find obsession with pixel-level sharpness silly. Diffraction is a non-issue for me because depth of field should determine the aperture, not a sharpness chart.
Here here!
i've used a 14-24, 24-70 and 105 above f/16 a lot.
For any type of shot. I am curious if disfraction is a real problem with shots taken at f16 or higher?
Wow excellent shots, even at f/22. Zeiss all the way (Zeiss Distagon T* 21mm F/2.8 ZF.2 Lens) lens I really want to buy
Here are some of mine, all taken while on the road with an assortment of walkaround lenses. I chose my aperture for depth of field (and in one case motion blur) or sun stars. Click through for a bigger view and full EXIF. I think every lens is good at f8 and above, right?
f22 and a crappy 28-300 superzoom:
Arabian Desert by InTheMist, on Flickr
Arabian Desert 2 by InTheMist, on Flickr
f22 and the 24-124 f4 (sold, didn't like):
Wooden Dam in Luzern by InTheMist, on Flickr
f22 and another sleeper walkaround zoom 24-85:
In The Sky by InTheMist, on Flickr
f22 and a crappy 28-300 superzoom:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Arabian Desert by InTheMist, on Flickr
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Arabian Desert 2 by InTheMist, on Flickr
f22 and the 24-124 f4 (sold, didn't like):
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Wooden Dam in Luzern by InTheMist, on Flickr
f22 and another sleeper walkaround zoom 24-85:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
In The Sky by InTheMist, on Flickr
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, here is one more. This time I chose a tiny aperture because I needed a long shutter speed.
Why long shutter speed? Because the entire lighting of this image are made with cheap LED flashlights, light-painting style.
I was challenging myself to make a great image with the cheapest stuff I have: D5100, f35mm f1.8, two LED flashlights. I did "cheat" and use a Gitzo carbon fiber tripod though I do have a plastic tripod too for when I'm teaching new people that you can get great images with cheap gear.
Lens: 35mm f1.8 @f22
DSC_0015.jpg by InTheMist_Docu, on Flickr
Why long shutter speed? Because the entire lighting of this image are made with cheap LED flashlights, light-painting style.
I was challenging myself to make a great image with the cheapest stuff I have: D5100, f35mm f1.8, two LED flashlights. I did "cheat" and use a Gitzo carbon fiber tripod though I do have a plastic tripod too for when I'm teaching new people that you can get great images with cheap gear.
Lens: 35mm f1.8 @f22
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
DSC_0015.jpg by InTheMist_Docu, on Flickr
D
Deleted member 638
Guest
You focused dust particles on the sensor too :biggrin:
D
Deleted member 638
Guest
Dino,
looking at the left top corner of your picture I guess you've used a D600 :biggrin:
I use my 24, 35 and 85 f1.4g lenses all the way to f16 for landscapes, which is their smallest aperture. No diffraction evident on my d800 shots which I print upto 40 inches wide. I've used the 70-200 at f22, again with no evidence of diffraction.
Forget about diffraction, it's a non issue.
I would say, however, that with a 24mm lens their isn't much point in going above f8-f11 anyway because the depth of field is so great. If you focus a landscape about 10 metres into the scene, the depth of field reaches from about 2 metres in front of the camera to infinity. F16 only brings this near focus point down to 1.5m which might be required depending on the shot and the composition you require.
If you really need depth of field from say right in front of the camera to infinity then you should be looking at a tilt and shift lens.
Forget about diffraction, it's a non issue.
I would say, however, that with a 24mm lens their isn't much point in going above f8-f11 anyway because the depth of field is so great. If you focus a landscape about 10 metres into the scene, the depth of field reaches from about 2 metres in front of the camera to infinity. F16 only brings this near focus point down to 1.5m which might be required depending on the shot and the composition you require.
If you really need depth of field from say right in front of the camera to infinity then you should be looking at a tilt and shift lens.
D
Deleted member 638
Guest
Diffraction starts showing its effects by decreasing contrast, and contrast can be partly recovered by usm.
According to Airy disk, diffraction should start showing its effects at around f/8 on 36-Mpix FX sensor. This implies that, with apertures smaller than f/8, we can't get the maximum level of detail the lens+sensor combo is capable of. This doesn't mean that the picture is not usable, even for large prints.
In addition, all lenses (independently of the sensor) show a reduction of their resolving power at closer apertures (all MTF tests show the trend unequivocally). However, some lenses behave worse than others. For example, the Leitz Summicron-R 50/2 has a maximum resolving power of 120 lines/mm @ f/5.6. At f/16 this value decreases (due to diffraction), being 90 l/mm. The Leitz Elmarit-R 135/2.8 has an optimum resolving power of 120 l/mm @ f/4. However, it suffers more from diffraction; in fact, at f/16 its resolving power is a mere 65 l/mm. Therefore, the Summicron performs better at closer apertures than the Elmarit.
According to Airy disk, diffraction should start showing its effects at around f/8 on 36-Mpix FX sensor. This implies that, with apertures smaller than f/8, we can't get the maximum level of detail the lens+sensor combo is capable of. This doesn't mean that the picture is not usable, even for large prints.
In addition, all lenses (independently of the sensor) show a reduction of their resolving power at closer apertures (all MTF tests show the trend unequivocally). However, some lenses behave worse than others. For example, the Leitz Summicron-R 50/2 has a maximum resolving power of 120 lines/mm @ f/5.6. At f/16 this value decreases (due to diffraction), being 90 l/mm. The Leitz Elmarit-R 135/2.8 has an optimum resolving power of 120 l/mm @ f/4. However, it suffers more from diffraction; in fact, at f/16 its resolving power is a mere 65 l/mm. Therefore, the Summicron performs better at closer apertures than the Elmarit.
Last edited by a moderator:
Riccardo... literally .."SPOTTED" LOL !
Similar threads
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemojiForum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/