What Apature value do you generally use for landscapes?

fret_wimp2

Ive been playing with different apature values for landscapes, to find the optimal range for general landscapes.

widw open is obviously not ideal as foreground and edge objects are not as sharp as required. outisde of that im not noticing a huge amount of difference in sharpness between F8 & F22.

For speed id try to stay between F8-F14, if im looking to keep exposures short, but thats about time, not sharpness.

Do you guys have any experience that suggests a noticable sharpness difference between apature values, and an ideal range you generally use?

magicbastarder

if for landscapes you want depth of field from foreground to background, generally f8 should give you decent depth of field, and is usually close to a lens's 'sweet spot', before diffraction issues start to degrade image quality.
does your lens have a depth of field scale?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Wide angle lenses will give more depth of field at lower apertures, so if you are making your landscape pictures with them you may not notice a huge difference between f/8 and f/22 indeed.

Read up on hyperfocal distance.

Edit: Just noticed your 'speed' comment. Buy yourself a tripod, it's essential kit for landscaping.

fret_wimp2

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Wide angle lenses will give more depth of field at lower apertures, so if you are making your landscape pictures with them you may not notice a huge difference between f/8 and f/22 indeed.

Read up on hyperfocal distance.

Edit: Just noticed your 'speed' comment. Buy yourself a tripod, it's essential kit for landscaping.

I have one, but sometimes if you dont want to show the movement of clouds, or want to catch sharp waves instead of that soft timelapse feeling you just need to get that shutter speed up!

PopeBuckfastXVI

fret_wimp2 wrote: »

I have one, but sometimes if you dont want to show the movement of clouds, or want to catch sharp waves instead of that soft timelapse feeling you just need to get that shutter speed up!

Ah yes, the eternal exposure triangle balancing act!

ImagenEstilo

As mentioned previously, stay around the f/8 to f/11. It will keep you below your diffraction limit and if a wide angle lens then you will get sufficient depth of field.

Dave

KevinGossRoss

Is the sweet spot on a certain model (say a Canon 24mm f/1.4) generally around the same place in every lens of that make and model?

ImagenEstilo

I would expect it to be around the same but the best thing to do is actually test your diffraction limit for your particular lens example. It's easy to do. I stuck an article up on my site there recently that might help:

Lens Diffraction Limit

KevinGossRoss

Excellent article Imagen, thank you for that. I typically operate at wider apertures myself but it always been something I've been interested in.

ImagenEstilo

Thanks Kevin.

I think the name of the game with a decent DSLR with a good lens like that one you mentioned is to stay below f/8 if possible and if not then certainly under f/11. Certainly on that lens you speak about, the 24mm f/1.4 you should have very adequate depth of field at f/8.

It's a fine lens that by the way.

DaireQuinlan

ImagenEstilo wrote: »

I would expect it to be around the same but the best thing to do is actually test your diffraction limit for your particular lens example. It's easy to do. I stuck an article up on my site there recently that might help:

Lens Diffraction Limit

"The “hole” made by an f/16 aperture on a full frame sensor is a lot bigger than the hole made by an f/16 aperture on a point and shoot or mobile phone camera and because light wavelengths can be considered constant (for the purposes of this explanation) they will start diffracting once a physical aperture (hole) size is configured on whatever camera you might be using."

I'd suggest re-writing this for a start so it actually makes sense and is at least somewhat factually accurate. As it stands it's just all over the place.

ImagenEstilo

Sorry you didn't take to it Daire. It's meant to be kept simple. I'm sure if I start mentioning airy discs and circles of confusion people will start losing interest altogether. I mention that at the start of the article. It is my way of taking a complicated and technical optical phenomena and simplifying it down.

DaireQuinlan

ImagenEstilo wrote: »

Sorry you didn't take to it Daire. It's meant to be kept simple. I'm sure if I start mentioning airy discs and circles of confusion people will start losing interest altogether. I mention that at the start of the article. It is my way of taking a complicated and technical optical phenomena and simplifying it down.

There's 'simplifying' and there's writing stuff that's simply incorrect.

magicbastarder

f numbers and aperture sizes are a relation between focal length and physical aperture, not necessarily format size. so f8 on an 18mm lens on a full frame camera is a physically smaller aperture than f8 on a 50mm lens on a point and shoot. you've linked it exclusively to format size.

ImagenEstilo

I've updated the article for the purists. Cant keep 100 pc of the people happy 100 pc of the time.

DaireQuinlan

ImagenEstilo wrote: »

I've updated the article for the purists. Cant keep 100 pc of the people happy 100 pc of the time.

It makes much more sense now, more immediately comprehensible as well

KevinGossRoss

Yeah it is a lovely lens. I use it 80% of the time and I'm not even a landscape photographer.

PixelTrawler

A lot can depend on whether you are using any heavy filters and want to slow the exposure as much as possible.

In that case you might with a 10 stopper, set f/22 and exposure for 2-4 minutes, (and iso as low as possible) - purely to take in as little light as possible.

So as in all things, it depends on your use case

ImagenEstilo

Daire, i hope other site readers think similarly. I tried to avoid the airy discs but in the end they crept in to make any sense of the subject. Thanks for the critique though. The more "tuned in" individuals reading and being happy with an articles content the better imo.

Solyad, f/22 scares me!! Also stay out of your extended low iso. Reduces dynamic range of your sensor.

maddog

To be honest I think it would be crazy to have one 'go to' aperture for landscape, I use what ever the scene in front of me requires and you all so have to a just for whatever light is available.

PixelTrawler

ImagenEstilo wrote: »

Daire, i hope other site readers think similarly. I tried to avoid the airy discs but in the end they crept in to make any sense of the subject. Thanks for the critique though. The more "tuned in" individuals reading and being happy with an articles content the better imo.

Solyad, f/22 scares me!! Also stay out of your extended low iso. Reduces dynamic range of your sensor.

I tend to keep the iso at 100. I have used 50 when I just can't quite slow it enough. To be honest on these long exposure shots it's not a major issue. I've examples on 500px.

ImagenEstilo

Solyad, I suppose l would regard long exposures and landscape pics as being in two separate categories with different demands. That said, even if I was using ND filters I would make sure my ISO and my aperture are within limits (making sure I am not diffraction limited on my aperture and also that I am out of my extended ISO).

Maddog, I agree completely, every scene has its own settings based on available light and what you are trying to do, but . . . . . .

Personally, I never shoot above f/11 even at 200mm using a 70-200 zoom. If I shoot at f/8 on my 24-70 at say 35mm I get perfectly adequate depth of field for maximising detail and I have found that it gives me maximum sharpness at that aperture. The point I am trying to make really is that going to f/22 just becuase people say it maximises depth of field is incorrect if using DSLRs. I have yet to come across a crop or full frame camera/lens combo that will produce sharper photos at f/22 (even f/16) than they will at f/8 to f/11.

maddog

ImagenEstilo wrote: »

Solyad, I suppose l would regard long exposures and landscape pics as being in two separate categories with different demands. That said, even if I was using ND filters I would make sure my ISO and my aperture are within limits (making sure I am not diffraction limited on my aperture and also that I am out of my extended ISO).

Maddog, I agree completely, every scene has its own settings based on available light and what you are trying to do, but . . . . . .

Personally, I never shoot above f/11 even at 200mm using a 70-200 zoom. If I shoot at f/8 on my 24-70 at say 35mm I get perfectly adequate depth of field for maximising detail and I have found that it gives me maximum sharpness at that aperture. The point I am trying to make really is that going to f/22 just becuase people say it maximises depth of field is incorrect if using DSLRs. I have yet to come across a crop or full frame camera/lens combo that will produce sharper photos at f/22 (even f/16) than they will at f/8 to f/11.

I can get full depth of field at F3.5 that would be just as sharp as f11, but as you say it does depend on light and also what glass you have in front of your camera. Interesting topic :-)


Bren