[Sperdynamite]

with what camera? because f/11-f/16 on mf does not have the same dof/diffraction problems as f/11-f/16 on ff... that's not pixel peeping either it's something that every photographer should know.

your claim was that there are multiple reasons why a lens should be stopped down well into the diffraction range, and that remains unsubstantiated.

but i'm trying to keep an open mind the only reason that i can see for hitting f/16 on ff is because of a foreground object that's way too close to the lens... or maybe to darken the image, when you don't have an nd filter, but that's questionable.

STOP HIJACKING THE THREAD. If you want to wonk out about this argument take it to PMs or start your own thread.

[mikeSF]

[2351HD]

the priority is to get a lens that can take a landscape shot at a wider aperture: "[b]Better image quality under larger aperture. IF a 35mm FF lens can be used at a larger aperture, everything you said will be canceled out

Since when?

You'll find the odd chap who shoots landscapes wide open for some creative reason, but I would say that 99.9% of landscape users leave their camera on f/8-f/16 for dof and exposure time.

I don't know about you but one of the tricks to getting lovely colour in the sky late afternoon is to extend the exposure time, not shorten it. You could argue to then use NDs but why would you when the lens is performing best at f11 anyway.

All sounds odd to me.

[osv]

The point is that you are saying that full frame with high megapixels is better than medium format with fewer megapixels because faster glass is available for the full frame camera than for the medium format camera. But if you are shooting at f5.6 on full frame and f8 on medium format, then I really think using a f1.4 lens is probably wasted and going to give you a lot bigger piece of glass than you really need.

assuming that both lenses don't have problems like vignetting, field curvature, spherical aberrations, etc, i would agree... but asking for that with slow glass at wider apertures is far from certain.

anyway, that's not the scenario that people out here are posting.

"f/16-f/22" and "stop way down" is the overwhelming sentiment

---------- Post added 04-07-16 at 11:30 AM ----------

Since when?

You'll find the odd chap who shoots landscapes wide open for some creative reason.

no one in this thread has ever advocated shooting landscapes wide open.

---------- Post added 04-07-16 at 11:52 AM ----------

You could argue to then use NDs but why would you when the lens is performing best at f11 anyway.

no ff lens performs better at f/11, unless something is wrong with it; if nothing else, you are already into the range of visible diffraction by f/11... here is a list of lenses and their best tested apertures:

"None of the lenses performed any better after f/5.6 (for the center) or f/8 for the corners. Most were clearly getting softer at f/11."
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/11/stop-it-down-just-a-bit/

mf will behave the same way, when the actual dof(not the aperture number on the lens) is the same as f/11 on ff.

[itshimitis]

no ff lens performs better at f/11, unless something is wrong with it; if nothing else, you are already into the range of visible diffraction by f/11...

At which viewing distance?

[2351HD]

OSV, you said it, you said the priority is to get a lens that can take a landscape shot at a wider aperture.....

Any lens will perform better at F11 if it gives you the DOF that you need. There's no point having a sharp lens at f5.6 if you don't have the required depth of field.

I just don't see the point of your whole entire pitch here in this thread.

[itshimitis]

I will use the largest aperture that will give me the depth of field I need. It's all about 'acceptable sharpness' and this plays a part in all focussing techniques be they hyperfocal or otherwise. Sometimes foreground elements will mean you need the very smallest of apertures to get acceptable sharpness across the whole image. This may involve diffraction but then you decide whether you notice diffraction or out of focus areas most at the viewing distance you intend to go for. For real printed images forget 100%. I don't think many would pick out diffraction on a 40 x 30 inch image stood the right distance away from it. More might pick out areas that are out of focus.

[mikeSF]

agree, i would rather have some negligible diffraction than to have entire elements out of focus due to insufficient DOF.

[clackers]

The thing I see too much on gear forums are people shooting with an f/1.2 and with an orgasmic cry shout: "Look at this it is wide open".

:LOL:

[osv]

At which viewing distance?

optical bench tests are done at infinity, imatest needs to have the chart close enough to fill the frame, no guarantees how it'll look with radical changes in distance.

ultimately, i think that you have to test it how it'll be used, the landscape pics that posted are how i test lenses, at all apertures.

so i know that the m28/3.5 has minimal field curvature at 100+ yards, it has a flat focus field, minimal ca, and i know the apertures that it's usable at.

i've also tested a couple of dozen other 28mm legacy lenses, standing at that exact same spot, focusing at the exact same target; no lens has been able to match it.

you've seen the pic, it looks decent on the right side even at 100%, but at extreme distances, the right side goes soft, depending on how far it was focused into the scene... got to test it how it'll be used.

[itshimitis]

optical bench tests are done at infinity, imatest needs to have the chart close enough to fill the frame, no guarantees how it'll look with radical changes in distance.

ultimately, i think that you have to test it how it'll be used, the landscape pics that posted are how i test lenses, at all apertures.

so i know that the m28/3.5 has minimal field curvature at 100+ yards, it has a flat focus field, minimal ca, and i know the apertures that it's usable at.

i've also tested a couple of dozen other 28mm legacy lenses, standing at that exact same spot, focusing at the exact same target; no lens has been able to match it.

you've seen the pic, it looks decent on the right side even at 100%, but at extreme distances, the right side goes soft, depending on how far it was focused into the scene... got to test it how it'll be used.

Please tell me you're joking. I asked you how far away to look at a PHOTOGRAPH and you come back and talk about charts. Learn photography not how to be a gear head. The obsession with pixel peeping and charts is killing the aesthetic and artistic elements in any photographic discussion.

[osv]

OSV, you said it, you said the priority is to get a lens that can take a landscape shot at a wider aperture.....

Any lens will perform better at F11 if it gives you the DOF that you need.

what if you don't need that small increase in dof to get the shot?

for example, look at all of these great itshimitis landscape shots: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/76-non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/110...ughts-358.html

exactly which of those pics are you going to need to stop down more than f/8? most of 'em don't have any foreground objects at all.

especially if you had his batis 25 that thing kicks butt all the way across the frame at f/5.6, or even wider.

---------- Post added 04-07-16 at 07:05 PM ----------

Please tell me you're joking. I asked you how far away to look at a PHOTOGRAPH.

you responded to post about charts.

i've already posted PHOTOGRAPHS to this thread, lol

[osv]

There's no point having a sharp lens at f5.6 if you don't have the required depth of field.

I just don't see the point of your whole entire pitch here in this thread.

maybe you can't see the point because you've never actually looked at the dof... here is the difference, f/8 vs. f/11, it's maybe two feet more dof? versus lower resolution across the frame, loss of light and dr, visible diffraction, etc... it'll probably be less than two feet difference at the minimum focusing distance:

[mikeSF]

I just realized you are that same guy who likes to share the charts. Why do you keep following us?

[2351HD]

maybe you can't see the point because you've never actually looked at the dof... here is the difference, f/8 vs. f/11, it's maybe two feet more dof? versus lower resolution across the frame, loss of light and dr, visible diffraction, etc... it'll probably be less than two feet difference at the minimum focusing distance:

I am well aware of dof champ. No need to be a smart ar5e.

There is a big difference as to what a DOF calculator says will be acceptably sharp and what actually "IS" acceptably sharp in the real world. These calculators are well off in my experience.

Anyway, keep your charts and you will do well.

Cheers