When I started this I forgot to add "for a 90mm f/8 Super Angulon (Schneider)" ha, ha, ha......please...only kidding...

If we want to speak technically, a lens is sharpest at its wide open setting
that is assuming it's made perfectly ;)

for my 50mm 1.8G 2.8 to 4 is plenty sharp for me in low light higher iso settings.

my 105mm 2.8G performs well at 5.6 for non macro distances. for macro the dof increase helps from 8-11.

i've heard some people say, take the diffraction hit, step down to f/22 while using a tripod and sharpen in post... but i don't really find myself taking my tripod out that much so i can't comment on that

@ SquamishPhoto said "There is a situation for every aperture and insisting that one or the other is "the" aperture to pick is a bigger limitation than those espousing the virtue of f8 probably realize."

I could not agree more... each photo is an individual process. And the DOF, background, saturation, tonal compliments, composition, all are a part of this. The variation of f/stop is one of many variables and is the "best" only in respect to the entire composition.

Yes, SquamishPhoto, you said it all.

Long read, Tao, but definitely lots of good points and questions in there.

I don't think its an era thing since high end fast glass has been around for a long time and those lenses have been performing rather admirably at their massive wide open apertures all along. The 400mm f2.8 is a perfect example. Every iteration of this lens has been optimized to be spectacular at f2.8 and people, like the guy you were talking to, sometimes just don't grab on to this concept right away if ever. Seeing the background as being as important as the getting details out of the subject is a duality that not everyone approaches, understands or appreciates. And its worth noting that even the best of the super fast exotics are still prone to CA and flare, in fact the can downright suck in certain circumstances, its just that they're significantly more tolerant of such problems than the earlier models were capable of because of new lens design and more modern coatings. So, obviously your points aren't lost on me since most of my photography except landscapes is based around optimized fast lenses that give wonderful image and color detail and also just absolutely destroy backgrounds. If you can master subject-to-camera distance and subject-to-background distance, as well as manage light proficiently and learn to focus with precision, then working with great glass wide open can not only produce amazing images for you it can also distinguish you from what others are capable of providing to a client.

There is a situation for every aperture and insisting that one or the other is "the" aperture to pick is a bigger limitation than those espousing the virtue of f8 probably realize.

I sure have thoughts... a lot of my stuff is wide open... the 85mm f/1.8, 135mm f/2, 70-200mm f/2.8 great wide open. The 24-120mm f/4 VR...great wide open...and on and on... The newer glass is so good, being designed by computers, I have no hesitation... and if some of these folks start telling me about all this bologna about f/8, I simply tell them I shot the first 35mm color slide used in House Beautiful magazine in the '60's w/ a 24mm f/2.8 Nikkor, and it was at f/2.8. And, I will be happy to show them what I shoot on Flickr at full resolution. Usually, I do not say much, however, as these folks tend to have made up their mind and have no desire to be confused with the facts. Usually the Cannon (sic) folks who have their head in the sand. And in a few hours I will have breakfast with a bunch of them... so blinded by the glare off the gray lenses....:-) ...but otherwise nice folks.

I think f2.0 - that should send some people in a fit ;)

Here's a story to chew on - especially those of you who have been shooting for over 15 years.

Interestingly I went to a "lighting seminar" (aka - check out this new system we have an buy one) at a store. It wasn't anything special, just some off brand with a direct wireless set-up for control.

We were all taking test shots and when it was my turn I started giving the set-up fits - massive blow outs, out of sync, etc. I was one of only 2 who had Nikons and the other had a D90 with the 18-105. I just brought a 50mm f1.4. Everyone was saying Nikon stinks this, Nikon inadequate that and doing those usual Cannon jabs since all of their's worked fine. Couldn't figure it out. Finely a gal came up with a 85mm 1.2 and again everything was blown out. It was the F-stop that was messing with the system that supposedly compensated for it. Her and I were shooting at f1.4-2.0. Everyone else there never shot below 5.6-11.

So what is the point of this whole thing? Not even the employees had tested it below 2.8. Then the lady and I started getting raspberries about not shooting at F8 and actually had to defend shooting below 2.8! That really took me back a bit.

Now in my head, we were at 8ft so we had about just under 1ft of DOF with a slender model so f1.4-f2 would get her in focus and throw the ugly backdrop into a blur which was about 3ft behind her. At F8 the DOF is almost 4 feet and everyone else's photos had a sharp model and the transition-less sharp jaggedly edges of color of the backdrop. They were all chimping at their screens how good it looked and all I saw was the background and thinking blahhhh yawn.

What got me was one of the staff (who I somewhat know & is about my age) who also has a full time photography business, was trying to teach me about F8. He was trying to be helpful and I just found it interesting listening to him and his pointers why F8. Now he started lenses are not sharp below F8 and how he learned this from shooting since after high-school with 35mm, medium format, now Canon bla bla bla.

Now I know I tend to shoot outside most "how to" books but what got me was him and I were about the same age, but started shooting about 10 years after him. He came in with film, and I came in with 10mp sensors being the new hot-dog. I also came in when all of the lenses were just being updated and CAs, and MTF had improved greatly.

It made me wonder if the time I came into photography with all the updates to lenses & digital has had a greater impact on my style and preference to shooting wide open than if I came into it 5-10 years earlier. I'm not too sure - but the idea that a professional shot must be at F8-F11 really seems foreign to me. Maybe I have processed that info in an odd direction?

Any thoughts? (BTW sorry for the long read) :)

@ Bland....and I agree 100%. I am changing the way I shoot stuff all the time. I am rarely satisfied. In spite of thousands of cars, I am planning on the next year of shooting at a different shutter speed, working on a different panning technique and more exciting yet sharp images. With the extremely high level of abilities in these new bodies, we do need to look at different ways to shoot in order to obtain the highest level of quality in our final product.

But, I still like the Manual mode with auto ISO, so as to keep the shutter speed constant, maintain the DOF I want.. My version of the BMW....or, this may simply be a carry over from the real Model A days, ha, ha, ha..

msmoto said:
Ahh, Bland, come on....you are just excited about your D800...:-)

:) .....that is true but what I said I also feel is true. People need to be trying out different methods in shooting as the times have changed. And this comes from a guy that owns both, a BMW and a Ford F150! :)

Ahh, Bland, come on....you are just excited about your D800...:-) and it shows in your great shots!

In my opinion it's not about the F Stop but about the speed. We're shooting digital, not film, shoot the lowest speed you can that will freeze your shot.

The best quality will come with the speed along with adjusting the ISO accordingly. F Stop in my opinon should only be used for effects one wants with the DOF, and that too can be done with tweaking the Speed along with the ISO.

True, most lens are the sharpest between F8 and F11 but with the ISO quality today one can make their shot as sharp as they may wish with today's editing software, via no noise.

IMO........we've gone from the Model A's crank start ( Aperture Mode) to the BMW's push button start (Shutter Mode) in less than a year. If Henry Ford was alive today he'd be driving a 740i (D800) and selling his rights to the F150 (D90).

In an ideal world we would like to take most of our photos at about F5.6 to F11 but it depends on the effect your trying to create and in lots of situations shooting wide open is the only way you can get reasonable pics where you reduce camera shake due to poor lighting and therefore low shutter speeds...so i would sacrifice that end to end sharpness just to get a shot without camera shake...most of the ones I printed wide open its not noticeable and am satisfied with quality of the end product...

The problem is, as Gareth has alluded to, is it basically a subjective issue. When I shoot moving objects, there is also a rotational aspect as the perspective changes during the exposure, even over a 1/1000th of a second. For example, at 60 mph (100 kph) the object moves about one inch in the time of the exposure. While panning, the focal point can be followed with the camera, but the areas outside this are moving at different speeds and thus are going to tend to be "out of focus" more easily. In practical terms, what this actually does is take a depth of field from 80 feet down to about five feet.

With static subjects this does not apply. But, for reasons I do not know, I seem to shoot a lot of moving objects....:-)

The best f/stop, for me, is the one which gives me a "sweet spot" near the smaller end of the "sweet spot range". I.e, larger f/stop number.

it depends on the composition

nuff said

close the topic

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

A Just a word of caution about the DOF calculators online..... an example I loaded was the 400mm, f/11 at 250 feet...the actual DOF is only a few feet, yet the "calculator" gives over twenty feet. Also, a 135mm, f/11 at 12 inches the "calculator" gave 0.8" yet it is in reality about 0.3".

So, while there may be some utility in these tables, in practice one must use a very pragmatic approach. If Image Zone Photography has an online calculator which is more accurate than the one I found, please post a link. Thanks

Oh, experience....mmm.....first SLR was a Minolta SR-3 in 1960......we must be about the same age.....OTD, ha, ha, ha....

What is the best f-stop? Well you will find on most all lenses that f/5.6 to f/8.0 will be your sweet spot for best resolution (sharpness) and contrast per engineering data and 50 years of experience. Now, what f-stop you use is fully dependent on what you want to do creatively and what you are shooting. I don't recommend small apertures for sunsets unless you want the "aperture flare" in the image. I also recommend you download a FREE depth of field calculator from online. From it you can calculate your depth of field (area of sharp focus) for most any lens and aperture. You can print out the different focal lengths you most frequently use and it will give you the f-stops and "acceptable" focus range.

Well, the best f/stop is now clearly defined! It is the one which gives the effect one desires.... As to which one is sharper, on a tripod, no doubt the mid range works best. My suspicion is that, as in in almost everything else, a compromise occurs whenever there is a variable factor present. The design most often aims for the best performance over the entire range, and this results in a "sweet spot" somewhere in mid range.

Thanks to all for the great comments....

sevencrossing said:
a wider aperture will often produce a sharper image

No. A faster shutter speed will produce a sharper image. Larger aperture will only let more light in within the shutter time -specified interval between shutter open and closed.

In either full auto or the aperture priority mode, a larger aperture will cause faster shutter speeds. But the reason for the sharper image is the faster shutter speed, not the larger aperture. Technically speaking.

Sorry, I had to. ;D

---------

And to answer the original question: depends on the lens, the subject and the shooting conditions.

With the 24mm 1.4G I prefer to shoot at around f/2.0 for best bokeh and subject isolation (this one is extremely sharp from wide open already). If its bright outside,
I will put a ND4 in front of the lens to be able to do this. On the few bright and very cold nights I have taken night landscapes on a tripod @ f/9-11 with great success.

The same holds true for my 85mm lenses. When using the longer (300mm+) teles, I prefer to stop down at least 1 stop to gain a bit of sharpness and more DOF.

Yes, I was thinking my old 35-70 2.8 for $500 combined with my old 80-200 for $800 could work well with a D800 to cover the portrait range. Don't need the faster SWM focus for studio work. Also, I have 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, and 85mm 1.8 primes so I have access to a very shallow depth of field. Since I already have those lenses there is no additional investment for me.

Hi,

In general, premium image quality will be found somewhere in the middle of the f-stops available on the lens as a 'rule-of-thumb', but that's somewhat vague, and also largely unnecessary exercise, considering what there is there to gain.

The picture you want is going to be found somewhere based on shutter speed, DOF (as manipulated by aperture), ISO, camera movement, composition, and subject.

Perfect aperture ain't.

My best,

Mike

One of the main reason studio guys use medium format is the inherent shallow depth of field. The cost of replacing all your focal ranges would necessitate buying a bevy of very expensive, wide aperture exotics in order to achieve that characteristic shallow depth of field achieved with any run of the mill medium format lens. I think the D800 is really aimed at people who already own such a bevy of nikon glass that would like to achieve results similar to those achieved with a medium format kit. More of a step-up for us rather than a back-step for them.

donaldejose said:
The Mamiya I mentioned .......

a C33 TLR with back would have cost £274

But if you wanted a real camera, you could an MPP Mark V111 5x4 with lens for under £200

So Hassy was about three times more expensive than 45mm Nikon in the 1970s and you got a whole lot more film size (today read megapixel size) with the Hassy for your additional dollars (or pounds).

If we used that 3x ratio today with the $17,500 Mamiya I mentioned we would have an equivalent megapixel 35mm costing about $6,000. This works well for the D4 (but not an equivalent mp). Since the D800 (equivalent mp) is half the price of a D4 so the D800 would seem to be quite a bargain compared to a Hassy however you look at it.

donaldejose said:
I don't have 1970s Hassy prices adjusted for inflation. .

I am not sure if this has anything to do with f stops

but in 1970 the 500c from Wallace Heaton with a f4 40 mm Distagon cost £911

a Nikon FTN with a f 1.4 50mm £311

I am begining to remember why I have never used a Hassy

I don't have 1970s Hassy prices adjusted for inflation. Perhaps someone here remembers. I would expect the D800 to be at least about one third or one forth (if not even less) the price of a 1970s era Hassy when adjusted for inflation. Those Hassys are dirt cheap today. They would be a good buy if you want to mess with film.

One can do a similar price comparison with the D1,D2,D3,and D4. Assume the price is about the same when adjusted for inflation (which I think is a fair assumption) and see how much more you get for the same money in a D4 compared to a D1.

Or compare the D70, D80, D90 and D7000. Same niche, same "price point" over time but you get a lot more for that money today.

Or compare the D100, D200, D300 and soon to be released D400.

This is an area where KR's old reviews become interesting to read as an historical perspective. The "great D70" becomes "completely replaced" by the D80 which itself is "completely replaced" by the D90 and the D90 by the D7100. It is fun to see him raving about a camera only to be trashing it a few years later! Digital glory seems to have a very short shelf life.

The point is that no matter how we look at it we are fortunate to be getting a lot for our money these days. The D800 will be a big step up into the gap between FX and medium format. Perhaps the D400 will be a big step up into the gap between DX and FX. We will soon see just how good it is and whether or not Nikon works some "magic" with that sensor as Nikon has done with the D800 sensor. I am hoping for the best.