fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

       2       end
  

Optimum of the lens

  
 
Chaliel
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · Optimum of the lens


Most modern lenses have the optimum in the direction of wide open and bokeh (f2 - f4) but I am curious to know if there are lenses that have their optimum to small openings? (f10 or smaller)
DOF for landscape lenses.



Apr 12, 2026 at 02:16 AM
Ripolini
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · Optimum of the lens


Modern lenses are designed in order to minimize residual optical aberrations (field curvature, coma, spherical and chromatic aberrations, etc.).
Optical aberrations tend to diminish as the aperture is closed, except for lateral chromatic aberration (LaCA), which is scarcely affected by the aperture setting.
Best (and most expensive) lenses are designed to correct aberrations effectively at the wider apertures. MTF data provide information on the optical performance of lenses.

As you probably know, diffraction is NOT an optical aberration; it's due to the wavy nature of light (Lumen propagatur seu diffunditur non solum Directč, Refractč, ac Reflexč, sed etiam alio quodam quarto modo, DIFFRACTE'; F.M. Grimaldi, 1618-1663).
Consequently, the concept of diffraction-limited-aperture (DLA) must be introduced:
DLA = photosite size/(1.22 ∙ λ ),
where λ is 560 nm (0.56 µm), i.e., the average wavelength of visible light.
This is the aperture at which the diameter of the central circle of the Airy disk exceeds that of a single pixel on the sensor, and image quality begins to deteriorate due to diffraction.

With the increase in resolution of modern digital cameras, the diffraction limit is moving, for each format (APS-C, FF, MF), towards wider apertures. For example, with an 8-megapixel APS-C camera (with pixels 6.4 µm in size and an area of 41 µm˛), by using the above equation we find that diffraction will begin to appear at f/9. With a 61-megapixel full-frame camera (with pixel pitch = 3.8 µm; photosite area ≈ 14 µm˛), diffraction appears as early as f/5.6!

However, let me stress that diffraction at DLA is barely noticeable when viewing full-resolution files on a monitor (100%) or in a print. Apertures corresponding to the DLA, and even smaller, can certainly be used, as the loss of sharpness begins at DLA and gradually worsens as the diaphragm is further closed. In fact, the transition from “sharpness” to “softness” induced by diffraction, fortunately, is not abrupt.
Although higher-resolution sensors, with smaller photosites, tend to be more susceptible to diffraction, they are still capable of providing a greater level of detail, even at apertures smaller than the diffraction limit: a 24-megapixel sensor has twice the resolution of a 6-megapixel sensor; if we shoot at f/11 with the former, we will still obtain a more detailed image than one taken with the 6-megapixel sensor at the same aperture. Diffraction will reduce the maximum resolution achievable by the optical system (lens + sensor), but certainly won't halve it!

If you're interested in taking high-quality landscape pictures, I recommend that you use focus stacking (at intermediate apertures, say f/4-f/5.6) rather than very close apertures.





Apr 12, 2026 at 03:24 AM
Chaliel
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · Optimum of the lens


Thank you for your well documented answer!
Focus stacking needs a tripod, and for best results that's the way to go for sure, but I was wandering if there is a possibility to optimise a lens towards smaller lensopenings.
But as I understood what you wrote that is not possible because of pixel size and diffraction.
It's inherent to natural law.

Lot's of modern photographs are fond of bokeh and want small f-stops. I came back from that and do want the background playing an importand role.
For spontaneous street photography focus stacking is no option of course!



Apr 12, 2026 at 04:10 AM
tschopp
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · Optimum of the lens


Let me reinterpret the question. A lens designed for a smaller opening. Since most lenses are designed for shooting wide open at fast aperture, they naturally shoot well at small aperture as well, but are larger than they would need to be if designed strictly for small aperture. So are there lenses designed for small aperture so the size of the lens can be minimized without giving up quality?

I’d say the answer is yes, but you don’t want to be looking at FF lenses. You should look at mft crop lenses. A mft f/4 lens will have a an effective aperture of f/8 on FF. There are business reasons why you won’t find a f/8 max aperture on FF. Just as there are physics reasons you won’t find a mft lens with a FF effective aperture of f/1.2.



Apr 12, 2026 at 08:30 AM
ruthenium
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · Optimum of the lens




Chaliel wrote:
Most modern lenses have the optimum in the direction of wide open and bokeh (f2 - f4) but I am curious to know if there are lenses that have their optimum to small openings? (f10 or smaller)
DOF for landscape lenses.


Are you interested in some specific characteristics, e.g. ability to resolve detail, when looking for "lenses that have their optimum to small openings"?

Is the "optimum" specific, or should be understood as the overall image quality?

If you already have a high-megapixel (e.g. 50-60MP) full-frame camera with a high quality professional lens, then to improve on that image quality you may want to try a medium-format camera, e.g.a GFX100 with a GF lens. This system is practically guaranteed to outresolve your FF system, and may give better image quality in other aspects at landscape apertures.

Regarding diffraction, I don't think we need to be concerned with this phenomenon at the single pixel level. The reason for this is that when an image is displayed or printed (assuming typical common print or viewing sizes), the acuity of human vision is such that the smallest discernible point in the image is going to be a composite of 10-20 pixels (a rough estimate). The effect of diffraction is usefully correlated with the aperture f-number. On a 50MP full-frame camera with a good quality lens, one can expect the onset of diffraction from f/8. Whether this should actually affect the perceptional image quality would depend on how the images are viewed (small, normally sized, or printed large). You should take a series of images with different apertures, e.g. f/5.6 - f/8 - f/11 - f/16, then view these the way you intend to view your photos, and establish the practical "diffraction limited aperture" for your usage case.



Apr 12, 2026 at 09:04 AM
Chaliel
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · Optimum of the lens


Thank you for the reinterpretation of my request.
On my A7RV I use the 50mm f2.5 G, as well as the 50mm f1.4 GM
Very often at f5.6, as this will give me enough DOF.
At f5.6 there is no big difference in most scenarios.

The other day I was asked for a carnaval at night in a small village with very little lights. I preferred to use the 50mm f2.5 G at f2.8 - f5.6 and not the GM at f1.4
Yes iso went high up, but I got the job done.



Apr 12, 2026 at 10:27 AM
ruthenium
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · Optimum of the lens


Chaliel wrote:
Thank you for the reinterpretation of my request.
On my A7RV I use the 50mm f2.5 G, as well as the 50mm f1.4 GM
Very often at f5.6, as this will give me enough DOF.
At f5.6 there is no big difference in most scenarios.

The other day I was asked for a carnaval at night in a small village with very little lights. I preferred to use the 50mm f2.5 G at f2.8 - f5.6 and not the GM at f1.4
Yes iso went high up, but I got the job done.


This is the usual conundrum: closing the aperture limits the amount of light reaching the sensor, while opening the aperture works to reduce the DOF.
In your situation, I would have picked the 50mm f1.4 GM lens. The reasoning behind this is that this lens might be expected to give better image quality at f/2.8 (possibly less vignetting and better image quality outside the central area). It is also possible that the faster lens could have been used for some shots while open to f/1.8-2.0.



Apr 12, 2026 at 12:05 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · Optimum of the lens


Chaliel wrote:
Most modern lenses have the optimum in the direction of wide open and bokeh (f2 - f4) but I am curious to know if there are lenses that have their optimum to small openings? (f10 or smaller)
DOF for landscape lenses.


One issue to keep in mind is that all lenses, from the best and most expensive to the cheapest and funkiest, are affected essentially equally by diffraction blur as you stop down the lens. No amount of lens design optimization can overcome that — it is simply an optical phenomenon that affects all lenses.

So the fact of the matter is that most good lenses perform pretty well at mid-range apertures of, say, about f/8 on full frame. One reason that a lot of landscape photographers are happy with zoom lenses, for example, is that their performance is in the same range as expensive prime lenses at the apertures typically used for landscape photography.

So, if the idea is that you are looking for some lens that is an extra-good performer at those smaller apertures, I’d make that a really low priority and instead simply look for a good lens that has other features that you need/want for your landscape photography. These may include focal length (or focal length range if you prefer zoom lenses), maximum aperture (whether that means a larger or smaller one is up to you), compatibility with your camera, size and weight (you might be carrying this on your back), and so forth.

Determining the “optimum aperture” on a lens is a tricky thing. For example, some lenses might have their best center sharpness at one aperture, but have their best average sharpness at a different aperture. If you use zooms, the optimum may very with focal length. Depending on your sensor’s resolution you may be concerned about best performance at a different aperture than another photographer.

My basic advice is to not worry about supposed optimized performance at small apertures, but instead to just focus on a good lens that aligns with your other needs.


Good luck!



Apr 12, 2026 at 12:14 PM
philip_pj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · Optimum of the lens


Very good advice, one above. Zooms are surprisingly good thanks to the correction they require, and they all have a focal length at which they are often even better than same tier prime lenses. f4 ones are often very sound, even with a wide range.

Another thing to consider for serious landscape work is to choose a good dedicated slow prime lens (or two/three). These are the best options for committed users. Slow primes use fewer elements - less glass-air surfaces, lower rates of de-centering, less need for exotic glasses and coatings.

They are also much lighter and smaller and often much less expensive. An f2.8 lens has around one tenth the aberration load of an f1.4 lens and carries all these operational advantages as well. And they are designed for slow aperture work, as a primary design target. good luck.



Apr 12, 2026 at 05:55 PM
Chaliel
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · Optimum of the lens


I still use a Schnieder Kreuznag Xenon 50mm double gaus 6 element lens, that I adapted.
And a Zeiss Loxia 50mm also 6 elements
Both mostly used at f5.6 - f8.0



Apr 12, 2026 at 10:11 PM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · Optimum of the lens


philip_pj wrote:
Very good advice, one above. Zooms are surprisingly good thanks to the correction they require, and they all have a focal length at which they are often even better than same tier prime lenses. f4 ones are often very sound, even with a wide range.

Another thing to consider for serious landscape work is to choose a good dedicated slow prime lens (or two/three). These are the best options for committed users. Slow primes use fewer elements - less glass-air surfaces, lower rates of de-centering, less need for exotic glasses and coatings.

They are also much lighter and smaller and often much
...Show more

There is a downside to primes for landscape though, and it can negate any potential IQ improvement at typical apertures… which will be small to non-existent anyway.

With a zoom lens you can precisely fine-tune your composition, setting up in exactly the right spot to create the foreground/subject/background relationships you want… and then president frame the subject exactly as you want it.

With primes you’ll need to compromise the composition or you’ll need to crop. And if you crop you diminish the overall optical quality of your image, defeating any hoped-for advantage of prime over zoom.



Apr 12, 2026 at 10:32 PM
Chaliel
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · Optimum of the lens


We have legs to zoom...


Apr 13, 2026 at 02:21 AM
ruthenium
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · Optimum of the lens




Chaliel wrote:
We have legs to zoom...

...when one has the luxury of time and space



Apr 13, 2026 at 07:48 AM
j4nu
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · Optimum of the lens


And if you have magical feet, you can correct the perspective with them as well...


Apr 13, 2026 at 08:20 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · Optimum of the lens


Chaliel wrote:
We have legs to zoom...


It doesn’t actually work that way.

Imagine a scene with a small creek in the foreground, a tree that is your central subject, and a mountain in the background.

If you “zoom with your feet” and move closer to the tree, you lose part or all of the foreground creek. If you “zoom with your feet” and move backwards, the mountain becomes larger relative to the tree.

Moving the camera position is a critical compositional tool that works with both zoom and prime lenses, but it is not the same as cropping.

(There are also some more practical issues — like when zooming with your feet requires you to move a couple of miles, or step off the edge of a cliff, or stand in the middle of a lake, but I digress…)



Apr 13, 2026 at 08:33 AM
Choderboy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · Optimum of the lens


No offence intended, but I'm sure I will cause some.

That's just plain stupid.
Things that prevent zooming with legs:
Fence, cliff, road, river, river with Piranhas, the edge of the roof top, security/police, the length of chain holding the vicious dog, the Aircraft window, etc

Chaliel wrote:
We have legs to zoom...




Apr 13, 2026 at 09:57 PM
Choderboy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · Optimum of the lens


Back to the land of sanity, Optimum where? ie, unlike a common desire for a portrait lens to be 'optimum' in the centre of the frame, a landscape lens should be consistent across the frame.
Recent Voigtlander APO lenses have a common characteristic: consistent across the frame, particularly stopped down. This makes them ideal for landscape. Obviously other lenses with that characteristic would be too.
Other common issues are mid zone dips and field curvature.
Then there is the area of transition from in focus to out of focus, both in front of behind the focus point.

It's easy to find a lens sharper in the centre of the frame compared to these Voigt APOs.
Very hard to find similar across the frame consistency though.





Apr 13, 2026 at 10:10 PM
Ripolini
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · Optimum of the lens


Chaliel wrote:
We have legs to zoom...


I partly disagree.
In my experience
1) high-quality zoom lenses offer both good image quality and compositional flexibility in landscape photography and beyond;
2) prime lenses are better than zoom lenses (with a few unfortunate exceptions); therefore, I recommend using prime lenses whenever shooting conditions allow (which isn’t always the case, as rightly pointed out in previous posts).


Choderboy wrote:
It's easy to find a lens sharper in the centre of the frame compared to these Voigt APOs.
Very hard to find similar across the frame consistency though.


Well, it's not that easy to find lenses sharper in the center than Voigt Apo-Lanthars ...
Moreover, the Apo-Lanthars guarantee very high sharpness levels across the frame, not just consistency, i.e., similar performance across the frame. I mean, they guarantee both consistency and sharpness.



Apr 14, 2026 at 02:32 AM
Chaliel
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · Optimum of the lens




Ripolini wrote:
I partly disagree.
In my experience
1) high-quality zoom lenses offer both good image quality and compositional flexibility in landscape photography and beyond;
2) prime lenses are better than zoom lenses (with a few unfortunate exceptions); therefore, I recommend using prime lenses whenever shooting conditions allow (which isn’t always the case, as rightly pointed out in previous posts).


Well, it's not that easy to find lenses sharper in the center than Voigt Apo-Lanthars ...
Moreover, the Apo-Lanthars guarantee very high sharpness levels across the frame, not just consistency, i.e., similar performance across the frame. I mean, they guarantee both consistency and sharpness.


Well of course my zoomlegs were pulling a bit, but I do prefer small lenses if possible.
Going Sony mirrorless was one of the reasons back in 2013 to get rid of weight. I'm almost 80y. and walking all day with a lot of load is no longer for me.
So I go out with only one lens, and if possible a small and light one.



Apr 14, 2026 at 04:05 AM
Choderboy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · Optimum of the lens


Ripolini wrote:
Well, it's not that easy to find lenses sharper in the center than Voigt Apo-Lanthars ...
Moreover, the Apo-Lanthars guarantee very high sharpness levels across the frame, not just consistency, i.e., similar performance across the frame. I mean, they guarantee both consistency and sharpness.


Centre sharpness:

GM 50 1.4.
According to LensTip, sharper at f5.6, f8, f11.
More difference at f5.6, less at f8, even less at f11.


GM 50 1.2 sharper at f8 and f11. Close enough to the Voigt to ignore, but still sharper.

Sigma 50 1.2 also sharper.

First 3 lenses I checked. That has to be classified as easy.

No argument regarding the Voigts consistent sharpness across the frame.
Compare to the GM50 1.4, it's not a huge differnce though.





Apr 14, 2026 at 06:27 AM
       2       end






FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

       2       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account