Regarding the “sharpest” fetish, you really just need a sharp lens… not hte “sharpest” lens. Plenty of lenses, zooms and primes, are quite sharp enough to produce very large prints of excellent sharpness. The differences among them can, of course, be measured if you work with great care on the test bench… but they have virtually no relevance in actual photographs.
Just an observation following the discussion here...
Many a thread on the equipment forums (or "fora" if you prefer) goes into a big discussion about the limitations due to diffraction at f8 (or even 5.6!) and beyond.
Go over to the image forums where people are just concerned with images, and you will find hundreds of stunning images shot at f11 or even f13, with the DOF extending throughout the image, and no one takes any notice of such limitations!
So, my humble advice is, if you cannot focus stack a landscape for any reason (time, need for tripod, distaste for the process, whatever) and you have enough light, just stop down to get the DOF you want and get the image. Yes, if you blow up to 200% on your monitor and pixel peep, you will see diffraction effects. Though there is some loss of information, a bit of judicious sharpening goes a long way to making the final image look fabulous.
If you like large DOF landscapes, just shoot with the aperture you need, and adjust your PP as needed. Most high-quality lenses these days will be barely distinguishable in resolution at small apertures (there might be some differences in contrast). Yes, it's fun to know about and discuss technique, but never let worries about diffraction get in the way of making an image - it almost never matters in the end!
(Postscript: if your final product is an actual print, a factor that is not widely appreciated is that ink spreading in the paper is actually the final resolution limit, not the lens or sensor: I have found in my experience that the spreading of the ink in most photo papers has the equivalent of the effect of diffraction of f/10 or thereabouts for a 17x22 inch print. If you like printing on something like Velvet Fine Art it's even larger.)
photonoclast wrote:
Just an observation following the discussion here...
Many a thread on the equipment forums (or "fora" if you prefer) goes into a big discussion about the limitations due to diffraction at f8 (or even 5.6!) and beyond.
Go over to the image forums where people are just concerned with images, and you will find hundreds of stunning images shot at f11 or even f13, with the DOF extending throughout the image, and no one takes any notice of such limitations!
So, my humble advice is, if you cannot focus stack a landscape for any reason (time, need for tripod, distaste for the process, whatever) and you have enough light, just stop down to get the DOF you want and get the image. Yes, if you blow up to 200% on your monitor and pixel peep, you will see diffraction effects. Though there is some loss of information, a bit of judicious sharpening goes a long way to making the final image look fabulous.
If you like large DOF landscapes, just shoot with the aperture you need, and adjust your PP as needed. Most high-quality lenses these days will be barely distinguishable in resolution at small apertures (there might be some differences in contrast). Yes, it's fun to know about and discuss technique, but never let worries about diffraction get in the way of making an image - it almost never matters in the end!
(Postscript: if your final product is an actual print, a factor that is not widely appreciated is that ink spreading in the paper is actually the final resolution limit, not the lens or sensor: I have found in my experience that the spreading of the ink in most photo papers has the equivalent of the effect of diffraction of f/10 or thereabouts for a 17x22 inch print. If you like printing on something like Velvet Fine Art it's even larger.)...Show more →
Amen. In multiple ways.
Sometimes I wonder how many people chasing after God’s Own Perfect Resolution and shooting only at The Holy Diffraction-Limited Aperturehave actually gone to a museum or exhibit including prints by their photographic heroes and taken a close look. If they had, they would shocked, just shocked I tell you, to find that utter pin-sharp resolution from corner to corner is not the end all, be all that they think it is.
(Regarding ink spread, or “dot gain,” it is a real thing. If you print, one technique is to slightly over sharpen before printing to compensate a bit.)
Vast majority of photographers don’t make prints from their images. Most view their images on monitors. I see nothing wrong trying to get the best sharpness they can…don’t we all want to achieve the best we can?
No argument from me.
No fetish here either.
My sharpness talk was simply stating it was easy to find lenses that are sharper in the centre (than the Voigt APOs) but that the Voigts had across the frame sharpness and also lack field curvature and mid zone dips. That statement was challenged so I did resort to some sharp harping to show the statement is true.
If someone is considering a lens purchase for landscape, assuming it will be stopped down, I think the Voigt APOs are a great choice.
If not looking to buy something, then what you have should be fine, no need for any kinky stuff.
My "back to the land of sanity" comment followed my post regarding the "legs for zooming" comment which I think comes close to insanity, as one might gather from my previous post.
gdanmitchell wrote:
?
- - -
Regarding the “sharpest” fetish, you really just need a sharp lens… not hte “sharpest” lens. Plenty of lenses, zooms and primes, are quite sharp enough to produce very large prints of excellent sharpness. The differences among them can, of course, be measured if you work with great care on the test bench… but they have virtually no relevance in actual photographs.
chez wrote:
Vast majority of photographers don’t make prints from their images. Most view their images on monitors. I see nothing wrong trying to get the best sharpness they can…don’t we all want to achieve the best we can?
Sharpness is even less of an issue on monitors where you are unlikely to view an image as large as common large print sizes.
The main point here, though, is that — again — you don’t need “the sharpest” lens, you just need a sharp lens. And there are lots of those.
chez wrote:
Vast majority of photographers don’t make prints from their images. Most view their images on monitors. I see nothing wrong trying to get the best sharpness they can…don’t we all want to achieve the best we can?
Hence one of my favorites in my arsenal is the CV 65mm apo-lanthar. Can't be beat!
gdanmitchell wrote:
Sharpness is even less of an issue on monitors where you are unlikely to view an image as large as common large print sizes.
The main point here, though, is that — again — you don’t need “the sharpest” lens, you just need a sharp lens. And there are lots of those.
If you are choosing a lens, why not choose the sharpest? Isn’t it good to know this info when making a buying decision. When I buy something I like to have as much information about what I’m buying in order to make an intelligent decision…that goes for photo equipment as well. Nothing wrong with that.
