Big Landscape f-stops

[rcoles]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My first major trip with the M9 is Glacier National Park and the surrounding areas. I will be using 3-lenses: 35 f/2 ASHP, the current 50 f/2 and the latest 90 f/2.8. I will be using a tripod, ND and Pol filters as needed. I will also be trying some HDR and Panoramas.

For the big landscapes what is the best f-stop working range for each of these lenses under early morning and late afternoon conditions?

Thanks

Bob

[01af]

For the big landscapes what is the best f-stop working range for each of these lenses under early morning and late afternoon conditions?

If you don't need much depth-of-field: use f/4 .. f/5.6.

 

If you need more depth-of-field: use the widest aperture that will yield sufficient DOF ... or in other words, stop down as much as you need to but no further.

 

If you shoot hand-held in low light: use full aperture.

[jaapv]

If you decide to use smaller stops, diffraction starts to be visible from about f5.6 to f8.0 Especially for landscapes, which usually hold much detail, it is best to avoid smaller apertures, if posiible with the DOF requirements.

[glacierparkmagazine]

Bob, check out my blog:

 

Glacier Park Magazine blog

 

That should give you some insight.

[Son of Helm]

If you decide to use smaller stops, diffraction starts to be visible from about f5.6 to f8.0 Especially for landscapes, which usually hold much detail, it is best to avoid smaller apertures, if posiible with the DOF requirements.

 

Basically, I agree completely. Many Leica lenses are

so superbly corrected that it is possible to measure

the effect from diffraction from say f5.6 or even lower.

However the M9 resolves in practice at most 65 lp/mm and the above refers to degradation from about the 100 lp/mm level. So in principle visible degradation sets in later (f11?) with current chips.

65 lp/mm still means details you only can see on an

A3+ print with a magnifying glass. And unsharp mask

may improve the contrast and thus the perception of coarser details as well so the old wisdom of degradation already from f5.6 may be up to revision.

[jaapv]

That depends on the lens, some lenses are even diffraction limited at full aperture. It seems to be, however, not quite possible to compare sensor resolution to lens resolution one to one, as lens resolution is always measured at a certain contrast, whereas sensor resolution is an absolute. That means that subject (or test object, or computer parameter) contrast enters into the equation.

[Jager]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

f8.

 

With a tripod, slow shutter speeds ought not be an issue.

[01af]

However the M9 resolves in practice at most 65 lp/mm and the above refers to degradation from about the 100 lp/mm level. So in principle visible degradation sets in later (f/11?) with current chips.

This is not true!

 

When the lens' performance starts to degrade at f-stops beyond f/5.6 (which is typical for modern M lenses) then it will show, no matter what camera you're using. With an M8 or M9, you can clearly see the loss of contrast when switching from f/5.6 to f/8.

 

Of course, this a very minuscule loss at very high level so in real life it will hardly make a noticable difference in the final print. Still, the M8 and M9 *DO* show the loss if you're only pixel-peeping hard enough. That's why you shouldn't stop down further than f/5.6 or thereabouts unless DOF considerations require smaller apertures. If you do need wide DOF then by all means don't let diffraction considerations keep you from stopping down! For an image that depends on lots of DOF, more DOF helps more than diffraction loss can do harm. So if you need DOF then stop down to f/8 .. f/16; if you don't then use f/4 .. f/5.6.

[bill]

Here's a radical suggestion...

 

...try it for yourself. It will be SO much more satisfying than asking a bunch of strangers.

 

How long does it actually take to run through the permutations?

 

It's not even as if you are burning film.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Michael Hiles]

Here's a radical suggestion...

 

...try it for yourself. It will be SO much more satisfying than asking a bunch of strangers.

 

How long does it actually take to run through the permutations?

 

It's not even as if you are burning film.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

 

Killjoy:D

[NZDavid]

If landscapes are close to infinity (unless you have a foreground subject that needs to be in focus as well), open wide and go for the highest shutter speed and slowest ISO. You will get more quality results that way. This is Brian Bower's advice in Light, Lens and Landscape and I think it makes sense.

[jaapv]

This is not true!

 

When the lens' performance starts to degrade at f-stops beyond f/5.6 (which is typical for modern M lenses) then it will show, no matter what camera you're using. With an M8 or M9, you can clearly see the loss of contrast when switching from f/5.6 to f/8.

 

Of course, this a very minuscule loss at very high level so in real life it will hardly make a noticable difference in the final print. Still, the M8 and M9 *DO* show the loss if you're only pixel-peeping hard enough. That's why you shouldn't stop down further than f/5.6 or thereabouts unless DOF considerations require smaller apertures. If you do need wide DOF then by all means don't let diffraction considerations keep you from stopping down! For an image that depends on lots of DOF, more DOF helps more than diffraction loss can do harm. So if you need DOF then stop down to f/8 .. f/16; if you don't then use f/4 .. f/5.6.

Very true. If you could see it on film you could see it on a sensor. For instance Velvia at 30% contrast has a resolution of 60 Lp/mm, slightly less than the M9 sensor. (source Leica Lens Compendium, Erwin Puts)

[spydrxx]

The idea to try it out yourself is a really good one. Last week I tested out my collection of R lenses on a new digital camera, thinking (outside of DOF) the differences in resolution and IQ at different f stops would be virtually unnoticeable, except perhaps at the extreme ends for the range. I also had a reference sheet citing Puts' observations. Well, I discovered that not only was there variation among lenses of the same focal length, but that there is certainly variation among different digital sensors or between sensors and film results. I was quite pleased that with a couple hours of work, I now have a table to assist me in getting the best of what Leica lenses can deliver this specific piece of digital gear. I've decided next month to do the same thing on my one remaining M body, which I've been satisfied for years stopping down 1-2 stops for max. resolution. Probably won't find as much variance as with digital sensors, but I'd just like to know!

[ho_co]

And Bob, while we're here discussing best practice, enjoy the trip.

[bill]

The idea to try it out yourself is a really good one.

 

It was a deadly serious suggestion. You have neatly explained why in one respect. I am also constantly surprised at the increasing number of people who would rather read about it on the internet than try it for themselves, regardless of what "it" is.

 

There is no substitute for personal experience, and in this case no apparent cost or penalty.

 

Just do it!

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[rcoles]

It was a deadly serious suggestion. You have neatly explained why in one respect. I am also constantly surprised at the increasing number of people who would rather read about it on the internet than try it for themselves, regardless of what "it" is.

 

There is no substitute for personal experience, and in this case no apparent cost or penalty.

 

Just do it!

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Thanks Bill.

I plan to do some testing, but I was hoping there were basic parameters that applied to each of these lenses. Since this is my first big trip with this gear I was interested in having feedback from more experienced users. My concern was IQ at smaller f-stops. I am comfortable with DOF and exposure matters, but do not know the f/stop limitation, if any, of these 3-lenses for the big landscape I anticipate seeing in Montana.

Thanks

Bob

[pgk]

It was a deadly serious suggestion. You have neatly explained why in one respect. I am also constantly surprised at the increasing number of people who would rather read about it on the internet than try it for themselves, regardless of what "it" is.

 

There is no substitute for personal experience, and in this case no apparent cost or penalty.

Bill

Somewhere I remember reading a comment which has stuck with me:

 

"When theory and actuality do not coincide, its rarely actuality that has got it wrong". I fail to be convinced that pixel peeping has a real world impact on smaller apertures like say f/5.6~f/11. Especially when you are using an extremely good lens anyway.

 

Now I've tried different apertures and my practical take on all this is that if you need f/11 for the resulting depth of field that it will give you, don't get hung up on the theoretical idea that f/8 might be offering (marginally) better performance from the lens. If you need f/11 use it, the resulting image degredation will IMHO be pretty minimal and using f/11 where you need to is more important because it will have far more effect on the resulting image;)!

[holmes]

Howdy,

This is my $0.02 worth of shooting landscapes in Arizona, Texas and New Mexico. Needless to say we have a lot of Big, Open space. I have had or read, been told about f stops for broad vistas. First I think you mentioned your were talking a tripod, excellent. For my own use, I prefer a slightly slower ISO, and a reduction in the camera setting for ISO. Now this issue of resolving power. Well frankly I'm a photographer and not an optical engineer. Bracket, bracket, bracket. This is where bracketing is not a 'crime'. All you will do is change the ISO setting on the camera. A number of the world famous, use small f stops to record as much detail as possible. Much is made of Leicas ability to use their lenses wide open or stopped down 1 to 2 stops. That's true of any quality lens. I have my Canon 200 f 1.8 L USM. I'll stop it down depending on what I'm shooting. As I say this my $0.02. Have fun.

[01af]

... but I was hoping there were basic parameters that applied to each of these lenses. Since this is my first big trip with this gear I was interested in having feedback from more experienced users.

This is exactly what you got in the very first reply.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[luigi bertolotti]

... and is the best and simpler advice... panos of landscapes are often at infinity or about... no DOF issue: use the (often reknown) best f stop of the lens: I read you have the last 90 2,8... here is a 3-frames stitch made with it, at f 4 (M8 - the very strong resize doesn't make justice of the quality : my lab made a splendid hard print 140 cm wide)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!