Best 20-24mm range to shoot at F/22

[Robert Blanko]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

According to my experience with 18 and 21mm focal length on even higher resolution cameras like Nikon Z7 and Sony A7RII, I would not expect to need slower apertures than F11 to get reasonable sharpness across the frame from minimum focussing distance to infinity. With my M10 I never felt the need to stop down further than to f11 for landscape photography. The 24MP are not challenging in said respect in my opinion.

Thus, without knowing any particular details, it appears hard to imagine why f22 would be required. If nevertheless so, one would rather consider either using a tilt lense or focus stacking.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

Although Focus stacking has developed into an essential technique for macro, it can work wonders for deep-focus landscape photography as well, as it allows you to use your lenses at the optimal aperture. High-resolution sensors really show the quality improvements that are possible.
I must thank you for starting this thread, as it was a learning project of myself that got sidetracked a few years ago and really needs to be picked up again.

This Video introduced me to the technique of focus stacking. Although it is slanted towards Panasonic cameras it gives a very clear explanation of the basics and the Photoshop technique:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=18&v=6wFRy8VQKuQ&feature=emb_logo

Here is a two-image  landscape stack in Photoshop:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=262&v=PrZhhXVnyPg&feature=emb_logo

You may want to make life easy on yourself and use dedicated software, like Helicon

https://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconsoft-products/helicon-focus/

Or Zerene:

https://zerenesystems.com/cms/stacker

And there are many more.

[Dennis]

8 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Be kind to us, so you don't have to tell us our advice is not relevant. What IS this project that requires maximum Dof, hand held, where image quality doesn't matter?

We might actually be able to give you better advice😉

 

7 hours ago, Robert Blanko said:

Thus, without knowing any particular details, it appears hard to imagine why f22 would be required. If nevertheless so, one would rather consider either using a tilt lens or focus stacking.

I'm and I'll be kind to you guys, always 🙂 It totally make sense what you're saying, but I can't give you more detail about what te project IS about. I'm sorry about that. 

But I'm already studying about tilt lenses and focus stacking, thanks to you. So you really helped me a lot.

 

[Dennis]

7 hours ago, jaapv said:

I must thank you for starting this thread,

Thank YOU, I'll study the links 🙂

[BernardC]

From a practical standpoint, you want a mechanical lens (no AF, no electronicaly-controled aperture) that is fairly affordable, works with digital, and is mostly free of distortion. Performance wide-open, and wide aperture, aren't important. As others have mentioned, all lenses will have similar resolution around F:22. Distortion and flare are more important, and rangefinder-focusing is not required. In other words, you want a manual focus SLR lens.

Staying within the Leica world, I suggest the 21mm f/4 Super-Angulon-R, along with an R-to-M adapter that is compatible with the version of the lens that you buy (2 or 3 cam).

Looking outside of the Leica world, just about every 35mm SLR offered a similar lens (20 or 21mm, f/3.5 or f/4) during the 1970s and 1980s. They are all quite affordable these days, especially for orphaned lens mounts (Canon FD, Minolta, Olympus OM, Rollei QBM, Yashica, etc.). Any of these should suit your needs, so you should consider mechanical condition rather than brand name. Make sure that the aperture stops-down all the way!

[Dennis]

2 hours ago, BernardC said:

In other words, you want a manual focus SLR lens.

Can this lens could work? I can put tape and lock the focus ring once is set. I have it. It has a discrete performance

[a.noctilux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Can this lens could work? I can put tape and lock the focus ring once is set. I have it. It has a discrete performance

Yes, see end of my post #9.

you need a good adapter Nikon to Leica M with accurate dimension ring.

Very good lens but cheap, even "better corrected" than the manual 4/20 Nikkor.

Put the focus to 0.7m, F/22,  then tape the ring or slide the tab from M to "AF" then enjoy it.

[Jul]

There is also the LTM 20mm Russar. With f/5.6 as its wider opening, I guess it closes to f/22.

Available old or newer from its re-edition. 

[pgk]

12 hours ago, jaapv said:

Although Focus stacking has developed into an essential technique for macro, it can work wonders for deep-focus landscape photography as well, as it allows you to use your lenses at the optimal aperture. High-resolution sensors really show the quality improvements that are possible.

I built a focus stacking landscape camera some years ago. The optical problem is that you need to fix the lens in position and focus by moving the camera. Otherwise the perspective changes as you focus closer. It worked well enough using an OM28/3.5 lens disassembled in a custom built rig I concocted. BUT there are numerous practical problems like bright areas which 'spread' into dark areas and are hard to eradicate using software in the stacking process. I tried it and managed a 1:1 to infinity stack but never solved some of the issues which produced artefacts in the final stacked image.

[astrostl]

At f/16 a 21mm lens will have more than its entire range in focus on a Leica M, making the extra stop strictly an exercise in image harm.

If I felt like I truly cared about every mm of focus, I would shoot on a body/lens combo capable of focusing closer than 0.5-0.7m (read: not an M).

[pippy]

16 hours ago, Dennis said:

...I know that after F/11 the diffraction is gonna be a pain in the ass, but I can live with it.

The point here for this project, is to only deal with the exposure and composition. Because every time I shoot, it's gonna be in focus between 20-30-40 or 50cm and infinity. So I'm willing to deal with a worst image quality, to have ALL in focus...

With the best will in the world, Dennis, is DoF more important than having a sharp image?

If DoF is more important then choose any brand of lens you like because they will all be soft at f22 on a digital body. More expensive lenses might be less soft because they were better performers in the first place but they will be soft nevertheless. Hypothetically speaking - and without going into the whole circles-of-confusion thing - if an image shot at f11 can have 95% 'acceptably sharp' subject matter isn't that better than having 0% 'acceptably sharp' at f22? Because that's what diffraction does.

FWIW my 1959 21mm f4 Super-Angulon distance scale reads approx 30cm - infinity at f16 and the lens goes down to f22. At f11, however, you still get from circa 52cm - infinity. And the big difference is that things are sharp at f11.

Good luck in your quest!

Philip.

Edited April 12, 2020 by pippy

[Dennis]

31 minutes ago, astrostl said:

I would shoot on a body/lens combo capable of focusing closer than 0.5-0.7m

My ideal, will be no less than "35cm to infinity" ... I can shoot maybe a wider focus zone with a Dslr., but in my case will be Leica M10. 

Focus Stacking, it's amazing. I didn't know what was until today. But it doesn't work for me.  It's my fault I didn't explain it well since post #1, my apologize.

 

I was saying thinking about street photography, but more "extreme" ... But I can assure you that it's all about moments, so no tripods, apps, posing. 

[Dennis]

20 minutes ago, pippy said:

With the best will in the world, Dennis, is DoF more important than having a sharp image?

Despite the point of my post (a project for maximum DOP only) , I would say yes Pippy ...I prefer an appropriate DOP for that particular shot, rather than a sharper image. Of course, we need to define limits 😂

23 minutes ago, pippy said:

my 1959 21mm f4 Super-Angulon distance scale reads approx 30cm - infinity at f16

Did you know at F/22 ? Would love to know, please. So we can know the range is, from infinity to .... at F/22, F/16 and F/11. And I will tell you if it worth to go from 95% sharp at F/11 to 0% at F/22 

 

[a.noctilux]

😉

Dennis you aroused my curiosity with your "deep" project.

I took time to experiment with some lenses and M10.

The S-A 4/21 and 3.4/21 nice lenses otherwise for b&w don't qualify as they have some "reddish right corner" and some curvature of field.

My best candidates are the two Nikkor 20mm lenses (AF  F/ 2.8, manual F/4 ), no red corner, relative good contrast/definition at F/22, I think that the best compromise would be F/16.

 

So my last conclusion is that you have better choice in SLR 20-24 lenses, even if it closes only to F/16 and most can focus to 30cm.

[farnz]

16 minutes ago, Dennis said:

My ideal, will be no less than "35cm to infinity" ...

The Voigtlander 15/4.5 Super-wide Heliar version 1 has minimum focus at 30 cm and stops down to f/22 so using hyperfocal distance you would be able to focus closer than 30 cm.  It's wider than you're looking for so it would allow you to crop to 21 or 24 mm if you wished.

It's likely to produce 'Italian flag' on the M10 but cropping to 21 mm is likely to produce much of the discolouration or if you're shooting in black and white it won't matter.

Pete.

[david strachan]

It's likely to produce 'Italian flag' on the M10 but cropping to 21 mm is likely to produce much of the discolouration or if you're shooting in black and white it won't matter.

Pete.

 

Just a reminder, as Pete knows, one can use corrections in Lightroom, Flat Field plugin, to totally fix the edge colour effects...works well and very little effort.

The original 15mm Voigtlander is a beaut lens.

...

Edited April 13, 2020 by david strachan

[Dennis]

1 hour ago, farnz said:

The Voigtlander 15/4.5 Super-wide Heliar version 1

I check it, like it. I would like more a 20mm, I never own a 15mm... It sounds scaring, like a FishEye 😂 but I guess at this focal length, the difference between a 20mm and 15mm is not huge. I saw this in B&H. New has a good price.

Do you know if exist a site where I can calculate the hyperfocal distance for a specific lens? I use this formula: H = (LxL) / (FxD) , it's faster than put value into a web chart.

But I don't know honestly if there is a difference between different 20mm. For Full Frame 35mm camera, it doesn't matter if it's film, DSLR or Rangefinder?

[Dennis]

Also, because it's Sunday 🙂 One more question to ask, if you don't mind (it's out of this topic)

How can I know the performance of a particular F/stop of a particular lens? For example I own this lens: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/lit_files/104974.pdf

How can I read it?

Thank you in advance.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[astrostl]

>  Yes, for this project is a lot. That's why my statement if maximum DOP
>  My ideal, will be no less than "35cm to infinity" ... I can shoot maybe a wider focus zone with a Dslr., but in my case will be Leica M10. 

I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements. If depth of field is so very critically important, why not use a widely-available tool that can give more of it instead of an M10?

You quoted and responded to half of my post, but I think the other half is critical: 

> At f/16 a 21mm lens will have more than its entire range in focus on a Leica M, making the extra stop strictly an exercise in image harm.

On a Leica 21mm at f/16, 0.7m-infinity will be in focus. At f/22, 0.7-m-infinity will still be in focus (read: the same), but the image will require more light and look worse. So why f/22?

[pgk]

7 hours ago, Dennis said:

I check it, like it. I would like more a 20mm, I never own a 15mm... It sounds scaring, like a FishEye 😂 but I guess at this focal length, the difference between a 20mm and 15mm is not huge. I saw this in B&H. New has a good price.

Do you know if exist a site where I can calculate the hyperfocal distance for a specific lens? I use this formula: H = (LxL) / (FxD) , it's faster than put value into a web chart.

But I don't know honestly if there is a difference between different 20mm. For Full Frame 35mm camera, it doesn't matter if it's film, DSLR or Rangefinder?

Firstly, for all intents and purposes depth of field is the same for all 20mm lenses (all lenses of the same focal length have the same depth of field) so your choice of lens is really not all that relevant in terms of DoF.

Secondly, formulas only help if you put all the variables into them - you can use links like this to go through: https://dofmaster.com/equations.html however the circle of confusion (CoC) is determined by final output requirement so you will need to know how big the final image will be and at what distance it is likely to be viewed to decide on it.

Lastly, 15mm is an extreme wide lens and will have an impact of the way it shows content due to perspective so I'd be wary - to me anything below 20mm falls into the 'specialist' lens category.