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

[a.noctilux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, Dennis said:

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.

I don't think we can know the theorical performance of a particular lens before taking real life pix, in real situation.

I remember a lens in particular, not well know for it's performance but in this case of my search with what I have,

I'm impressed by it's high quality on M10, when stop to F/16 (Tokina 3.5/17mm , seen some examples here pixelpeeper ).

This can be a candidate for your project if you can find one for a couple of hundreds $ plus the right adapter for M.

Edited April 13, 2020 by a.noctilux

[Advertisement]

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

[adan]

3 hours ago, astrostl said:

but the image will require more light and look worse. So why f/22?

Not to pick on you specifically, since other have said more or less the same thing.

But what will look "worse" about pictures at f/22?

Anticipating your answer to be "they will not be as sharp as possible," I then ask - on what basis, or on whose authority, are you defining "not as sharp" as "worse?" Or "as sharp as possible" as "better?"

________________

In general folks, here's my value system - these definitely "not as sharp as possible" pictures are still in the photographic oeuvre after 60-70 years, and very valuable (a reasonable approximation of "better").

If and when your "sharp as possible" pictures outlast or out-value these, you may have an argument that sharp is better. Until then, "nothing succeeds like success."

http://www.artnet.com/artists/robert-capa/d-day-landing-omaha-beach-normandy-aTY6APh5L8OS6Nd2hde6mg2

http://ernst-haas.com/classic-color-motion/

[pippy]

8 hours ago, Dennis said:

...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?

No; no difference. We are considering physical / optical laws so in principle DoF should be exactly the same for any lens if the format and focal length are identical.

This is a pretty good site for DoF calculations;

https://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html

Philip.

[pippy]

1 hour ago, adan said:

...I then ask - on what basis, or on whose authority, are you defining "not as sharp" as "worse?" Or "as sharp as possible" as "better?"...

Whilst I understand competely where you are coming from with this point, adan, I think you are talking about something substantially different from the rest of us. I very much doubt Dennis is aiming for the "Haas effect" in his upcoming project so that's a red herring if ever I've seen one! Secondly the Capa photo's are legendary mainly because of what they capture; not because of their technical 'failings' - although by a serendipitous accident these quirks do add to the atmosphere of some of his images.

If sharpness isn't needed what is the point of buying Leica lenses in the first place? Why even bother with critical focussing? Is 'close-enough' close enough? Given the option - which was not available to Capa under the circumstances - for the majority of your own photography would you, situations and subject-matter being otherwise identical, rather have a sharper image or a softer image? Exceptions will exist, I am sure, but in the main?

Even on a standard 10" x 8" print the difference between an image shot at f11 and f22 using my 28mm Elmarit ASPH is noticeable and, IMHO, the f22 loses out comprehensively - but that is mainly because I require sharpness in most of my 28mm images. What Dennis will need to evaluate is which optical property wins-out in the trade-off in DoF / absolute sharpness stakes for his personal expectations and satisfaction.

Clearly there is no absolute 'correct' answer for this as it comes down to a very personal set of preferrences.

Philip.

Edited April 13, 2020 by pippy

[adan]

23 minutes ago, pippy said:

If sharpness isn't needed what is the point of buying Leica lenses in the first place?

Well, for me it is getting something that fits and works on a rangefinder body.  

"Sharpness" beyond a certain minimum (which can be achieved with C/V or Zeiss or a host of other lenses dating 'way back) is generally irrelevant to my lens choices. Ergonomics and other useful features count for a lot more.

If the 28mm v.2 Elmarit (one of Leica's doggiest M-lenses ever, for sharpness) could be 6-bit coded, I'd swap my 28 Elmarit-M ASPH for it in a heartbeat. The V.2 is soft in the corners (and everywhere at f/2.8), but produces smoother contrast (better shadow/highlight detail) and more desirable "Mandler" color rendition. And is generally easier to grasp.

As I said, what counts is whether one's pictures are still desirable 60-100 years from now. because ithey aren't, one might just as well have never existed. I aim to avoid that fate, and what will get me there is vision, not sharpness.

[pippy]

38 minutes ago, adan said:

Well, for me it is getting something that fits and works on a rangefinder body.

...what counts is whether one's pictures are still desirable 60-100 years from now. because ithey aren't, one might just as well have never existed. I aim to avoid that fate, and what will get me there is vision, not sharpness.

Yes; I've quite a few non-Leica LTM lenses, dating from the 1930s onwards, which I'd like to try out on the Digi-Ms when I have some free time to experiment. I've already been rather surprised to discover how well the Jupiter-12 performs - it has a different character from the typical Leitz fare - and it's effectively just a cheap'n'cheerful copy of the pre-WWII Zeiss Biogon.

As to the second point; one of Alvin Langdon Coburn's portraits of G.B. Shaw and Julia Margaret Cameron's very well-known portrait of Sir John Herschel are two of the most beautiful photographic studies I've ever seen and I would doubt they perform well in the 'lines-per-millimetre' resolution test...

FWIW A.L. Coburn is one of my very favourite snappers of all time. Beautiful 'Vision' as you so aptly put it.

As I said earlier; Dennis will have to decide what he needs from his own evaluation of the different criteria offered by, say, shooting at f11 and f22.

Philip.

Edited April 13, 2020 by pippy

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, pippy said:

No; no difference. We are considering physical / optical laws so in principle DoF should be exactly the same for any lens if the format and focal length are identical.

A couple of small notes.

Leica provides DoF tables for their current lenses, so that's as good a place to start as any. The Leica tech data for the 21 Super-Elmar-M is linked from this page: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/21mm_f/3.4_ASPH_Super-Elmar-M

In this case, Leica considers that DoF extends from 50cm to infinity when focused at 1m, at f/16. You could start with that setting, and do some tests to see what works best at f/22.

The amount of diffraction depends on the thickness of the aperture blades, at very small f-stops. That's because aperture thickness affects the ratio of diffracted light bent by the aperture. It's a quantum effect (quantum electrodynamics, to be more specific). That's why the best pinhole lenses are made from extremely thin sheets, and laser-drilled. Of course, with this type of photography project, it's hard to tell whether a "better" thin aperture blade will produce more satisfying results. Aesthetics are more important than sharpness, and Denis (the original poster) is the only judge of what works best for him.

[pippy]

3 minutes ago, BernardC said:

...The amount of diffraction depends on the thickness of the aperture blades, at very small f-stops. That's because aperture thickness affects the ratio of diffracted light bent by the aperture. It's a quantum effect (quantum electrodynamics, to be more specific). That's why the best pinhole lenses are made from extremely thin sheets, and laser-drilled...

Thank you very much for this correction and the additional info, Bernard!

Philip.

[Dennis]

9 hours ago, astrostl said:

> 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?

Agree. Why stop down and loose quality when I gain only a few centimeters? That's why I need to know and make tests. Maybe the slight difference, can make the difference. Don't know yet.

6 hours ago, pgk said:

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.

I'm with you with this. Never owned a lens wider than a 20mm. It's my limit. But for this project, I could try until 15mm I guess. Not sure yet. I'm still investigating. Thank you for the link

4 hours ago, pippy said:

What Dennis will need to evaluate is which optical property wins-out in the trade-off in DoF / absolute sharpness stakes for his personal expectations and satisfaction.

That's right Pippy. I have tests to do, and study, to be sure I can make it happen. But also to listen to your recommendations, and do as best as possible.

[Ko.Fe.]

On 4/12/2020 at 1:53 AM, Dennis said:

Thank you all for the comments. As always here, I learn a lot 🙂 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.

Yes, for this project is a lot. That's why my statement if maximum DOP

The worst diffraction of the world, but better DOP ... 🙌

Correct. Think for a second like Street photography, but more extreme. Not for the subject, but for the DOP

No idea, I would love to know too

Interesting. Now I'm going to sleep, but tomorrow I'll check what focus stacking is, Thank you! I'm always happy and welcome to know new techniques and approaches.

Is a good lens? Good performance? I can buy it new, it's cheap.

 

How are you going to focus RF lens on M10 between 20 and 40 cm?

For 20-40 cm 21mm lens needs to be at 26 cm from subject to have 20-40 cm DOF @f22.

For 50 to infinity, you don't need f22 for 21mm lens. At one meter distance DOF is from 50cm to infinity @f16 with 21mm lens.

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

Here is no point of waiting for C-19, Leica used prices are not going to change. Under 1000$ lenses either. Here is new, optimized for digital Cosina made 21 f3.5. Well under 1000$ new and if it doesn't work, you could return it.

[a.noctilux]

Going ahead, I learned a lot from the theorical dof and real dof depending on lens construction.

My last surprise is the Olympus OM lens Zuiko 3.5/18mm which I had hard time to use since some years, for it's "short" dof.

So mounting on M10 and some snaps at various aperture, this is a good lens in most cases used without dof or flat field in mind !

 

After investigation with this OM 18mm...

Some flaws, the calculated dof is not there, the F/16 minimal marking can not be reached in real (looking inside for iris size,

no change when the ring is moved from F/11 to 16),

second flaw ...maybe the floating element focus can play a role here as far edge which "theorically" must be in dof is blurry on pix.

 

After all, I'm certain now that choising this particular lens will not be easy.

I have three to (begin with) for M10 + experimentations : Tokina ATX manual focus 3.5/17mm (stop to F/16), Nikkor AI 4/20mm, AF 2.8/20mm.

Good luck Dennis.

Edited April 13, 2020 by a.noctilux

[Dennis]

36 minutes ago, Ko.Fe. said:

For 20-40 cm 21mm lens needs to be at 26 cm from subject to have 20-40 cm DOF @f22.

It would be awesome like this, love it. But yes, I have to see what a picture look like at F/22 with a 21mm... I will make test with my Nikkor 20mm and see, more or less, how painful will be or nor the result.

[Good To Be Retired]

Given the nature of your project, what we know of it at least, It doesn't matter what lens you use.  A pinhole lens might work.

Defraction at f22 will cost you enough lens quality that pretty much any undamaged lens that physically fits on the camera will meet your stated requirements.

Edited April 13, 2020 by Good To Be Retired

[Dennis]

38 minutes ago, Good To Be Retired said:

Given the nature of your project, what we know of it at least, It doesn't matter what lens you use

Correct. Ideal? not heavy, like a pancake, ring focus taped at the hyperfocal distance and play. Maybe, I could stick at F/16 and find the best lens for maximum DOP, stretching its limits.

A super close minimum focus distance and focal length could be the solution to keep no more than F/16

[farnz]

14 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Ideal? not heavy, like a pancake,

The smallest, lightest and 'most pancake' lens you're ever likely to see is the MS Optical 21/4.5 Perar Super-wide Triplet.  Aperture from f/4.5 and f/16.

Pete.

Edited April 13, 2020 by farnz

[pippy]

18 hours ago, Dennis said:

 ...I prefer an appropriate DOP for that particular shot, rather than a sharper image....Did you know DoF 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...

Well, I've had a good look at the scale engraved on the lens (if that is any use!) and...

f11 = less that 50cm - infinity. Actual focus mark = 100cm.

f16 = approx 30cm - infinity. Actual focus mark = 70cm.

f22 = VERY approx (it is MILES off the scale) approx 15cm - infinity. Actual focus mark = (approx) 50cm.

Philip.

Edited April 13, 2020 by pippy

[Dennis]

22 minutes ago, farnz said:

The smallest, lightest and 'most pancake' lens you're ever likely to see is the MS Optical 21/4.5 Perar Super-wide Triplet.  Aperture from f/4.5 and f/16.

Pete.

It looks like there is not glasses inside. Maybe pancake style such as LEICA SUMMARON-M 28 mm f/5.6 ... I´m saying about size, no price or optical performance. But if a lens can give me 10-15cm extra in the foreground, I can also support more weight.

5 minutes ago, pippy said:

F/22 = VERY approx (it is MILES off the scale) approx 15cm - infinity.

It will be so awesome 😃 That's why these 15cm can make the difference. But I should test it at F/16 and F/22 what the results are. And see how I can compensate a little the diffraction with Capture One or other sharpening softwares. I would prefer thousand times to stay only with Capture On, to overall slightly edit the photos ... But no aggressive or fake editing.

[farnz]

11 minutes ago, Dennis said:

It looks like there is not glasses inside.

It's a "triplet" lens so it has 3 glass elements.  It's not a pinhole lens.

Pete.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Pyrogallol]

1 hour ago, Dennis said:

Correct. Ideal? not heavy, like a pancake, ring focus taped at the hyperfocal distance and play. Maybe, I could stick at F/16 and find the best lens for maximum DOP, stretching its limits.

A super close minimum focus distance and focal length could be the solution to keep no more than F/16

At f16 try a nice clean early screw Elmar or Summaron, very pancake.

[Dennis]

3 minutes ago, farnz said:

It's a "triplet" lens so it has 3 glass elements.  It's not a pinhole lens.

Pete.

Let's say I can't save the F/16 and I MUST use F/22 ... Let's say. This triplet lens give me a similar diffraction and "bad" result than VoigtLander Color-Skopar 21mm F/4?