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

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Diffraction at f/16 will not be as obvious (as soft) as diffraction will be at f/22 (with any 135 mm format lens*).

*Medium or large format diffraction normally occurs at smaller apertures (f/32, f/64) than with 135 format lenses (for example M-lenses).  You might have heard of the "Group f/64".

Pete.

[Advertisement]

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

[Dennis]

So, in resume, for 135mm format lens:

f/22 is useless

f/16 could be the limit

f/11 is the ONE

So if I can find a lens, 15mm or 21mm, to shoot at f/11 and have a maximum DOP, everyone will be happy, right? Because despite what I said, of course I appreciate a sharp image if I can get it.

I guess you all helped me a lot, and now it's my turn to study and make tests. I have all the informations I need.

Thank you so much.

[pgk]

19 minutes ago, Dennis said:

So, in resume, for 135mm format lens:

f/22 is useless

f/16 could be the limit

f/11 is the ONE

So if I can find a lens, 15mm or 21mm, to shoot at f/11 and have a maximum DOP, everyone will be happy, right? Because despite what I said, of course I appreciate a sharp image if I can get it.

I guess you all helped me a lot, and now it's my turn to study and make tests. I have all the informations I need.

Thank you so much.

No. Sharpness is not necessarily as critical as its made out to be. Depends on your subject matter. If I need to I will shoot at f/22 quite happily if the subject needs it and the DoF helps with the image. Sometimes optimum DoF/resolution is essential but then again its might not be. Photographic 'rules' are to be broken as required.

[Dennis]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

Photographic 'rules' are to be broken as required.

Agree, and once It makes sense, I break the rules in photography! I didn't know the diffraction was so bad at f/22, because I never use it. f/11 is my top.

But for this case, I have to take a look at photo results to know if stick at f/16 or embrace the full f/22 and have these 20-30cm extra.

[pippy]

16 hours ago, Dennis said:

So, in resume, for 135mm format lens:

f/22 is useless

Just to reinforce what pgk said;

f22 is NOT useless; simply put it produces results slightly different from images shot wider apertures. There will be occasions where f22 is the correct choice. It will be up to you to decide what acceptable DoF range and which aperture is most appropriate for your end-needs and these needs will, in part, depend on what the images are used for; what size they are shown and so on...

farnz mentioned Group f64 earlier. I've seen three different retrospectives featuring the work of Ansel Adams. Some of his images which look spectacularly sharp when reproduced in large-format, very high-quality photo-books are what we might call 'slightly soft' when seen in real-life. Does this matter? Hell No! They are still astonishing images. Which brings us back to adan's point about the Picture Content and not the Technical Perfection which will make the image work.

I've rarely needed f22 so, for MY needs, f11 / f16 would be my NORMAL limit. If, however, I need f22 I'll shoot at f22.

Also it's worth remembering that many of us here are probably far harsher as critics than would be 99.99% of the General Public. The chances of a viewer being able to notice much difference in sharpness between an image shot at f22 from f16 is, I would suspect, infinitessimaly slight.

Good luck and let us know how you get on!

Philip.

Edited April 14, 2020 by pippy

[Frase]

My cameras are not clean enough to shoot past 5.6😃

[a.noctilux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 minutes ago, Frase said:

My cameras are not clean enough to shoot past 5.6😃

You are lucky man.

With some digital M of mine, even F/2.8 * shows the "cleaning warning from the sensor".

 

...depending on focal length, no ?

 

* 2.8/180mm !

[steamboat]

I'm late to this festival of lens problems that I don't even know what some of them are.

Whatever.

I used for many years a 21mm f4.0 Super Angulon in an M mount. [ IF you go to my twitter page @fultonjr you'll see me and it in action as my "pinned" tweet. I was not shooting at f22 fyi ]. Anyway, I used it at f22 set with depth-of-field 12" to infinity. The lens focused  to 12" - yes. At f22 the world didn't fall apart and neither did the photograph. It works just fine. Remember that your best photographs aren't always your sharpest photographs.

 

[Dennis]

12" to infinity is awesome. One more in favor to the Super Angulon, oh yeah!

Great photo and memory to keep. Bravo!

[steamboat]

28 minutes ago, Dennis said:

12" to infinity is awesome. One more in favor to the Super Angulon, oh yeah!

Great photo and memory to keep. Bravo!

Dennis--I had (still have) the old, old 21 Super Angulon f4.0. Small lens, focus goes down to 12 inches. Has f22. Many, many years later I upgraded to the 21mm f2.8 Leitz Elmarit. Since the Elmarit only focused to the usual .7 meter I missed the 12" of the SA. No f22 either. For me the holy grail of 21mm would be to get - it's either pre-production or early-production - the 21mm f2.8 Leitz Elmarit that focuses to 12". That lens would be the ticket. They are very rare and almost never for sale. 'Just an fyi.

[a.noctilux]

Dennis, remember my post #34

With M10 and mine S-A 4/21 and 3.4/21 some red/magenta right edge which I've never seen in Monochrom until this experience

 

 

[pippy]

1 hour ago, a.noctilux said:

...With M10 and mine S-A 4/21 and 3.4/21 some red/magenta right edge which I've never seen in Monochrom until this experience...

Oddly enough, Arnaud, I asked about the possibility of the 21mm f4 S-A colour fringing being able to have an effect on the base-file on a 'colour' M body (as opposed to a Monochrom) and received the following response from adan - who is much better-versed in these matters of a technical nature than I am myself;

"...(the colour-fringing) shouldn't happen - a Bayer-filtered color-sensor image gets demosaiced (shares and averages data between neighboring colored pixels to remove the Bayer color checkerboard pattern), regardless of whether or not it being processed for color, or for B&W.

It is not a factor of the filters. It is how the software (Adobe Camera Raw, LR, C1) is designed to act - averaging touching red and green and blue pixels to get one color value for all. And then, if desired, convert that one color to a gray of equal luminance (brightness)."

Sure enough, on the first day I could compare identical images with the S-A on my M-D and my M9M I found there was no difference once the M-D's files were converted to monochrome.

Just my experience on one test-day but it seems to back up what I was told.

Philip.

[pgk]

2 hours ago, steamboat said:

Dennis--I had (still have) the old, old 21 Super Angulon f4.0. Small lens, focus goes down to 12 inches. Has f22. Many, many years later I upgraded to the 21mm f2.8 Leitz Elmarit. Since the Elmarit only focused to the usual .7 meter I missed the 12" of the SA. No f22 either. For me the holy grail of 21mm would be to get - it's either pre-production or early-production - the 21mm f2.8 Leitz Elmarit that focuses to 12". That lens would be the ticket. They are very rare and almost never for sale. 'Just an fyi.

Try the Super-Angulon-R (https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/21mm_f/3.4_Super-Angulon-R). It focusses down to 8 inches and can be adapted to M mount easily enough. In fact Ffordes have such a one in stock: https://www.ffordes.com/p/SOR-18-016619/lenses-leica-m/21mm-f34-r-22228-m-adapter

[Dennis]

3 minutes ago, pgk said:

Try the Super-Angulon-R (https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/21mm_f/3.4_Super-Angulon-R). It focusses down to 8 inches and can be adapted to M mount easily enough. In fact Ffordes have such a one in stock: https://www.ffordes.com/p/SOR-18-016619/lenses-leica-m/21mm-f34-r-22228-m-adapter

Interesting, thank you.

[lct]

Better like big lenses then. Unless you're after its special character, the R 21/4 vignettes a lot and can hardly compete with the modest CV 21/4 which has f/22 as well and goes down to 0.5m. Same for the CV 21/3.5 which is even sharper BTW. Not sure at f/22 though as i never use this aperture to be honest.

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!

[astrostl]

On 4/13/2020 at 4:16 AM, adan said:

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/

I'm with this argument within limits but that limit is approached at, "the same thing, just darker and more diffracted" w/o an overriding artistic request for exactly that.

[pgk]

OK. I'll add an actual example of when diffraction matters. A couple of years ago I spent a couple of weeks diving. In our party was an eminent Polish marine biologist who is a superb underwater photographer. He was using a DX format Nikon in a housing and shooting macro at f/22-32 and was irritated that he could not achieve the same levels of detail that I was doing on an FX camera at f/11-16. I told him to open up his aperture and experiment and after the next dive he was convinced. The level of detail increased perceptibly by opening up a couple of stops.

BUT this was effectively scientific photography where detail is of paramount importance in identifying creatures, such as bryozoans, using underwater photography which is not easy (my friend is an expert on Bryozoans so you will appreciate his desire for every scrap of detail). The overall composition and other artistic considerations are often (but not always) secondary.

In the real world of image creation few will need the extra nuances of detail in images which are not scrutinised to the nth degree for data which may be of real significance. Depth of field will alter the entire look of an image, so the trade off is the overall look versus nuances of detail. Its very easy to get hung up on precision because that's the easy way to differentiate performance (especially by reviewers because it equates to easy to compare numbers) but it ignores the fact that images are rarely about ultimate detail and almost invariably about content, which should over-ride minor technical concerns every time. If you need to use a very small aperture then so be it.

[Dennis]

7 hours ago, pgk said:

but it ignores the fact that images are rarely about ultimate detail and almost invariably about content, which should over-ride minor technical concerns every time

Amen! Totally agree.

If I can reach an extreme DOP at f/11, all happy. But if I can't, fuck the details, and embrace the f/16 or even f/22. The purpose and the content is what is more important to me.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[BernardC]

23 hours ago, pgk said:

Try the Super-Angulon-R (https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/21mm_f/3.4_Super-Angulon-R). It focusses down to 8 inches and can be adapted to M mount easily enough. In fact Ffordes have such a one in stock: https://www.ffordes.com/p/SOR-18-016619/lenses-leica-m/21mm-f34-r-22228-m-adapter

One small note, that's the earlier Super-Angulon R from the 1960s, which is the same as the contemporary M lens, except that it focuses closer. It may cause some colour issues on an M10 (someone here will know). The lens I mentioned earlier is the Super-Angulon R 4.0 from the 1970s, which is a retrofocus SLR lens, and should be safer in that regard. The earlier lens extended into the camera, so it had to be used with mirror lock-up.

[pgk]

11 minutes ago, BernardC said:

One small note, that's the earlier Super-Angulon R from the 1960s, which is the same as the contemporary M lens, except that it focuses closer. It may cause some colour issues on an M10 (someone here will know). The lens I mentioned earlier is the Super-Angulon R 4.0 from the 1970s, which is a retrofocus SLR lens, and should be safer in that regard. The earlier lens extended into the camera, so it had to be used with mirror lock-up.

The nice thing about the Super-Angulon-R (f/3.4 = M version optically) is that it performs well close up due to the reasonably symmetrical design. It has drawbacks, as does the M version though, but can be useful - I had one with an M adapter but eventually replaced it with the M version but I do miss the close focus.