The "magic" of f/1.7

[LPS1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Greetings,

Newbie here and I was lucky enough to acquire my Q2 in September. I have really enjoyed it and have learned loads and know there's still much more to discover. I had a question about aperture.

I’ve come across quite a bit online about how special the lens is when wide open. I’ve certainly been using it at 1.7 quite a bit, even for some landscapes – focussing at greater distance to create more DoF. But, given other factors are taken into account (speed, ISO, etc), do you think there is much (or anything) lost when shooting above f/5.6? I've almost become worried about narrowing things down too far and losing the "magic". (I just got a Three Legged Thing, Brian, mostly for lower light landscapes but that's probably a whole other story.) I shoot RAW, use LR Classic, and the camera comes with me on early morning walks in rural Hertfordshire.

Grateful for your thoughts and experience. And Happy New Year!

LP

[hdmesa]

For landscape, the "magic" of f/1.7 is when you:

1. Focus on something closer than infinity and have some interesting separation happening – i.e., a lone tree in a field
2. Focus at infinity with object(s) close in the foreground that create some nice blur – i.e., shooting low with a field of grass in the foreground

– Otherwise f/5.6 to f/11 for landscape for me depending on how much light I have and how much I want to sharpen up the corners. Corners are difficult for the Q2's lens at 47mp if viewing at 100% magnification due to the rather aggressive built-in software distortion correction.

[plantagoo]

One of my favourite Q shots of all time (2015, South Africa, Table Mountain Seagull...  ) - this was shot with 1.7 in bright sunlight with 1/16000 (had to be quick).

That would be #1 from @hdmesa.

Greetings
Erik

 

 

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!

[LPS1]

Thank you and yes, as you both note, separation/bokeh can be magical in a landscape setting. Lovely photo, Erik (and I've been to that same spot!). I've been experimenting more with the second category. But what I'm gathering is that I probably shouldn't worry about simply using whatever aperture seems right for the circumstances, as with any other lens. Granted the Q's 1.7 is gorgeous, and might set it apart from lesser lenses at that stop, and might indeed encourage me to use it more frequently, but its gorgeousness extends through the full aperture range.

[PhotoCruiser]

vor 12 Stunden schrieb hdmesa:

– Otherwise f/5.6 to f/11 for landscape for me depending on how much light I have and how much I want to sharpen up the corners. Corners are difficult for the Q2's lens at 47mp if viewing at 100% magnification due to the rather aggressive built-in software distortion correction.

That is technically true but on the photo not always noticable as shown in the not edited photo below shot with a Q @ 1/1000sec - F/1.7 - ISO 100
DOF is great, the structure in the water was about 10 meters/yards far, the rapids and the houses below several hundred meters/yards

The same about corner softness or distortion is true using a diagonal fisheye,
sure it distorts like hell on the sides, but this can be not noticable if no straight lines are there and it can used as part of the composition.
Obviously it don't reflect the truth, but it can lead to very nice photos.

The photo below was a test, i almost never use less "wide open" as i prefer to add blur than sharpen if it is needed.
Except i want to isolate something small from a big background as explained already above or
i shoot sunsets or night photos where corner sharpness don't really matter.

 

vor 12 Stunden schrieb LPS1:

I’ve come across quite a bit online about how special the lens is when wide open.

I suggest you to invest a afternoon to shoot a well illuminated landscape but take series from f1.7 to f16 and analyze them on the computer.
This way you see by yourself the difference and correlations between f stops and exposure time
That is what i teach my underwater photography students, learn to know your camera by doing series to notice the difference

Chris

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!

Edited January 5, 2021 by PhotoCruiser

[marchyman]

10 hours ago, PhotoCruiser said:

I suggest you to invest a afternoon to shoot a well illuminated landscape but take series from f1.7 to f16 and analyze them on the computer.

Take two sets of shots, one set focused on something in the foreground and the second set focused on something in the background.

[Macberg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Am 4.1.2021 um 23:23 schrieb LPS1:

I've almost become worried about narrowing things down too far and losing the "magic".

It also really depends on the subject. I also like using wide open apertures, but in this example, I chose "only" f/2.2 because otherwise, the very busy pattern of the lichens on the rock would only be sharp (and therefore identifyable clearly enough) within very (too) narrow borders.

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!

Edited January 6, 2021 by Macberg

[Macberg]

vor 17 Stunden schrieb marchyman:

Take two sets of shots, one set focused on something in the foreground and the second set focused on something in the background.

@LPS1 As my collegues stated above - just experiment around with different subjects and backgrounds.

My experience is that when setting the focus on a point in the distance (with wide open apertures - here it was f/1.7), you need some kind of patterns (rather close to the line of sight) which become blurry in order to intensify the effect, in this case the rows of vine left and reight, "channelling" the view. If you add some vignette, you can intensify the effect, as the view is centered even more. (In my opinion, with adding vignette, however, you have to be really careful, as it can also destroy the overall impression of a 'wide landscape'.)
The effect can be quite nice, if the blurry foreground structures are right next to the in-focus background (without the smooth progression along the vine in the middle), e.g. in the top left corner of the picture below - I was lucky enough to have some clouds which I knew would be in-focus and which I could "place" right next to the vine when composing the picture. I had to pace along the beginnings of the rows until the sight down one of the rows in connection with the position of the clouds seemed right to me (also with a suitable object at the end - like that lamp post)
I also want to add, that it helps a lot if you are alone (or have a very patient wife who understands the imponderables of photography and is as pleased as I am with the results 😉) so that you have the time and calmness to compose a picture, especially if that means waiting for minutes, sometimes hours or even coming back to that same spot on another day.

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!

Edited January 6, 2021 by Macberg

[Macberg]

Additionally, my experience with the Leica Q (1 and 2) is, that you possibly have to fight with a fairly visible amount of diffraction when using very small apertures (like f/11 in this case), especially under very bright conditions.
Although the following picture (which I took a couple of years ago with the Q1) looks quite OK at first sight, there is practically no sharp area within the whole picture, although the focus point was set right at the backside of the person's head (see also the 100% magnified view).
In this case, I chose the small aperture because I really wanted to have a star-like sun-pattern. Well, there is a trade-off if you want certain effects at all costs...

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!

 

Edited January 7, 2021 by Macberg

[LPS1]

Thanks v much, folks - really helpful. Macberg - lovely shots and vine/clouds/sea shot exactly the kind of thing I'm experimenting with.

[vedivv]

It is always a tradeoff.  Unless bokeh is intentional or desired, F4~8 is very usable with plenty of DOF, with F5.6 probably being the sharpest (not by that much).  F5.6 appears to be sharpest aperture for many of other lenses as well.

I shoot at F11-16 pretty often, not for DOF, but for sun stars.

Q2 lens is pretty awesome, and F1.7 to F16 are all very usable.  The aperture choice should be dictated by creative needs.  

[LPS1]

Ok, that's the answer I was looking for. Perfect. Thanks so much.