Shoot wide open or stop it down a bit when it's not about "light" and more about DOF?

[kinetic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Shooting wide open has it's benefits:

• More light
• More separation / bokeh

But the problems I've seen are:

• Missed focus
• Not as sharp
• Really shallow DOF isn't always great, and can be a crutch to make an image seemingly more interesting.

I've been shooting at f/2 or f/2.8 with my 50mm summilux, just because I'm new to rangefinders so I'm scared I'll miss focus. So far I've actually been so much better at focusing (whole other topic), so it's made me wonder, am I missing the "magic" of this lens and potentially others if I don't shoot wide open at f/1.4?

I've read that people love summilux lenses, for example, because of the look at 1.4. Once you get to f/2 or 2/8 you're just in the world of the cron and you lose the "magic" of the lux.

Is that true, or does a summilux still have a different look/feel at f/2 vs. summicron equivalent?

 

After posting, I've also noticed a similar post. I guess to keep this topic a bit different, I want to know more about the summilux vs summicron differences more-so than just overall DOF in general and historically.

 

Edited April 18, 2023 by kinetic
found another similar post

[Advertisement]

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

[erl]

I would offer a different direction to decide on. Consider your given motif at any point in time. How can you best, in your opinion, render it. There are many possible variables, but to stay on topic re your question about 'wide open, DOF' etc. They are ONLY tools at your disposal. Not the creators of images.

You would never see a carpenter wielding a chisel and looking to see what he could make with it. Similarly, IMO it is a mistake for a photographer to 'wield a Noctilux or Summilux and say' what can I shoot'?

Now I am the first to put my hand up and declare that I own, and use, all Noctilux,  Summilux and Summicron 50mm lenses, as well as others. I know what virtues those lenses bring me, but I don't use them because I can. I use them when they serve a purpose I have already decided on. Be motif driven. Not tool driven.

A simple example. Yesterday I shot only my f1 Noctilux. Not because I wanted to, but because I was shooting in a dark environment  with 400iso B&W film. I needed the speed of the noct to get an image. I would have used differing focal lengths on occasions but those lenses were not fast enough. So I had to compromise.

Another difference from DOF is the bokeh each lens offers. This does vary, not just with the lens design, but also the style of lighting on the OOF areas. It IMO always comes down to personal taste. The same lens will vary its bokeh according to the light quality.

[lct]

15 hours ago, kinetic said:

[...] does a summilux still have a different look/feel at f/2 vs. summicron equivalent?

• If it is a Summilux 50/1.4 pre-asph v2 or v3 (no experience with v1), it is softer at edges and corners below f/8 but it has also less flare and less focus shift than the Summicron 50/2 v4 or v5. Otherwise, Summilux v2 or v3 and Summicron v4 or v5 are both Mandler lenses with close rendering.
• If it is a Summilux 50/1.4 asph, it has not that pre-asph softness at edges and corners and it has less flare and less focus shift as well but it has also more acutance than both 50/1.4 v2 or v3 and 50/2 v4 or v5 which have a gentler rendering as a comparison.

[TomB_tx]

I guess I'm a dinosaur... in over 50 years of Leica M use, I seldom shoot wide open unless needed for low light, or the occasional shot that NEEDS shallow DOF. But then I'm an engineer, not an artist. 

[derleicaman]

Shooting digital changes the entire equation. Especially when shooting something like the M10 Monochrom. You can almost shoot at any ISO you want and still have very usable images. I own both versions of the Summilux, the 50/1.2 and various Summicrons. For some reason I am attracted to the Noctilux, even though technically the 50/1.4 ASPH is superior. Probably because the original is "unobtanium", and the re-issue made having and using this lens possible.

I seldom shoot wide open, and get much better results at 1-2 stops from wide open. I do practice technique almost every day with my M camera. Then I am shooting wide open to assess nailing focus and camera shake. Digital makes this so easy to do. I do this even though I have been shooting M cameras for 55 years. I do this with a wide array of lenses, mainly for fun, while watching TV. Gives me something to keep me occupied and when you are actually out shooting, you have developed the muscle memory and feel for a particular set-up to get better results without much prep.

Back in film days, the 1.4 aperture was an essential, and my go to lenses were my 35/1.4 Summilux and 50 Summilux. This was true especially when shooting 64 ASA Kodachrome. 400 ASA color and B&W film was a much appreciated luxury!

[pgk]

The three most important aspects of taking a photograph are: Subject, Composition & Lighting. The rest is technical and can be sorted out. It could well be argued that the choice of aperture is part of the skill of determining the composition, and so the aperture selected should suit the subject, the lighting and the desired image. I own a couple of Summiluxes but rarely use them wide open. Occasionally though, when the appropriate situation occurs, I do so. Just because a lens is a fast one is not a reason to use it wide open, unless the image requires you to.

[evikne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 hours ago, kinetic said:

I've been shooting at f/2 or f/2.8 with my 50mm summilux, just because I'm new to rangefinders so I'm scared I'll miss focus. So far I've actually been so much better at focusing (whole other topic), so it's made me wonder, am I missing the "magic" of this lens and potentially others if I don't shoot wide open at f/1.4?

I've read that people love summilux lenses, for example, because of the look at 1.4. Once you get to f/2 or 2/8 you're just in the world of the cron and you lose the "magic" of the lux.

Is that true, or does a summilux still have a different look/feel at f/2 vs. summicron equivalent?

I've been a wide-open shooter for many years. Only recently have I learned to appreciate more depth of field in my images. I've actually gotten a little tired of shallow depth of field all the time. Two things that have led me in this direction are that I value small and light lenses. Also, I've started to like older glass, which often needs to be stopped down a little to perform better.

I think most of the "magic" (at least in newer lenses) is in the largest apertures. If you stop down, they will all look more or less the same and you just waste unnecessary size, weight and money. On the other hand, with fast lenses you have the ability to open up the "magic" when you want or need it, which of course you can't do with slower lenses.

[oldwino]

I think that shooting wide open all the time borders on fetishism. And, it is boring - every shot the same half-sharp coffee cup/fencepost/fire hydrant with "lots o' bokeh". More often than not, some context (ie background info) will improve a picture. Also, the background will often seem more "harmonious" when the lens is stopped down, even just a little. 

I take shots like this too, when I first get a new lens, so I can see what the lens does wide open. Then I work on figuring out the apertures I like to shoot that lens with. My V1 Summilux 50 was really sweet between f4 and f8. Still nice background blur, btw. Same for the V2 50 Summilux.  My 1935 Summar is brilliant at f3.2-f6.3. 

Of course, everyone has the "right" to shoot how she or he pleases, but try out some of those slightly smaller apertures and maybe find out some new ways of seeing. 

[Antonio Russell]

Modern lens choice is irrelevant to photography. Has no bearing whatsoever. It is all about the phorgrapher.

 

[pgk]

4 minutes ago, Antonio Russell said:

Modern lens choice is irrelevant to photography. Has no bearing whatsoever. It is all about the phorgrapher.

A photographer has to choose to use whatever tools (lenses) he or she requires. A choice has to be made and it will, to some extent, depend on subject matter and desired output requirements. Choice is inevitable. But yes, the photographer's input is probably more important than reading the forum might sometimes suggest😄.

[KFo]

Funny this topic came up.  We were recently on a little holiday.  I often take the 35 Summilux ASPH (a lens I greatly admire) as a sole lens when traveling.

This trip, I took the Summilux as normal but I had also put a 6 stop ND on it and shot wide open most of the time only backing off to f4 & f/8 on rare occasions.  Part of the reason is as @evikne refers to as the magic.

For me this approach became really informative from the standpoint of knowing "what exactly am I photographing & what exactly is important here."  It really forced that internal dialog.

The 50 would be an entirely different beast than my 35 but I am finding a nice transition into OOF with the 35 wide open.  The b-word doesn't really enter into the equation for me on this lens.  

 

[dpitt]

IMO the aperture for a shot is the most critical decision to be made from an artistic point of view. One can argue that the FL and composition is the main decision, but in many cases what you have mounted on the moment is what you have to work with. The aperture will determine the DOF and the character of your lens. e.g. the Summilux 35 v1 changes dramatically from F1.4 to F8, much more than any other Leica IMO.

Other parameters like ISO and shutter time are not really visible in the end result if you stay within the technical capabilities of the body. So I care much less and use auto mode if I am in a hurry. Of course there are exceptions where shutter time can make the difference but these are rare.

[kinetic]

The forum code compresses images so much that I don't think this is a great example, but I feel like I still get plenty of the magic of my 50mm summilux bc even at f/3.5 that I used here (I think I was going for f/2.8 but bumped the aperture ring). The good thing is, in the uncompressed image, I got the model's face/hair/body fully in focus, and you can see the layers behind her are well separated. The light fall-off is still there.

The question is am I missing some other "magic" that I could have gotten at f/1.4 other than just a lot more DOF (which wasn't what I wanted here anyway)?

 

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!

 

Cropped down:

[gotium]

27 minutes ago, kinetic said:

The forum code compresses images so much that I don't think this is a great example, but I feel like I still get plenty of the magic of my 50mm summilux bc even at f/3.5 that I used here (I think I was going for f/2.8 but bumped the aperture ring). The good thing is, in the uncompressed image, I got the model's face/hair/body fully in focus, and you can see the layers behind her are well separated. The light fall-off is still there.

The question is am I missing some other "magic" that I could have gotten at f/1.4 other than just a lot more DOF (which wasn't what I wanted here anyway)?

 

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!

 

Cropped down:

I think that's perfect! You might "lose" some magic if parts of your subject go out of focus at f/1.4. 

On the other hand, I do think there's some magic with using that lens wide open, maybe not on facial portraits. I love the bokeh itself and sometimes use that as the subject, or the main point of the photo. 

[erl]

As I am reading some comment here, it would seem that aperture is used to control DOF, which it does.. Well of course that is true, but not exclusively. Subject distance is another great controller of DOF.

Speaking for myself, I regularly use wide aperture to limit the DOF in my landscape images. I declarer that I am not really a landscape photographer, but that does not matter. I like to use selective DOF to emphasize a particular plane in my shot, sometimes, which relies on the psychology as when utilized in street or portraiture. Usually I select planes according to the light, but sometimes selective DOF can enliven an otherwise 'boring' landscape because the light is flat.

My default aperture is f5.6, as a starting point. I do frequently open up to max for the particular lens, but that is just my bias, partly driven by what I shoot. I can't remember when I stopped down (willingly) beyond 5.6. Probably driven by 'excessive' light.

As I have said before, ones main driver should be the motif. The camera, including aperture, should just be the creative tool.

[Ko.Fe.]

From my 50 and wide experience almost all 50/2 and their 50/1.4(1.5) pairs are equally same in difference.

Faster gives more milkier bokeh even with f5.6-f8.

Also, I'm Puts on lenses follower.  All 50mm lenses I was able to read from him have optimum performance on f5.6 and f8.

More light and no RF errors trick for me is to use fast lenses for what they were originally implemented. Low light, no crazy ISO photos. I take photos with objects in focus at greater distance with f1.5, for example. It is sharp enough and not so much of RF error, due to larger DOF.

[pgk]

12 hours ago, dpitt said:

IMO the aperture for a shot is the most critical decision to be made from an artistic point of view. One can argue that the FL and composition is the main decision, but in many cases what you have mounted on the moment is what you have to work with. The aperture will determine the DOF and the character of your lens. e.g. the Summilux 35 v1 changes dramatically from F1.4 to F8, much more than any other Leica IMO.

Other parameters like ISO and shutter time are not really visible in the end result if you stay within the technical capabilities of the body. So I care much less and use auto mode if I am in a hurry. Of course there are exceptions where shutter time can make the difference but these are rare.

Is aperture selection an artistic or technical decision? I would say more technical. It determines what's recognizably in focus (akin to DoF) and how the background intrudes or otherwise. This is quite complex and is not an absolute much of the time (its often hard or difficult to envisage all nuances of its effect) so I would suggest that aperture selection is usually more of a technical decision than purely artistic, but with some overlap. Critical in some shots for sure, but less so in others, especially when everything is sufficiently in focus at many apertures.

[roelandinho]

For me aperture selection is one of the *least* important steps when taking a picture. 

Assuming focal length (lens) and film (color/bw and ISO) are already selected, 

1. Notice something interesting
2. Determine main subject(s) 
3. Determine supporting elements (secondary subjects) and distractions
4. Choose position and angle in order to organize the subject(s) and supporting elements in a pleasing way (*) while excluding distractions as much as possible
5. Choose an aperture and shutter speed combination in order to (a) get the desired exposure and (b) improve the visual prominence of the subject and supporting elements (in order of importance) compared to distractions that may still be in the frame, and (c) shows the desired amount of motion (**)
6. Decide the right moment to press the shutter.  

(*) This includes drawing attention to (or isolating) subject(s) by contrast (luminance, color, or other types of breaking pattern from the background), natural frames or leading lines. 
(**) Obviously this is give and take if we assume a fixed ISO. Also, if you are using a lens with peculiar rendering characteristics (e.g. a soft, glowy look wide open in a 'classic' fast lens) decide whether those characteristics detract from (or fit) the picture and adjust aperture accordingly. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[erl]

Just to put 'the cat amongst the pigeons' I could ask, " why buy expensive Leica lenses" if you don't exploit their prime characteristic? ie. Great image quality at maximum aperture. I remember it was that very fact that instantly switched me from Nikon to Leica, many years ago. My Nikon lenses were OK provided they were stopped down to 5.6 or more. The first Leica lens I acquired was a Summicron 50mm and one client swore that wide open its images walked all over the Nikons. That was the start of my embarrassingly large Leica collection. But I never regretted it. I am a self confessed large aperture junky, but ONLY because it works for most of what I shoot.

I should declare that I conducted a rigourous comparative test of Leica V's Nokon, both on tripods and still have those prints to remind me of why I spend so much money on Leica.

[dpitt]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

Is aperture selection an artistic or technical decision? I would say more technical. It determines what's recognizably in focus (akin to DoF) and how the background intrudes or otherwise. This is quite complex and is not an absolute much of the time (its often hard or difficult to envisage all nuances of its effect) so I would suggest that aperture selection is usually more of a technical decision than purely artistic, but with some overlap. Critical in some shots for sure, but less so in others, especially when everything is sufficiently in focus at many apertures.

 I just wanted to say that aperture (i.e. control of DOF) and that means it is also relative to focus distance (thanks @erl). So what I really meant to say is that control of DOF is one of the most important artistic decisions in most photographs. In fact the other most obvious decisions have not much to do with the camera, I am thinking of composition and choice of subject, and also the 'capturing the moment'. So that leaves the aperture setting as one of the most evident things you need to set to make a photo 'work'. Most other settings can not be as easily seen on the photo, like ISO value, exposure time, mode of shot etc...

@pgk Aperture is technical, but control of DOF is often an artistic decision, so it is one of the most 'artistic' settings to me. Most other artistic decisions are outside the camera as I tried to say above.