Using an f2.8 Lens at say f/22

[Northern Light]

I purchased a TamronSP 24-70mm F/2.8 for my D600 as I'm starting to do more landscape photography. I notice where a lot of the photos that I'm studying in this genre use a 24mm F/2.8 at f/16 to f/22. What is the purpose of paying good money for a F2.8 lens when you will be shooting at much higher f stops?

[Shadowman]

I purchased a TamronSP 24-70mm F/2.8 for my D600 as I'm starting to do more landscape photography. I notice where a lot of the photos that I'm studying in this genre use a 24mm F/2.8 at f/16 to f/22. What is the purpose of paying good money for a F2.8 lens when you will be shooting at much higher f stops?

The effects you can get at wide open and the assist with lowlight shooting. What interests me is the amount of portrait shots I see wide open, are fast lenses for portraiture only used wide open when the background is complicated?

[shreds]

It never fails to amaze me hows many photographers are oblivious to the background, when that should be the starting point for any portrait shot.

Why buy a f2.8 when shoot stopped down......well the better lenses tend to be 'faster' and have an aperture of f2.8 or wider and therefore better construction and glass do help with less of the other undesirable factors such as CA and distortions visible on cheaper lenses that may be f5.6.

With a D600 you want to be edging into the better lenses rather than the economy bracket, otherwise the undesirable effects will start to show. Borrow a few cheaper examples and judge for yourself.

You have yourself a good camera but the lens will be much more critical in achieving a better shot as long as the eye and brain behind the viewfinder is right too.

[FeatherMonkey]

Another point that I'm aware of but as a learner is faster glass is better quality. Maybe wrong though!

[Manfred M]

I have the f/2.8 24-70mm Nikkor that I use with my D800. It is really my "go to" lens and I use it for most types of shooting.

First of all, let's define landscape photography as something that is far more than shooting great vistas; it also means shooting in urban environments (also referred to as urban landscapes) as well as exploring parts / details of the landscape. Shallow depth of field is a very important compositional tool for this type of work, and of course to get those types of shots, a wide aperture is required.

A bit of a warning about f/16 and f/22. While these apertures give you more depth of field, there is a tradeoff as diffraction will set in and cause some softening in your image.

For instance; this is a "traditional" landscape shot (I used the f/2.8 70-200mm lens here), but shot it wide open (f/2.8) to ensure that the background is out of focus.




The reason for the narrow depth of field is that there was wave action in the water in the background and I wanted to avoid showing those.

[Geoff F]

To some extent, there is absolutely no point in purchasing a F2.8 lens to use at F16 or narrower, unless you want (and are able to) attach a 2x converter. For example my macro lens is F2.8 and I rarely shoot wider than F11.

However, that Tamron is an excellent all round lens and the difference becomes very apparent when you need to shoot somewhere around F4. Outside of that particular use, just ignore the options on the unused end, as I do. That lens has proved to be one of the best lenses which I have ever used.

[dje]

I purchased a TamronSP 24-70mm F/2.8 for my D600 as I'm starting to do more landscape photography. I notice where a lot of the photos that I'm studying in this genre use a 24mm F/2.8 at f/16 to f/22. What is the purpose of paying good money for a F2.8 lens when you will be shooting at much higher f stops?

A lens of this type incorporates a fairly complex optical design which is required to compensate for the aberrations that occur with wide apertures. At f22 and to a lesser extent at f16, this is of little significance as the lens sharpness is dominated by diffraction. However in my landscape work, I usually find that apertures between f8 and f11 give sufficient depth of field for the scenes involved. Generally speaking, lens sharpness peaks around apertures between f4 and f8 for many lenses. The type of lens you mention should be very good at these apertures.

Dave

[Northern Light]

I wish to thank everyone for their comments and Grumpy Diver for that beautiful photo. I agree with dje about his comment between f8 and f11 and was a little surprised in a landscape how to do book that most of his photos were between f16 and f22. Reason why I raised the question in the first place. I am off to a 2 week trip to Newfoundland in a couple of weeks. Will practise while there as I told that the scenery is spectacular especially then during iceberg. Will encounter lots of fog so it would be greatly appreciated if anyone has some quick tips to shoot landscape in fog. Again, thank you for all your comments.

[Shadowman]

I wish to thank everyone for their comments and Grumpy Diver for that beautiful photo. I agree with dje about his comment between f8 and f11 and was a little surprised in a landscape how to do book that most of his photos were between f16 and f22. Reason why I raised the question in the first place. I am off to a 2 week trip to Newfoundland in a couple of weeks. Will practise while there as I told that the scenery is spectacular especially then during iceberg. Will encounter lots of fog so it would be greatly appreciated if anyone has some quick tips to shoot landscape in fog. Again, thank you for all your comments.

Smaller apertures are often used when a photographer is attempting a technique called "deep depth of field", usually successfully achieved with wide angle lenses and an interesting foreground.

http://www.shutterbug.com/content/deep-depth-field

[dje]

I wish to thank everyone for their comments and Grumpy Diver for that beautiful photo. I agree with dje about his comment between f8 and f11 and was a little surprised in a landscape how to do book that most of his photos were between f16 and f22. Reason why I raised the question in the first place.

It depends to some extent on the size of the sensor. If the photos in the book were taken with a camera with a sensor larger than "full frame", eg medium format, then diffraction in those circumstances would be less of a problem.

Dave

[Polar01]

Remember that you can not really focus into the fog, focus on close and do not worry about what is in the fog.

Cheers: Allan

[Northern Light]

Thank you very much for the explanation in your link as the examples in the book I referenced are of the type mirrored in your link.

Smaller apertures are often used when a photographer is attempting a technique called "deep depth of field", usually successfully achieved with wide angle lenses and an interesting foreground.

http://www.shutterbug.com/content/deep-depth-field

[rpcrowe]

Another point that I'm aware of but as a learner is faster glass is better quality. Maybe wrong though!

Not necessarily so... As an example, the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and the 70-200mm F/4L IS lens are not as fast as the Canon 50mm f/1,8 Mark-2. However both of those lenses are better quality than the 50mm f/1.8 Mark-2.

Often however, you are paying for better build, less chromatic distortion and generally better performance, rather than just the f/stop of any lens. Another parameter you pay for is a constant f/stop on a zoom lens rather than an f/stop which will vary according to what focal length the lens is at...

Acuracy and speed of auto focus is another quality that is usually better in higher priced lenses...

[Manfred M]

Fog can be a great compositional element as it can really help "simplify" an image by removing extraneous elements. But it also can make for very boring images so you may need to coax out details in post. These aren't landscape shots, but were taken in very heavy fog.



This is a straight out of camera jpeg





And the same image with a bit of tweaking in Photoshop:




or





Enjoy your trip ti NL; it's on my "to do" list, but I haven't gotten there yet. It's the only Province I haven't been to yet. Nunuvut and Yukon are on the to do list as well.

[William W]

Another point that I'm aware of but as a learner is faster glass is better quality. Maybe wrong though!

Following on from Richard's example, Canon have produced six, EF Series 50mm Prime Lenses: 50 F/1.0L; 50 F/1.2L; 50 F/1.4; 50 F/1.8; 50 F/1.8MkII; 50 F/2.5 - arguably the best 'quality image' across the range of apertures is produced by the 50/2.5, which is the slowest lens of all the six.

*

Also, some Photographers who really need F/1.0 or F/1.2 or F1.4 in a Prime or F/2.8 in a zoom, are willing to pay the money for that very fast lens speed, simple to use a lens at that very fast lens speed whilst knowing they might need to sacrifice a little bit of image quality when they use the lens wide open.

A few examples of why one might be willing to pay for a lens with a very fast lens speed:

To make a very, very shallow depth of field
To make a very fast shutter speed to arrest Subject Motion
To use the lens with a tele-extender and to keep Auto Focus
To have a very bright view-finder
To use for astro-photography

WW

[mrinmoyvk]

Plain and simple, not because the car can be driven at 200mph one should only drive it at that speed.
There are landscapes where you dont want the background to be prominent. Or some night scenes where you dont want slow shutter speed. This is when f2.8 comes in. I wont say 24-70 f2.8 is specifically desined for landscapes although one can capture anythign with any lens. I would select a wide angle if I want to go for landscapes specifically and 24-70 if I want to go for portraits spcifically. Having said that one can find portraits shot with wideangle more pleasing.

[William W]

Plain and simple, not because the car can be driven at 200mph one should only drive it at that speed.

Nicely put.

WW

[FeatherMonkey]

Thanks Richard and William for the clarification. Seems I made an error in joining large aperture glass being more expensive because of production and generally expecting/presuming better IQ. I've still got plenty to learn.

[Shadowman]

Thank you very much for the explanation in your link as the examples in the book I referenced are of the type mirrored in your link.

One more point for anyone else not familiar with "deep depth of field, I read about this technique from photographer Joe McNally and he stated that the wide angle is a must for the technique. Also, when using a crop factor camera, the focal range of the lens has to be less than 16 mm or you won't get the desired effect; 24mm on the D600 should be fine.

[Northern Light]

Fog can be a great compositional element as it can really help "simplify" an image by removing extraneous elements. But it also can make for very boring images so you may need to coax out details in post. These aren't landscape shots, but were taken in very heavy fog.

Manfred, I'm in Montreal and have visited every province & territory but never NL so I'm looking forward to the visit especially during iceberg season as I'm told that there are many around this year as the winds from Greenland have been favourable. Was in Ottawa recently for tulip festival, very beautiful city. Thanks for the photos and comments. Greatly appreciated.

This is a straight out of camera jpeg





And the same image with a bit of tweaking in Photoshop:




or





Enjoy your trip ti NL; it's on my "to do" list, but I haven't gotten there yet. It's the only Province I haven't been to yet. Nunuvut and Yukon are on the to do list as well.