Sony a series: My depth of field is TOO shallow…

[Manfred M]

Thank for confirming my post #33, Peter, viz.

"It is well known that the great majority of lenses can be a little soft wide open and that they do sharpen up when stopped down to an oft-quoted f/4 to f/8."

While this is technically correct, in general, it does not really impact most photos done with modern cameras and lenses, even kit lenses. If one down-samples to display on a screen, then it generally is even less important. Create a large print and it does come into play, especially in fine textures and details, but sharpening can usually correct enough.

Unfortunately unless one shoots from a heavy duty tripod and takes time on focusing properly, these issues will creep in.

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by xpatUSA Thank for confirming my post #33, Peter, viz.

"It is well known that the great majority of lenses can be a little soft wide open and that they do sharpen up when stopped down to an oft-quoted f/4 to f/8."

While this is technically correct, in general, it does not really impact most photos done with modern cameras and lenses, even kit lenses. If one down-samples to display on a screen, then it generally is even less important.

Makes one wonder why test-houses even bother to mention the so-called "sweet spot" as far as sharpness and f-number is concerned. I usually refer to Lenstip.com to look at their lens tests. They didn't have a Sony 24-105mm but they did have the following which arguably should be better.

https://www.lenstip.com/261.4-Lens_r...esolution.html

Nevertheless, at the full zoom of 70mm, the numeric difference for MTF50 is quite significant.

At center. f/2.8: 40 lp/mm. f/4: 46 lp/mm
At edge. f/2.8: 26 lp/mm. f/4: 36 lp/mm





If members here are persuaded that such differences are unimportant, then so be it. If I were personally to shoot a sharp edge at say f/2.8 and then f/4, I know well enough which would be the "better" image without even bothering to do it.

Create a large print and it does come into play, especially in fine textures and details, but sharpening can usually correct enough.

Viewing on a monitor zoomed in at Nearest Neighbor is also sufficient to show detail sharpness - I do it all the time.

Again, if members are persuaded that shooting wide open with the inevitable aberrations and sharpening up later is OK, then so be it. I find personally that sharpening up a soft image does not guarantee equality to a sharper capture.

Unfortunately, unless one shoots from a heavy duty tripod and takes time on focusing properly, these issues will creep in.

Agreed that, for example, pointing-and-shooting BIF at max zoom and full auto could indeed cause issues, LOL.

[Manfred M]

Makes me wonder why test-houses even bother to mention the so-called "sweet spot" as far as sharpness and f-number is concerned.

They test what is easy to test rather than something that is actually relevant to photographers.

That's why I generally ignore the test results. The moment one hand-holds or shoots outdoors, all those ideal conditions they used to create those test images are right out the window.

To me the proof is that I have won awards for my print work (usually large format) using inexpensive cameras and lenses that do not have amazing test results. My most important piece of equipment to get sharp images is my heavy duty tripod.

That being said, I prefer working with images from "pro" glass and full frame sensors because it is easier to get quality images with that type of equipment.

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by xpatUSA Makes me wonder why test-houses even bother to mention the so-called "sweet spot" as far as sharpness and f-number is concerned.

They test what is easy to test rather than something that is actually relevant to photographers.

Roger Cicala, highly respected owner of Lens Rentals, would be delighted to read that, Manfred!

That's why I generally ignore the test results. The moment one hand-holds or shoots outdoors, all those ideal conditions they used to create those test images are right out the window.

[edit] I disagree.

If one hand-holds or shoots outdoors, on average the 'wide open' shots will be softer than those shot at the 'sweet' aperture, correct? Which means that those test images remain relevant because the lens performance does not change when it is plunked onto a camera.

[Manfred M]

Roger Cicala, highly respected owner of Lens Rentals, would be delighted to read that, Manfred!

And in the context that I have given, Roger is likely to agree with me.

If I were doing a commercial job in a studio, for a major client, I would be far more inclined to look it and use the highest end equipment I could rent. It may not ultimately make a lot of difference, but the clients expect it for the thousands of dollars that they are shelling out. The clients at major corporations expect their photographer to use a Phase One or Hasselblad with prime lenses and use ProPhoto lights. Those are the industry standard. A few thousand dollars extra in equipment rental fees is just a rounding error in a multi-million dollar ad campaign.

But that is not something the majority of CiC members will ever be doing.

"I generally ignore the test results." ... would that be your advice to Forum Members too, or is it just a personal view?

That is exactly what I have said on this forum many times before. I will continue to say it, especially for the folks that output images that are under 2MP for internet social media display.

The only reason I can justify the higher end gear is that I do make a lot of large prints and I can definitely tell the difference. The other reason I use it is that there are images where I want a shallow DoF, so a large sensor and fast lenses (shot wide open or very close to wide open) where this does make a difference.

[xpatUSA]

And in the context that I have given, Roger is likely to agree with me.

If I were doing a commercial job in a studio, for a major client, I would be far more inclined to look it and use the highest end equipment I could rent. It may not ultimately make a lot of difference, but the clients expect it for the thousands of dollars that they are shelling out. The clients at major corporations expect their photographer to use a Phase One or Hasselblad with prime lenses and use ProPhoto lights. Those are the industry standard. A few thousand dollars extra in equipment rental fees is just a rounding error in a multi-million dollar ad campaign.

But that is not something the majority of CiC members will ever be doing.





That is exactly what I have said on this forum many times before. I will continue to say it, especially for the folks that output images that are under 2MP for internet social media display.

The only reason I can justify the higher end gear is that I do make a lot of large prints and I can definitely tell the difference. The other reason I use it is that there are images where I want a shallow DoF, so a large sensor and fast lenses (shot wide open or very close to wide open) where this does make a difference.

OK, I fold since we are never likely to agree on the matter and others here don't seem interested.

[tao2]

Hi Folks,

3+ pages. lots of input. Why not just suggest the easy, uncomplicated way.... Hyperfocal distance - Bray, just get some hyperfocal tables for your lenses, then look up the calculations for each lens you have (inc. the 2x/3x extenders). Fire away tae yer heart's content...After all they're not for competition ..................yet? This method suits landscapes to a T - ye'd need a tripod for wildlife anyway...

[pschlute]

Hi Folks,

3+ pages. lots of input. Why not just suggest the easy, uncomplicated way.... Hyperfocal distance - Bray, just get some hyperfocal tables for your lenses, then look up the calculations for each lens you have (inc. the 2x/3x extenders). Fire away tae yer heart's content...After all they're not for competition ..................yet? This method suits landscapes to a T - ye'd need a tripod for wildlife anyway...

i am going to disagree. Whilst your answer has some positive points, there is the risk that the use of DOF will mask the problem of incorrect focus, a point I made earlier in this thread. One needs to understand the concept of the focal plane and DOF, and understand them as individual processes before one can take shortcuts.

My own view on sharpness is that it is over rated when measured as a goal in itself. I see many reviews on youtube or the like, where the reviewer has no comprehension of what makes a good image. They like to say lens A is rubbish whereas lens B is great because that is what gives them "likes".

Sharp focus at the focal plane is important, as is selecting the DOF that gives your image the effect to want it to have. But it is only one attribute of an image.

[xpatUSA]

Hi Folks,

3+ pages. lots of input. Why not just suggest the easy, uncomplicated way.... Hyperfocal distance - Bray, just get some hyperfocal tables for your lenses, then look up the calculations for each lens you have (inc. the 2x/3x extenders). Fire away tae yer heart's content...After all they're not for competition ..................yet? This method suits landscapes to a T - ye'd need a tripod for wildlife anyway...

Hullooo Jimmy!

Even simpler for landscapes:

1) Focus lens on infinity.

2) Shoot.

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/TIAOOFe.pdf

[Manfred M]

Hullooo Jimmy!

Even simpler for landscapes:

1) Focus lens on infinity.

2) Shoot.

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/TIAOOFe.pdf

Current wisdom seems to be "focus stack" and select relevant foreground, middle ground and background focus planes. Some modern cameras, for instance the Nikon D850 will do this automatically, when desired.

The current "fashion" among high end landscape photographers is to have the entire scene in focus from front to back.

Not everyone is convinced that this is necessary, but it seems to be what curators are looking for these days.

[Stagecoach]

OK, I fold since we are never likely to agree on the matter and others here don't seem interested.

I doubt it's because others are not interested Ted, they simply know lenses are softer the wider open they are and don't need charts and figures to confirm that.

Having shot many different genres over the years I can not think of a single time that I have ever gone through the thought process prior to a shot with a conclusion 'that I should not open the aperture any wider because it will soften the image'.

[xpatUSA]

I doubt it's because others are not interested Ted, they simply know lenses are softer the wider open they are and don't need charts and figures to confirm that.

Having shot many different genres over the years I can not think of a single time that I have ever gone through the thought process prior to a shot with a conclusion 'that I should not open the aperture any wider because it will soften the image'.

I fold again. Reviewers are clearly wasting their time even mentioning it. You know, statements similar to "the lens sharpened up when stopped down a couple of EV" ... best ignored by the cognoscenti, eh?

[Manfred M]

I fold again. Reviewers are clearly wasting their time even mentioning it. You know, statements similar to "the lens sharpened up when stopped down a couple of EV" ... best ignored by the cognoscenti, eh?

You are starting to catch on Ted...

A few more thoughts for you on this topic:

1. I received a comment on one of my images in a competition last year where one judge felt that the image was too sharp and I should have softened it up; and

2. Over the past two years, I have been on competition juries (three judges) and have judged well over 1000 images in local, regional and national competitions. I have yet to hear a judge say that the photographer should have used a sharper lens or different aperture that gave a sharper image.

However, a common complaint from the judges can be softness due to a focusing issue or motion blur.

[Stagecoach]

I fold again. Reviewers are clearly wasting their time even mentioning it.

But you read it and digest what they have said

[William W]

Personally I am enjoying the conversation concerning lens sharpness and the use at maximum aperture, this type of conversation development is great, IMO.

On that topic, I think that there are times when the best choice is to use (a fast and good quality lens) wide open: on other occasions, the choice to stop down a bit is better. One example of a factor in that choice is balancing the relevance/necessity of the sharpness required at the edge of the frame. For example, shooting a Portrait, especially (but not limited to) action sport, the edge of the frame usually doesn't need to be tack sharp at all. Another example of a factor in that choice is the relevance of Bokeh in the shot; and yet another example of a factor in that choice is the consideration of the limits of (High) ISO of the camera (or the film).

***

However, I think that it is also a relevant time to point out that, predicated on quantitative investigation of the samples provided by the OP, the issues (plural) that Braydon is seeking to remedy, are mostly all quite removed from his choice of using the lens wide open, or not.

The two exceptions are:

(lens testing) to make tests of focus accuracy of the lenses, in a battery of tests one must always make samples at the Maximum Aperture.

(in field use) when he is using the x2.0 tele-extender, I reiterate my advise to ALWAYS stop the lens down a bit in this situation.

WW