« on: August 27, 2012, 09:34:19 AM »
I see your point. It is clear. I guess I just wasn't thinking that way when I read the original question. I was thinking about working with a landscape or architecture photographer and me telling him I'm going to shoot at f/2 because that's the sharpest aperture for the lens, and then him taking my camera and lens away from me. I can agree that at a fixed focal length, and consistent, fixed focal plane, a lens can be sharper at f/2 vs. f/8, or what have you. I also interpreted as, ok, what aperture will make most of my scene sharpest? I guess there are several ways to think about and measure sharpness. I suppose if you picked a finite point in the landscape scene, let's say your focal point you chose, and shot at f/4 and then f/11, sure the whole scene would be in focus at f/11, but perhaps that point you focused on is sharper at f/4, than f/11.
Aye, the artistic needs should certainly outweigh achieving maximum sharpness. When it comes to landscapes, I'd pick f/11 on any normal lens, or I'd use a tilt/shift lens and use tilt to maximize focus to infinity at a more ideal aperture like f/4 or f/5.6. For architecture, its roughly the same deal...not much in the way of very fine detail in architecture, and you could probably stop down to your hearts content if you wanted to. For portraiture, if you need to get your full subject within DOF, f/8 is certainly going to do a better job making your entire subject sharp vs. f/4. Even if it limits the amount of fine detail that can be resolved, using a wider aperture would be antithetical to your primary goals.