October 21, 2014, 08:26:21 PM

Author Topic: Landscape Question  (Read 5795 times)

preppyak

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 786
    • View Profile
Re: Landscape Question
« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2012, 10:33:15 PM »
Thanks.  I do notice on landscape shots where I've been f/22, it just doesn't look as sharp as f/11.  Thanks.
Yeah, though, the times where you need to go to f/22 are generally not for reasons of making elements really sharp. For example, I find I only use over f/11 or f/13 if I'm trying to blur water and the scene is kind of bright. Otherwise, it's just as easy to shoot at f/8 with a faster shutter speed and not worry about diffraction. Obviously there exceptions though (night shots, etc)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Landscape Question
« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2012, 10:33:15 PM »

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
Re: Landscape Question
« Reply #16 on: August 12, 2012, 11:05:19 PM »
Thanks to everybody.  Wow, this has been really informative. 
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

@!ex

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
    • View Profile
    • My portfolio
Re: Landscape Question
« Reply #17 on: August 13, 2012, 01:08:17 AM »
f9 can get a lot of DOF, especially is you are worried about diffraction...  (this was shot at f9, if the post wasn't obvious enough).


March of Lines (AKA The Fountainhead) by @!ex, on Flickr

friedmud

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Landscape Question
« Reply #18 on: August 13, 2012, 02:06:48 AM »
Just to be completely clear here: Diffraction is not a property of the lens per se.  It's actually a "property" of the sensor... or more specifically, of the pixel size of your sensor.

The smaller the pixels are the sooner diffraction will start to show up.  This means that current APS-C sensors at 18MP are the "worst" when it comes to diffraction.  They will typically start to show effects at anything past f/7.1 (if you have good glass.  My 17-55 f2.8 on my 7D shows this admirably... but you really have to be pixel peeping until f/9).

On my 7D anything over about f/9 I can easily see the fuzziness set in from diffraction.  Beyond f/11 and it's really starting to degrade sharpness.... actually to the point where it's better to have some foreground feature that's only a couple of feet from my camera be a bit out of focus than it is to keep going past f/13 or so.  I only go past f/13 for other reasons other than DoF... like wanting to slow down shutter speed for a bright waterfall...

Just go do some tests yourself with your new lens.  Set everything to manual focus.  Use mirror lockup and a 2 second delay.  Shoot in AV mode (obviously).  Use a good tripod and choose a scene with quite a bit of depth of field (some rocks near the camera... a mountain or building in the distance... etc.).  Focus reasonably into the scene (or even just focus on the distant object) and start taking shots while stopping down in between.

In the beginning, foreground stuff will start to sharpen up... until you hit the diffraction limit then whatever you focused on will start to go fuzzy... and then even further on everything will start to go fuzzy.

I think one reason why there is so much "voodoo" around this issue because people don't take the time to do controlled tests.  You MUST use mirror lockup, 2 second delay (or remote trigger) and a good tripod or any vibration will cause inconsistent results...

friedmud

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Landscape Question
« Reply #19 on: August 13, 2012, 02:13:06 AM »
Oh - here is a good post I made a while back when I was evaluating my 7D purchase for Landscape use.  If you look down through it you will see a comparison of f/8 to f/11 and some more talk about diffraction limit...

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=2420.msg51542#msg51542

M.ST

  • Guest
Re: Landscape Question
« Reply #20 on: August 13, 2012, 03:07:14 AM »
Yes it´s true, shots at f/22 doesn't look as sharp as f/11. 

By almost all lenses the sharpness is best in the middle of the possible aperture range.

well_dunno

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
Re: Landscape Question
« Reply #21 on: August 13, 2012, 06:19:15 AM »
Recently saw this on DPR, all landscape shots at f/22: 
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4491391950/evolution-of-an-image

As I finished the entire article, the OP of that link, states at the end in the comments section that he was used to medium Format and the f/22 setting just stuck with him, certainly not ideal pertaining to our discussion, unless you're trying to achieve a slower shutter-speed for affect.

I personally don't understand the ISO 400 @f/22 settings.  ???

He says "By CarstenKriegerPhotography (3 days ago)
I always shoot landscapes with a tripod, it aids accurate composition and is necessary for longer exposure times. On this occasion I tried to keep exposure time short to avoid any blur that could be caused by the slight breeze, that's why I went for ISO 400. Usually I go for ISO 100 when a long exposure time isn't an issue. F22 obviously is to get maximum DOF."


I personally would not use the same settings but posted to exemplify even f/22 is/can be used when needed. Not a bad image after all, is it?

Cheers!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Landscape Question
« Reply #21 on: August 13, 2012, 06:19:15 AM »

Richard Lane

  • Guest
Re: Landscape Question
« Reply #22 on: August 13, 2012, 08:57:36 AM »
Thank You, I missed that! :)

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
Re: Landscape Question
« Reply #23 on: August 13, 2012, 09:52:41 AM »
Great stuff.  This fall there is a week in September where I have no sporting events and am traveling to Pennsylvania and I'd like to do some landscape scenery so this thread will certianly come in handy.  Hate to start another thread, but I'm definitely, anyways at least, going to buy a TS lens.  I cannot decide between the 17 and 24 at this point.  I don't shoot a whole lot below 20mm, but I wanted to ask.  Thanks.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
Re: Landscape Question
« Reply #24 on: August 13, 2012, 10:46:16 AM »
Thanks, I always wanted to buy a TS lens, and I think based upon your suggestion and my focal lengths that I typically use, I'll start with the 24.  If I really get into using them, I'd consider the 17 as well, down the road.  Thanks.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1367
    • View Profile
Re: Landscape Question
« Reply #25 on: August 13, 2012, 10:47:03 AM »
I cannot decide between the 17 and 24 at this point.
I have both.  Both are sharp, but the 24 is by far my sharpest lens.  You may want to try that one first, as it is easier to see in LiveView that you are getting tack sharp focus across the entire shot.

+1 for the 24 but for different reasons.  The 17 is much wider, so you either need a strong foreground element to make it interesting or you end up cropping it to get rid of large boring sections (i.e. sky).  If you need a wider lens for landscapes, a quick shift panorama would satisfy most situations.  The 17 is handy when space is confined (indoors) or the object is really large (i.e. skyscraper) and you can't move back.

Policar

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 422
    • View Profile
Re: Landscape Question
« Reply #26 on: August 14, 2012, 01:39:19 AM »
I cannot decide between the 17 and 24 at this point.
I have both.  Both are sharp, but the 24 is by far my sharpest lens.  You may want to try that one first, as it is easier to see in LiveView that you are getting tack sharp focus across the entire shot.

+1 for the 24 but for different reasons.  The 17 is much wider, so you either need a strong foreground element to make it interesting or you end up cropping it to get rid of large boring sections (i.e. sky).  If you need a wider lens for landscapes, a quick shift panorama would satisfy most situations.  The 17 is handy when space is confined (indoors) or the object is really large (i.e. skyscraper) and you can't move back.

Agreed.  17mm and the like can get you a big feeling that is dramatic and very cool (plus easier deep focus) but it's kind of a cheap trick that results in a lot of boring photos unless you go for a really "near/far" look.

I asked a photographer whose work I really like what focal lengths he uses--99% 150mm-300mm (and then crops) on 4x5.  So that's like 35mm to 70mm or so on full frame.  But it's harder and your subject must be a lot better to shoot at these focal lengths.  24mm has a nice wide feel without the extreme linear perspective distortion (and t/s will take care of converging verticals) you'd get from a wider lens.  And you can always stitch if you want to go super wide.

I make almost no money and am about to make a lot less so the TSE lenses are out of my price range by far...but I have heard some rumors about a T/S Samyang lens that will be announced in a month.  Might be worth waiting on if the $2000 price is hard to stomach.

KreutzerPhotography

  • Guest
Re: Landscape Question
« Reply #27 on: August 14, 2012, 12:43:43 PM »


This was shot on 16-35 II at 22 on 50d. I don't see any real issues with an aperture of 22... maybe its just me.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Landscape Question
« Reply #27 on: August 14, 2012, 12:43:43 PM »

Richard Lane

  • Guest
Re: Landscape Question
« Reply #28 on: August 14, 2012, 01:13:16 PM »
This was shot on 16-35 II at 22 on 50d. I don't see any real issues with an aperture of 22... maybe its just me.
That's certainly a beautiful image, and f/22 does have it's place in photography, but when you blur the water and the clouds like you have by using a slower shutter-speed, f/22, and/or filters, then image sharpness and loss of resolution are less of a concern, since it's the artistic image that takes precedence.

There aren't any real issues, it's just physics, you can only fit so much light and sharpness through a smaller aperture. :)

Rich

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1520
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: Landscape Question
« Reply #29 on: August 14, 2012, 01:35:51 PM »
F/16 works for me (here on a 180mm macro... shot last week), has acceptable sharpness/resolution.
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 85mm L F/1.2 Mk. II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Landscape Question
« Reply #29 on: August 14, 2012, 01:35:51 PM »