# Landscape Question



## bdunbar79 (Aug 12, 2012)

I'm going to be using my 24L lens this afternoon for some landscape shooting. I won't have a whole lot of time to screw around and do any testing, so I had a question. Suppose I'm doing a scene, and want maximum DOF. I know setting the aperture too narrow can lead to diffraction. However, since I don't do a whole lot of landscape, what are the consequences of narrowing from f/8, to f/11, to f/16, and to f/22? Will there be any negative consequences at f/22? Thanks.


----------



## Richard Lane (Aug 12, 2012)

As your aperture becomes too narrow, the incoming light gets diffracted or dispersed by the edges of the diaphragm blades, and it is this dispersion of light that can lead to a loss of resolution. 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-diffraction.shtml

In this example below you will see that as the aperture went from f/5.6 to f/16 there was a loss of resolution:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=779&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=458&CameraComp=779&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=7

Usually with most higher-end cameras you should be pretty safe in avoiding diffraction if you keep your aperture between f/8 to f/11. Commonly referred to as the Diffraction Limited aperture (DLA). You shouldn't be afraid to use f/13, just be aware that the narrower you go, the greater the affect from diffraction.

Rich


----------



## well_dunno (Aug 12, 2012)

Hi,

I do try not to exceed f/11 usually. I think it also depends on what you are looking for in the composition, at times it might be worth to sacrifice some resolution to get max DOF... Recently saw this on DPR, all landscape shots at f/22: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4491391950/evolution-of-an-image

Cheers!


----------



## Richard Lane (Aug 12, 2012)

Well_Dunno, 

You're certainly on the right track with your settings. 

Some people do feel that diffraction is a bit over-rated, namely the well respected Bryan Peterson in his book entitled "Understanding Exposure." Diffraction is certainly more noticeable with pixel peeping. However, it is an accepted physical limitation.

I do think as long as you're aware of it, like you are and you don't shoot everything at the narrowest apertures then you'll be ok. It's also good to know what the DLA is for the particular camera and lens combinations that you'll be working with.

You may also enjoy this article:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Check out the fabric example and DLA Calculator towards the bottom of the page.

Edited: Thanks for your link to dpr. I also wanted to point out that in that particular landscape shot @f/22, a GND filter was used in conjunction with a slower shutter-speed and narrow aperture in order to achieve a certain desirable effect, namely smooth water and blurred clouds.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 12, 2012)

Thanks. I do notice on landscape shots where I've been f/22, it just doesn't look as sharp as f/11. Thanks.


----------



## Richard Lane (Aug 12, 2012)

My Pleasure!


----------



## Richard Lane (Aug 13, 2012)

well_dunno said:


> 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. ???


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 13, 2012)

Well, I think some photographers try to add that detail way back in the background when using a say, a 24mm lens vs. a 200mm lens, where the background is compressed into sort of one focal plane. So they narrow the aperture with the 24 lens to f/22 (I've seen photography authors do it too), but on the 200mm lens they're fine shooting at f/8 to f/11. I'd rather get more of my image sharper. I've shot at f/22 with a 35mm lens and even the center background was not sharp.


----------



## Richard Lane (Aug 13, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I've shot at f/22 with a 35mm lens and even the center background was not sharp.



Exactly! 

At f/22 and ISO 400, the photographer would have the DLA and increased noise working against him.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Aug 13, 2012)

The digital picture website has a page which lists the DLA aperture for most of the Canon (sensors) cameras. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Field-of-View-Crop-Factor.aspx

its shows with 5DIII you can probably go till f/10 and with 1DX till f/11. You might find the page useful for your later works (as I think "today afternoon" is already gone).

It looks like 5DC, 1DIIN and 1DII had the largest sized pixels of any canon DSLR till date and hence also allowed the smalled apertures till diffraction limits set in (all f/13)

[I rounded down all the DLAs to the nearest full stop]


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 13, 2012)

Actually Richard,

Thank you! Only shooting sports and indoor weddings, my gosh I never really had to think of these things. Thanks, that actually helps me as I'm really looking to expand my photography on a personal level, and landscape is definitely always been one of my favorites, but just never had the time to do it. 

I ran across a football stadium photo I took, the field runs north-south and I was at the south end looking north, looking towards both stands on my left and right, colors were pretty saturated, right down the field. There was also a flagpole in my center which was situated on the south end of the field. I was shooting with the 35L lens, and in my worry to "get everything in focus" I shot at f/22. Well when I went home, eh, even the light poles and overhead lights weren't really sharp at all. In fact, nothing was really all that sharp at all. The scoreboard lettering had "pixelated" and you really couldn't read it. Now mind you I was using a tripod at 1/100 at ISO 100. 

My question is, if I return to this same scene today, which is possible, would shooting at f/8, f/9, f/10, f/11, f/16 trial shots be worth it, ie will a bit wider make a difference in your opinion or is 35mm just too dang far away (although it's hard to fit the whole scene in any longer). Or, should I back up and shoot longer, and compress everything? This is just for my own curiosity.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 13, 2012)

RAKAMRAK said:


> The digital picture website has a page which lists the DLA aperture for most of the Canon (sensors) cameras.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Field-of-View-Crop-Factor.aspx
> 
> ...



Thanks! I was using a 35L which I guess in this case would be much worse when you zoom or crop in for detail. Even with a 22 mp camera/picture. Even though I was totally within focus, the detail is blurred upon crop or examination.


----------



## Policar (Aug 13, 2012)

Get a T/S lens and use Scheimpflug. You're also losing resolution from correcting for converging verticals in photoshop. Shooting landscapes without tilt/shift is a recipe for bad photos, one which I follow myself with consistently bad results.

Even with a tilt shift lens in some cases you will need to stop down, though. The perception of depth imparted by deep focus is much more significant than diffraction limits except in extreme cases (or terrible light where there's no contrast anyway). Lots of 4x5 is shot at f64 and it can still be enlarged to 40x50'' just fine even though diffraction would have you believe otherwise. Give hyperfocal technique a try, too, although it's very controversial if it works as well as some would claim.


----------



## Richard Lane (Aug 13, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Actually Richard,
> 
> Thank you! Only shooting sports and indoor weddings, my gosh I never really had to think of these things. Thanks, that actually helps me as I'm really looking to expand my photography on a personal level, and landscape is definitely always been one of my favorites, but just never had the time to do it.
> 
> ...



I would probably shoot at f/11 (or f/13 should work if there's enough light). But keep in mind there is more to sharp images than just avoiding DLA. It's not just the f-stop that you choose, but it's also where within the DOF of the image that you choose to focus on. 

Policar, hit it right on the head, you have to learn about hyper-focal distance. But there is a DOF calculator, that will help you determine your hyper-focal distance and once you focus on that spot, then usually the rest of the image will be in focus.

A good rule of thumb that works for me at around 35mm is to focus about 1/3 of the way into the scene when you're shooting landscape at around f/8 and if you're shooting f/11 then you could focus about 1/4 the distance into the frame. Plug these numbers in with your full frame or crop sensor camera and lens into the DOF Calculator, and see how the hyper-focal distance and DOF changes.

Also, the wider the lens, the greater the DOF, so you could focus closer and still have a deep DOF in focus. Remember the photos of a close-up of a rock on the beach at 24mm on a FF camera, the DOF is huge and they focused closely on the rock.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Just so you know, Sports is my main thing and not landscapes.


----------



## zrz2005101 (Aug 13, 2012)

Like most other people, I do not want to step a lens down to f22 or f27/32 for some lenses just because the IQ decreases too much. My main landscape lens has been the 16-35LII and it's IQ at f22 is pretty bad I would say. I generally use f8 (sometimes the DOF isn't enough) and f11. If I want to increase the exposure time I would just stack filters, I use LEE and Singh-Ray and to my findings, stacking a LEE and a Singh-Ray together at f11 creates at least the same IQ if not better than plainly at f22 alone so....unless I really have to, say a 3 min long exposure to photograph a sea scene at dusk, I would not step it down, but when you have no choice, getting the image is better than not getting one. 
On a side note, I generally don't use above ISO 200, due to the great lose of DR and increased noise, especially with Canon, its banding issue in its dark areas has been troubling me for ages, tempting me to switch to Nikon :'(


----------



## preppyak (Aug 13, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> 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)


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 13, 2012)

Thanks to everybody. Wow, this has been really informative.


----------



## @!ex (Aug 13, 2012)

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 (Aug 13, 2012)

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 (Aug 13, 2012)

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 (Aug 13, 2012)

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 (Aug 13, 2012)

Richard Lane said:


> well_dunno said:
> 
> 
> > Recently saw this on DPR, all landscape shots at f/22:
> ...



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!


----------



## Richard Lane (Aug 13, 2012)

Thank You, I missed that!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 13, 2012)

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.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 13, 2012)

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.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 13, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I cannot decide between the 17 and 24 at this point.
> ...



+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 (Aug 14, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> scrappydog said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



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 (Aug 14, 2012)

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.


----------



## Richard Lane (Aug 14, 2012)

KreutzerPhotography said:


> 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 (Aug 14, 2012)

F/16 works for me (here on a 180mm macro... shot last week), has acceptable sharpness/resolution.


----------



## Kernuak (Aug 14, 2012)

As with any photography, there are often compromises to be made. I usually try to avoid f/22 on full frame, unless I really need the DoF (or I want to lower the shutterspeed) and am willing to sacrifice overall sharpness to get it, as overall loss of sharpness is often less noticeable than part sharp and part soft. With a natively sharp lens (like the 24L MkII), the effects of DLA results in less softness, so it may still be sharper than a lesser lens is at f/16 anyway (I have noticed this in comparison with the 24-105). I don't really notice any major problems at f/16 on either my 5D MkII or MkIII, but on the 7D the decreased sharpness is definitely noticeable. If I could get enough DoF at f/11, I'd use it, but for the type of landscapes in my area, it is rarely possible. It really depends on whether anything is blocking infinity or not, but you can get away with more at 24mm.
While DLA (which involves pixel densities and Airey discs, as well as light diffraction) may start around f/10 (or whatever the exact figure is) for the 5D MkII/III, but as the TDP article states, that doesn't preclude using narrower apertures and it is much lower before it becomes usable. What they don't state however, is that lens quality will also come into play, IQ on a higher quality lens will have to degrade much more before it is unusable than a lesser quality lens.


----------

