0

F22 for large depth of field-does such a lens exist?

Forums > Taking photos > F22 for large depth of field-does such a lens exist?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Leave a Comment
    First · Prev | 1 · 2 | Next · Last

    I'm a novice photographer (using digital) and have read about using very small apeture lens like f22 for good landscape DOF. But who makes them? Even high end digicams only seem to go to f8 or f11. And I've done a search at jessops.com.....they don't even list an f22 for ANY camera !
    What's going on? PLease help

    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links
    11 Aug 2003 - 9:19 PM

    Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

    simonf
    9
    108 forum posts
    11 Aug 2003 - 9:40 PM
    0

    when you see a lens advertised as say 28mm f2, that is the maximum aperture ie the most wide open (sometime described as fastest) it can be. These will be then adjustable down (confusing because the number actually goes up!!!)to the minimum aperture which for landscape is what you want to try and utilise. Most SLR lenses will stop down as far as f22 and some even as far as f45. With digicams you may be slightly more limited depending on the make - i assume you don't have interchangeable lenses on the camera.

    My advice to you is get some good books on basic photography.

    DanB
    9
    97 forum posts
    12 Aug 2003 - 9:22 AM
    0

    If you are confused about the max/min aperture of a lens, look it up on the companys website. I know that canon have detailed specs on all lenses. Most shops will only mention the max aperture, as most lenses will stop down to around f22 or so.

    KieranB
    12 Aug 2003 - 1:53 PM
    0

    Robert as someone who's recently moved to using digital cameras having used film cameras for a number of years I can understand your confusion.

    As has been mentioned when selling lenses manufacturers always quote the maximum aperture(biggest hole/smallest number) as that's what allows the most light in, the more light the better the picture I guess. Most consumer lenses have a maximum aperture of about f4 and you pay a lot of money for something with f2 for example.

    On interchangeable lenses used with film SLR's for example most will have no problem going to a minimum aperture of f22(smallest hole/biggest number)so that's what you'll see quoted in many photography books.

    However with digital cameras the apertures don't go that low (at least with point and shoot models) so you have no choice but to go with the minimum aperture available on your particular camera. It's something that surprises a lot of people familiar with film cameras but that's the limitation.

    simonf
    9
    108 forum posts
    12 Aug 2003 - 2:46 PM
    0

    also if you have autofocus only option, see if you can trick your camera somehow into focusing part way into the picture (say 2/3rds in as a very rough guess)eg by finding a tree somewhere to focus on. This will actuallty produce more depth of field compared to focussing at infinity.

    Hi Kieron
    Firstly you are wrong about max aperture letting in most light for a better picture. In fact it is just the opposite.By using all of the front lens you are including the periphery of the lens which is where the quality falls off. A fast lens is for that important shot in dim light that you will miss with a slower lens. Usually the best quality is about 3 stops down from max apperture. Digital cameras ( not DSLR`s) have a very small focal length so the D O F for a stopped down lens far exceeds that of an SLR camera. There are many digi cameras that are almost impossible to get an out of focus shot at wide angle. The tele end is very good to. So digi cameras do not have to go to such minimum apertures. For instance the Canon G2 only go`s down to F8, but its Ok.At the tele setting 21mm, the D O F at a focus setting of 20m is 2m to infinity.
    Stan

    KieranB
    13 Aug 2003 - 1:53 PM
    0

    Stan, Thanks for pointing that out, I was never quiet sure why you would need an f2 lens which is why "I guessed" at it's purpose. So what you're saying is that while using the lens at max aperture will let in the most light, that doesn't always necessarily result in the best picture because of distortion introduced by using the periphery of the lens?
    Kieran.

    Hi Kieran
    I always say, "when in doubt, try it out". A wide open aperture never takes a better quality shot than a lens stopped down to its optimum setting. If you have an SLR try it, take a shot wide open then take a same shot stopped down. On the same theme, stopping down to minimum often produces a poor shot, which is too long winded to go into.
    Stan

    chrislucas99
    12 Sep 2003 - 10:55 AM
    0

    Reading through some old postings today as am new to the site . Having read this last comment I wonder if I'm doing something drasically wrong or maybe it's just me being thick ! For landscape photographs ( taken on a tripod) I always stop down as far as possible , my understanding is that this gives the greatest depth of field . Have I missed the point here ? Am I wrong in doing this and is so then how do I determine which is the optimum aperture to use ?

    Pete
    Pete (ePHOTOzine Staff)
    11
    16713 forum postsPete vcard ePz Advertiser England86 Constructive Critique Points
    12 Sep 2003 - 11:19 AM
    0

    Chris it depends what you mean by optimum. If you use it to refer to maximum focus then the smallest aperture is optimum as it gives the most depth of field or front to back sharply focus. If your refer to optimum quality, irrespective of whether the points in the picture are in focus, all lenses are, as Stan says, optimum when stopped down two or three aperture settings.

    chrislucas99
    12 Sep 2003 - 11:53 AM
    0

    Pete , first of all thanks for the reply . This thread really has got me thinking ! For landscapes what I would normally do is to set the aperture as small as possible with the camera tripod mounted then trip the shutter using the camera's timer . Yes my intention in doing this is to try to gain maximum depth of field . Am I right in understanding from your comment though that I am sacrificing something in the overall quality of the photograph in setting the aperture so small ?

    mikeyc71
    12 Sep 2003 - 11:55 AM
    0

    I have got an Canon EOS 30 and the largest aperture (number, small hole) I can get it f/32 which I deem to be good enough for landscape work...Stan at this setting what is the best shutter speed to capture a landscape at a wide-angle setting of 28mm? I am using a circular polarizer and will be using Fuji Sensia 100...I am going to dabble with Velvia when I get more experience using slide film

    stan walker
    12 Sep 2003 - 12:27 PM
    0

    Hi Mikey
    Firstly there is no reason to use F32 for landscape work, indeed it is better not to. With landscape shots the nearest part of the shot is most probably 30 meters away. If you had one of the oldy type lens`s with split image you will find you are focussing at infinity anyway. At 28mm your shot will have a very good DOF. Focussing at 30mm F8 will give you more than enough DOF. Also giving you a faster shutter speed. Stan

    mikeyc71
    12 Sep 2003 - 12:52 PM
    0

    Cheers Stan! I will make a mental note of that...I have heard landscape photographers using f/8 as this seems to give the best D O F

    First · Prev | 1 · 2 | Next · Last

    Add a Comment

    You must be a member to leave a comment

    Username:
    Password:
    Remember me:
    Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.