| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/01/2007 06:25:58 PM · #1 |
| Are there any digital slr lenses that have super small aperture? |
|
|
|
05/01/2007 06:28:11 PM · #2 |
| 75-300 IS USM goes to f45 |
|
|
|
05/01/2007 06:38:32 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by TimHans:
Are there any digital slr lenses that have super small aperture? |
At aperture settings smaller than about f/16, you will start getting softer results due to diffraction. At f/32, it is *quite* noticeable. That severely limits the usefulness of apertures beyond f/32. |
|
|
|
05/01/2007 06:39:45 PM · #4 |
many Macro go higher though it is a function of focus distance
i know i've seen f/56
(nikon 85mmPC has the highest advertised for nikon at f/45 i believe ) |
|
|
|
05/02/2007 09:30:56 AM · #5 |
If it's only to affect the shutter speed, you can use ND or Neutral Density filters.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2007 12:53:05 PM · #6 |
| Ansel Adams was famous for using a rediculously high f-stop. I know he used film and medium/large format but i wanted similar results for digital |
|
|
|
05/02/2007 01:05:07 PM · #7 |
| I looked up what he used, and it's the equivalent of F64. But you have to remember that that's on large format film. To reproduce that on a smaller sensor the lens doesn't have to be stopped down nearly as much. |
|
|
|
05/02/2007 01:12:39 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
I looked up what he used, and it's the equivalent of F64. But you have to remember that that's on large format film. To reproduce that on a smaller sensor the lens doesn't have to be stopped down nearly as much. |
Yep. For the equipment he used, the very large f-number was a requirement to get the DoF he wanted. For the much smaller 35mm format (or even smaller APS-C format) the equivalent f-stop to obtain the same DoF is much lower. You'll find that using f/16 and focusing at hyperfocal distance, you can get everything from about 3 feet to infinity in focus with a WA lens. |
|
|
|
05/02/2007 01:20:22 PM · #9 |
Tamron 90mm macro @ F/64
|
|
|
|
05/02/2007 01:22:23 PM · #10 |
With the large format cameras, you can adjust the film plane and tilt the lens to alter the focal length from top to bottom, and that helps with getting the huge depth of field as well as having the smaller f numbers available. With a large format lens, the lens is so big that the phycical aperture opening is still much larger than the equivalent opening for a smaller 35mm or med sensor sized lens, so the light diffraction may not be as strong either. I am guessing about the aperture diffraction difference, but for sure about being able to adjust the film plane with large format.
My brother Oscar worked with Clyde Butcher , who shoots large format, and I learned a little about the cameras from them.
Clyde Butcher Photography
Message edited by author 2007-05-04 01:25:02.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2007 01:34:44 PM · #11 |
| the sigma 105mm macro goes to f/45 - but yeah - what people have said before is very valid. I think the highest f-stop i have used for a "gallery worthy" image is f/20, anything more and not only do you get a soft image but you also can see every single bit of dust on the sensor and will have to spend fifteen minutes for each image just cleaning that up. |
|
|
|
05/04/2007 01:18:53 AM · #12 |
| With my 400mm and 2x converter attached, I get to f/64 |
|
|
|
05/04/2007 01:20:06 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
With a large format lens, the lens is so big that the phycical aperture opening is still much larger than the equivalent opening for a smaller 35mm or med sensor sized lens, so the light diffraction may not be as strong either. |
Not strictly true. Larger format cameras tend to use longer focal length lenses. As you say, the actual size of aperture needed for a given f-stop increases with the focal length of the lens, however the focal length also affects how far the light travels before it hits the image plane. Light does diffract more through narrower openings, but diffracted light spreads out more as it travels further. These effects cancel out, so the actual size of the diffraction circles on the image plane depends solely on the f stop you are shooting at.
However, diffraction *is* less of an issue on larger format cameras because the sensor plane is so much bigger - so a diffraction circle of a given size will have less of an effect on the final image. But it does place limits on resolution in terms of pixels per unit sensor size - if you were to make a large format digital sensor with the same pixel density as an APS-C DSLR it would start to suffer diffraction effects at f/11ish just like APS-C DSLRs do (although a 6"x4" sensor with the same pixel density as my 350D would have somewhere in the region of 360 megapixels so maybe a bit of blur would be tolerable ;).
splidge
|
|
|
|
05/05/2007 01:04:19 AM · #14 |
Thanks Splidge. I sort of thought that there may be that kind of relationship. I don't believe I have ever seen a digital image blown up to 15ft wide up close, but I have seen Clyde's 8" X 10" negs enlarged to 15 ft wide, and they are just amazing.
I try to limit my shooting to f11 or wider.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2007 04:21:04 PM · #15 |
| Thans to everyone, I've learned alot from everything everyone said! |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 04:24:26 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
I looked up what he used, and it's the equivalent of F64. But you have to remember that that's on large format film. To reproduce that on a smaller sensor the lens doesn't have to be stopped down nearly as much. |
Yep. For the equipment he used, the very large f-number was a requirement to get the DoF he wanted. For the much smaller 35mm format (or even smaller APS-C format) the equivalent f-stop to obtain the same DoF is much lower. You'll find that using f/16 and focusing at hyperfocal distance, you can get everything from about 3 feet to infinity in focus with a WA lens. |
With a wideangle you can get anything into focus at f/8 or f11 already. I hate using anything beyond that on any lens. Last week I shot with the 50 f/1.4 in the studio and for the setup (and the fact the D70 shoots at ISO200 min) I had to use f/11 to f/16 (max) and it looks so friggin soft compared to f/2 to f/8. :(
|
|
|
|
05/16/2007 03:06:59 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
I looked up what he used, and it's the equivalent of F64. But you have to remember that that's on large format film. To reproduce that on a smaller sensor the lens doesn't have to be stopped down nearly as much. |
Yep. For the equipment he used, the very large f-number was a requirement to get the DoF he wanted. For the much smaller 35mm format (or even smaller APS-C format) the equivalent f-stop to obtain the same DoF is much lower. You'll find that using f/16 and focusing at hyperfocal distance, you can get everything from about 3 feet to infinity in focus with a WA lens. |
With a wideangle you can get anything into focus at f/8 or f11 already. I hate using anything beyond that on any lens. Last week I shot with the 50 f/1.4 in the studio and for the setup (and the fact the D70 shoots at ISO200 min) I had to use f/11 to f/16 (max) and it looks so friggin soft compared to f/2 to f/8. :( |
Get an ND-filter ;)
|
|
|
|
05/16/2007 04:13:06 PM · #18 |
Yes I really could have used one in this situation. :(
Next camera has to do ISO 100 or even 50.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 03:25:33 PM EDT.
