Omitted middle

R

Roger Hicks

Veteran
Local time
7:34 PM
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
23,920
Mostly, I shoot fast lenses either wide open or at f/4 to f/11. Medium-fast apertures, such as f/2 and f/2.8 on my 50/1.5 C-Sonnar or 35/1.4 Summilux, or f/2.8 on my 75/2 Summicron, don't get much of a look-in. Who else works the same way?

This was prompted by (yet another) Sonnar focus shift thread.

Cheers,

R.
 
Similar here. I recently thought about apertures (and control of depth-of-field) and realized that for me it is either maximum aperture or f/8 and f/11. I think that I have not taken any single shot with my Noctilux at f/2.8 or f/4.0 ...
 
Depending what I'm shooting I find occasionally it can be quite good to have the out of focus areas blurred but not to the point where they are undefinable. This pic was taken with a Zuiko 50mm f1.4 ... at full aperture there wouldn't have been much dog there at all and she was actually my main subject in spite of the sharpness of the foreground objects ... I think this was f2 from memory. In hindsight another stop down may have been better!

I think this is what makes me prefer an SLR most of the time ... I have total visible control over this ratio of sharp to OOF!


mtnebR3.jpg
 
I do that as well. Shoot wide-open, F4, or F8 (rare). Since the cameras do not record F-Stop, I can usually look at a photo and know what the F-Stop was after taking it.
 
I run the gamut. I tend to stay away from f-stops f/22 and in some cases, f/16, but everything else is on the table and I use them frequently. Quite often, I am trying to maintain a particular shutter speed and will therefore run with the aperture that allows me to maintain a minimum. Other times, I am attempting to get a particular look to an OoF area as Keith said, with OoF under conscious control. A lot of my Pentax-A lenses used on a dSLR will record the f-stop, so it is easy for me to look over my previous choices by searching exif data and see that yes, I tend to use almost everything in terms of f-stop.
 
Just this morning shot a parent/student event at a local school using M8 and 35 1.4 preaspheric. Most of the shots were at 2.8. I tend to use the full range, with f4 and 5.6 being fairly common both on digital and film. Wide open is great, but the bit of added depth of field with 2.8 comes in handy.
 
Hadn't really thought about, but I realize than unless there is a specific reason for wide open or closed down, I usually opt for 5.6. (Old habit?) Proves I should spend more time thinking and less time clicking, I guess.
 
presspass said:
Just this morning shot a parent/student event at a local school using M8 and 35 1.4 preaspheric. Most of the shots were at 2.8. I tend to use the full range, with f4 and 5.6 being fairly common both on digital and film. Wide open is great, but the bit of added depth of field with 2.8 comes in handy.
Click to expand...

Also a bit of added sharpness, depending on the lens. I have several 1.4 and 1.7 lenses that are OK wide-open, but stop them down just a little and they get nice and sharp.
 
I think I do the same, but not in a conscient way.
Outside usually yields 5.6 to 11 situations for TX, and inside is 95% of the time a 1/30 @ f/2 situation.
 
I actually like to load up with Neopan 1600 in broad daylight and shoot AE at f/16 or f/22 for crazy huge depth of field. It is nice to turn your camera into a point-and-shoot sometimes.
 
2.8 is about as wide as I go most of the time, but will stop to anywhere from there to f/11 as needed. Very wide apertures simply produce too little DOF for my taste for most subjects.
 
newspaperguy said:
Hadn't really thought about, but I realize than unless there is a specific reason for wide open or closed down, I usually opt for 5.6. (Old habit?) Proves I should spend more time thinking and less time clicking, I guess.
Click to expand...

Dear Rick,

Then again, there are plenty who could benefit from less time thinking and more time clicking...

BOKEH! (Said in the same tone as BOO!).

Cheers,

R.
 
All apertures, but with the Sonnar no smaller than f11 (not enough sun-shine for that in wet and windy Wales ;) ).
 
The sky here in Vienna is so overcast I have been spending a lot of time at 5.6, I look forward to checking out the results...
 
For portrait photography I shoot at f4 or f5.6. Normal street shooting I like f8 or f11. Recently, I was shooting indoors with a 35mm f2.0 Summicron and tri-x. If the meter gave a reading at 1/30 or 1/15. I shot away at 1/60. Every shot came out. I really question the need for the summilux at f1.4 when it is supposedly very soft at that f/stop. I have used the f1.4 but the depth of field is too shallow for my liking. Normally when shooting at that s/stop it is difficult to focus because of the lack of available light. Choice of point of focus: Is it the eye or nose? How do you choose? Often people are moving. Do you want a blurry nose or eye? I find myself focusing on that part of the body that I best can see therefore I would rather not go to f1.4. Just thought that I'd add those extra comments.
 
I went through a nine-year period during which I owned one lens, and shot as often as possible at its optically optimum aperture of f5.6. Doing so taught me something: the optimum aperture for a particular lens is not the same thing as the optimum aperture for a particular image. In looking over my images from that time I saw how many images, but not all, would have benefited from deeper or shallower depth of field.

Having since added faster lenses to my kit I've enjoyed working with very shallow depth of field, but have noted a similar trend - the widest aperture of a given lens it not necessarily the one that best suits the subject (even if it does enable the shot in the first place by passing enough light to hand-hold the camera). I've often seen that stopping down to the f2.0 - f4.0 range improves an image by placing focus across the subject rather than on a detail, especially with portraiture. I understand this is a matter of taste, but that's mine.

I'm also a fan of "character" lenses and getting to know and use their subtleties across their aperture range is one of the joys of using them. As an example, the 75mm Summilux can be a challenge to focus as desired when used wide open. But even at close range, much comes into focus at f2.8 - f4.0 with pleasing out of focus rendering, all while maintaining its signature "soft but still sharp" look.
 
Last edited:
All apertures and agree with dof above. Love 5.6 and 8.0 too. With the C Sonnar 50 1.5 often at 2.8 and 4.0 as 1.5 and 2.0 are so tight for depth of field. A close up portrait, for instance, is hard to control in a casual setting and while the effects are sometimes interesting the sharp volume in the blurred space works only after stopping down to 2.8 or 4.0.
 
bmattock said:
Also a bit of added sharpness, depending on the lens. I have several 1.4 and 1.7 lenses that are OK wide-open, but stop them down just a little and they get nice and sharp.
Click to expand...
Dear Bill,

True enough. I was forgetting the Canon 50/1.2, which is indeed very good by f/2, and for that matter, the improvement on the f/2.5 Color-Skopar is quite noticeable at f/2.8.

The reason I forgot, though, is that I don't have many lenses like that. Either I like the effect wide open, or I use a different lens, rather than carry around 'wasted' speed (bigger, heavier lenses that I don't use at full bore).

Cheers,

R.
 
I prefer large apertures but I almost never shoot wide open because of bokeh artifacts that disappear sometimes with the first click down while also getting the benefit of extra sharpness. I shot an f1.2 lens I've had for a year wide open for the first time just a few days ago and only because the light was just too low but I was wanting to see what fuji's fourth layer would do with the florescent light. I doubt I'll do it again.
 
I rarely go below f8 with 35mm or shorter, and use most stops from maximum to there pretty regularly. Longer lenses I use down to 11.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom