If you could only use 1 f-stop for an entire year...

[MattKing]

For clarification, if I set my lens to f/8 and then added a 2x tele-converter, would I have to change the setting to f/4 or could I just leave it at f/8 even though the effective f/stop would be f/16?

If you are using a hand meter that indicates f/8 for the correct exposure, you would need to change the lens setting to f/4 in order to have an effective f/8 result.

If you are using an in-camera meter, and an "automatic" tele-converter, the in-camera meter will most likely deal with the issue for you.

Matt

 

[Andrew Moxom]

Wide open with as funky a lens as you can get!

 

[df cardwell]

Another portraitist here,
and I most often use a 25mm aperture.

So, 50mm ~ f2
100mm ~ f/4.

(and for you LF folks, that's about f/11 for my 10" Commercial Ektar,
f/18 for the 455 Apo Nikkor, and f/22 for the 23 3/8" Double Protar).

.

 

[Ike]

Interesting question. I voted f/11. I try to shoot at the highest f stop I can get away with while braced on something sturdy.

 

[GeorgeDexter]

Since it's not on the list, I'll cast a write-in vote for f2.8. I shoot handheld, 35mm, in available light so I'm often wide open. Also, some of my 1.4 and 1.8 aperture lenses are excellent at 2.8.

 

[unohuu]

I am picking f/3.5 because it is in the ballpark of f/4. Sometimes it is hard to deal with all the nitpicking. I say just ignore the responses from the readers who chose not to follow the simple directions.

 

[nolanr66]

F5.6

 

[donbga]

Yawn!

 

[benjiboy]

In the 35mm format f5.6

 

[ic-racer]

f8

 

[dnjl]

Wide open for me, where I live sunny days are a rarity anyway. I think f2 would be my choice.

 

[Athiril]

f/2.8

Where is it?

Though this means I would have to upgrade the RB67 body to an RZ to get that 110mm... or add a Bronica to the collection for the 75mm

f/ 32 44 64 88 128 176 256 352 512 ...

Saint Ansel and Saint Edward would be appalled you those diffraction ladenned apertures!

Steve

Just wait until someone makes a lens from negative refractive index materials... no diffraction limit! Stopping down only lowers abberrations and improves resolution! No fantasy either, already used years ago in the visible spectrum to image well beyond the diffraction limit.. though I reckon it'll appear first in cellphones or something.

 

[blockend]

5.6. Apart from night time, you'd have to try real hard to find a completely unprintable negative shot at the old five-and-six.

 

[Daniel Haskins]

F4 is where I'd be at. Very sharp on my Nikon lenses.

Of course then it would be harder to work at night.... hmmmm but 1.4 is pretty hard to focus since I don't have any focusing aid in my camera...

 

[benjiboy]

On my FD 35mm f2 lens f5.6, where it's just about as sharp at the edge as it is in the centre.

 

[Nicole]

f2.8 with MF
f1.4 with 35mm

 

[bblhed]

I shoot a lot of MF so if I am going to paint myself into a corner with 35mm it's an easy choice. You didn't say we couldn't use filters and such to "simulate" DOF effects, and I guess it would be a good excuse to learn some alternative ways of achieving effects that you normally would use the f/stop to get.

I think something constructive may come out of this thread, I am going to go home and construct one of those piece of window screen filters to make the lights in photo have the star-burst effect. Last year I got the Christmas tree that way using f/32, maybe this year there can be people in the photo as well.

f/8

 

[j-dogg]

f/8 all day, I live in bright ass Florida only time I need to step down is moving subjects and dusk/dawn

 

[Kisatchie]

I'd shoot f/11 for B&W film (ISO 400) and f/5.6 for color (ISO 100).

 

[premo]

f5.6