Ed, I've done the experiment. At 1:1 a known good 100/6.3 Luminar is sharper at f/6.3 than at f/8. I've got the same result with a 100/6.3 Neupolar. If you can't accept my results, the best thing for you to do is try to duplicate them.
As is, you won't accept anyone's word for anything,...
... you won't do your own testing, you won't open a book or go to a library.
If I had a 2x4 and could reach you I'd address you smartly with it. This is said to work on mules, might work on you.
Ed, I've done the experiment. At 1:1 a known good 100/6.3 Luminar is sharper at f/6.3 than at f/8. I've got the same result with a 100/6.3 Neupolar. If you can't accept my results, the best thing for you to do is try to duplicate them.
As is, you won't accept anyone's word for anything, you won't do your own testing, you won't open a book or go to a library. If I had a 2x4 and could reach you I'd address you smartly with it. This is said to work on mules, might work on you.
Dan Fromm; ... If I had a 2x4 and could reach you I'd address you smartly with it. This is said to work on mules, might work on you.
Ray, it makes no sense at all to shoot a lens only at its "best" aperture, whatever that is. We all trade off sharpness in the plane of best focus for sharpness in depth. We all sometimes use selective focus to isolate the main subject from its surroundings. There are times when it makes best sense to shoot wide open. Why should anyone restrict itself to shooting at the one true aperture?g'day Dan
so any lens should only be used at a pre-determined aperture?
isn't that just a little too restrictive?
can any normal person notice the difference?
what about the many other image making variables?
Many posts ago, it was stated that the physical aperture of the lens (rather than the f-stop) determines the effects of diffraction on the image. This is incorrect: the f-stop used is the relevant factor, regardless of focal length. The reason large format images can be very sharp at very high f-stop values is that the negatives are enlarged much less.
Well, the MTF values at 5-40 cycles/mm are vastly more indicative of actual image quality than theoretical diffraction-limited "resolution" figures, or even tested "resolution" figures. And from MTF curves plotted for various f-stops, one can of course find the best aperture for sharpness, ignoring depth of field requirements, etc. (which in actual photography cannot be ignored of course). The MTF curves show at which f-stop diffraction begins to degrade image quality more than the remaining optical aberrations at that f-stop.Dan Fromm said:I don't see how MTF curves as conventionally published can be read to find the aperture at which residual aberrations are swamped by diffraction.
By definition, f-stop values take focal length into account. All lenses at f/22 will exhibit almost identical diffraction effects, regardless of focal length. Anecdotal evidence supports this: all 35 mm lenses start to suffer strong diffraction effects at around f/11, whether the focal length is 21 mm or 300 mm. I'll read the archived thread if you can find it, but it sounds like it's wrong.Ed Sukach said:It is not possible to determine the amount of diffraction solely from the single value of f/stop; focal length MUST be considered.
The amount of diffraction observed at f/22 will be far different in a 50mm lens than a 500mm lens... and it is NOT linear.
Ed,
Why are you so hung up on MTF curves?...
I don't see how MTF curves as conventionally published can be read to find the aperture at which residual aberrations are swamped by diffraction. Please teach me how to do this.
To make a judgement about optimum aperture, one needs access to MTF curves across the f-stop range, and one needs to make a decision about whether performance in the centre, corners or some in-between balance is most important.
A fairly simple experiment here is to photograph a test target using a tripod and sharp film -- something you'd only do if you're an obsessive with nothing better to do, or are being paid to do a review -- and see what happens in the real world. Generally, for a top-flight lens, resolution builds fairly fast; peaks at around f/5.6 centrally, maybe f/8 edges (+/- 1 stop, depending on the lens); is more or less the same at f/11, or maybe a tiny bit worse; then falls off detectably at f/16 and significantly at f/22.
R.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/ appears to be armchair physics. Despite what it says, a good lens at f/22 on a 35mm camera IS diffraction limited.
... If the authors of the diffraction limit calculator don't want to be bothered with taking photographs, someone could lead them into a darkroom and show them what stopping an enlarging lens down to its minimum aperture does to sharpness in a fine grain 35mm negative.
His response will be, as it has been time and again in this thread, that that doesn't prove that it's diffraction limiting the resolution. He'll argue that maybe you can strongly demonstrate a correlation between higher f/number and lower resolution, but that isn't inductive proof of diffraction being responsible. He'll then ask us why he should care about resolution.
Despite? That IS exactly what it says ... With a 35mm format and f/22, the lens Is diffraction limited.
... We all know that stopping down a lens corrects certain aberrations, thus helping resolution, but also that past a "sweet spot" that is relative to each lens, more stopping down will in fact decrease resolution because of diffraction.
No, we DON'T all know that beyond the "sweet spot" it is ALL diffraction ... because it ISN'T.
Check out the sites listed ... to determine when diffraction is significant.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?