Landscape shooting, diffraction, focus stacking, and lens choice for d800e

[D&A]

Yes, that's why the supplied profiles make it the preferred distortion, because it takes the attempt out of it.

Agreed Jan. Some of the lens profiles do a good job with this type of distortion, some do not. The one Nikon lens that was easy to handle, very compact and had reasonable sharpness, especially in the center of the frame was the Nikon AF 18mm f2.8. Mustache distortion was horrible though and the profiles I tried some time ago were medicore at best. The one for the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 is better.

As for the other ongoing discussion regarding defraction limits and what impact they have on large format prints...from my lengthy experience printing "big" from an enormous diversity of files, I've always taken a lens performance on a given camera body on a case by case basis. Sometimes shooting well beyond where defraction sets in is preferable due to increase in depth of field and what is possible lost in absolutely image quality (as seen at 100% on a monitor), maybe be obsecured by other stronger image elements when viewed in a large print.. Then there are other times, where critical shapness at the focus plane must be achieved for a given subject and shooting at f5.6-f8 in order to minimize diffraction is advantagous.. It all depends on what the objectives are for a particular image and how it's going to be used in terms of output.

I've found there is no one fast rule for what works best and what "should" or "must" be used.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Guy Mancuso]

For myself since my lenses get used in many different situations and even landscape work I shoot sometimes wide open or do focus stacking plus sometimes in low light and things of that nature I always go after the best glass in each focal length. I actually have sort of 2kits of lenses. One with zooms for PR type work than all primes for more demanding commercial shooting. This gives me a lot of options. I don't always shoot at F8 so I need good fast glass

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

I'm a canon guy but I assume the same is true with Nikon, the better lenses give better colour and contrast throughout the range. However much I love my non L primes, I can't get the same richness of file in comparison to even a cheaper L zoom, the colour is just a whole lot better.

 

[Jack]

Ben,

Ironically, not so much in Nikon. I know what you mean about the C glass, and while there is a little difference in N glass, most of the newer G lenses render color very similarly. The faster lenses draw differently than their slower counterparts, but color and saturation remain pretty consistent.

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

Derek,

Your original question seemed to reference landscape photography primarily. If serious about landscape, I wouldn't even consider a zoom lens - too many elements. It's so easy to get bogged down in tech and MTF charts, I know I do, but I've come to the realization, that find a focal length you prefer and get a sense of how this particular lens draws, and what issues might be there or addressed since being released. If building a stable of lenses, and creating images to be shown together, i'd consider staying with the same brand...it creates a pleasing flow to the viewer. That said, i'm considering selling my ZF.2 21mm for just that reason.

 

[jsf]

It also depends on how big a print, the subject matter, the lighting and what you as the artist are looking for. If you are going for optimal sharpness then, diffraction matters, if you are going for depth of field and acceptable sharpness is what you want, stop down. I have found that unless I am printing at greater than 24" x 30" and I am smelling the print) I can easily shoot one stop from my minimum aperature with any of my lenses. With my micro 55 I feel quite comfortable at minimum (f/32) It isn't laser sharp, but the over all feel of the picture is one of clarity. I think the basic question is "How sharp does it have to be?" What are you trying to do. In cros light, with lots of texture, large scenic, I don't think it is important at smelling distance if I can see the crystalline structure of a grain of sand. But this is a very subjective thing, and I know that we all agree on the subjectivity of it.
Dereks original question is why buy great glass if you are shooting at minimum aperatures. Iuse the 70-300 at work, while at home I use the 300mm prime, there isn't an f/ stop that the prime isn't noticibly clearer and more pleasant to look at. No matter how much diffraction, a better lens is still better than a poorer lens. But I wrestle with this very question all of the time. I have been a pro half of my life, architectural and product illustrations and clents have enough sophistication to know what is technically possible. But art is a different thing, you are the client and you decide what is it you want, no one else can make that decision for you. My 1.25$ worth of opinion. Joe

 

[jsf]

I had some other thoughts. I have found that the d800e that I use, if I print to just a 16" x 20" size, I am assuming that I am masking pixels, which gives it a very "smooth" appearance, like large format might. Thus if I use a very small aperture it appears sharp and more importantly to me not precisely that crisp digital look. Though there are other ways of doing that. I rather like the look. I do focus stack if I want super clarity, I do whatever I need to to get the picture look that I want. We all do. I scarcely see an image here on this forum that is not of the highest quality. It might not be to my taste, but it certainly is of a very high standard. I have an old 28mm H Nikkor, not the greatest lens and certainly the poorest in my kit, but it is light and sharp at f/5.6 and soft in the corners always and for some circumstances it is a delight. Joe