aperture?

[photocist]

One problem with that high of a aperture is you start to lose sharpness to diffraction. For landscapes, use hyperfocal- google it.

I would be wary of this.

Hyperfocal is really just a wide DOF that is set so that the far side of the field is at infinity. While this obviously can be used effectively, it is not necessary. Like "TheBiles" said, f/16 or f/22 is usually used for landscapes. For low quality glass (and even high quality glass to some degree), f/22 WILL make an image OVERALL less sharp, but the DOF will be what is required. When shooting with my manual medium format camera, I almost always have it at f/16, and f/22 if I really need a large DOF.

For landscapes, generally you will want f/16 or above, unless everything you are shooting at is at the infinity for the lens, in which case f/11 is probably ok. It is a photo by photo basis, and the more you use it the more you will feel comfortable adjusting to what you want.

 

[480sparky67 66]

One problem with that high of a aperture is you start to lose sharpness to diffraction. For landscapes, use hyperfocal- google it.

I would be wary of this.

Hyperfocal is really just a wide DOF that is set so that the far side of the field is at infinity. While this obviously can be used effectively, it is not necessary. Like "TheBiles" said, f/16 or f/22 is usually used for landscapes. For low quality glass (and even high quality glass to some degree), f/22 WILL make an image OVERALL less sharp, but the DOF will be what is required. When shooting with my manual medium format camera, I almost always have it at f/16, and f/22 if I really need a large DOF.

For landscapes, generally you will want f/16 or above, unless everything you are shooting at is at the infinity for the lens, in which case f/11 is probably ok. It is a photo by photo basis, and the more you use it the more you will feel comfortable adjusting to what you want.

If you're shooting landscapes, you really don't need f/22 or f/16, even for hyperfocal. A 35mm lens, say, will get everything 10' to infinity at just f/8. Drop back to a 20mm, and you'll only need f2.8 to achieve the same DOF

 

[photocist]

One problem with that high of a aperture is you start to lose sharpness to diffraction. For landscapes, use hyperfocal- google it.

I would be wary of this.

Hyperfocal is really just a wide DOF that is set so that the far side of the field is at infinity. While this obviously can be used effectively, it is not necessary. Like "TheBiles" said, f/16 or f/22 is usually used for landscapes. For low quality glass (and even high quality glass to some degree), f/22 WILL make an image OVERALL less sharp, but the DOF will be what is required. When shooting with my manual medium format camera, I almost always have it at f/16, and f/22 if I really need a large DOF.

For landscapes, generally you will want f/16 or above, unless everything you are shooting at is at the infinity for the lens, in which case f/11 is probably ok. It is a photo by photo basis, and the more you use it the more you will feel comfortable adjusting to what you want.

If you're shooting landscapes, you really don't need f/22 or f/16, even for hyperfocal. A 35mm lens, say, will get everything 10' to infinity at just f/8. Drop back to a 20mm, and you'll only need f2.8 to achieve the same DOF

Touche. I will have to do some testing on this.

Now I have a 35mm lens, but it still gives me focal points (on the lens) of up to 15 feet before it goes to infinity. I think once you get to the lower focal length lenses the margin for 10' focus to 20' focus becomes smaller, but I think it is still there.