Discussion in 'Nikon Lenses' started by AaronLLockhart, Jun 20, 2012.
It should be just about perfect at f/5.6
Just look up tests of your lenses on the internet. For example, I usually stop my 35mm f/1.8 down to 2.8 when in aperture priority, unless I want/need the additional light or the smaller depth of field, because I know that this gives me more sharpness and less distortion than f/1.8.
Its different for each lens though, theres more than just one variable with lenses, and lens errors come and go at all apertures.
Most lenses are sharper stopped down just a little. I shot some portraits of my daughter with a 50 1.8D at both f1.8 and f2.2 and I can tell the difference in sharpness. I wanted the soft background from shooting wide open but decided the slight edge in sharpness over the slightly less blurred background was better.
You can test it yourself easily with a newspaper on a wall outside or in a well lit area. Set your camera on a tripod and shoot at every aperture then view your results on your computer.
Absolutely outstanding information. I will try that. Well done, my friend.
HUH?? Sorry SolarFlare but a massive FAIL for photographic understanding here. You think aperture effects distortion??
This is not the first time. I've had to go through quite a few posts of his and correct statements he's made that are just completely wrong.
He told me you'd need to use a wider aperture on a 200mm lens than on a 100mm lens while photographing the same subject because the light had to travel farther. :lmao:
Yeah, with light traveling at 186000 miles per second, I don't think focal length of the lens is going to make a difference.
Old thread, I know, but thank you for this information. I've been contemplating my lack of success with my primes, in particular my nifty 50. I've been expecting too much from f/1.8 when I should be stopping down a tad and getting crisper results that are still "fast."
Somewhere around f/5.6 should give you the sharpest image.
Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.8 G (FX) - Review / Test Report - Analysis
Oooooh, old thread ! Such a travel back in time. I didnt even use full frame back then.
Today I'd say - if you cannot use a lens wide open, then maybe you should get a lens that offers less maximum aperture ?
Theres plenty more good attributes a lens can have, other than mere sharpness. Such as subject isolation, for limited DoF. Stopping down just to raise sharpness a bit, meh.
And I'll have to add, I really dont like my AF-S 50mm f1.8. Theres nothing really wrong with it, but I never connected to it like to the AF-S 35mm f1.8 DX before. Its just kind of bland and meh. I mean if nothing else was available, sure I'd use it again. But I'd much rather pick up my Voigtländer 58mm f1.4 again ! THAT lens is definitely NOT bland.
I sold my 50mm 1.8G for the 58mm 1.4G -- world of difference between the two.
Would love to have the 58 1.4 but that will have to wait, quite a while, for now I'll have to stick with the Sigma 1.4 art
Separate names with a comma.