I'm afraid you're reading the lens test results backwards. The lens
isn't as *good* at f/16 as at f/8 but rather the lens is as bad at f/8
as it is at f/16. That, of course, does mean that you can use f/8, f/11
and f/16 interchangeably in real world resolution limits. But
understanding the why of the test results puts a different spin on things.
Chuck Norcutt
On 8/4/2012 2:12 PM, Joel Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012, at 05:40 PM, Moose wrote:
>
>> I've read Chuck's posts and
>> calculations, I've done test shots with my cameras and
>> lenses. I've found that the apertures at which my (eagle) eye can see
>> loss of resolution in practical, 3D subjects tends
>> to be one, maybe even two, stops smaller than his numbers predict. As a
>> matter of practice, I find Chuck's numbers
>> useful. I just add one stop, two in a pinch, for DOF, and am pretty sure
>> even one more won't be noticeable at anything
>> less than 100% viewing.
>
> I sort of figured that Gary's lens tests support this. Some 50/1.8s are
> as good at minimum aperture (f16) as at f8. I figure it comes down to
> testing your lenses in a real-world way.
>
> Joel W.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|