Probably so but I only pay attention to myself on this matter when
shooting landscapes. With landscapes there is the possibility that I
might print large and demand all the resolution I can get. That simply
means that I never shoot 5D landscapes at apertures smaller than f/11.
But, at 24mm or shorter that provides sufficient DoF for hyperfocal
methods to get everything from 3 feet (or less) to infinity in focus.
If I want closer than that I'd drop down to 20mm rather than go to f/16.
Can I tell the difference between f/11 and f/16? I haven't a clue but
haven't seen any need to go there.
Chuck Norcutt
On 8/4/2012 11:44 PM, Joel Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012, at 09:32 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> 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, you are extremely depressing on the subject of lenses. :^P
>
> 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/
|