92 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
92 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
title: "A Study in Aperture"
|
|
date: 2019-01-16T22:32:33-05:00
|
|
categories: ["Blog"]
|
|
tags: ["photography"]
|
|
---
|
|
I found out recently that using the maximum aperture for a lens can have
|
|
deminishing returns. Simply put: it makes the image look "soft", or otherwise
|
|
out-of-focus. In this post I aim to find out find the best *acceptable* aperture
|
|
setting for a specific lens.
|
|
|
|
<!--more-->
|
|
|
|
# The Setup
|
|
I started out using a tripod, with the same ISO and exposure compensation using
|
|
a [**Minolta 50mm f1/7**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolta_AF_50mm_f/1.7)
|
|
lens. Starting at *f/1.7* I worked my way up at reasonable steps to *f/4.0*. My
|
|
aim was to compare the differences. See the shots below. The target couch
|
|
cushion was set up roughly a meter from the bottom center of the tripod.
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Depth-of-Field
|
|
There may be something to be said about maintaining the best DoF
|
|
(*Depth-of-field*). However, using [PhotoPills DoF Calculator]
|
|
(https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof) proves just how **wild**, using a
|
|
50mm lens, an aperture of *f/1.7* is. Shooting a target of *2 meters* results in
|
|
a depth-of-field of **16 centimeters** -- that's a very narrow range! Bumping up
|
|
the aperture value to *f/2.8* provides a much more reasonable *27 centimeters*,
|
|
though still a bit narrow. Either way this allays any fears I had of losing out
|
|
on that sweet, *sweet* [bokeh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh), though the
|
|
photos themselves illustrate that not a significant amount of Depth-of-Field is
|
|
lost at that target distance of 1 meter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Comparison
|
|
## *f/1.7*--*f/4.0*
|
|
---
|
|
The biggest difference can be seen between the *f/1.7* and *f/4.0* shots. Note
|
|
the increase in clarity on the pillows fabric.
|
|
|
|
{{% admonition info %}}
|
|
|
|
{{% /admonition %}}
|
|
|
|
## *f/1.7*--*f/2.8*
|
|
---
|
|
At *f/2.8* and above I started noticing less increase in perceived sharpness of
|
|
the image, though the difference in comparison to *f/1.7* was still fairly
|
|
noticeable
|
|
{{% admonition info %}}
|
|
|
|
{{% /admonition %}}
|
|
|
|
## *f/2.8*--*f/4.0*
|
|
---
|
|
Aside from the perceived exposure difference from what is most likely a
|
|
difference in shutter speed, the overall difference does not seem as dramatic
|
|
from *f/2.8* to *f/4.0*. Personally, I'd say that *f/2.8* is the clear winner in
|
|
finding the best middle-ground between maximum aperture and image quality.
|
|
|
|
{{% admonition info %}}
|
|
|
|
{{% /admonition %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Individual Photos
|
|
---
|
|
Below is the entire collection of all the photos taken of the subject at
|
|
increasing aperture steps.
|
|
|
|
{{% admonition info %}}
|
|
|
|
{{% /admonition %}}
|
|
{{% admonition info %}}
|
|
|
|
{{% /admonition %}}
|
|
{{% admonition info %}}
|
|
|
|
{{% /admonition %}}
|
|
{{% admonition info %}}
|
|
|
|
{{% /admonition %}}
|
|
{{% admonition info %}}
|
|
|
|
{{% /admonition %}}
|
|
{{% admonition info %}}
|
|
|
|
{{% /admonition %}}
|
|
{{% admonition info %}}
|
|
|
|
{{% /admonition %}}
|