Let’s talk Aperture

If the majority of lenses perform optically at their best around the f/5.6 - f/8 range
They don't. Most modern optics are at their best either wide open or 1-2 stops from it. Usually around f2.8-f4.
- why do we love / want / need / praise very fast lenses that can open up to f/1.8 and even f/1.2 not to mention Noct lenses that dip below f/1?
Because they want more background blur as well as the ability to shoot certain subjects far into the distance without increasing the ISO. When you're focused at infinity, everything there will still be in focus even if you shoot at f1.2.
 
If the majority of lenses perform optically at their best around the f/5.6 - f/8 range
They don't. Most modern optics are at their best either wide open or 1-2 stops from it. Usually around f2.8-f4.
You put an "or" clause in there that makes the overall sentence true. But in fact most modern optics are NOT at their best wide open.
 
Very few pros shoot headshots below f/5.6 and often more closed down than that.
I'm not sure that is what we see in general from the pros. More often for face on head shots we see f/3.5 - f/5.6 (and often wider) in my experience. Make for a very nice balance of DoF and isolation.
I am unclear who "we" are. If you are shooting a headshot with an 85mm or 50mm on a Z8/Z9 from 6 feet / 2m away you had better be close down unless you want more than 1.5" or 3.6" DOF. AND this is the point -- the distance to the subject AND the focal length AND then the aperture matter. Most headshots "have to have the front of the nose and the ears and bulk of the hair in reasonable focus, not just the eyes.

I accept style changes and as an old retired gezza what do I know. I learned in the 20th Century.

Just about every human image will have to have some post production -- most models do not have great skin and the rest of us have "imperfections" (sorry character) - I tend to shoot tethered to Capture One, which has the best tools for skin. I am not yet convinced by the skin softening tool s we now have in Z8 (and other cameras) - but then I shoot Raw and do not use NXS.
We also see many looking for emphasis on attractive boheka. Lens choice helps there. My fav is the 70-200 at near f/3.5.
As to focal length -- well this depends -- 1st on working space; the required content of the image (wide scene portrait -> tight cropped headshot or closer) and the age/roundness/roughness of the victim (sorry subject). I know a large number of pros who often "just" use a 70-200 on a 35mm/FF body - tending to the 85-135mm range for headshots of older folk like me for commercial clients AND others who use a nifty. Full-length portraits can be anything from 20mm to 200mm - most often 35mm-50mm when there is a scene/context and large dresses to include. In every case the brief will be agreed but always the product/model has to be in focus, the extent of out of focus of the rest depends on what the intent is. Hence the need for closed down apertures.

Lighting is always used in combination with the camera/lens comp to achieve separation.
I like the work of k of Dylan Patrick and there we see the 70-200 at f2.8.
There are many choices and options - we each get to pick what works for our own vision.

Dylan is known to shoot close to wide open.

Attend a few master classes with the likes of Peter H (Mr f/5.6), Rory Lewis, Pros at Wex/Calumet training etc... and/or spend a day with Peter Edwards and other celeb/event shooters and you will find out what settings are really used by them for commercial shoots and they start at f/5.6 and close down.

Distance to subject - is vitally important to understand -- Dylan wants a tiny sliver in focus. Most every other pro wants the whole of the head in focus and key jewelry and clothing in focus too.

These guys always work with strobes/speedlights and reflectors; almost never uncontrolled natural light.

All lenses have a sweet spot or range - one works to find it - most lenses a good at f/5.6-f/8. They are most certainly not "tuned" to shoot wide open. The 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 are sharper at 1.4 but not by much and then are quite good out until diffraction effects start to impact.

If you can back up and use a 200mm then sure one can shoot wider, but then you have to balance the light with the shutter speed and so often we shoot with an ND filter to keep the ISO at base and the shutter speed limited to 1/200th when using multiple speedlights rather than larger and more complex strobes. Most speedlights work best at 1/200th or lower shutter speeds. We almost always use reflectors and/or a strobe to provide a catch light and fill.
Some will avoid smaller apertures so that things like skin blemishes/imperfections are less sharp. And there are always exceptions
I have been playing with white and dark mist filters when there is multiple light sources in the image to provide a glow in camera, but more often than not we add this in post, while we (a retoucher not me) are fixing "skin" issues.

I also shoot X2D to access much higher/quicker flash sync speeds and these help control the ambient. My favorite lens for headshots is still the XCD 3.5/120mm (105mm FF eq) or the XCD 1.9/80mm (63mm eq) and we shoot at a range of apertures and lighting/shutter speeds to achieve a range of images from each set up. I can shoot the X2D down to f/16 and possibly f/20 on some XCD lenses before diffraction effects become really noticeable. The same is not the case for FX sized sensors.
 
Very few pros shoot headshots below f/5.6 and often more closed down than that.
I'm not sure that is what we see in general from the pros. More often for face on head shots we see f/3.5 - f/5.6 (and often wider) in my experience. Make for a very nice balance of DoF and isolation.
I am unclear who "we" are.
Those that go look at the hundreds of high-end professional examples of head-shot portraits. The majority are not stopped down beyond f/5,6...AFAIK
 
Very few pros shoot headshots below f/5.6 and often more closed down than that.
I'm not sure that is what we see in general from the pros. More often for face on head shots we see f/3.5 - f/5.6 (and often wider) in my experience. Make for a very nice balance of DoF and isolation. We also see many looking for emphasis on attractive boheka. Lens choice helps there. My fav is the 70-200 at near f/3.5. I like the work of k of Dylan Patrick and there we see the 70-200 at f2.8. Some will avoid smaller apertures so that things like skin blemishes/imperfections are less sharp. And there are always exceptions
Yes but headshots isn’t every kind of portrait,
Yes...but I'm only speaking to the remark: "Very few pros shoot headshots below f/5.6 and often more closed down than that."

And note a headshot is a kind of portrait with a narrower set of rules. Often anything surrounding the subject id cropped out
 
Last edited:
If the majority of lenses perform optically at their best around the f/5.6 - f/8 range -
The year is 2023, lenses have been more than sharp enough for the past decade throughout their aperture range. The 50 1.8 S is sharper at f/1.8 than the F 50mm 1.4G ever got. Likewise for the f/4 S lenses and the F mount f/2.8 counterparts.

"best" is the difference between using millimeters and micrometers when measuring an ID card. Yeah, you'll get a more "accurate" measurement in micrometers, but it's not meaningfully more accurate.

Whatever gives you the amount of motion (major knob: shutter speed) field of view (major knob: focal length) and depth of field (Major Knobs: Focal Length and Aperture) you want is what you use. ISO is just the compromise needed for the amount of motion you want for the depth of field. If there is not enough light, there is not enough light, and using crazy high ISO and running the image through a smoothing filter is not going to fix that. Chances are that much shadow lifting is going to make the image look unnatural already.
 
Shooting f/1.2 wide open from the min focus distance is a fad that amertures use to try to make their shots interesting.
Ok I'll bite - and I assume you mean amateurs - I think that statement is facile as well as condescending to a vast number of photographers and people who use this web site. I know professional artists who are successful who creatively use their cameras as well as other tools and they can and do use a really shallow depth of focus on a portrait if they wish. Not all professionals are taking passport photographs or standard fashion model shoots to go on clothing or cosmetic web sites or catalogues.

And yes even I, who is "only" a lowly semi professional photographer has had very satisfied customers with very shallow depth of focus on portraits - it really depends on what you are shooting and what image you are wanting to capture for your client or yourself.
Very few pros shoot headshots below f/5.6 and often more closed down than that.
Again - what do you base that on - it doesn't align with my experience of professional, semi professional or even amateur photographers - it totally depends on context, environment, focal length and environment and of course the requirements of the project/contract.... so it is a bit of a bold assertion to say 'very few "pros" shoot headshots below f/5.6... because unless you have undertaken a worldwide survey of photographers that supports that assertion (in which case I will stand corrected) - its a vacuous thing to say.

--
Simon
https://www.flickr.com/people/suffolkimages/
 
Last edited:
Shooting f/1.2 wide open from the min focus distance is a fad that amertures use to try to make their shots interesting.
Ok I'll bite - and I assume you mean amateurs - I think that statement is facile as well as condescending to a vast number of photographers and people who use this web site. I know professional artists who are successful who creatively use their cameras as well as other tools and they can and do use a really shallow depth of focus on a portrait if they wish. Not all professionals are taking passport photographs or standard fashion model shoots to go on clothing or cosmetic web sites or catalogues.

And yes even I, who is "only" a lowly semi professional photographer has had very satisfied customers with very shallow depth of focus on portraits - it really depends on what you are shooting and what image you are wanting to capture for your client or yourself.
You're too sensitive to the comment. Shooting wide open has been a fad in recent years with amateurs, many who are trying to create what they think are interesting shots. Reminds me of the HDR fad from 10-15 years ago.

This is not to say that experienced photographers don't shoot certain types of portraits wide open. Maybe even often. But experienced photographers know what they are doing and why they are doing it.

So yes, I'm sure you do know professional artists that shoot wide open to great intended effect. But that takes nothing away (in my mind) from the other poster's comment about an amateur fad.
 
Mike - I have no issue with calling out that certain things being fads or perhaps I would probably use the word popular so as not to sound snobbish or condescending - it was the statement that most "pros" shoot at X I was responding primarily to - as I don't think you could really say that.

Not saying you intend this at all - but there does seem to be a tendency in some photography websites for some participants to appear condescending to those who don't derive their main income from the photography business, and yes it was that I picked up on - and I apologise if that was not your intent. In my experience most professionals encourage and support photographers of all types to experiment and try things out and develop their skills, and sometimes those amateur hobby photographers turn into successful businesses - I am sure you will agree a key aspect of how we have developed our capabilities at being photographers is through experimenting and more experimenting and finding what works and just as importantly what doesn't work for us and out styles, rather than taking someones word for it.

--
Simon
https://www.flickr.com/people/suffolkimages/
 
Last edited:
If the majority of lenses perform optically at their best around the f/5.6 - f/8 range - why do we love / want / need / praise very fast lenses that can open up to f/1.8 and even f/1.2 not to mention Noct lenses that dip below f/1?

For low light, sure, you want the fastest lens you can get. But with the improvements in NR when shooting higher ISO these days, you can compensate speed for ISO and not really take a hit in IQ.

For portraits, for example, f/1.8 or f/1.2 will give you excellent DoF and subject separation with creamy bokeh. However, that lens is probably sharpest and performs best at f/4 - f/5.6

So why do we want ultra fast lenses? :)
Sometimes a faster lens offers better out of focus rendering. I found this to be the case with the Nikon 35mm f1.4G lens that I bought in 2017 and shot with until 2021 when I bought my Z6ii and 35mm f1.8 S. The Nikon 35mm f1.4G was expensive at $1799 but I absolutely loved shooting with it. Less than 1% of my photos were taken at f1.4, however. Even shooting the night view in Manhattan from the "Top of the Rock" view deck on Rockefeller Center didn't need f1.4, I shot at f2 for most of my photos. But the out of focus rendering on that lens was simply gorgeous, and it really made a lot of my photos sing. Less expensive lenses won't do this I've found. The out of focus rendering of the Nikon 35mm f1.8 S lens is good, but not the same as the 35mm f1.4G.
 
That used to be the case in the past until design has moved along and the Z lenses today mostly are already at their best wide open.
Fast lenses isolate subjects, offer better AF in low light, allow lower ISO and/or higher shutter speeds
And those are reasons why people want fast lenses and would pay the premium for them over slower lenses.
Yes and no. After reading a handful of Thom Hogan’s reviews on various primes, most actually perform optically better (I.e. sharper, corners, etc.) not fully wide open. For example, the 85mm f/1.8 shines at f/4. Sure, it’s marvelous wide open - but technically not its best aperture. The 24-120mm f/4, for example, shines at f/8 (!!).

Agreed on older gen F-mount lenses being inferior to newer gen Z lenses in their sharpness wide open.

I mean, even OG Ken Rockwell has been saying the same thing for years that mid-aperture is the sharpest.

It’s obvious an entry level f/5.6 non-S like lens without ED and other coatings will give you inferior IQ over the flagship glass, but the wide open and I have the fastest lens in the kit argument is simply interesting to me.

I’m not sure anyone can really tell the difference between a $2500 85mm f/1.2 vs. a $7000 Noct lens… If we’re shooting wide open, and again, f/4 seems to be the sweet spot for that focal length.
There are lens specific differences when it comes to the sharpest aperture.

In general, long focal lengths are meant to be used at or near wide open so they are almost always very sharp wide open or minimally stopped down. Some of those lenses are better stopped down if you are adding a TC, but typically that is one stop or less.

Fast lenses - your original question - are normally because you are trying to control the depth of field - particularly to blur the background. In some cases you are looking for more light - but that is not the most common use case.

As you know, for a given lens you can move close to the subject and for a given aperture, the background becomes more blurred. If you move further from the subject, your background becomes more in focus. If you want to have an out of focus background from a greater distance, a fast aperture can make that possible. Without a lens that can provide a fast aperture, it's simply not an option. That can mean you need to worry more about the composition of the background and elements that may be distracting.

For astrophotography and low light situations, we use a fast lens that is designed to be sharp wide open. We also look at corner sharpness - not just center sharpness. Shooting in low light at a middle aperture is just not an option - it means you may have to increase ISO 4-5 stops.

Many of the sharpness measures are for the center of the frame only. That probably does not do you any good at all if you need sharp midframe to corners. While stopping down may help, many modern lenses are perfectly fine at f/2 to f/4, and you gain nothing by stopping down further. Fast primes are usually quite sharp across the frame by f/2 or so. The question is whether the amount you gain from stopping down further is worth the disadvantages.

If you are using your Noct f/0.95 lens at f/4, you're wasting money. Nobody does that - the 50mm f/1.8 can be shot at f/4 with similar results. The reason you buy a fast lens is because you use it at a fast aperture. The same is true for other fast lenses. It does not makes sense to pay a premium to buy a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom, and then use it most of the time with a 2x TC giving you an effective 400mm f/5.6 lens for $3200. You can easily beat that image quality with a 400mm f/4.5 lens - or even the 180-600 zoom for a lower price.
 
If the majority of lenses perform optically at their best around the f/5.6 - f/8 range...
That's no longer the case. Particularly with 45 MP sensors, you are well into diffraction territory at f/8, and you start seeing degradation at f/5.6 with the really good lenses. Often, sweet spots are between f/2.8 and f/4.
... why do we love / want / need / praise very fast lenses that can open up to f/1.8 and even f/1.2 not to mention Noct lenses that dip below f/1?
Subject isolation, astro photography, autofocus performance.
For portraits, for example, f/1.8 or f/1.2 will give you excellent DoF and subject separation with creamy bokeh. However, that lens is probably sharpest and performs best at f/4 - f/5.6
Maybe that should be a hint that sometimes, sharpness is not the most important factor for the pictorial outcome. Sharp and nice background at f/1.8 is better than super sharp and distracting background at f/5.6.
 
I buy the "cheap" f/4 lenses and rarely have enough DOF at f/4, usually stopping down to f/8 or so. I can't remember the last time I shot anything at wide open or even near to it. All faster lenses would get me is a lighter wallet and sore neck.
 
Mike - I have no issue with calling out that certain things being fads or perhaps I would probably use the word popular so as not to sound snobbish or condescending - it was the statement that most "pros" shoot at X I was responding primarily to - as I don't think you could really say that.

Not saying you intend this at all - but there does seem to be a tendency in some photography websites for some participants to appear condescending to those who don't derive their main income from the photography business, and yes it was that I picked up on - and I apologise if that was not your intent. In my experience most professionals encourage and support photographers of all types to experiment and try things out and develop their skills, and sometimes those amateur hobby photographers turn into successful businesses - I am sure you will agree a key aspect of how we have developed our capabilities at being photographers is through experimenting and more experimenting and finding what works and just as importantly what doesn't work for us and out styles, rather than taking someones word for it.
I don't disagree with your comments at all.

It's probably because I personally only use two broad categories to group photographers, amateur and professional. I realize that there are many sub-divisions of amateurs; newcomers, intermediates, skilled, experienced, enthusiasts, hobbyists, etc. There are a huge number of skilled amateurs who are better than professionals. I'm an amateur myself. In my lifetime I've probably received at most a total of about $400 for selling some of my photographs. No paid gigs.

So I just don't take offense when someone makes a broad comment like "there's a fad among amateurs". And yes, I agree, the word "fad" has a very negative connotation. So one should be careful of how and when one uses it.
 
So why do we want ultra-fast lenses? :)
The Nikon Z lenses, like many modern lenses, have maximal center sharpness wide open, or only one stop down, but way before f/8. To isolate subjects, you do not need sharpness at the edges.

I admit that I could live with lenses at maximal f/2.8 if they were already good at that aperture. I mostly take portraits even at f/4.
 
On DSLR, the lens focused using the largest numerical aperture. Thus, a F1.8 might do a better job of focusing on the dance floor because it let more light in than a F5.6 lens, even if with both Lense's I shot at f5.6.

It's my understanding the Z respects aperture up to f5.6, so it focuses' using the aperture you set. As the mirrorless gets more light for focus than DSLR (in DSLR, most of the light goes to the sensor, and only a little to the phase detect focus module. In mirrorless, the AF is on the sensor, and all the light goes to the sensor), this should not matter. Still, in very low light, I wish the Z would allow me to use the widest aperture to focus. I wonder if this choice is partially why the AF problems are so prevalent in Z reports by users?
 
So why do we want ultra-fast lenses? :)
The Nikon Z lenses, like many modern lenses, have maximal center sharpness wide open, or only one stop down, but way before f/8. To isolate subjects, you do not need sharpness at the edges.
and often still, two stops down. In general, there are exceptions, but even the Z lenses tend to have highest resolution in the center at f/4.
I admit that I could live with lenses at maximal f/2.8 if they were already good at that aperture. I mostly take portraits even at f/4.
 
If the majority of lenses perform optically at their best around the f/5.6 - f/8 range - why do we love / want / need / praise very fast lenses that can open up to f/1.8 and even f/1.2 not to mention Noct lenses that dip below f/1?

For low light, sure, you want the fastest lens you can get. But with the improvements in NR when shooting higher ISO these days, you can compensate speed for ISO and not really take a hit in IQ.

For portraits, for example, f/1.8 or f/1.2 will give you excellent DoF and subject separation with creamy bokeh. However, that lens is probably sharpest and performs best at f/4 - f/5.6

So why do we want ultra fast lenses? :)
Just because a lens might be at it's sharpest when stopped down it doesn't mean that it can't still be very sharp wide open. For some subjects you might not even want/need ultra sharp photos, portraits being a good example.

The main reason for fast lenses is of course shallow DoF. But just because you have a fast lens you won't automatically get "creamy bokeh" since the quality of the bokeh is mainly determined by the aperture blades and the optical design of the lens.

Fast lenses can of course also be great for low light, but maybe not for shots where you want everything in focus.
 
Reminds me of the HDR fad from 10-15 years ago.
Ha! I was just thinking about that the other day. HUGE thing in the car world for a while around that time. Everyone had a buddy who took "killer HDR photos" of their modded rides so they could post them on the forums...
 
Last edited:
If the majority of lenses perform optically at their best around the f/5.6 - f/8 range -
The year is 2023, lenses have been more than sharp enough for the past decade throughout their aperture range. The 50 1.8 S is sharper at f/1.8 than the F 50mm 1.4G ever got. Likewise for the f/4 S lenses and the F mount f/2.8 counterparts.

"best" is the difference between using millimeters and micrometers when measuring an ID card. Yeah, you'll get a more "accurate" measurement in micrometers, but it's not meaningfully more accurate.

Whatever gives you the amount of motion (major knob: shutter speed) field of view (major knob: focal length) and depth of field (Major Knobs: Focal Length and Aperture) you want is what you use. ISO is just the compromise needed for the amount of motion you want for the depth of field. If there is not enough light, there is not enough light, and using crazy high ISO and running the image through a smoothing filter is not going to fix that. Chances are that much shadow lifting is going to make the image look unnatural already.
All very true.

Manufacturers also make their best optics for fast lenses as well because people will pay for it. They need to make lenses for various price points and the slower lenses cut corners in many areas.

Compare the 50mm 1.8 to the 40mm, or say the 24mm 1.8 to the 28mm and the quality will be better at the same apertures for the fast lenses in almost every case regarding sharpness.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top