F/32 Are you kidding me?

[dbg07]

I recently got the Canon 400mm f/5.6. It's a great lens and an even better value. Very happy with the purchase.

The lens goes from f/5.6 to f/32.

I was trying to think about the circumstances under which I would say "Self, shoot this at f/32. Yes, f/32 is the perfect aperture for this scene." I could think of precisely zero reasons.

Can anyone tell me why I would use f/32? ......and don't say sunstars. You can get perfectly good sunstars at a much lower f-stop than 32.

Thanks in advance.

 

[ttbek]

Hopefully nothing, there I a lot of diffraction softening at that point. But you could conceivably have two subjects very separated that you want both in focus, and being a 400 the DOF is very shallow. Maybe if you want a person and a distant landmark both sharp (as sharp as possible with diffraction), though I'm not sure you would need to go quite that far. Maybe also if you're using it for macro with extension tubes.

 

[DtEW]

Despite all the heated arguments over pixel-peeping issues (center vs. edge sharpness, diffraction, etc.) that these forums enable, one needs to keep in mind getting everything that you need for the scene in-focus trumps all other non-exposure considerations of IQ.

The primary non-exposure reason shots are rejected is missed/misplaced focus. and as ttbek said... DoF is shockingly thin at the same apertures with long teles.

You may not be maximizing the IQ potential of the lens at f/32, but it may very much be necessary to capture the shot that is there. It's good that the option exists.

 

[Mark B.]

I recently got the Canon 400mm f/5.6. It's a great lens and an even better value. Very happy with the purchase.

The lens goes from f/5.6 to f/32.

I was trying to think about the circumstances under which I would say "Self, shoot this at f/32. Yes, f/32 is the perfect aperture for this scene." I could think of precisely zero reasons.

Can anyone tell me why I would use f/32? ......and don't say sunstars. You can get perfectly good sunstars at a much lower f-stop than 32.

Thanks in advance.

The speedometer on my vehicle goes to 120. There are exactly 0 circumstances where I would go that fast in a small SUV.

No, you wouldn't want to shoot anything at f/32; the image will be soft & mushy from diffraction, and you will need a very solid tripod even after boosting the ISO. Sometimes a spec is just a spec even if it's something you'll never use.

 

[ttbek]

I recently got the Canon 400mm f/5.6. It's a great lens and an even better value. Very happy with the purchase.

The lens goes from f/5.6 to f/32.

I was trying to think about the circumstances under which I would say "Self, shoot this at f/32. Yes, f/32 is the perfect aperture for this scene." I could think of precisely zero reasons.

Can anyone tell me why I would use f/32? ......and don't say sunstars. You can get perfectly good sunstars at a much lower f-stop than 32.

Thanks in advance.

The speedometer on my vehicle goes to 120. There are exactly 0 circumstances where I would go that fast in a small SUV.

Medical emergency in the case where it is possible on your roads?

No, you wouldn't want to shoot anything at f/32; the image will be soft & mushy from diffraction, and you will need a very solid tripod even after boosting the ISO. Sometimes a spec is just a spec even if it's something you'll never use.

I don't know about that, I was using f/20 not that long ago handheld and it was fine at low ISO, the focal length requires some extra, but I recon it would be alright in daylight with 6400 ish ISO, f/32 isn't that much darker than f/20. For still subjects mind.

 

[hotdog321]

I recently got the Canon 400mm f/5.6. It's a great lens and an even better value. Very happy with the purchase.

The lens goes from f/5.6 to f/32.

I was trying to think about the circumstances under which I would say "Self, shoot this at f/32. Yes, f/32 is the perfect aperture for this scene." I could think of precisely zero reasons.

Can anyone tell me why I would use f/32? ......and don't say sunstars. You can get perfectly good sunstars at a much lower f-stop than 32.

Thanks in advance.

I can think of one reason--panning. For instance, there have been a few times when shooting under the blazing Texas sun at a bike race or track runner where I wanted to do an artsy panning shot and even going down to ISO 50 didn't come close to doing the trick.

--
photojournalist
http://craighartley.zenfolio.com/

 

[Dave]

Rough substitute for the neutral density filter you forgot to bring?

 

[Spotted Cow]

I recently got the Canon 400mm f/5.6. It's a great lens and an even better value. Very happy with the purchase.

The lens goes from f/5.6 to f/32.

I was trying to think about the circumstances under which I would say "Self, shoot this at f/32. Yes, f/32 is the perfect aperture for this scene." I could think of precisely zero reasons.

Can anyone tell me why I would use f/32? ......and don't say sunstars. You can get perfectly good sunstars at a much lower f-stop than 32.

Thanks in advance.

I can think of one reason--panning. For instance, there have been a few times when shooting under the blazing Texas sun at a bike race or track runner where I wanted to do an artsy panning shot and even going down to ISO 50 didn't come close to doing the trick.

 

[dbg07]

Rough substitute for the neutral density filter you forgot to bring?

I like the "rough substitute" phrase. I think I'm going to incorporate that into my daily vocabulary. ie. "Honey, this broccoli is a rough substitute for the chocolate cake I asked for." 10/10 phrase. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Dave]

Rough substitute for the neutral density filter you forgot to bring?

I like the "rough substitute" phrase. I think I'm going to incorporate that into my daily vocabulary. ie. "Honey, this broccoli is a rough substitute for the chocolate cake I asked for." 10/10 phrase. Thanks for sharing.

Check out my "rough substitute" suggestion in the "red rubber band" thread. :-D

 

[BAK]

The physically and optical nature of most lenses allows a range of 6 or 7 stops.

2.8 to 4 to 5.6 to 8 to 11 to 16, or

5.6 to 8 to 11 to 16 to 22 to 32.

And yes, the opportunities to use this on a long telephoto lens are pretty few and far between.

Maybe you want to underexpose by two stops a silhouette of a sailing boat on a sunny days with lots of water glare.

BAK

 

[hotdog321]

I recently got the Canon 400mm f/5.6. It's a great lens and an even better value. Very happy with the purchase.

The lens goes from f/5.6 to f/32.

I was trying to think about the circumstances under which I would say "Self, shoot this at f/32. Yes, f/32 is the perfect aperture for this scene." I could think of precisely zero reasons.

Can anyone tell me why I would use f/32? ......and don't say sunstars. You can get perfectly good sunstars at a much lower f-stop than 32.

Thanks in advance.

I can think of one reason--panning. For instance, there have been a few times when shooting under the blazing Texas sun at a bike race or track runner where I wanted to do an artsy panning shot and even going down to ISO 50 didn't come close to doing the trick.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

I recently got the Canon 400mm f/5.6. It's a great lens and an even better value. Very happy with the purchase.

The lens goes from f/5.6 to f/32.

I was trying to think about the circumstances under which I would say "Self, shoot this at f/32. Yes, f/32 is the perfect aperture for this scene." I could think of precisely zero reasons.

Can anyone tell me why I would use f/32? ......and don't say sunstars. You can get perfectly good sunstars at a much lower f-stop than 32.

I've used f/18 (roughly, from memory) on crop cameras in extreme circumstances. Yes there's a lot of diffraction softening but it's a trade-off. Add 1 1/3 stops for the equivalent on full frame and you get f/29 which is only 1/3 stop from f/32.

F/32 isn't for everyday use but on the odd occasion it might be exactly what you need.

 

[RedFox88]

I recently got the Canon 400mm f/5.6. It's a great lens and an even better value. Very happy with the purchase.

The lens goes from f/5.6 to f/32.

You know, there was photography before digital photography where people greatly enlarge photos on a computer screen...when all photos were viewed as prints that diminished sharpness between f/16 and f/32 won't be seen unless under a microscope.

I was trying to think about the circumstances under which I would say "Self, shoot this at f/32. Yes, f/32 is the perfect aperture for this scene." I could think of precisely zero reasons.

Can anyone tell me why I would use f/32? ......and don't say sunstars. You can get perfectly good sunstars at a much lower f-stop than 32.

Thanks in advance.

 

[ed rader]

//

 

[Peter Kwok]

The physically and optical nature of most lenses allows a range of 6 or 7 stops.

2.8 to 4 to 5.6 to 8 to 11 to 16, or

5.6 to 8 to 11 to 16 to 22 to 32.

BAK

Perhaps the aperture diaphragm and motor designs are used on more than one lens, giving the same number of stops. Canon may not want to spend the effort to reduce that range.

--
Peter Kwok
Click here for my PBase gallery
WYSIWYG - If you don't like what you get, try to see differently.

 

[Sittatunga]

Can anyone tell me why I would use f/32? ......

My macro lens stops down to f/32. It's for those occasions where the lack of sharpness due to the limited close-up depth of field at, say, f/11 or f/16 is more disturbing than the lack of sharpness due to diffraction at f/32. By the way, the standard of sharpness used for the depth of field scale markings on a 35x24mm format lens is about 6 megapixels.

 

[streetsandtheatres]

I can think of one reason--panning. For instance, there have been a few times when shooting under the blazing Texas sun at a bike race or track runner where I wanted to do an artsy panning shot and even going down to ISO 50 didn't come close to doing the trick.

--

This makes a lot of sense. Especially since the lens was designed for film cameras, where changing iso wasn't quite as easy as it is now...

 

[Azathothh]

For example shooting at a very small aperture like f32 is very handy when testing the sensor for dust spots.

 

[Juardis]

I'll say sunstars. I was experimenting with my 15-85 IS and T2i trying to get "sunstars" on my christmas tree lights. F22 did OK, F32 did phenomenal. In fact, the overall detail captured with F32@60 sec was way better than F8@4sec