I’m recently reading Bryan Peterson’s Understanding Exposure. He states he uses mostly f22 for landscapes and that all that loss in sharpness and diffraction is so minor that it doesn’t matter.
Now I also discussed that on r/photography and most of the folks there shoot landscapes with f/8-f/11 if there is nothing in the immediate foreground (talking about closer than 30 cm here).
I used a 18-105 mm kit lens on my D7000 for this shot.
This is the whole image, the red mark is where I focused.
Here we can see the stone in the foreground, it was around 5-8 meters away from me. You can recognize a sharper image in the f/11 shot.
Here we are on 100% on the sunset, there are wooden objects in the water in the distance, here you can clearly see that the f/22 shot delivered a sharper or more focused result.
On the wooden planks it comes very clear, the f/22 shot clearly gave a more focused and sharper result.
And at last, the water in the immediate foreground. Here the f/11 version delivers a better sharpness in my opinion.
For me, it’s very hard to chose between the 2. I eventually would go for the f/11 version (because I don’t have to remove dust spots ;-) ) and because of the greater overall sharpness. If you watch the picture on a normal scale it’s hard to recognize the slight difference in the distant objects.
What do you guys think? On which aperture you shoot landscapes like this? Tell me your opinions!