• Welcome to the Two Wheeled Texans community! Feel free to hang out and lurk as long as you like. However, we would like to encourage you to register so that you can join the community and use the numerous features on the site. After registering, don't forget to post up an introduction!

Lens length, f-stop and depth of field

Tracker

post tenebras lux
Forum Supporter
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
16,576
Reaction score
7,951
Location
Rowdylett, TX
First Name
Gary
It's been about a hundred years (ok, 20+) since I had my AE-1 and I use to have a pretty good handle on depth of field, f-stops and lens lengths. Since then, I've slept a few nights and forgot most of it, other than small f-stops have shallow depths of field and large f-stops deeper DOF.

The great thing is since that time, Al Gore invented the Interwebs and there's an online depth of filed calculator
 
That's a good little site if you write a few of the key ones down and keep with you and your gear. Or...... press the little preview DOF button and see what it actually looks like if your body has that feature.
 
I made this little DOF visualizer. If you bookmark it on your phone, it will (should) download the page and you can use it offline. Nothing really new here, but I couldn't find a calculator that presented the DOF and hyperfocal distance on a single scale like that. Drag the blue flag around to change the focus distance.
 
That's the gist of it. The wider the aperture opening, the shallower the depth of field. If you're taking flower closeups and want to blur out the background, shoot as low as possible (F1.8 is great for that, if you have a fixed lens). If you want to capture both foreground and background, small aperture - usually F8 or higher will do the trick.

I happen to be in the process, right now, of scanning my old slides, and ran across this one just yesterday. It's been a long time but I remember the details, because this picture became a Christmas card. It was taken with a Petri SLR, 50mm lens at the closest possible focus (probably 16" or so), at F1.8 and 1/4 second. The foreground is a Christmas candle. The background is electric lights on a Christmas tree, about 2-3' behind the candle. Lucky shot.
 

Attachments

  • 1975-12 (19).jpg
    1975-12 (19).jpg
    12.8 KB · Views: 225
Nice pic. I think I remember that Christmas card.
 
BTW - sorry to jump in... it seems people get confused by the inverse relationship to the f-stop number and the 'size'. The larger the number the more closed the aperture. The more closed the aperture, the greater the depth of field. That's why sports photographers have to have HUGE lenses - to compensate for the shutter speed and letting enough light in (small f-stop) to get the action shots with enough depth of field.

Hand-held lenses of 1000mm stop down to far as their maximum opening for sports.

Tim - that photo is awesome!
 
Correct, Pyro. F1.8 is a big freaking aperture opening. F22 is a pinhole.

Thanks - I've tried to recreate the picture with subsequent Christmas trees, and never quite got it. Sigh, there's no substitute for Ektachrome 64.
 
:tab Well, technically it is f/stop, which means one over the denominator. The smaller the DENOMINATOR is the larger the actual number will be. So f/1.4 is in fact a larger NUMBER than f/22, and accordingly f/1.4 has a larger opening. I think the confusion comes because many people just say, "I was shooting at an aperture of 16," instead of, "I was shooting at f/16." So they forget the 16 is a denominator in a fraction.
 
:tab Well, technically it is f/stop, which means one over the denominator. The smaller the DENOMINATOR is the larger the actual number will be. So f/1.4 is in fact a larger NUMBER than f/22, and accordingly f/1.4 has a larger opening. I think the confusion comes because many people just say, "I was shooting at an aperture of 16," instead of, "I was shooting at f/16." So they forget the 16 is a denominator in a fraction.

I thought I wasn't confused. But then, I could be wrong. Or not... :ponder:
 
Well, you normally measure something upwards... a bigger number would be a bigger hole. In this case it's inverted. It's how much the hole is closed off (at the focal point of the lens.) F (focal length)/stopped-down amount of light getting through that area in the lens. (focal length not to be confused with focal plane vs overall length of the lens.)

WHY that is I still don't understand.How you block that area and don't encroach into the actual picture just doesn't make sense. Your eye works the same way, but it doesn't change your depth of field... then again your eye is only an inch long, and your focus is two lenses instead of one...


EDIT - after the immediately preceding post - which really does help quite a bit.
 
Last edited:
Well, you normally measure something upwards... a bigger number would be a bigger hole. In this case it's inverted.

:tab That is what I was trying to point out. The bigger NUMBER is indeed a bigger hole. An aperture of 1/1.4 is larger than 1/16. The number is the entire fraction, not just the denominator. Not keeping that distinction in mind is what I think confuses many people. They equate the number with the denominator and forget that they are dealing with a fraction. I know that many charts I see that list aperture settings very often leave off the "1/" and just list the 1.2, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, etc,...

WHY that is I still don't understand.How you block that area and don't encroach into the actual picture just doesn't make sense. Your eye works the same way, but it doesn't change your depth of field... then again your eye is only an inch long, and your focus is two lenses instead of one..

:tab It is because of the relationship of the lens, the focal point, location of the aperture and sensor. The aperture is pretty close to the focal point, so stopping it down has little effect on the field of view. See if this image helps:

aperture.jpg


Even with some of the rays coming from the tip of the arrow being blocked, the lens still captures some light from the tip and it gets passed through. You still get the same image, just less light. If you were to remove the lens, then you would indeed see a reduced field of view from the center line of the sensor.

:tab There are multiple light rays coming into the camera at different angles from the same point on the subject. You can lose some of the light rays and still have others making it through. It is also why you get at particular aperture setting for most lenses that is the sharpest in the full range of settings for the lens even though the image is technically focused at all of the aperture settings.

See if this helps,

2.gif


The "pinhole" being the aperture.
 
Ok - you reduce the number of versions of the same image getting to the film which lessens the photons hitting it. That's cool. But how does that really cause the depth of field increase?
 
Ok - you reduce the number of versions of the same image getting to the film which lessens the photons hitting it. That's cool. But how does that really cause the depth of field increase?

Magically!

:lol2:
 
Ok - you reduce the number of versions of the same image getting to the film which lessens the photons hitting it. That's cool. But how does that really cause the depth of field increase?

It's been explained to me several times. And I always remember it until, well, my next thought. Okay - yeah, it's magic.
 
Ok - you reduce the number of versions of the same image getting to the film which lessens the photons hitting it. That's cool. But how does that really cause the depth of field increase?

:tab For the long explanation, see here:

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF6.html

Here is the short version,

DOF_lens.gif


:tab There is only ONE distance from the lens that is perfectly focused. That would be S above. The light passing through the lens and aperture is perfectly focused on the film/sensor plane. That is true regardless of the aperture used.

:tab Now look at the light rays for the object at Sr and Sf. Because of their shift behind or in front of S, their light does not hit the film/sensor plane where all the light intersects again into a single point. If you look at the red/green lines, and imagine them being in the shape of cones, the cone for the red lines is truncated by the film/sensor plane before it comes to a point, so you get a circle on the film/sensor instead of a point. The green cone comes to a point in front of the film/sensor plane and then starts a new expanding cone as it continues toward the film/sensor plane. It too gets truncated by the film/sensor plane and creates a circle. This is what is referred to as the Circle of Confusion. The larger the circle of confusion, the more out of focus something will be.

:tab If "a" is reduced, or you "stop down", then the angle between the sides of the cones are reduced. Thus at the point of truncation for each cone, the circle of light created on the film/sensor plane gets smaller. The objects from which the light is coming get sharper. There is a limit to this effect though.

:tab Light has that pesky nature that allows it to act like particles traveling in a straight line (as the diagram above shows), but it also acts like a wave at the same time. When waves pass through an opening, they tend to spread out on the far side of the opening. Check out the next image and you will see what I am talking about.

1.png


:tab With a big opening, the diffraction is reduced. The wave tends to stay close to its original shape. With a small opening, diffraction increases and the wave spreads to the sides much more.

:tab So what you have are the two natures of light working against each other. A large opening reduces diffraction but increases the circle of confusion for objects that are not right on the focal plane. We get what is called a shallow depth of field. A small opening may reduce the circle of confusion and thus render objects further from the focal plane as sharper, but now diffraction starts to become a problem as we continue reducing the size of the opening. For every lens, there tends to be a "sweet spot" in terms of getting the best sharpness by reducing the circle of confusion but not losing sharpness because of diffraction. As a ROUGH rule of thumb, that spot will generally be in the middle of the aperture range for the lens, but not necessarily. Much depends on the internal optics of the lens.

:tab We often speak of the DOF as the range where everything is in focus, but that is not really correct. There is only ONE plane where everything is perfectly focused. As we move in front of or behind that plane, we start to lose focus no matter what, but changing the aperture allows us to control the degree of out of focus by manipulating the circle of confusion and minimizing the effect of diffraction.

:tab If you get into Macro photography, then diffraction can really become an issue that you have to pay attention to. But for most other realms of photography, we can usually ignore it and just pay attention to what we normally think of as DOF where everything is "in focus" or close to it.

:tab Did that help?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top