When it comes to landscape photography, a narrow aperture and large depth of field is the norm, as we generally want to get everything from the foreground to infinity sharp. Of course, that is a creative decision, and just like any other such decision, you can do something else. So, is it worth trying landscape photographs with a narrow depth of field? This great video makes a good case for it.
Coming to you from James Popsys, this interesting video takes a look at shooting landscape photos with a super-wide aperture. While Popsys makes a great case for the creative use of a shallow depth of field, this can also be quite functional as well. Of course, there is nighttime work where you might want to get the Milky Way in the shot, but another instance where it can solve a problem is woodland photography. Dense forests often present the issue of complicated, distracting frames, and using a wider aperture to blur out the busy, crisscrossing branches behind your subject can help you get around those tricky backgrounds. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Popsys, and don't forget to take a look at his new book as well.
No! I do it at f/1.2
I guess his switch to Sony is paying off....
First generally 2 stops above wide open is the sharpest like the lenses of old that were f/4 you shoot at f/8 etc. So with a fast/f/1.4 then f/2.8 would be sharp allowing for a faster SS or lower ISO or both! A surprise to a day shooters is that at night there is clarity both far and near at widest open and no real dof narrowing. When doing Milky Way's with a 1.8 or 1.4 sand on the beach nearest to the lens and a city 20 miles away on the horizon along the beach view and some boats/ships (not moving much) will be crystal clear focused at infinity even, except the Sigma 14mm f/1.8.