Hi,
It's absolutely certain hat DSLR lenses loose sharpness when stopped down to small apertures. This loss of sharpness can be compensated by sharpening to a certain extent. The effect is both measurable and visible.
This was measured on actual photographs: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....ost&id=3387
Based on my experience I'd suggest that going beyond f/16 may be detrimental to image quality, f/22 is OK if you really need depth of field and f/32 is bad.
Best regards
Erik
My experience is similar to Eric's and the issue can be backed up with quantitative data. Eric gave a link to some Imatest results.
Photozone.de is an excellent German site that gives Imatest results for a wide variety of cameras and lenses. The link shown is for the Nikkor 60 mm f/2.8 AFS on the Nikon D200. The maximum MTF 50 is at f/5.6, but results are decent down to f/16 and quite poor at f/32. Most lenses for 35 mm formats stop at f/16, but this lens is a macro lens where depth of field is very shallow at higher magnification and f/32 allows greater DOF at the expense of lower MTF.
I did my own tests with this lens on the Nikon D3. I rendered into TIFFs with ACR using the default settings, which include conservative capture sharpening. Shown below are the Imatest plots for f/4 and f/22. Readers are referred to the Imatest documentation for a detailed explanation of how the program works and how the results are interpreted. Briefly, the program uses a slanted edge target with a black-white transition. The steeper the curve as one goes from white to black, the better the MTF, and the MTF can be calculated from this curve. The slope is steeper for f/4 than f/22. The resolution at 50% contrast is 44.5 lp/mm at f/4 and 30.3 lp/mm at f/22. At f/4 the system resolves about 75% of Nyquist, which is typical for Bayer array cameras. Over sharpening can give resolution above Nyquist, but one is not seeing true detail but garbage due to aliasing. Unfortunately, Imatest does not distinguish between the two possibilities.
The blue shaded area to the right of the Nyquist frequency on the X-axis is aliasing. One advantage of f/22 is that the lens is acting as a low pass filter and reduces aliasing. This is analogous to the situation with P&S cameras, which don't have blur filters since the lens performs this purpose at the very small pixel size of these cameras.
[attachment=16806:F4_F22_Results.png]
Shown below are resolution charts from the same images, with the f/4 results on the top and the f/22 results on the bottom. The target was not photographed at the subject distance needed to interpret the resolution in lp/mm, but the results are relative. As the resolution approaches Nyquist, the image breaks up due to alaising, which is prominent at arount 10 on the lower set of bars in each image. On visual inspection, the improved contrast at f/4 is apparent at even the lowest resolution. However, detail is present up to Nyquist even at f/22, but the contrast is low. Indeed, as
Roger Clark's Optical System Resolution Limits chart shows, a perfect lens at f/22 can resolve 35 lp/mm at 50% contrast and 75 lp/mm at the Rayleigh limit, which is about 10% contrast. The Nyquist of the D3 is about 59 lp/mm (118 lw/mm). Cycles/mm is the same as lp/mm, and lw/mm (line widths) is double the former. The 60 mm f/2.8 lens is not perfect, but at f/22 it is safe to assume that it is diffraction limited. The old style USAF and similar resolution bar charts measure MTF at about 10%, but more recent studies have shown that MTF at 50% correlates best with perceived image quality.
[attachment=16807:F4_F22_Res.png]