There's no one-size-fits-all aperture for landscapes that should be used 100% of the time. But when I have the choice, I always shoot for f/5.6 or similar. Let me explain:

Typically, we're told to use an aperture between f/8 and f/11 to strike a good balance between a wide depth of field (everything "in focus") and adequate lens sharpness. You could achieve a greater depth of field beyond f/11, but diffraction occurs, resulting in a loss of sharpness.

If you want to get it all in one shot, f/11 might still be the best aperture, but most of us are focus-stacking to get the whole image in focus. If you're willing to do a focus stack, why not use your lenses' sharpest aperture and take a couple extra images to focus stack?

I've been testing this theory over the last few months and have loved getting those slightly sharper images. No, it won't make any difference if you're viewing the image on a 5-inch phone screen. But if you want to print your images or do any significant cropping, having that little extra bit of sharpness goes a long way.

What do you think? Please give me one logical reason why you think f/8-f/11 is superior for those willing to do focus stacking!

свернуть