Hyperfocal Distance With a Zoom Lens

adam_nash2 · October 26, 2013

Hi,

I am about to head off to Nepal trekking and plan to do quite a bit of landscape photography and timelapses. I have a couple of questions relating to hyperfocal distance.

1) I Haven't read anything that suggest otherwise but are the calculations the same when using a zoom lens? I have a number of lenses that I will be bringing with me, both prime and zoom. My primary landscape kit is a Nikon D7000, 16-85 and a 35mm 1.8. I guess a precursor to this questions would be, can you use hyperfocal distance with zoom lenses?

2) I am using a iPad app to help me calculate the distance. With a circle of confusion of 0.019, the lens set to 16mm and at f22 I am getting a distance calculation of between 58cm - 59cm. From there I set the camera to the above settings, get a tape measure and measure 59mm from the focal plane and set something there for the camera to focus on. Once done I switch to manual focus to avoid refocusing at a different distance. I then go ahead and take the photo though the results are certainly not in focus much beyond the 59cm mark. Am I missing something here?

Thanks for your help,

Adam

john_wheeler6 · October 26, 2013

Hi Alan - Here are a few thoughts

- The DOF calculators are as valid for Prime and Zoom lenses when you know the actual focal length, aperture, and are measuring from the point that is assumed by the equations used in the application (more details no that later)

- If you have a very shallow DOF with the above settings it is probably that you are not stopping down the aperture to f/22. Unless you stop it down the default is to leave the aperture wide open until the moment the shot is taken

- Much better to determine you focus point by using live view with magnification as opposed to a ruler (whys below)

- The vast majority of DOF calculators are assuming an ideal single lens element structure and are measuring the distance from the lens position and not the focal plane (not to mention all lenses are not a single lens element)

- While prime lenses are pretty accurate in their markings on the barrel they are not perfect and certainly be off even more on zoom lenses and macos

- Also not taken into account is that with multi-element lens the actual focal length can change depending on your focus point. This is a bigger issue with some zoom lenses and in particular with some macro lenses yet can happen for any lens and vary by brand and specific lens model. Most focal lengths are all measured and quoted only when the lens is focused at infinity. The phenomena is named "focus breathing" in case you want to check up on it with an internet search.

- The prior points mean that knowing exactly the point to measure from (its not the focal plane) and the exact focal length to use in the equation make the answers from those applications "approximate."

- Bottom line, use the calculators as a good starting approximation yet don't take the answer as gospel

Hope this helps some and I am sure you will get other good posts on the topic.

Tim_Lookingbill · October 26, 2013

I never use math to figure out how to control such landscape aesthetics and I've fared pretty well with the 3000 or so Raws I've taken of those type of images.

I can simplify it for you this way according to how I get decently focused landscapes. I know that the wider the angle (i.e. below 40mm) the less it matters on what contrasted edge subject I spot focus on in the distance.

I use the viewfinder using spot meter focus on a subject at mid distance within the scene compared to infinity horizon if it's in the actual scene, examine the overall crispness, then again farther away until I notice closer objects at say closer range of twenty feet or so get softer. I know I went too far. I also zoom in on the area I want in focus viewing the LCD preview with the camera's "Sharpen" setting set to max. Most of the time I get the dominant elements in a landscape all in focus especially shooting at 18mm, my kit zoom's max wide angle. Anything over 40mm is going to require a narrower field of range for getting overall crisp results seen in the viewfinder and LCD preview.

For instance if there are tree leaves framing the distant scene within 10 feet of the lens or so I know they're going to be somewhat soft no matter where I pick the focus point in the distance and how wide the angle.

Of course you could just use the math and go by the numbers and not chimp and not rely on what you see in the viewfinder, but I trust my eyes and the camera's technology I paid good money for to trust over what math is going to tell me. Once you trip the shutter and move on, it's too late if the math happens to get it wrong.

john_stockdale2 · October 26, 2013

Do some testing before your expedition! Remember the often said warning that DoF tables/calculators are generally based on a very loose definition of acceptable focal accuracy. As a very rough guide, when using DoF markings on lenses, I use the marks for two stops wider than I'm actually using (i.e a much smaller circle of confusion than the tables/marks, actually half the size).

To clarify, the marks on the lens are closer to the focus mark, indicating less DoF (much less, unfortunately, but you can't argue with the laws of physics.)

Of course, most zoom lenses these days don't have DoF marks but the tables/calculators lead to the same result.

Dieter Schaefer · October 26, 2013

Forget about the nonsense with hyperfocal distance focusing. Stop and think for a moment: according to these calculations, setting your lens to the following apertures would result in these hyperfocal distances:

f/8 - 5.58ft

f/11 - 3.96ft

f/16 - 2.82ft

f/22 - 2.01 ft

Stopping down that far gets you about 2ft more DOF close to your camera - at the expense of a reduced resolution due to diffraction. Is that really worth it? Moreover, does it makes sense?

Now, let's assume your "infinity" is a mile or so away - do you really believe that focusing on a spot 2ft away will give you a DOF that ranges from 1ft to 1 mile or 2 mile or 3 miles?

Remember, the whole hyperfocal distance business gives you the zone of maximum DOF - which is the zone of acceptable sharpness. What's acceptable? How large do you intend to print?

I suggest you follow John's advice and do some testing. I also suggest you include a few shots focused at infinity - and then carefully evaluate the differences to the one focused at the hyperfocal distance. If you want to read up on a different approach, google Merklinger - makes for some very enlightening reading.

Tim's method is one that will guarantee you success - hyperfocal will drive you crazy. Trust what you can see...

Lastly, if you really need DOF from an inch to infinity, try focus stacking. And if you want absolute sharpness and detail to no end - then do multirow panoramic stitching.

AlanKlein · October 26, 2013

Adam: I must be missing something here. If I understand, you're setting the focus at 59cm (your paragraph 2). That's about 2 feet. Yet you want infinity to be in focus. (You said you want the hyperfocal distance whioch is a focl point before infinity that also allows infinity to be in focus). If 59cm is the closest you want to be in focus, you would not set the focus at 59cm but at the hyperfocal distance for that lens at that aperture. That would be 386.3cm away to get infinity in focus for a 35mm lens at f16.

According to this calculator, you get this with a 35mm lens at f16. You are not going to be in focus beyond 69cm. In fact your focus will be 51.5 to 69 cm. Hyperfocal tries to get you in focus to infinity to maximize focus to the nearest point as well. For this aerture setting and lens you would have to focus at 386.3cm. <a href="http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html">http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html</a>

<tbody>

<tr>

<td align="left" valign="top" width="55%">Subject distance</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td colspan="2" align="left">Depth of field</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Near limit</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Far limit</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Total</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >In front of subject</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Behind subject</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Hyperfocal distance</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Circle of confusion</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

AlanKlein · October 26, 2013

Just to make my point clear in the last post. There is no way to get infinity in focus with these lenses if you want an object 59cm away to be in focus as well. The closest you could do is around 193.2cm in order to keep infinity in focus as well, something far beyond this lens at this aperture. It changes to 137cm at f22 which is closer but still not 59cm. following at f16

<tbody>

<tr>

<td align="left" valign="top" width="55%">Subject distance</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td colspan="2" align="left">Depth of field</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Near limit</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Far limit</td>

<td id="dofFar" align="left">Infinity</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Total</td>

<td id="dofTotal" align="left">Infinite</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>In front of subject</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Behind subject</td>

<td id="dofRear" align="left">Infinite</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Hyperfocal distance</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Circle of confusion</td>

0.02 mm

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

AlanKlein · October 26, 2013

Let me correct my posts. I just checked a 16mm lens at f22. See below. It indicates you can get infinity in focus with the hyperfocal being at 58.2cm. I don't know why that would not work if you tried it except that the calculations are based on fixed lenses I believe. There may be a lot of slop in the calculations with zoom lenses. The other possibilty might be that you're getting into refraction issues at f22 so the image is not as sharp.

<tbody>

<tr>

<td align="left" valign="top" width="55%">Subject distance</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td colspan="2" align="left">Depth of field</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Near limit</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Far limit</td>

<td id="dofFar" align="left">Infinity</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Total</td>

<td id="dofTotal" align="left">Infinite</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >In front of subject</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Behind subject</td>

<td id="dofRear" align="left">Infinite</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Hyperfocal distance</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Circle of confusion</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

Dieter Schaefer · October 26, 2013

Alan, the issue is that the formula gives 2.01ft as the hyperfocal distance for the 16mm focal length at f22. Setting 2.01ft as the distance, DOF is then supposedly from 1.0ft to infinity. Or not, as the OP has found out. Diffraction will certainly rob some resolution at f/22 but it's not going to be major.

Alan Marcus · October 26, 2013

For those wondering, hyperfocal distance refers to the closest distance setting of the focus scale that retains acceptable sharpness for objects at infinity. This will be a variable. We can use simple math to calculate this distance. The inputs are focal length, the f/number setting, and the diameter of the circle of confusion.

OK Adam here goes my gobbledygook! The formula: (Focal length X .0033 X 1000) ÷ f/# Assume 50mm lens set to f/16 (50 X 0.0033 X 1000) ÷ 16 = 165 ÷ 16 = 10.31 feet. Assume 100mm lens set to f/4 (100 X 0.0033 X 1000) ÷ 4 = 330 ÷ 4 = 82.5 feet

Some clarification: The size of the circle of confusion is set small for modern cameras. We are taking about the tiniest optical element that will be seen as a point by the unaided human eye examining an image at normal reading distance. The size of this circle at the camera’s film plane must be super tiny as we will be required to enlarge (blowup) the image to obtain a suitable final image. The industry standard is set at 1/1000 of the focal length. The Lieca standard is 1/1500 and the old Kodak standard is 1/1750. In the above equation I used 1/1000 which is likely acceptable for most work. You are free to modify this value for your purposes. Now all values must use the same unit, we are taking circle size and focal length. Generally we work in millimeters thus the answer will be a super large number. In this equation, 0.0033 is a conversion factor, millimeters to feet.

As to hyperfocal distance, it makes no difference if the lens is fixed focal length (prime) or variable focal length (zoom). The equation stands both tests. Let me add that hyperfocal distance is just a subset of depth of field calculations. All formula, tables, marks on lens focus scale are just guesstimate as the real world test of acceptable sharpness is subjective and definitely not finite.

You can use the calculator on your smart phone for this!

AlanKlein · October 26, 2013

Deiter: I agree with you. My third post above corrected my first two posts. I missed that he was using f22 on the 16mm.

Tim_Lookingbill · October 26, 2013

Study this guy's work:

http://www.pbase.com/sedonamemories/image/105594024

...especially in how he distributes sharpness appearance by combining both micro-edge and local contrast to gradually distribute the appearance of sharpness from larger foreground objects to the distant smaller cliffs and clouds.

Note he used f/6.3 on a 35mm full frame Canon DSLR. There's no way to tell what he focused on and that's because he applied sharpness masking to pull off a uniform appearance of sharpness according to how edge contrast and sharpness appears to the eyes depending on distance.

Note there are no edge halos anywhere in the scene even down to the tiniest of rocks no matter the distance. Note the foreground is more contrasty than the mids which are a bit more contrasty than the distant cliffs and clouds. Derek Von Briesen is mimicking how we humans perceive depth, not how the camera records it.

DOF math calculating isn't going to help here. IMO I have not seen anywhere online a more realistic 3D rendering of a landscape than what Mr. Briesen has demonstrated in his body of work. And also IMO he makes Ansel Adams look like a hack.

But I just found he has a DOF calculator for those interested...

http://www.pbase.com/sedonamemories/image/108247316

adam_nash2 · October 27, 2013

Lots of very detailed and informative responses to get through, thank you all for sharing your time and knowledge. I will try and do them justice as much as possible.

John

Of course, most zoom lenses these days don't have DoF marks but the tables/calculators lead to the same result.

</blockquote>

That is correct, the only lens I have with markings is the 16-85 but they are completely unreliable. More on that below.

referring to focal length? Could you also explain your point..

Much better to determine you focus point by using live view with magnification

</blockquote>

Do you mean pick a point by eye and trial and error rather than using an exact distance?

Deiter

do you really believe that focusing on a spot 2ft away will give you a DOF that ranges from 1ft to 1 mile or 2 mile or 3 miles?

</blockquote>

Well if I am to believe what I read on this hyperfocal distance subject and unless I am misinterpreting something then yes. Have I got something wrong or do you just not agree with this method? Either way I will certainly, as John and yourself suggested, do some practicing. The fact remains though that whilst focussing at 59cm, my image was still pretty blurry. Not soft, blurry.

I have noticed in the past some very strange features relating to the relating to the distance marking on my 16-85. Essentially they are useless (I did not use them for my test shots, I went with a tape measure). When focussing on infinity my markings read about 1.5m. This is always the case and something I have researched. It seems others have the same issue but not all.

Alan

I just checked a 16mm lens at f22. See below. It indicates you can get infinity in focus with the hyperfocal being at 58.2cm. I don't know why that would not work

</blockquote>

Yep, that is what I got too and it most certainly was WAY out of focus. I will try again but it was not happening.

Alan Marcus

Thank you for this and your even more detailed email. It went a long way in helping me understand the topic. Much appreciated!

Tim,

Derek Von Briesen is mimicking how we humans perceive depth, not how the camera records it.

</blockquote>

So are we to presume that there has been some substantial post done on this image? That the image was once more uniformly sharp and he essentially worked in one, or a series of gradated sharpening/ softening filters or masks across the image to achieve the result.

Once again, thank you for your time,

Adam

Dieter Schaefer · October 27, 2013

Have I got something wrong or do you just not agree with this method?

</blockquote>

Both, actually. OK, not really wrong, just taking things a bit to much at face value. I just took my 16-85 out for a little experiment. I focused on something about 2 ft away and then I focused on something about 300ft away, using f/22 and 16mm. In both images, the part that was 2 ft away was sharp, and in the one were I focused in the distance was a tad sharper there than the near focused one. Confirmed my experience - if you want "infinity" to be in focus, then focus on infinity.

Now, let's look at the DOF calculation: hyperfocal is at 2.01ft, and DOF is from 1ft to infinity if I focus at 2.01 ft. If I focus at 300ft, then DOF is from 1.94ft to infinity - what a earthshaking difference! Unless I really need that additional foot close to the camera, I am better of (as experiment confirms) actually focusing into the distance.

BTW, about my previous remark - plug in a distance of 2.01 ft into the DOF calculation for f/22 and 16mm - then try 2.00ft. The result: now DOF is only to 639.8ft. So a focus difference of 0.01ft changes DOF from 640ft to infinity (i.e. 2, 3, 10 miles)?!?! What am I getting at? Easy, the formulas suggest an accuracy that just isn't there in reality. Remember, the blur circle is selected on based what the "average" person perceived as sharp in a print of a certain size looked at an arms lenght away. In reality, there is only one point "tack" sharp in your image - the one you focused on (and the entire plane that contains that point). Away from that plane, the point becomes a blur circle with ever increasing diameter the farther you move away from that plane. When the circles diameter passes that magical number ("circle of confusion"), the average person will no longer see it as a point but as a blurred disc. That's what your DOF is all about.

Plug in the number for f/11 - now hyperfocal is at 3.96ft and DOF is from 2ft to infinity. If focused at 300 ft, DOF is from about 4 ft to infinity. Ergo, no need for f/22 and the risk of reduced resolution due to diffraction - unless you really need those 3ft additional DOF close to the camera.

In essence, I think that hyperfocal is a lot more hassle than its worth. You only want to make certain that you focus beyond the hyperfocal distance for your chosen focal length and aperture - otherwise you are really limiting your DOF. Other than that, I doubt that many scenes require the effort to maximize the DOF range - as you can see from the above examples, the effect is rather small.

What do I do: I focus on what is important to me in the scene. If there isn't a particular subject I want to draw attention to, I focus at infinity or somewhere in the far distance.

PS: I never look at the distance scale of modern AF lenses - they are not more than rough indication of the actual distance anyway. That's why I don't miss it with the 35/1.8G DX.

john_wheeler6 · October 27, 2013

Hi Adam

Could you also explain your point..

"Much better to determine you focus point by using live view with magnification"

</blockquote>

This comment was made by me a different John than the other discussion. My point was simple. It is much more accurate to set you focus plane/point (e.g. the desired hyperfocal distance) by focusing on an object at the distance using the live view feature on the camera LCD (which most camera models allow you to zoom in on the LCD screen to get very accurate focus. Just a minor point relative to your overall question.

frode · October 27, 2013

How did you evaluate the sharpness of the image? I don't know what you saw in your image (maybe you should post an example image), but you have set the circle of confusion to 0.019 mm. This means that when you focus your lens at the hyperfocal distance, a singular point in the motive (i.e. a theoretical 0 mm diameter point in the landscape) at the near and far limit (42.9 cm and infinity in your experiment) will be imaged as a 0.019 mm circle on your sensor. If you are pixel-peeping, you will find that this singular point will cower approx. 12 pixels on your D7000's sensor (or near 4 pixels in diameter). Depth of field, hyper focal distance et al. is all about selecting the correct circle of confusion for your application. If you are going to print 6"x4", select a larger one. If you are going to print 60"x40", select a smaller one. The "standard" values given in DOF-calculators, books and such can at best be regarded as guidelines for typical print sizes at typical viewing distances (in the film era). Kind regards, Frode

Tim_Lookingbill · October 27, 2013

<blockquote>So are we to presume that there has been some substantial post done on this image? That the image was once more uniformly sharp and he essentially worked in one, or a series of gradated sharpening/ softening filters or masks across the image to achieve the result. Once again, thank you for your time, Adam</blockquote>

I can only loosely assume because I first discovered Briesen's work in a Luminous Landscape forum discussion titled "Schewe the Sharpener" (referring to Jeff Schewe, the developer of PhotoKit Sharpener) where Mr. Briesen under the user name "DaBreeze" posted a horizontal wide shot of the portrait oriented Grand Canyon landscape linked above where he discusses his method of selective sharpening using masks and painting it back in to control depth perception.

The reasons from what I could gather from Derek's amazing results for using this technique is to prevent over sharpening of fine distant objects (quite easy to do especially in digital captures) that if not handled carefully can make a "Big Country" landscape look like a miniature Japanese garden cluttered with big rocks, a look I've become quite familiar with in over processed landscapes I've viewed online and in my own.

Under processed landscapes of similar Grand Canyon shots have a slight overall softness like you're looking at it through glass where it just looks like your regular vacation snap shot.

Tim_Lookingbill · October 27, 2013

Posted below is an example of one of my images I struggled with on where to place the focus point, the clouds or the much closer tree line about 100 yards away shooting at a focal length of 105mm with an APS-C sized Pentax K100D DSLR sensor. I chose the clouds to be the sharpest because they are the dominantly pleasing element in the scene. It was shot Raw and processed in ACR from a very dark under exposed capture.

The bottom is a 100% crop preview showing how sharp the tree line actually came out which I couldn't see since the trees were so far away and dimly lit. The point I'm trying to make here is that digital by its nature records things we can't see with our own eyes until we view them on our display at 100% zoom.

This is why I just use my eyes and go for a crispy overall appearance focusing on the subject in the landscape I like no matter their distance. As you can see in the sample even at 105mm I got everything I wanted sharper than I could actually see through the viewfinder. No calculating for DOF. Wider angles would've gotten far more objects closer and at a distance in sharp focus. <div></div>

adam_nash2 · October 28, 2013

Dieter, OK got it. I now understand your point and where you're coming from. Thank you for your clarification and taking the time to conduct some tests with an the actual lens model I have. Your results were very interesting.

Tim, again, thank you for the examples you posted and demonstrated both via the DOFmaster stuff and your own work. The tables charts and calculators have been bookmarked for experimentation when I get some time (and daylight) at the weekend.

Wouter Willemse · October 28, 2013

Adam, I tried getting grips with hyperfocal on my 16-85VR for some time. It drove me positively nuts and somehow the results never made me feel it was worth the effort in any significant way. For one part, this might be because I do not believe an image actually needs back to forth sharpness in many cases. If your landscape has several 'planes', the ones closest to infinity do not really need to be pin-sharp anymore, at least to my eyes - especially with longer lenses where you get a 'compressed' view (for example <a href="/photo/10462195">this image</a> or <a href="/photo/14809271">this one)</a>. But more important: I did not see the efforts of setting hyperfocal paying off in my images being any better. They were either the same, of they managed to just miss focus on the objects in the front. So, instead, I just focussed on the nearest subject, closed aperture as far as desirable, and done. By lack of such subject, focussed somewhere into the middle of the scene. Doesn't sound very scientific, but for me, it works.

More specifically on the lens, I found the negative effects of diffraction with the 16-85 noticeable at f/16 and smaller. I tried to stay at f/11 max. The focus ring isn't very tight, so I never put too much faith in the distance scale either. I've used te 16-85VR quite a lot for landscapes, and found it a very trouble-free lens for this kind of work, given that I forgot about hyperfocal distances and just followed my guts.

Which is a long way of saying: what Dieter said, +1.

adam_nash2 · October 28, 2013

Wouter, I feel you, along with many other posters, right from the start of this post are probably right in that the benefits of hyperfocal distance might be slightly out of my value curve for the results it yields over less stringent techniques.

That Said, I do like at least fully understanding the concept as it brings me closer to a greater understanding of options and photography as a whole. I have a long trip coming up where I will have quite a bit of time on my hands towards the end of the day so plan to utilise this down-time by putting some of these techniques to test.

I have found the distance scale on the lens barrel of the 16-85 not "isn't very tight" it is completely wrong. I have a couple of specific questions you may be able to help me with.

1) When you focus to the furthest object you can see, say the moon. What does your distance scale read? Mine is always about 1.5m! Utterly incorrect.

2) When you turn the focus ring all the way, either to the left or the right, do you met some resistance but it doesn't stop? There is more friction but the ring keeps turning?

I would be very much interested to hear if your lens has the same anomalies as this may be a cause of my test image being so out of focus. I do get sharp images with the lend but only be relying on the autofocus, or manual focus. Never the readings.

Wouter Willemse · October 28, 2013

Adam, unfortunately I do not have the 16-85VR available to me at the moment - it's on loan with a friend!

1) Cannot test, from memory: infinity plus a bit. But not 100% sure...

2) Yes, but this is normal for AF-S lenses - there is no hard stop. My other AF-S lenses with distance scale (50 f/1.8G, 300 f/4, 24-120 f/4VR) behave the same. All of them also go beyond infinity on the distance scale (which I believe is behaviour by design).

And sure, nothing wrong with testing these techniques; I did find it useful with my MF primes (which have decent markings, hard stops) on full frame. And then it works reasonable - but in the end, focus by eye is the most intuitive to me, and part of the "creative flow" of making a photo.

Dieter Schaefer · October 28, 2013

1) When you focus to the furthest object you can see, say the moon. What does your distance scale read? Mine is always about 1.5m! Utterly incorrect.

Is it at 1.5m for all focal lengths? I just tried mine - but since it's during the day, I don't have a moon to focus on. The distance scale on my 16-85 is fine at 85mm and "off" at 16mm. That is to say, if I focus at something 300 yards away at 85mm, it shows infinity on the distance scale. If I change to 16mm and refocus on the same spot, I get close to 1.5m. Interestingly enough, the EXIF shows this as 10.59m and 5.01m, respectively. And the value at 16mm when zooming out from 85 may or may not change when I refocus - I got 5.01 for a subject 300 yards away, and 2.81m for one about 100 yards away. Go figure!

2) When you turn the focus ring all the way, either to the left or the right, do you met some resistance but it doesn't stop? There is more friction but the ring keeps turning?

Yes. Wouter already explained this.

I do like at least fully understanding the concept as it brings me closer to a greater understanding of options and photography as a whole

</blockquote>

Nothing wrong with that. Hyperfocal distance focusing as a concept is not hard to understand: focus at a point where DOF just reaches infinity and DOF will be from half that distance to infinity. The more crucial part is the definition of DOF - which is generally missing. AFAIK, the technical standard is viewing of a 8x10 print held at arms length. That's were the circle of confusion is coming from - and as already stated above, some manufacturers apply some more stringent number than others. But it is a concept that everyone is free to modify for their own use.

adam_nash2 · October 29, 2013

Thanks Wouter. If you get the lens back any time soon I would be very interested in hearing your findings as what I experience on the lens is on the one hand not normal in terms of the distance reading I am getting, but on the other hand I am not alone as I have read other reporting the same thing. I may take it to Nikon here in Dubai to get it checked out.

Deiter, again I think this is the way forward. To have at least a solid understanding of the principles but not feel the need to adhere to them so rigorously as to actually detriment the quality of the photo either through diffraction blue or worse, missing the shot.

A good post from my point of view (as well as the very informed PMs from Alan and John, much immediately implementable information acquired.

Thank you all,

Adam

Tim_Lookingbill · October 29, 2013

Wonder if other beginner photographers happening upon this thread would be interested in what Alan and John mentioned to you in a private message regarding this subject, Adam.

Sign In

Hyperfocal Distance With a Zoom Lens

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in