Best hyper-focal distance?

6.35m for 26mm at F3.5 suggests a resolution on film of 0.03 mm. That may be acceptable for small prints, but may not work for enlargements.

I'm almost always disappointed with such hyperfocal settings when shooting images that need at least some sharpness all the way from close to far. It's great when your main subject is at the hyperfocal setting. As soon as you print the image even a bit larger than postcard format, you see a definite sharpness roll-off in the distance. In my personal experience, focusing at the most distant part of the image that needs to be sharp works best. Actually, if you focus at infinity and then stop down, even close objects are resolved with a resolution as small as the physical size of the selected aperture.
 
There's also the notion of 1/2 the hyperfocal distance - I may have seen it referenced in an AA or other photography book in the past:
iu

Understanding Hyperfocal Distance

Simplified explanation and understanding on Hyperfocal Distance.
jefzlim.blogspot.com jefzlim.blogspot.com
 
I agree with pvdhaar. There is a thread on this in RFF.

See this from another thread:
Learning to get a feel for the focus distance from the lens tab is great. Learn to guess the shorter distances by eye. Also know where you're starting from with the lens setting. You don't want to discover unexpectedly that the lens is still focussed at 0.7m for a shot earlier in the day and you can't even find the focus tab quickly. You might deliberately set focus at 3m on walk down a street. That has the tab pointing down but not necessarily exactly 6 o'clock and it varies with the lens.

I find with digital the focus being off is more noticeable, so I would not recommend the use of the full range of the supposed acceptable sharpness from the markings on the lens barrel, and actually I do not do this at all. Similarly the hyperfocal distance may let you down badly. There's also another factor, the particular scene. I have a couple of lenses with infinity locks. I will often focus to where the infinity lock is not yet engaged. For instance that's 10m with my old Summaron 35, and at f5.6, the commonest aperture I use, that is 5m to infinity with a good margin. Small distant objects in a landscape you will often want sharp as the features might be of interest, animals on the horizon, rocky crags etc, but a slight out of focus appearance of a large foreground object is less noticeable and probably less important.

Here's a photo illustrating this point. I wanted to see the agapanthus against that shadow but instead focussed close to infinity, knowing the distant detail was crucial and the flowers would be acceptable with this 28mm lens. The shutter speed is 1/125s at 320 ISO and I think the aperture will have been f8.

U28906I1485244030.SEQ.0.jpg - Click image for larger version Name: U28906I1485244030.SEQ.0.jpg Views: 0 Size: 201.0 KB ID: 4753164


I have always marvelled at this photo from 1982 by Harry Gruyaert at the Tour de France. It illustrates the above point about foreground elements tolerating a bit of out of focus. https://www.magnumphotos.com/arts-cu...e-the-peloton/ Scroll down the linked page to the photo of the peloton in front of a haystack with photographers on top. Click on it to make it larger.

Clearly it has to be film and how fast can that be? Maybe 800 ISO. Unless the peloton were slowing for an accident they're fast across the frame and I presume 1/250s shutter speed minimum, but more likely 1/1000s. What lens? Probably a 50. I wonder what aperture? Maybe 5.6. It's not full sun. The distant hills are pretty sharp, the moving peloton not as sharp as the photographers on the haystack, and the hat of the guy on the chair clearly the least sharp object. HG must have focused on the haystack photographer 20m away at least.

Summary: Scale focus rather than assuming DOF adequate at hyperlocal distance. Get a feel for the focus tab for distance. Learn to guess distances. Go closer to infinity for many landscapes
 
I have used this technique with good luck in the past:
With lens aperture set to f/11, I set the focus of Infinity ♾️ at f/11. Reading off the scale, everything from about 12-13 feet to Infinity ♾️ should be in reasonable focus.
IMG_0345.jpeg
 
Last edited:
raydm6 said:
I have used this technique with good luck in the past:
With lens aperture set to f/11, I set the focus of Infinity ♾️ at f/11. Reading off the scale, everything from about 12-13 feet to Infinity ♾️ should be in reasonable focus.
View attachment 4830451
Click to expand...
A small addendum to this: as a general rule, it's sometimes better to use the next notch in. In other words, I wouldn't use the f/11 marks unless I was shooting f/16 if I wanted to ensure acceptable focus at both close and far distances.

Some lenses are also wildly optimistic with the DoF scale, so it's best to do some testing to be sure.

Of course, you can also use the RF and DoF scales in unison to get a specific range in focus; focus using the RF patch on the nearest object you want and note the distance shown on the lens. Focus on the furthest thing you want in focus and note that, too - then you can land those distances between two opposing aperture markings on the DoF scale and get just that specific range in focus.

It's slow, but I much prefer it to using SLRs with DoF preview. I don't have to second-guess myself looking through a dim viewfinder to figure out what's in focus!
 
Coldkennels, I sure do agree about depth of field preview with an SLR. I only use it to check that the aperture I’m forced to use won‘t compromise the composition by there being too much in focus in the background.
 
I work more with MF than 35mm but when i use 35mm one of my favourite set-ups is my Leica CL with a Canon LTM 28mm f2.8.
At f8 the hyperfocal distance covers 1.5m to ∞. With my 21mm f8 covers 1m- ∞. Like your 25mm it becomes a pretty fine point-and-shoot.
 
A good thread, this. Much good and useful advice.

I learned about hyperlocal distance in 1962. It was taught to me by an old photographer in my home town in Canada, who also explained a few "should" when using it.

As I recall, his admonitions were as follows.

HF for the most part, will give you acceptable but not always adequately sharp results. He explained why this was so, but alas, with the passing of seven decades, I've forgotten. In practice I've found this is (mostly if not always) true.

HF is best used a half stop LESS than your intended setting. In practical terms, this means if you work with f/8 then ou set your lens half way between f/5.6 and f/8. Again, this was explained to me, but my brain has done a disc wipe.

HF works fairly well for definite distance shots, ie medium distance (= groups of people or things) or longer distance (= landscapes), however much better results can be attained by setting the lens to the specific distance for the subject. Infinity for "scenics" works best even if the depth of field is less.

HF works okay for point and shoot work. But we didn't do much of that 60 years ago. In those day people "posed" for photos, inevitably dressed to the nines and standing ramrod-straight to attention like a row of wooden soldiers. Look at your family's snapshot albums and you see this,as plain as day.

So yes, HF does work, but mostly "as good as" and not always the ideal technique for the best quality image. It's good to remember this.
 
Last edited:
Many years ago, the head bartender here said the CV 25mm Snapshot Skopar with the auxiliary finder was a great deal for about $300. So I bought one. Then he said the Bessa L was a great deal for $109, so I bought one. So I had a superb body / lens / finder combo that was very light and made great photos. It was scale focus with no rangefinder and therefore no DOF indicator. So I made the following chart using a downloadable MS Excel template and copied it onto a 3x5 card. I referred to it from time to time for several months until I developed a good mental feel for the results. FWIW: I still consider that screw mount lens with click stops for focusing at 1, 1.5, and 3 meters to be the most intelligently designed lens. When the market demanded a M mount rangefinder coupled version instead, I realized too many wanted the sizzle instead of the steak.

DOF for 24mm - Meters (sorry about table formatting)

setting min max
f8 3 1.3 - inf
1.5 0.9 - 4
1 0.7 - 1.7

f5.6 3 1.6 - 22.7
1.5 1 - 2.6
1 0.8 - 1.4

f4 3 1.8 - 7.9
1.5 1.1 - 2.2
1 0.8 - 1.3
 
DownUnder said:
A good thread, this. Much good and useful advice.

I learned about hyperlocal distance in 1962. It was taught to me by an old photographer in my home town in Canada, who also explained a few "should" when using it.

As I recall, his admonitions were as follows.

HF for the most part, will give you acceptable but not always adequately sharp results. He explained why this was so, but alas, with the passing of seven decades, I've forgotten. In practice I've found this is (mostly if not always) true.

HF is best used a half stop LESS than your intended setting. In practical terms, this means if you work with f/8 then ou set your lens half way between f/5.6 and f/8. Again, this was explained to me, but my brain has done a disc wipe.

HF works fairly well for definite distance shots, ie medium distance (= groups of people or things) or longer distance (= landscapes), however much better results can be attained by setting the lens to the specific distance for the subject. Infinity for "scenics" works best even if the depth of field is less.

HF works okay for point and shoot work. But we didn't do much of that 60 years ago. In those day people "posed" for photos, inevitably dressed to the nines and standing ramrod-straight to attention like a row of wooden soldiers. Look at your family's snapshot albums and you see this,as plain as day.

So yes, HF does work, but mostly "as good as" and not always the ideal technique for the best quality image. It's good to remember this.
Click to expand...
Downunder....i think it varies by lens. In 35mm i use HFD with wide angles... 21mm/28mm.... everything after 5m is ∞...... so scenics are at infinity & more than acceptably sharp.
In LF I use the DOF scale to figure out where to place the point of focus.
 
wrs1145 said:
What is the best for a 25/ 3.5 mm Canon RF lens?

Thanks,
Bill
Click to expand...
Good advice above about the iris settings.
I've found that for my Cannon 25 rangefinder lens, not only is the camera's rangefinder not really needed, but even the viewfinder isn't needed for a lot of shots. It isn't hard to learn the field of view of this lens. This is particularly useful for shots from a low to the ground vantage point. (Now that I am 70, it is getting a lot harder to get back up after kneeling.) This tiny 25 on an old Canon (older and smaller than the V) makes for a very small but effective camera. Often don't need that squinty finder anyway.
 
One step short of foregoing viewfinder use altogether is to use an accessory finder. The camera comes up to the eye just a little quicker, not quite so high, and the view is so much better such that both wide and long the framing is instant. The shot is taken and the camera down again with almost no-one noticing it was up in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top