hyperfocal distance

[windoze]

before i go in isolation and read some techie stuff about HD, anybody care to share some "layman" practical experience about hyperfocal distance and the canon lenses i own 50 f/1.4, 24-105 f/4, 70-200 f/2.8 IS, 400 f/5.6 ( i dont even know if the lenses i own have the marking for doing this stuff nor do i know which ones are good for using HD ). im a real concrete learner so im looking for real down to earth explanations and advice. give me a step by step tutorial and I'll worship you!! Ill even donate to your favorite charity if its that good!
please dont refer me to "readings", i have them and they are making my neurons swell....

troy

[RossW]

Does this help? Its from an old book by Carl Shipman, when all lenses had depth-of-focus marks. You say you're not sure if yours all do, but maybe it will still give you a start on making some estimates, or experimenting.

Finding the hyperfocal distance is easy because it is just the near limit of depth of field, when the lens is set for infinity. You read it off the lens. It will vary with f-stop, but the depth of field indicator on the lens takes care of that problem.

Set the lens to infinity and notice the near limit of depth of field, at the aperture yu intend to use. Then refocus to that distance.

He then provides an example of a lens focused at infinity, and set at f-8. The near DOF mark on the lens indicates x feet. Refocus at x feet, the hyperfocal distance (H) for f-8 on this lens. When focused at H, the new DOF begins at half H, and extends to infinity.

[tweatherred]

Many modern lenses don't have a depth of field scale, so you might have to use a chart; there are a number of them available on the web and elsewhere. Also be advised that some people find that using hyperfocal focusing makes the foreground too soft for their taste and recommend focusing closer than the hyperfocal distance.

[Chilly]

Here is the quick and easy answer. Normal to wide angle lenses are the best for this, in general. Your lenses most likely do not have the depth of field markings. So use the HFD calculator at the bottom of this link for your camera.(change the vision to 20/20).
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/hyperfocal-distance.htm

You then take the info and set your apperture and focal length (the larger the apperature the greater the depth of field) and focus on an object at about the hyperfocal distance for that apperature and focal length - (given by the above mentioned chart). On an SLR camera everything will not appear in focus - but you need to trust that everything 1/2 the HFD to infinity will be in acceptable focus, or use your depth of field preview button to check. You can guesstimate on the distance to focus on, but err to the far side.

When reading the chart mentioned, note that the Hyperfocal distance that they give (and you can convert the chart to feet) means that you focus on an object at the stated hyperfocal distance for your apperture and focal length, and everything 1/2 that distance to infinity will be in focus.

Hope this helps.

Chilly
5D
24-70mm 2.8L

[Chilly]

Here is the quick and easy answer. Normal to wide angle lenses are the best for this, in general. Your lenses most likely do not have the depth of field markings. So use the HFD calculator at the bottom of this link for your camera.(change the vision to 20/20).
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/hyperfocal-distance.htm

You then take the info and set your apperture and focal length (the larger the apperature the greater the depth of field) and focus on an object at about the hyperfocal distance for that apperature and focal length - (given by the above mentioned chart). On an SLR camera everything will not appear in focus - but you need to trust that everything 1/2 the HFD to infinity will be in acceptable focus, or use your depth of field preview button to check. You can guesstimate on the distance to focus on, but err to the far side.

When reading the chart mentioned, note that the Hyperfocal distance that they give (and you can convert the chart to feet) means that you focus on an object at the stated hyperfocal distance for your apperture and focal length, and everything 1/2 that distance to infinity will be in focus.

Hope this helps.

Chilly
5D
24-70mm 2.8L

[Chilly]

Here is the quick and easy answer. Normal to wide angle lenses are the best for this, in general. Your lenses most likely do not have the depth of field markings. So use the HFD calculator at the bottom of this link for your camera.(change the vision to 20/20).
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/hyperfocal-distance.htm

You then take the info and set your apperture and focal length (the larger the apperature the greater the depth of field) and focus on an object at about the hyperfocal distance for that apperature and focal length - (given by the above mentioned chart). On an SLR camera everything will not appear in focus - but you need to trust that everything 1/2 the HFD to infinity will be in acceptable focus, or use your depth of field preview button to check. You can guesstimate on the distance to focus on, but err to the far side.

When reading the chart mentioned, note that the Hyperfocal distance that they give (and you can convert the chart to feet) means that you focus on an object at the stated hyperfocal distance for your apperture and focal length, and everything 1/2 that distance to infinity will be in focus.

Hope this helps.

Chilly
5D
24-70mm 2.8L

[Chilly]

Oops sorry about that, I have not posted very many times, I did not mean to submit it 3 times.

-Annie
5D
24-70mm 2.8L

[rhys]

The problem with all these hyperfocal and depth-of-field calculations/calculators that I have seen so far is that they're universally wrong.

[tweatherred]

The problem with all these hyperfocal and depth-of-field calculations/calculators that I have seen so far is that they're universally wrong.

Would you expand on that? I know a lot of people have poor understanding/unrealistic expectations with these sorts of things, but the mathematics behind them makes sense to me.

[StewartR]

One reason for them being "universally wrong" is a technical issue, because the equations are based on an idealised "thin lens" rather than the complex optics we all use. But that doesn't make any practical difference. I too would be interested to know what rhys has in mind - and also how large his sample of "universally wrong" calculations is.