View Full Version : hyperfocal point for EF 24-85mm F3.5-4.5 USM
J___
26th of August 2004 (Thu), 03:32
hi guys, i have a 300D and just bought a EF 2-85mm F3.5-4.5 USM lens and can anyone tell me what the Hyperfocal length to it is at different apertures? i have no clue on how to determine the hyperfocal lenght on lenses at all. thnx!
nosquare2003
26th of August 2004 (Thu), 03:50
http://www.outsight.com/hyperfocal.html#hyper
(Remember to add 1.6x crop factor.)
You can search "Hyperfocal distance calculators" in the web and you may find a table.
Rayz
26th of August 2004 (Thu), 03:59
Hyperfocal distance varies with the focal length of the lens so it's difficult to get meaningful markings on a zoom lens that can be a guide.
I'm sure you can find tables and DoF calculators on the net that will help, or you can even create your own tables from the following basic formula;
H = f squared/nC
H is Hperfocal distance; f is focal length; n is f stop number and C is the 'circle of confusion'. The CoC relates to 'acceptable' sharpness. For an 8x12" print from 35mm, the CoC should not be larger than around 0.004mm on the sensor or negative.
Note: If you're going to use this formula, all the variables should be expressed in the same units.
nosquare2003
26th of August 2004 (Thu), 04:35
For an 8x12" print from 35mm, the CoC should not be larger than around 0.004mm on the sensor or negative.
Is 0.004mm too small? (Do you mean not larger than 0.04mm...?)
nosquare2003
26th of August 2004 (Thu), 04:41
hi guys, i have a 300D and just bought a EF 2-85mm F3.5-4.5 USM lens and can anyone tell me what the Hyperfocal length to it is at different apertures? i have no clue on how to determine the hyperfocal lenght on lenses at all. thnx!
Rayz's post reminded me that I made an Excel table some time ago (with formula listed as Rayz's post). PM me if you want me to email this Excel table to you. You can adjust everything including the CoC in the table.
Rayz
26th of August 2004 (Thu), 06:44
Is 0.004mm too small? (Do you mean not larger than 0.04mm...?)
Quite right! I got that figure wrong. 0.03 to 0.04mm seems about right :) .
vBulletin® v3.6.12, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.