Hyperfocal distance on zoom lenses

I've been reading about hyperfocal distances (I'm trying to get a nice landscape shot from our balcony) and there's one thing that still baffles me.

Even when dealing with small prints the focal distances on large zooms seem impossible to achieve? For example at 75mm - f/8- hyperfocal distance = 34.1 m / 112 ft. For larger prints or increased focal lengths this distance seems to increase exponentially up to thousands of metres. http://www.cambridgein​colour.com/tutorials/h​yperfocal-distance.htm

Now from what I can tell, I have to estimate because my EF 75-300mm has no distance markings, focusing on anything further than 12m is considered infinity. By that I mean I'm forced to use the same focus for 15m as I am for 5km.

So my question is this, is it possible to achieve hyperfocal distances on larger zoom lenses?

Appreciate any info .

I'm not sure I understand the question, and I'm not sure you really do either. (No offence intended.)

There are actually two slightly different definitions of the hyperfocal distance of a lens:

1. It is the closest distance at which a lens can be focused while keeping objects at infinity acceptably sharp.
   
2. It is the distance beyond which all objects are acceptably sharp, for a lens focused at infinity.

Certainly. If you double the aperture value (go from f/8 to f/16) you cut the hyperfocal distance in half.

Most lanscape shooters favor wide-angle lenses, which will have much shorter hyperfocal distances. Longer lenses are better suited for isolating a subject by blurring the background.

Edit: Even at f/32 (the maximum on my lens) at 300mm the hyperfocal distance works out to be (300^2) / (32x 0.019)= 148000mm. 148m is infinity on my Lens??? lol correct me if I'm working this out wrong.

Do some telephoto lenses have a greater focal distance? I'm still quite new to this so some of the terminology may be incorrect

But thanks for the replies, I think its safe to say I should stick with wide angle lenses and forget about trying to zoom.

Jyles wrote:
I think its safe to say I should stick with wide angle lenses and forget about trying to zoom.

Surely that depends on what you're trying to photograph. You wouldn't want to take a photograph of a mountain landscape with a telephoto lens. You wouldn't want to take a photograph of a bird with a wide angle lens. Hyperfocal distance is irrelevant to your choice of lens for a given situation.

I suggest you back up a bit, explain what you're trying to do, and people here can help. But jumping straight in with strange questions about hyperfocal distances is just going to confuse people...

I appriecate you trying to help StewartR, ok well im trying to get a photograph of the view from our balcony. High rise buildings almost on the horizon and hinterland in the foreground. The buildings are the most important point of focus but some foreground sharpness would be ideal. This is how I got onto hyperfocal distances.

Now the problem is that with a wide angle lens the buildings (which are approx 8km's away) appear insignificant. So ideally I would like to use 75mm or higher to get a tighter shot whilst still preserving some sense of view. Now when you start dealing with these kinda of focal lengths (75+) the hyperfocal distances become extremely large. So say for example sake the hyperfocal distance is 100m, not an unreasonable suggestion given the formula for working it out, how then do I focus a lens on 100m when the focus ring reaches 'infinity' long before 100m.lol does that make sense to anyone but me?

In case it doesn't- I'm focusing on something 5m away, 10m, then all of a sudden my focus reaches a point where it can go no further but everything 12m+ is fairly clear. (Thats the infinity point right? my lens has no markings)

All that aside I realise hyperfocal distances may not be the greatest way to shoot but after reading about it I got to thinking and even if I don't end up using this technique I wanted to make sure I'm not missing something.

Thanks again,
Jyles

Sometimes you have to just "guesstimate". Find something that you estimate to be about HFD away. Focus on it. Switch the lens to MF to maintain that focus, recompose and shoot. Theoretically, everything from 1/2 HFD to infinity will be "acceptably sharp".

Another thing to keep in mind is that at small apertures (f/ numbers greater than f/16 or so), diffraction becomes a factor that will affect overall sharpness. So you may want to experiment with different apertures to see what works best.

OK Jyles, I think I understand now. Sorry for being a bit slow.

What you're trying to do is tricky. As you've observed, as you focus on points further and further away, the focus distance can move quite a lot even with an infinitessimal adjustment to the lens. Getting it "just right" is very hard.

One thing you can do is focus on infinity. Then everywhere from the hyperfocal distance out to infinity will be sharp. That might be OK. For example (assuming you have a 1.6 crop factor DSLR) at 75mm focal length and f/8, the hyperfocal distance is only 40m so everything more than 40m away should be sharp. That might work for you. At longer focal lengths it gets more problematic though: for example at 300mm and f/8 the hyperfocal distance is 630m. That might not be acceptable. In that case I think you need to follow Curtis N's advice. Focus on something that you estimate to be about the hyperfocal distance away, erring on the long side if necessary (i.e. about 700m rather 600m). Then everything from half the hyperfocal distance out to infinity will be in focus. That's the best you can do.

Remember that the hyperfocal distance decreases (and so the depth of field increases) as you go to smaller and smaller apertures. That might require a tripod or some other means of stabilising the camera, but it would be worth it. On the other hand I believe that most lenses start to go "soft" when stopped down beyond about f/11, so you don't want to go too far. The great thing about digital is that it doesn't cost anything to experiment!

If you get the shot, why not post it here to show us?