Hyperfocal Distance - How to adjust it ?

[Albert Sim]

Hi everyone,
I have two wide-angle lenses and before I go to my question, let's say the f/stop is at f/11.

One is the Nikon DX 10-24mm

where its distance meter shows a max of only 0.5M and then the beautiful Infinity symbol.
Q1. my focal length stays at 10mm the hyperfocal distance shall be 0.45M, and at 12mm there goes the 0.65M? Where shall I go where the lens' max is 0.5M? Does it means I am restricted only to use the only and only focal length of 10mm?

The other is the NIkon FX 24-70mm

and its meter is 2M and also that Infinity symbol.
Q2. Focal length of its widest 24mm and the hyperfocal distance calculator said 1.75M and the same as the above 10-24mm, I can go further no more.

I hardly can believe my understanding in this matter but I really don't know what to do with it. I have gone thru the thread posted by Mark's Hyperfocal distance-turorial misleading of 15/11/2013 but I couldn't catch up with all those technical terms and knowledge therein.

Can anyone please enlighten me in this respect.

Your help and advice will be highly appreciated.

Thank you.

[Shadowman]

Hi Albert,

You are looking for a lens with this type scale.

[inkista]

Yup. A lens that was designed for manual-focus tends to have a usable distance scale because the focus "throw" is so much larger. AF lenses tend to have throws so small [to help speed up AF lock] that you can't scale focus with any precision and makes using hyperfocal really tough. In addition, on older designs, there's often a DoF scale [the one with the symmetric f/numbers], where you simply twist the focus ring until the ∞ distance mark is at the aperture number you're using; and you're set to the hyperfocal distance [sliderule technology].


Contax/Yashica mount Zeiss Distagon T* 28mm f/2.8.

[rpcrowe]

The distance scale on this lens is easy to use...

Simply place the indicator for the f/stop you are using (in this case f/22 image right) on the infinity marker and you will be in focus between the two f/stop indicators for the f/stop you are using (in this case about 6-feet or about 1.8 meters) and infinity. Your hyperfocal distance will be there the yellow focus mark lines up with the distance scale (In this case about 11-feet or so or about 3.5 meters).

BTW: The red dot indicates the focusing point for infra red.

BTW #2: The red "A" on this lens indicates that the lens is in the auto aperture mode and the focus scale is irrelevant when used this way...

Manufacturers have either watered down the distance scales on some lenses or totally eliminated them on others. This was normally due to cost cutting as Canon did when they wanted a dirt cheap 50mm f/1.8 Mark-II to supply with their Rebel film cameras which were in competition with equally inexpensive lenses for their entry level film camera packages.

The hyperfocal distance scale was really important when shooting with manually focused lenses but, IMO, is far less important when working with auto focus lenses. I seldom concern myself with hyperfocal distance and will rely on the auto focus to take care of getting images sharp.

[lukaswerth]

My quick advice is: just forget about hyperfocal distance. It is not a useful concept in these days any more. The reason is: the concept depends on a given size of a circle of confusion which is tolerable so that a picture of a given size may appear sharp. Most traditional calculations assume an 8x10 print for this. But today's practice tends to assume much larger prints for which hyperfocal distance just is not practical any more: the image is likely to appear wanting in sharpness if you focus according to hyperfocal considerations. Better focus on those areas of the image which you consider important and adjust the f-stop.

[Donald]

My quick advice is: just forget about hyperfocal distance. It is not a useful concept in these days any more.

I do not agree with that advice.

Even though you may find good work-arounds and never apply the principles of hyperfocal distance in everyday shooting, I would argue that it is an important basic principle of photography that is important to know and understand.

[Brev00]

You have my sympathy. My ultrawide and midrange zooms have markings up to 7 ft. before infinity so they can be pretty useful in setting a hyperfocal distance. However, I have a technique I call 'ad hoc' hyperfocal focusing which does not really need these markings. Instead of worrying about numbers on your lens, use the central af point to focus on something at approximately the correct distance and then recompose. You can also switch to manual at that point or use your af-on button to set the correct distance. Using a small f stop (8-13 is my typical range) and a wide focal length, you will be surprised at how forgiving the focal point is. I mean, you can walk around with your f stop set at 13, your lens set at 12mm, and your distance set at 5 ft and 99% of everything will be clear. So, my technique is ad hoc. No charts or graphs. Just the result on the lcd and on my computer. It sometimes feels like cheating.

[Polar01]

Lukas I do not know if you do any landscape photography with a wide angle or ultra wide angle, or you read it somewhere, but my advice is forget you advice. I shoot with a wide angle lens, often as wide as 16mm and set at f/4 because of the light, because I do it often enough I know that if I focus on something at those setting that is 7 feet away, that everything from about 3.6 feet away to infinity will be in focus. Now you might want to bring up some text book writing about this or that, well everything in the foreground is in focus and as for things in the far distance being not in focus, and if you can see something sharp, clear and in focus at 25ft away not wearing glasses than you can see better than most of us. After 20ft away most of us can not longer see items sharp, clear and in focus.

Allan

[teokf]

when I started my photography journey I took a photography workshop. Heard "hyperfocal" couldn't understand it even with the diagrams and what not. After 3+ years of shooting, it is still blur. Reading this thread, kind of blur.

[Andrew76]

I do not agree with that advice.

Even though you may find good work-arounds and never apply the principles of hyperfocal distance in everyday shooting, I would argue that it is an important basic principle of photography that is important to know and understand.

Agreed. Just because something has become 'easier to do', doesn't mean we should forget how, or why to do it. Thank goodness they still teach math and writing in schools before they hand out calculators, and computers for taking notes.

[lukaswerth]

Well, let me explain. Perhaps my phrasing "just forget about..." was a bit rash. And let me add that if anyone finds this principle useful for her/his photography, welcome. I might also add that it is certainly very helpful to know what the principle is about. My own reservations against making regular and practical use of it for my efforts are the followings:
perhaps we can agree that hyperfocal distance is never absolute. Even for a given f-stop, focal length and format, the principle specifies a certain size of the circle of confusion (at the outer limits of the hyperfocal range) to be still acceptable for the average eyesight as sharp. This works, of course, only for a given maximum print size - if you enlarge further, the circle of confusion becomes larger, and you have to step further away from the print in order to still perceive it as sharp. Now, most standard distances of hyperfocal distance assume only a print size of 8x10" - not very much by today's standards. If you assume a larger print size (same viewing distance), the hyperfocal range shrinks dramatically - just check out any hyperfocal calculator on the net. And the native print size of a 16mp camera is already 10.9x16.3", that of my own camera (Nikon d800e) is about 16x24". I had stopped shooting with my analog 35mm camera for my expressive photography many years ago because of enlarging limitations, but my camera with its full frame sensor hits medium format resolution. For the enlargements I am envisaging, I personally do not find the hyperfocal principle adequate. Actually, I don't think it would be very helpful for me if I would shoot analog 35mm, as there also I would try for as large prints as possible.
There are other concerns, like what is acceptable in the foreground and in the distance as sharp - I found Harold Merklinger's "the ins and outs of focus" a very good read on this subject. He wrote for film cameras, the book is downloadable here:
http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/

Lukas

[Shadowman]

Well, let me explain. Perhaps my phrasing "just forget about..." was a bit rash. And let me add that if anyone finds this principle useful for her/his photography, welcome. I might also add that it is certainly very helpful to know what the principle is about. My own reservations against making regular and practical use of it for my efforts are the followings:
perhaps we can agree that hyperfocal distance is never absolute. Even for a given f-stop, focal length and format, the principle specifies a certain size of the circle of confusion (at the outer limits of the hyperfocal range) to be still acceptable for the average eyesight as sharp. This works, of course, only for a given maximum print size - if you enlarge further, the circle of confusion becomes larger, and you have to step further away from the print in order to still perceive it as sharp. Now, most standard distances of hyperfocal distance assume only a print size of 8x10" - not very much by today's standards. If you assume a larger print size (same viewing distance), the hyperfocal range shrinks dramatically - just check out any hyperfocal calculator on the net. And the native print size of a 16mp camera is already 10.9x16.3", that of my own camera (Nikon d800e) is about 16x24". I had stopped shooting with my analog 35mm camera for my expressive photography many years ago because of enlarging limitations, but my camera with its full frame sensor hits medium format resolution. For the enlargements I am envisaging, I personally do not find the hyperfocal principle adequate. Actually, I don't think it would be very helpful for me if I would shoot analog 35mm, as there also I would try for as large prints as possible.
There are other concerns, like what is acceptable in the foreground and in the distance as sharp - I found Harold Merklinger's "the ins and outs of focus" a very good read on this subject. He wrote for film cameras, the book is downloadable here:
http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/

Lukas

Lukas,

Thanks for the link, they made it sound free! Can't type disappointment without the use of a smiley or frown face. Just joking, it's only $5.00.

[lukaswerth]

Lukas,

Thanks for the link, they made it sound free! Can't type disappointment without the use of a smiley or frown face. Just joking, it's only $5.00.

It is free for me; just downloaded it!

Lukas

[Shadowman]

It is free for me; just downloaded it!

Lukas

You are correct, the $5.00 was a suggested donation.

[Downrigger]

This works, of course, only for a given maximum print size - if you enlarge further, the circle of confusion becomes larger, and you have to step further away from the print in order to still perceive it as sharp. Now, most standard distances of hyperfocal distance assume only a print size of 8x10" - not very much by today's standards.

Importantly though, one generally does view larger prints from further away, so the general equations do remain somewhat relevant. And, on the other hand, if one sticks one's face right up to an 8x10 that was shot according to the standard formulas, one can find some blur fore and aft of the hyperfocal distance on the image. I think it's probably valuable to have an idea what the hyperfocal distance is - but wouldn't think it wise to rely on it for a sharp enough horizon if that was key to the image's success - I'd cheat out some. And the reverse if sharpness at the near end is more important.

[Brev00]

I think Mark makes an excellent point about viewing distance varying with the size of the print. To look so closely at a large print is more like pixel-peeping than viewing. Of course, if one's standards are such than one's techniques must change as well. Which is why flexibility is, for me, the key. I do what works for me in a given situation. But, not having a knowledge of hyperfocal focusing would be removing one arrow from my quiver. Obviously, I can choose a different arrow if preferred (i.e., focusing at the subject or area one wants maximum sharpness). But, it is nice to have the choice.

[NigelD]

There is an app you can get for your iPhone, not sure about android. It's called Simple DOF and it will tell you the depth of field that you have for a given subject distance and you can alter it for which aperture you want, in order to get which bits of your composition you want in focus. Its a free app.
The general guide I was given a lot of years ago was to focus about a third of the way in to your composition but I don't use that and haven't tested out how accurate it is.

[wobert]

Understanding "Hyperfocal Distance" does have a practical use when you want maximum Depth of Field, especially in a landscape. And Richard stated it well, if I can use his lens image-

Here are two scenarios (using f22)-

1. Focus a landscape- set the lens to focus on "Infinity " (ie. the "Infinity" symbol is ON the focus point-red line- of the lens.)
Your DOF on the lens scale will be about 3 metres (11ft) to Infinity.

2. Refocus the lens so that the "Infinity Symbol" is opposite f22 on the DOF scale- (Remember your using f22)
Your DOF on the lens scale will now be about 1.75 metres (6ft) to Infinity. (DOF 1.75m-Infinity) as shown in the lens image below.

By setting the lens to the Hyperfocal Distance- about 4 metres (11ft), you have moved the DOF "Near Point" from 3m down to 1.75m getting more of your foreground effectively in focus. I don't do the math- that's a waste of time, and I have used the extreme f22 purely for demonstration. The principle can be applied to other apertures. It helps if you have a lens with a DOF scale!!

[lukaswerth]

Understanding "Hyperfocal Distance" does have a practical use when you want maximum Depth of Field, especially in a landscape...
....
It helps if you have a lens with a DOF scale!!

Sorry, I can't help jumping in here: I am certainly happy for you if you get the results you want with this method, but I think it is likely you will be disappointed when enlarging such a picture, let's say, 12.5 or 17 times linear (to a 12x18" or 16x24" print). What will happen is that the far (infinity) will lack just that little bit sharpness which would render the image satisfying. Of course, you might be very satisfied if you are interested in what is 4 meters away, but to focus on that you would not have needed the hyperfocal principle.
And with regard to viewing distance: again, up to you, but for me a large print is often (not always, for sure!) impressive through the detail it shows. If a large print comes with a set of instructions - "don't step nearer than a yard!" - for me it tends to loose its charm.

Lukas

[Andrew76]

Well, let me explain. Perhaps my phrasing "just forget about..." was a bit rash. And let me add that if anyone finds this principle useful for her/his photography, welcome. I might also add that it is certainly very helpful to know what the principle is about. My own reservations against making regular and practical use of it for my efforts are the followings:
perhaps we can agree that hyperfocal distance is never absolute. Even for a given f-stop, focal length and format, the principle specifies a certain size of the circle of confusion (at the outer limits of the hyperfocal range) to be still acceptable for the average eyesight as sharp. This works, of course, only for a given maximum print size - if you enlarge further, the circle of confusion becomes larger, and you have to step further away from the print in order to still perceive it as sharp. Now, most standard distances of hyperfocal distance assume only a print size of 8x10" - not very much by today's standards. If you assume a larger print size (same viewing distance), the hyperfocal range shrinks dramatically - just check out any hyperfocal calculator on the net. And the native print size of a 16mp camera is already 10.9x16.3", that of my own camera (Nikon d800e) is about 16x24". I had stopped shooting with my analog 35mm camera for my expressive photography many years ago because of enlarging limitations, but my camera with its full frame sensor hits medium format resolution. For the enlargements I am envisaging, I personally do not find the hyperfocal principle adequate. Actually, I don't think it would be very helpful for me if I would shoot analog 35mm, as there also I would try for as large prints as possible.
There are other concerns, like what is acceptable in the foreground and in the distance as sharp - I found Harold Merklinger's "the ins and outs of focus" a very good read on this subject. He wrote for film cameras, the book is downloadable here:
http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/

Lukas

That makes a lot of sense, and thanks for the clarification. Thank you also for the link.