Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/06/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]"R. Saylor" wrote: > > > This I understand. My question therefore seems to be how does one > > calculate or even estimate just what that "as much infront of 'infinity' > > as possible" might really be? > > At hyperfocal, the far distance is infinity, the near distance is one- > half hyperfocal. (This gives maximum DOF.) > > If you set focus at infinity, the near distance is hyperfocal, the far > distance is... who knows? The mathematics gives a negative number > (the negative of hyperfocal, to be exact), which indicates something > beyond infinity. > > It has been suggested (by a Minox user, but I've lost the URL) that > for distant scenes, it is better to focus at infinity rather than > hyperfocal. The argument in favor of this involves perspective > geometry, which is as much off-topic as Rolex, Mont Blanc, and > Rolls Royce. > > Richard S. I've never thought I understood the Hyperfocal distance concept fully. With a 35mm lens if I stick the infinity at the right at f16 I get everything from 4' to infinity in focus and I am focused at 8'. I notice 4' is half of 8' as you say. You are saying 8' is the Hyperfocal distance. And I guess it is only the Hyperfocal distance at f16. With a 35mm lens if I stick the infinity at the right at F11 I get everything from 6' to infinity in focus and I am focused at 12.' So the Hyperfocal distance changes with each F stop am I right? I keep hearing about how each lens has it's Hyperfocal distance which confuses me as it would change with each F stop. Unless I have it wrong. Which would mean I am hopelessly ensnared in a circle of confusion! Mark Rabiner