Question about using infinity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jo
  • Start date Start date
Jo

Jo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,667
Name
Jo Fisher
Edit My Images
Yes
OK, so I read in the Digital Photography magazine about using infinity on landscape shots. I thought :woot: Great plan, and it seemed simple enough. However when I came to set it as described I'm having trouble...

When I turn the lens to the infinity mark, it then says to move it on to the nearest f/22, but it won't turn to the nearest one on my 70-300mm lens, it stops just before it, so I end up winding back to the other one. Is this OK still?

I need to get out to try it properly, but thought I would ask here to try and save some frustration.

Thanks in advance :)
 
I'm not sure what the mag is trying to instruct you to do but I wouldn't recommend focussing at infinity for anything, even with small apertures the front edge of the DoF is still too far away. And that's before you start worrying about diffraction effects of the aperture.

I'd suggest investigating hyperfocal distances whereby you can achieve a DoF which covers from 6 feet away to infinity without having to resort to tiny apertures. There's a good online DoF calculator here, just pick your camera and lens combo then pick an f-stop and hit calculate (the subject distance doesn't matter in this case). The hyperfocal distance that's shown is the point at which you need to focus to have everything from half that distance away to inifity in focus.
 
Just checked out that DOF calculator. It's going to be very useful so I've saved it as a Favourite. Sorry I don't quite understand jojosmojo's question so I can't help.
 
I would agree with the post above....why would you want to focus to infinty for a landscape!....you'd be destroying too much foreground and taking all the depth out of your shot.

Landscapes aren't my thing but looking at the many superb shots that people take, then it's clear that you should be focussing on the nearest feature that keeps the farthest feature in focus....ie, as stated, the hyperfocal distance.
This should give you "walk in" type shots.
IMO, the only exception would be where the scene is framed by something close up...ie, overhanging tree branches, where a reverse type bokeh would give some mood to the shot.

Bob
 
Magazines.... tsk.... what do they know? :razz:

They seem to write anything they want these days.... then leave it to the "old lags" to help people out....

How do they get away with it.....? Tis one of the reasons I stopped buying them!

There's even one national weekly that finds it very difficult to hide it's (paid?) bias toward Canon.......:suspect:
 
chuckles said:
There's even one national weekly that finds it very difficult to hide it's (paid?) bias toward Canon.......:suspect:
Click to expand...

Which perceptive and discerning publication is this? I might start taking it. :D

Gawd knows what the mag are trying to say there - as everyone says, focusing at infinity is pretty useless unless you're taking shots of the moon.
 
CT said:
Which perceptive and discerning publication is this? I might start taking it. :D
Click to expand...

Put it this way.... it's gone downhill since it's had a new editor! ;)

I think where jojosmojo is getting confused is because her lens has two f22 markings! She's lucky she's got any these days.... All they indicate is the range of sharpness - closest to furthest - at f22. With a telephoto lens that is gonna be a VERY minute amount of movement.
 
I really miss the DOF scale on modern lenses. Even my 50mm f1.4 only has DOF markings for f22. :gag:
 
I liked the older Nikkor lenses. The apertures were colour coded and the markings were coloured lines to match the apertures.

But, there again, perhaps you gobbed on yours! ;)

Just looked at our latest Micro lens..... f32! What use is that? :shrug:
 
Oh I see :thinking: I did wonder why it wasn't spoken of around these parts :lol: Thanks guys :thumbs: saves me a lot of frustration!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top