hyperfocal focusing for landscapes with 28mm?

[daniel buck]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So, landscapes are probably the thing I shoot most with my M9.

 

With all of my small format cameras I usually focus to infinity, and then back off a small twist on the focusing ring and shoot at f8 or there abouts. I'm wondering though, I have a nice "new" 28 summicron to replace my voigtlander, and I now have the corners of my images sharp! And nice large hyperfocal markings.

 

That's not the reason I'm asking about hyperfocal, the reason is becuase I've never really payed much attention to the hyper focal markings on the lens, I've always just guessed, or stopped down the lens to do a quick check (if using SLR), and stop down and use appropriate back/lens movements on large format and check with a loupe. But now that I am venturing into rangefinder shooting, I cannot "check" the focus accept for shooting and then looking at the LCD and zoom in if I want to check for critical focus. This is fine, if I really need to check the critical focus, but I'd like to rely a bit more on the hyper focal scale for a more general "ball-park" focusing for most shots.

 

So my question is, how reliable are the hyperfocal markings on the lenses? Particularly the 28 summicron. Those of yall who shoot alot of landscapes, what distance do yall focus at? Say you are shooting at f8, do you just leave the focus somewhere around 3-4 meters, and shoot away? Is the hyperfocal scale on the lenses accurate enough for "inspecting digital files at 100%"? or should I assume that the scale is a little on the conservative side?

 

Any discussions on this are welcome :-)

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaay]

I find setting the 28 summicron to f8 and then using the hyperfocal scale at markings for f4 works extremely well for quick landscapes. I can tell the difference at 100% though between these shots and ones focused. For horizons leaving the lens at infinity gives me best results.

[daniel buck]

I find setting the 28 summicron to f8 and then using the hyperfocal scale at markings for f4 works extremely well for quick landscapes. I can tell the difference at 100% though between these shots and ones focused. For horizons leaving the lens at infinity gives me best results.

 

so that would mean (looking at the lens here) that you generally set the focus around 5 meters, on the scale when shooting at f8?

 

I'm going to the desert tomorrow, my first chance to really use my new 28, so I will probably run a few different tests, and see what works best. I will take your suggestion for horizons into account as well, see if I notice any difference for shots that mostly focus (hah!) on the horizon. Thank you for your reply

[01af]

Daniel, if you're asking about the 'accuracy' of the hyperfocal markings (or actually DOF markings) on a lens barrel then you haven't fully grasped the concepts behind depth-of-field and hyperfocal focusing yet. There is no such thing as 'accuracy' in here—just definitions, assumptions, and compromises.

 

Google for a PDF document named "The Ins and Outs of Focus" by Harold Merklinger, download it, and read it. Or take my resumée on it which is this: If you care about sharpness then do not bother with hyperfocal focusing. Focus properly on the main subject. If sharpness at infinity is essential then set the focus to infinity.

Hyperfocal focusing or, more generally, zone focusing is useful for street photography etc when you must grab the shot instantly and absolutely have no time for focusing. But not for landscape photography.

[ianman]

Hi Daniel,

 

The scale markings on lenses date from a bygone age. You may want to check out this post by "The old man from the Age of great explanations" (Lars Bergquist).

 

Ian

[jaay]

It is for the reasons mentioned in the subsequent posts that I use the markings for f4 when shooting f8 - please try it you'll find it most satisfactory.

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sidebar: Dan, you are going to LOVE that lens. That is one of my all time favorite lenses. If, you like 28mm for landscape, it is probably one of Leica's best lens ever made.

[daniel buck]

Thanks for the posts. That sounds like a good guide, use 1/2 of the f-stop value marked on the scale. I'll try that as one of my first tests

 

Rick, from just the few quick shots I have taken with the lens, it looks like a winner for sure! I've never spent that much money on a lens before, but it's going to be my primary lens, so I don't mind shelling out for a good lens. I initially purchased the Voigtlander 28/2.0 but I didn't find it's quality satisfactory enough, particularly in the corners of frame, even when stopped down to f8.

 

I don't think I'll be using the lens shade very often, it's just so large. Do you find the shade necessary for this lens in most situations that might cause flare? I'm generally not a person who uses lens hoods or shades, or even filters for that matter (accept when shooting black and white sheet film I'll use a yellow or orange filter sometimes). If I find it flaring more than I'd like, then I suppose I'll just bring it with me, or maybe look for a screw-on hood that might be smaller. The lens didn't come with a lens cap (though it did come with a cap for the lens shade) but by good fortune I found that one of my old metal Wollensak press-on caps (with felt inside) fit's like a charm. It's a Wollensak M9

[jaapv]

It is often forgotten that the hyperfocal "sharpness" span is not a sharply defined value.It is a gradual rise and fall in the shape of a triangle with the plane of focus at the apex. Due to the accuracy of the digital sensor it is safest to assume that the image is in focus only at the exact focussing distance, the areas in front and behind that plane are simply unsharp, the amount of unsharpness (dependent on the distance and aperture) being acceptable or not. There is no exact value, as this is a subjective judgement.

[albertknappmd]

Daniel-

the benefits of using the lens shade outweigh the annoyance factor. You will mitigate flare which can be problematic and unpredictable. The lens shade will also protect your lens...

Albert:D

[gravastar]

The 28mm Summicron is an excellent lens for landscapes. For A3 and A2 sized prints I usually stop the lens down two more stops than that indicated by the hyperfocal markings on the lens. As others have said it depends on many things but the print size and viewing distance are the most important (if you want everything to appear to be in focus). There is a catch though, as a general rule you don't want to stop down more than f11 or else diffraction will rear it's ugly head, spoiling sharpness. In fact it's noticeable at f8 and there really is no easy solution.

 

You can make beautiful wide angle landscapes by stitching together images made by the 28mm at f11. Since the degree of enlargement needed is less with a stitched image diffraction is less noticeable and the depth of field appears appears to be greater.

 

Bob.

[pico]

As many will remind us - hyperfocal is dependent upon the viewing distance for the print, or the monitor if you are doing web-like presentations.

 

An example is from Hasselblad's recommendations for their earlier lenses that had a pointer on the lens that was coordinated with the f-stop and distance. Hasselblad recommended that the photographer ignore that display for large prints, and to take the recommended settings more appropriate to full-frame 35mm.

[Rick]

Dan, you do not need the shade. I am careful with my camera and don't need the physical protection either (just me). This lens has great contrast(sharpness) and doesn't flare much at all even shot into the sun. I walked all over Italy with this lens when I had my M8 and never used the shade and only in extreme, extreme cases did it flare. It is just outstanding and it will continue to amaze you. When I first started with Leica only a few years ago I got some damn good advise here from some of the old masters and it was to never sell a Leica lens. This is one of those lenses.

 

Having said all of that, I would use the hood if I had the camera on the tripod and didn't care about bulk. It will improve contrast in some cases. (By the way, I have to thank Tony Rose of Popflash for the advise to get the 28 cron. He knew I was new to Leica and he just about made me buy that lens for my M8. He was right and he knows what he is talking about).

 

Dan, you will buy different lenses, but you won't buy any that are better. You made a great choice for what you are going to do with it. Now, focus (he-he) on the art.

[gravastar]

........Having said all of that, I would use the hood if I had the camera on the tripod and didn't care about bulk.............

Rick, you can use the hood of the (one before the latest) 35mm ASPH Summilux on the 28mm Summicron. It's much smaller and more comvenient than the original hood supplied with the lens. There's no vignetting on the M9. It's easier to mount if you don't squeeze the plastic release tabs too hard.

 

Bob.

[el.nino]

infinity-focussing is best for landscapes. that hyperfocal-stuff is better used with near objects but Not with extremly fine and hard to capture detsils far far away (trees, leafs etc. ).

[Your Old Dog]

01af gave you some true words! When I learned about hyperfocal distance the word that was used was "acceptable" focus outside of the "point" of focus. You will find there is a little more "acceptable" focus behind the point of aim then in front of it and there can only be one true point of accurate focus.

 

You will also find spending a lot of time on hyperfocal distance on wide angle lenses is far less important then on telephoto lenses where hyperforcal distance can be critical to register your subject as you want it. As someone here already stated, if there is something specific in the scene you want to capture then focus on it or that "plane" of focus. The plane of focus of course would be a circle drawn around your shooting position at any point of focus....say 10 feet.

 

Hyperfocal distance is far more important to know in street shooting of things/people you don't have time to focus on in trying to catch a fleeting moment. Using your hyperfocal indications on the lens you would set up your lens to capture where you expect something might happen maybe hours before it does.

 

good luck, have fun!

Ray

[jacarape]

I love this photo of my dog, and it demonstrates what most have said. When you hyper-focus lens, there really is only one point that is in focus. Even a very very minimally OOF infinity on a landscape photo would be a cull to me.

 

Attached was shot with Plus-X, "Fat ASPH" 35 and an MP. Since you're shooting digital, why not go and make some tests, pretty easy for you.

 

I'd really like to see the results, at what point hyper-focusing causes what you consider an unacceptable infinity.

 

Cheers-jac

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[el.nino]

BTW: some read-ups about infinity focussing:

- Focus and Depth of Field (at about 7:00min)

- http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/TIAOOFe.pdf

- Digital Focusing Part Two

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[daniel buck]

infinity-focussing is best for landscapes. that hyperfocal-stuff is better used with near objects but Not with extremly fine and hard to capture detsils far far away (trees, leafs etc. ).

 

I had a great time shooting in the desert yesterday! I believe that I found this to be true. Not nessisarily setting the lens all the way to infinity, but backing off just a hair keeps most of the foreground acceptably sharp, and the rest of the landscape in the background in good sharp focus. I tried some hyperfocal shots, some worked better than others. I need to do some better testing and take some notes, I shot so many photos (about 300 for the whole day!) that I'm not sure which is which.

 

Shot like this where the foreground wasn't very close to camera, seemed to work quite well when hyperfocus-ing (if that's how you state it, hah!). The foreground going a touch soft doesn't really affect the photo.

 

 

 

And shots like this, where I have detail close to the camera, I aired focusing a bit more towards the foreground, and the back of the hill goes a bit soft. Just a bit of front or back tilt would solve this in a snap with large format! But, that's why I bought the leica, to have a nice small camera

 

 

 

 

Will need to do some more testing and take better notes. But thanks for all the replies. yes, I'm aware of diffraction, sharpness versus print size/viewing distance and the rest. But thank you for the reminder For my usual size of 8x10 printing, I have a feeling that most of these shots will hold up just fine, even the ones where the background or foreground is a touch soft, I think when downsizing to 8x10 the images will be plenty sharp enough through the whole frame.

 

And I did find that the 28 flares a bit when shooting towards the sun, so I'll probably end up bringing the lens hood next time.

[el.nino]

the sun lit stones in the first picture are already at infinity which starts at about 40m with a 28mm lens.