Jump to content

Minimum focusing distance


MarkN

Recommended Posts

70cm is supposed to be the minimum for most lenses. This length can be reduced by tubes. 

Anyway, the pic is of a photo being taken. It doesn't show the result of the photographer's shot.

 

I'm presuming he was that close or thereabouts when making the photos in the book of his I have (Dark Knees) where all the photos are is focus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He was using a Super-Angulon 21/3.4 i suspect. 0.4m minimum focus distance is a great feature of this lens. 

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

He was using a Super-Angulon 21/3.4 i suspect. 0.4m minimum focus distance is a great feature of this lens. 

 

attachicon.gif2134.jpg

Me too thought at the SA 21... but looking better at the video I tend to think to a 28mm... they close to f22 and focus to 0,7 ... DOF to 45 cm around... and the pictures intermixed in the video are not so well focused, after all...
Link to post
Share on other sites

SA 21/3.4 with hood i bet ;)

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

SA 21/3.4 with hood i bet ;)

 

attachicon.gif2134_hood.jpg

lct.. you have convinced me... I am not smart enough to block the video, grab a frame and analyze... but saw enlarged the first sequences :

- apparently, year is 1982 around... if a 28, is not the Elmarit IV

- previous Elmarit 28 had a hood definitely different

- the very first Elmarit 28 had the same hood as the SA 21 3,4... but was a lens someway bigger...

- The intermixed pictures indeed do not have a typical 21mm look... but they are probably cropped in print.

 

at the end... I think that there is a strong chance you are right. Marginal chance it's an Elmarit 28 v2.. the viewfinder mounted on his body of course isn't a clue... 21 and 28 were identical in shape.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] I think that there is a strong chance you are right [...]

 

I suspect you may have a chance to be right in thinking that i'm not wrong :D;)

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect you may have a chance to be right in thinking that i'm not wrong :D;)...

CHANCE indeed... and I admit STRONG...which isn't exactly 100% :)

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the photographer in the video (1982) was likely using the 21 Super-Angulon, which uses the rangefinder down to 0.7 meter, but can scale-focus on down to 0.4 meters (16").

 

I had a 21 SA for a brief while - abandoned it when I got a metering M6 to replace my M4-2. The picture in color below was with the 21 SA at minimum scale focus.

 

I rather missed the close-focusing wide-angle option, so (still in my film era) I experimented with putting a close-up filter on the front of a 24mm Elmarit ASPH (E55). With film, I had to shoot a test roll with the filter in place, and record with a ruler what the actual focus distance was if the lens was set to 0.7 meters on the lens scale (which with the filter came out as 11"/0.28m).

 

The B&W picture below was made with the 24/filter combination, "guessing" as to when the camera was placed at 11" from the girl's face. AND a small aperture (f/11 or so) so that depth of field would give me a safety margin.

 

It is always possible that Cohen also used a CU filter on his 21 (or a 28) like I did, of course.

 

Easier with digital of course (you can use the screen on the back!)

 

Bear in mind also that the "focus distance" is always measured from the film or sensor position - NOT the front of the lens!!! So with an 11" film position, the front of my LENS was about 8 inches from the girl's face.

 

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!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...