Hyperfocal Distance

[jchooper12]

Can someone explain to me the best way to get a sharp landscape shot of a mountian range or rolling grasslands, etc. I have been trying to get super sharp photos shooting down my street and am not having the best of luck. I have been trying with my 17-55mm @50mm and my 50mm f/1.8 to see which is sharper. I used a hyperfocal distance chart for the d200 and focused on the subject 60ft out (this is the distance I could shoot to ensure infinite focus behind the subject thinking if the background was a mountian range this would provide a pretty sharp image of it). The camera was stable on my tripod and I used the timer to release. Well, things just don't seem that sharp. The houses down the street were not that sharp, I did not use any filters either so we can take that out of the equation. My shutter speeds were between 1/80 and 1/200 (I did this at a couple of different times today). Anyone have any links to guides on shooting landscapes, mountians, etc.? Thanks. I am not feeling real confident about Hyperfocal distance right now.

[crazeazn]

what apertures are you shooting?

[KdLaneJr]

I would say stick with the hyperfocal distance on your chart if it is for your camera body. Pick an object beyond the hyperfocal distance to focus on. Not too far beyond it, just a couple feet or so. Focus on it. Now turn AF off. You don't want this to change on you.

Continue to use your tripod, use mirror lock-up also and aperture priority or complete manual mode for your exposure settings. You don't want your aperture to change on you either.

Before you do all of the above, compare your hyperfocal chart to this online depth of field calculator.

Keep your ISO at 100 if possible. (on a tripod this should definitely be possible)

Remember that there are very few lenses that do not exhibit some degree of softness wide open. Are you conducting this test at the aperture for optimum lens sharpness to start with?

If what I've suggested does not work then I'd suspect there is something else going on in your system.

[josphy]

What are you trying to accomplish here? Usually people focus at the hyperfocal distance to provide acceptable sharpness for something in the relatively near foreground and at infinity. With your 50mm lenses, at f8, if you focus at 60feet, then everything from 30 feet to infinity should be acceptably sharp in an 8x10 in print. Of course, only something at exactly 60 feet will be truly sharp.

Hyperfocal focusing works better with wide lenses, by the way, which have a bigger depth of field. So for example, if you set your lens at 17mm @ f8, then focus at 6feet, then everything from 3 feet to infinity will be acceptably sharp. Stop down even more and the depth of field is even more. That's pretty much the way this type of technique is used in landscapes.

Anyway hyperfocal focusing is not the way to test and compare lenses for sharpness.

[jchooper12]

I was shooting at f/7.1. The DOF chart listed above is the one I used. Thanks!!!

[venchka]

Let me just say right now that I have never used a chart for focusing. I just use the DOF scale on the lens and/or the groundglass. I've also been known to use one f-stop lower on the scale if the foreground objects weren't too close. By that I mean, set the f-8 line on Infinity if I were using f-11. Clear as mud? Also, we know that the smaller the sensor the shallower the DOF and the sooner that diffraction robs you of image quality. I just picked up a handful of lenses from the lens cabinet. All designed for full frame 35mm. Here's what they say:

135mm/3.5 @ f-11: ~90' to Inf
50/1.4 @ f-8: ~16' to Inf Focused at 30'+
50/2.0 @ f-8: Same as 50/1.4
35/3.5 @ f-8: ~8' to Inf
28/2.8 @ f-8: <6' to Inf
24/2.8 @ f-8: <4' to Inf

EDIT: Correction. Subtract a lot of feet for your sensor. I just went to the calculator. Small sensors loose 10' with a 50mm lens at f-11. Good grief. Possibly limit yourself to f-8 or for sure f-11 for diffraction reasons. I'm sure your camera will adjust the aperture in 1/3 stop increments so you could use f-8 +1/3 or 2/3 stops (I don't have those numbers in my head) to maximize DOF without getting into diffraction problems. Focused at 60' all of my lenses between 24mm and 50mm would yield sharp results at Inf @ f-2.8 or f-4.0.

Unless you place the lens very close to the ground, or point it down at the ground, your foreground subjects should be 50'-100' out. There's nothing wrong with some gently out of focus foreground subjects. People search far and wide & pay silly prices for lenses with pleasing out of focus qualities and then always use the lenses wide open so they than brag about the out of focus areas.

You're driving yourself crazy in your front yard. When you get there you will know what to do. Your making photographs of amazing scenery. You are not photographing MTF or DOF charts. Throw the charts away. Take pictures. You'll see what works soon enough.

Now for the bad news: You may be seeing why some folks prefer fixed focal length lenses. Everything is a compromise. Prime lenses for image quality. Zoom lenses for versatility. You pays your money and takes your choice.

Good luck. Get out and take pictures.

[Digital Daddy]

I have always just set my camera to aperature priority, set to smallest ap., then turn off auto focus, and used the focusing guide ( in feet ) on my lens. Set lens to the infinity mark and rotate back a little bit. Very god advice from Wayne, go shoot, and find the best set of compromises for you.

[CaptainTom]

Aren't most of these charts set up for full frame 35mm cameras ?
Does that make any difference ?

[Patti Edens]

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

Aren't most of these charts set up for full frame 35mm cameras ?
Does that make any difference ?

If I understand all this correctly, yes, it does make a difference. That's why the charts on DOF Master and Cambridge in Color account for the camera's sensor size.

If you don't have 35mm film camera or a FF digital, you can't rely on the markings on the lens.

[Bruce M. Morris]

Originally Posted by jchooper12

Can someone explain to me the best way to get a sharp landscape shot of a mountian range or rolling grasslands, etc.

John,
There are several variables that you hinted at that could affect the photo. 1) What size tripod were you using? Was it big enough stable enough to hold the camera still for the shots? 2) you are trying to compare 50mm lens with a zoom lens. There are HUGE differences in all the different brands and models of lenses and in the past, the fixed focal length lens would be sharper than the zoom just because of the mechanics of a lens that has lens elements moving to change the focal length. Now with computer designed lenses, I am sure that the difference is less, but it is something to consider. 3) You mention focusing at 60ft. That is fine except that the hyperfocal distance is determined many variables, such as the focal length, the aperture used and the distance to the subject. that 60ft might be right for one of the lenses, but I would bet that it isnt right for both of them.
One other thing that might be affecting your determination of "sharpness". Are you comparing them on the screen or have you actually printed out the image? There may be a firestorm of comments from this but there IS a difference in what your screens can show and what the printed image shows.

Hope some of this helps..

[jeffkohn]

You also have to realize that most DOF tables/calculators are pretty optimistic about what "acceptable sharpness" is. If you want to print 8x10's and hold them at arm's length you'll be fine, but if you're printing large or examing images at 100% on-screen you're likely to be disappointed. Galen Rowell used to recommend stopping down 1-2 stops more than the markings on the lens would indicate to make sure he had enough DOF for large prints. I take a similar approach by using .015 as my circle of confusion instead of the more commonly-used .02. (A good DOF calculator will let you specify a CoC of your own choosing).

Hyperfocal focusing should only be used as a last resort when you really need the DOF. If the scene you're shooting is all at or near infinity, you'll get a sharper picture by focusing at that distance rather than using the hyperfocal distance.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by Bruce M. Morris

John,
... One other thing that might be affecting your determination of "sharpness". Are you comparing them on the screen or have you actually printed out the image? There may be a firestorm of comments from this but there IS a difference in what your screens can show and what the printed image shows.

Hope some of this helps..

It ain't a photograph until it's printed.

That's my story & I'm sticking to it.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by Patti Edens

If I understand all this correctly, yes, it does make a difference. That's why the charts on DOF Master and Cambridge in Color account for the camera's sensor size.

If you don't have 35mm film camera or a FF digital, you can't rely on the markings on the lens.

What markings? Modern zooms, or at least mine, don't have enough markings to know diddley squat. Thank goodness the body I use them on has the nifty DOF program thingie built in. Focus on two points & the camera selects an aperture and distance. One more example of useful features disappearing from cameras.

[bondarnes]

One point that has not been discussed is sharpness vs. depth of field. As a general rule most lenses are sharpest two f-stops from wide open. That would mean that an f2 lens would be sharpest at around f4. That might not give you as much depth of field as you want though.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by bondarnes

One point that has not been discussed is sharpness vs. depth of field. As a general rule most lenses are sharpest two f-stops from wide open. That would mean that an f2 lens would be sharpest at around f4. That might not give you as much depth of field as you want though.

Sometimes 2 stops, sometimes 3 stops or sometimes the aperture right in the middle of the lens' range. It depends on the lens and format size. I own lenses that match all 3 rules of thumb. Then there's the contrast vs. resolution debate. That's a whole other can of worms. We also touched on zoom vs. prime lens image quality. I'm not even going to mention film vs. digital image quality. Nope. You didn't hear me mention that. Too many variables I think. Make the best with what you got.

There does seem to be one constant: By the time you get to 4x5 things get pretty sharp.