I'm always zone focusing and prefer to use manual lenses. I have heard modern sensors do show up any inherent flaws with the zone focusing scale as you will likely find any subject placed nearer to the nearest or furthest points of focus will probably be quite soft and not acceptably sharp like they're supposed to be. I did find out trying to extend the zone of focus by placing the infinity mark at the furthest point of focus always resulted in soft backgrounds. I'm not a sharpness obsessive though and don't really mind if my subjects are not tack sharp like modern clinical lenses will render. In fact I'm always trying to find ways to make my photo's look less clinical and digital. Character lenses like my Voigtlander 40mm certainly help.

Camerafocus ring

Nando Harmsen is a Dutch photographer that is specialized in wedding and landscape photography. With his roots in the analog photo age he gained an extensive knowledge about photography techniques and equipment, and shares this through his personal blog and many workshops.

Personally, I prefer to be on the side of caution. I rarely adjust the focus ring until the infinity sign perfectly aligns with the depth of field. Even if the depth of field calculator suggests it's safe, I keep the infinity symbol well within the depth of field range. This practice is especially beneficial for extremely wide-angle shots where the depth of field is already substantial.

For the Laowa 12mm Zero-D lens at f/11, the hyperfocal distance is 1 meter. This means that anything between 0.6 meters and infinity will be acceptably sharp.

>I heard a rumour that the early Bausch and Lomb anamorphic lenses >had two focus knobs on them, requiring two focus pullers. If a shot was >buzzed each assistant always had someone to point at. Nothing to do with anguish. Old Mitchell’s, B&H's, Auricons and the like had a side viewfinder: one could only "see" focus and composition if the lend was 'racked over'. It was moved over with a big knob and it rode on a notched horizontal track. Hence: rack for focus or in short 'rack focus'. Some camera's had a view tube that was 'racked over' to look through the negative that thereby acted like a ground glass. That was before the black backing coat of course. Robert Rouveroy csc The Hague, Holland I plan to live forever. So far, so good.

The depth of field scale is always located between the focal and aperture rings, next to the aforementioned red line. Note that numbers on both sides of the red line are the apertures as well. A small white line points towards the focus ring. By now, you can probably guess how it can be used. The depth of field at any given aperture is the distance on the focus ring that is located between the left and right white line.

With a strong enough lens (the one I got had a focal length of 35mm), you put the lens 35mm (or whatever) past the Fresnel's focal length. The light will then ...

Back in the days of analog photography, nearly all lenses had these scale numbers on the lens barrel. Even zoom lenses incorporated these numbers and visual indicators.

While having an extended depth of field beyond infinity isn't an issue, it's more effective to use the hyperfocal distance when aiming for a large depth of field with a small aperture.

If your lens lacks a depth of field scale, you'll need alternative methods to determine the hyperfocal distance. Personally, I rely on the Photopills app, which offers an augmented reality feature pinpointing the hyperfocal distance precisely.

So if you’re talking about hyperfocal distance for enlargements from a high-resolution sensor, I would use the DOF scale for at least 2 and preferably 3 stops wider aperture. The DOF tables work for Facebook (2048 pixels long dimension).

>"A cause of intense anguish" -- how appropriate!" I heard a rumour that the early Bausch and Lomb anamorphic lenses had two focus knobs on them, requiring two focus pullers. If a shot was buzzed each assistant always had someone to point at. Lots of intense anguish there, I'm sure. Art Adams, DP Mountain View, California - "Silicon Valley" http://www.artadams.net/

The depth of field scale makes it possible to read the depth of field for every aperture and distance combination you select. For instance, at f/2.8 with a focus distance of 1 meter, you can reference the corresponding aperture numbers next to the red line. This reveals that the depth of field in this scenario spans approximately from 0.8 meters to 1.5 meters.

When learning about using the hyperfocal distance in landscape photography I was flashed and tried to use it when hiking near my home (so I can come back easily to fix what I missed). To cut a long story short, I was nearly always disappointed with my shots. All were acceptably sharp, but viewed at 100 % showed all the said flaws.

Focus stacking would have helped, or tilting lenses, but at that time I just went back to focus on what a wanted to be tack sharp and accept the out of focus softness. Never needed sharpness on side stuff. Of course, I'm just an amateur shooting for the joy of shooting.

Find lens focus ring sizecalculator

Some modern mirrorless cameras now have the focus distance projected on screen when looking through the viewfinder or on the LCD screen, but often only when switched over to manual focus. But even in that case, the depth of field is not always visualized as well.

Tilta SeamlessFocusGearRing

An essential point about DoF is missing from the otherwise helpful article. The "acceptable" sharpness quoted is only for viewing an ~8x10" print from about 15" - a "standard" used by lens makers well before digital came along Changing the viewing angle (distance or print/display size) changes the DoF. If you plan to zoom in or print big and still want sharpness, the best you can do is use the pixel pitch as the circle of confusion in the DoF calculators. Once you have done that and see the difference, you can use the lens's scale as a guide after adding the correction factor.

The total magnification is calculated by multiplying the magnification of the ocular lens by the magnification of the objective lens. Light is passed ...

Why Study Optics & Laser Technology at Front Range Community College? Precision optics and lasers are everywhere you look: in cameras, virtual reality ...

optical spectrometerDS2500 ... The DS2500 Analyzers are compact near-infrared (NIR) spectrometers for use in the lab as well as in production. These instruments ...

Find lens focus ring sizenikon

ENERGY CALCULATION SERVICES. Northern Design Services can supply you with energy calculations for both residential (ResCheck) and light commercial buildings ( ...

Jul 26, 2024 — The FOV of the lens is twice the value of 'Angle'. k = Error Distance from lens measurement location to the ...

LensFollowFocus Ring

When using an aperture of f/8 and focusing at infinity, the depth of field covers around 1.5 meters to infinity and beyond. Similarly, with f/11 and a focus distance of 1.5 meters, the depth of field stretches from about 0.7 meters to infinity and beyond.

Regardless of the method, the depth of field scale on a manual prime lens is a great tool and offers valuable information, reducing dependency on apps to achieve the desired depth of field.

Introduction. Galvo Scanner (GS) is widely used for lateral laser scanning in various imaging modalities such as photoacoustic microscopy [1-3], confocal ...

If you've ever owned a fixed focal length wide-angle lens, you've probably noticed the numbers located between the focus ring and the aperture ring. This is the depth of field scale, and it's a valuable tool that helps you check the depth of field for different apertures and focus distances.

Andrew Jones’s comment is important. When I did tests for a project shooting areas of old brick paving about 40 inches wide with my 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor on a D810 with 36 mp sensor, I found that the depth of field at the pixel level for enlargements to 16x24 viewed at 24 inches was about 8 inches centered on the focus distance of 8 feet at f/5.6. F/4 did not yield dependably sharp shots. The depth of field tables said I had a depth of 2 feet.

Hi Nando, thanks for that valuable article. I am using the Laowa 2,8/12mm as well and have some experiences especially with that lens, also using focus stacking. Sadly, the lens has some field curvature which leads to some issues in the corners when relying on the depth of field scale. Therefore I found it helpful to take a shot exactly at infinity in order to get sharp corners - with something closer like 3m it's not sharp enough. My next step then is 1.5m at f11 as you are doing.

IDS Camera Frame Grabber · IDS Cameras Accessories · IDS Cameras Lens · IDS Ensenso Accessories · IDS Hubs/Extender · IDS Interface Cables · IDS Interface Cards ...

Normally, determining the hyperfocal distance would require an app. However, with a lens equipped with a depth of field scale, you can easily read this value. Rotate the focus ring until the infinity symbol aligns with the depth of field scale at the farther end, corresponding to the chosen aperture.

Let's begin with the basics. The red line at the center of this Laowa lens barrel points at both the focal distance and aperture that has been set. This might seem obvious, but it's a crucial point to remember. In the example, the aperture is set to f/8, and the focal distance is set to 1.5 meters or 5 feet. I’ll keep mentioning the distance in meters from this point on.

"Rack focus" does indeed derive from the gears used, as in rack and pinion. The pinion is usually a smaller gear and the rack is usually a straight assembly or rack of teeth as in a view camera and some early MP cameras-- not to be confused with medieval torture device of the same name, although as has already been pointed out, there are similarities in effect for the focus puller. "Pulling focus" is self-evident. When the term came into use can only be answered by someone a lot older than I am. BTW, where's Jeff Kreines? Brian Heller

You might guess the calculator is more accurate, but perhaps the lens design requires a correction factor in the calculation. I don’t know if this is true, but lens designs have become so sophisticated that it wouldn’t surprise me.

That 8 inches was just enough to protect from the combination of field curvature and irregularities in the paving surface, but even so required extremely careful focus and alignment parallel to the surface of old, irregular sidewalks often on moderate grades.

However, modern lenses with such information on the barrel are becoming rarer due to design and fast autofocus systems. The need for quick focusing forces the focus ring to have a short rotation distance between infinity and the minimum focus distance. This makes it challenging to include a useful depth of field scale, and on, a lot of occasions, even impossible. Additionally, modern zoom lenses offer a zoom ring instead of a pull and push zoom system, which makes depth of field scales nearly impossible.

I'll outline how this works using the Laowa 12mm Zero-D lens as an example. While details might differ across other lenses, the underlying principle remains the same. Regardless of appearance, the functionality remains consistent.

The hyperfocal distance is the focal setting that results in the depth of field extending exactly up to infinity. This distance you have to focus at to achieve this varies based on the chosen aperture and the focal length.

With f/11 and a focus distance at 1 meter, sharpness is guaranteed for subjects located 0.6 meters away or beyond. This eliminates the need for further focusing adjustments. A manual lens with a depth of field scale streamlines the process of setting the hyperfocal distance, negating the reliance on apps or guesswork. However, there are a few caveats.

Perpendicular Polarization (Transverse Electric) – This occurs when the magnetic field is parallel to the plane of incidence, but the electric field is ...

The only lenses that continue to display a depth of field scale today are manual focus lenses with fixed focal lengths. These scales can be particularly advantageous, especially for wide angle and ultra-wide angle lenses. It simplifies the process of setting the hyperfocal distance swiftly and effortlessly.

The accuracy of the depth of field scale might be a concern. Some lenses might not align precisely with values from depth of field calculators. This holds true for the Laowa lens as well.

Of course, sensor size affects depth of field. Using a camera with a sensor that differs from a full frame size will render the scale almost useless. If you use a full frame lens on a camera with a crop sensor, don’t rely on the depth of field scale as mentioned on the lens barrel.

Robert Rouveroy writes: >Nothing to do with anguish. Old Mitchell’s, B&H's, Auricons and the like >had a side viewfinder: one could only "see" focus and composition if the >lend was 'racked over'. Not to quibble with so eminent a film historian, but I believe the term "rack focus" pre-dates rack-over cameras, but I may be wrong. However "The Rack", the medieval torture instrument, and gear rack derive from the same source. "The Rack" used a rack and pinion system for mechanical advantage. Brian "ouch" Heller I 600 DP

>"Pulling focus" is self-evident. When the term came into use can only be >answered by someone a lot older than I am. BTW, where's Jeff Kreines? Billy Mitchell ("Intolerance" etc) used lenses where the barrel was 'pushed' and 'pulled' to affect focus. As he eminently was not able to pull at the lens and crank the camera simultaneously, he was (probably) the first cameraman to yell "pull focus" to his assistant. As is explained in one of the links at : http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/filmsize.html If you can't find your info there, it most probably does not exist : Robert Rouveroy csc The Hague, Holland I plan to live forever. So far, so good.

I've been interested in the origins of the term "rack focus", guessing that it derived from the gears used in a follow-focus system. Probably first used as a noun, later becoming an action. I decided to look up the word "rack", and one of the definitions is : "A cause of intense anguish" -- how appropriate! Can anyone confirm the above origin of the term? And where did "pull focus, or focus pull" come from? Chris Mosio Cinematographer/Seattle

100% agree Andrew. Rule of thumb - for modern high res sensors and big prints, use the scale setting 3-4 stops less than the aperture you are using. Set f16, you'll get the approx. DoF of the f4-5.6 lines on the lens.

Shop the latest apparel and collectibles from OpTic Gaming. Official jerseys, tees, hats, hoodies and more! Home of the World Famous GreenWall.

Do you have a manual fixed focal length lens? If so, you'll likely find the depth of field scale on it as well, positioned between the focus and aperture rings. While many people know about its purpose intuitively, there's a significant number of photography enthusiasts who might be uncertain about its function and applications.