Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

DSLR 101 3.0

Rising Star





Unless there is only one item in your viewfinder, which is next to impossible, there are an infinite number of distances between you and the items.

Only one distance is in perfect focus, and depending on depth of field, a range of distances will be in acceptable focus.

Zooming the lens doesn't change the distance anymore than it compresses the distance between objects.

Maybe it's my imagination, but I often feel a tugging on my leg when I read some of these postings.
John Hoffman
Conway, NH

1D X Mark III, M200, Many lenses, Pixma PRO-100, Pixma TR8620a, Lr Classic

View solution in original post


@ebiggs1 wrote:

Not negative.  They are really extremely related to each other. Most people wil be happier with hyperfocal distance than COC.  COC depends on the sensor size and viewing medium.  Hyperfocal distance is lens driven.


a.  Isn't the whole concept of hyperfocal distance based on the CoC (i.e., the appearance of being in focus because other factors keep you from telling the difference)?

b.  Hyperfocal distance is useful only if the in-focus range has to extend to infinity. Or am I missing something?

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

Anyone know anything about a Photographer named "David Peterson".  I've been geting literature about photography courses he teaches online.  Any info would help.  

Rising Star

I decided to do a little lens test to see which of the two lens between my Canon  EF 50mm f/1.4 Prime, and my Canon EF 24-105mm L f/4 zoom,  would create the better bokeh.  I used my 24-105mmL at the long end....105mm, and both were set at aperture f/4, using AV.  The 50mm is a prime so it's at ....50mm.   Both set at ISO 100.   All pics taken under tree shade. The results are interesting to me.   This gives me a general idea the difference in lens.   I will check my 50mm at aperture f/1.4 next.................Pic #1  24-105mmL         BTW....None of the pics are altered in post Ed other than convert from RAW to JPEG.1.JPGare useful for me.

Rising Star

Pic # 2....50mm2.JPG

Rising Star

Pic # 3....24-105mmL3.JPG

Rising Star

Pic # 4......50mm4.JPG

50mm f4 low.JPG

50mm f1.4 low.JPG

                             24-105       f4.JPGPicture # 1 EF 50mm f/1.4 USM.......50mm, ISO 400, aperture f/4         Picture # 2.  EF 50mm f/1.4 USM.... .50mm, ISO 400, aperture f/1.4   

Picture # 3.  EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM ..... 105mm, ISO 400, aperture f/4 ................BTW....No pics were altered other than convert from RAW to JPEG.

One of the things I notice is that the Bokeh is stronger with the 24-105mm L f/4 lens, than the 50mm f/1.4 Prime lens..... with both set to aperture f/4.  The 50mm Prime lens Bokeh seems a tad stronger than the 24-105mm L f/4 lens, when the 50mm Prime lens is set at aperture f/1.4.  But they look very close, in these pics I took.   The results may be slightly different if things are more precisely setup.   I can also see the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, handles lower light better than my EF 24-105mm L f/4 IS USM.  I'm beginning to see why the EF 24-105mm L f/4 IS USM, is considered by many, a very good, versitile, general purpose lens.  These shots are just casual setup pics I took.  Just about what I can expect in everyday shooting.  These results are about what I expected from all I've heard and read.  But nothing helps me understand anything I learn in Photography, better.....  than seeing it with my very own eyes in real world applications.

click here to view the gallery