## Hyperfocal setting for Tokina/Pentax 10-17mm fisheye

Expand Messages
• I would be grateful if someone who is using this zoom fisheye lens could tell me the hyperfocal setting at F/8 (which I think is the optimum aperture). I will
Message 1 of 22 , Sep 21, 2010
I would be grateful if someone who is using this zoom fisheye
lens could tell me the hyperfocal setting at F/8 (which I think
is the optimum aperture). I will then tape the focus setting to
that value. I don't know about the Tokina version, but my
Pentax version has a focus setting that is all too easily moved,
and I've just had a blurry result probably due to carelessness
in handling the lens and/or the wrong hyperfocal setting. I had
it midway between the 1.5m and 0.7m marks.

My poor eyesight makes it difficult to tell when things are in
best focus, and it's difficult with a fisheye anyway. Help!

Roger W.

PS I also find it far too easy to move the focal length away
from the 10mm I prefer to use. <sigh> More tape!

--
Pleasure: www.usefilm.com/member/roger
• Roger, Hyperfocal distance is based on aperture AND focal length, so if you change your focal length (as is done with zoom lenses), so too will your hyperfocal
Message 2 of 22 , Sep 21, 2010
Roger,

Hyperfocal distance is based on aperture AND focal length, so if you
change your focal length (as is done with zoom lenses), so too will

The basic formula for hyperfocal distance is:

Hyperfocal distance = Focal length^2 / (aperture * circle of confusion
diameter)
For consistency, let's assume circle of confusion size to be
1/1000 inch or 0.0254mm.

So for 10mm:
Hyperfocal dist. = 10^2 / (8 * .0254)
= 100 / 0.203
= 493mm, or 49.3 cm, or about 1.9 feet

For 17mm:
Hyperfocal dist. = 17^2 / (8 * .0254)
= 289 / 0.203
= 1,424mm, or 142.4 cm, or about 5.6 feet

There are a number of online hyperfocal distance and depth of field
calculators available, so you can check any combination you want
against your own calculations. Just enter "hyperfocal distance

Regards,

Scott Highton
Author, Virtual Reality Photography
Web: http://www.vrphotography.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Here s my suggestion: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Message 3 of 22 , Sep 21, 2010
Here's my suggestion: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Em 21/09/2010 13:49, Scott Highton escreveu:
>
> Roger,
>
> Hyperfocal distance is based on aperture AND focal length,
> so if you
> change your focal length (as is done with zoom lenses), so
> too will
> your hyperfocal distance change correspondingly.
>
> The basic formula for hyperfocal distance is:
>
> Hyperfocal distance = Focal length^2 / (aperture * circle
> of confusion
> diameter)
> For consistency, let's assume circle of confusion size to be
> 1/1000 inch or 0.0254mm.
>
> So for 10mm:
> Hyperfocal dist. = 10^2 / (8 * .0254)
> = 100 / 0.203
> = 493mm, or 49.3 cm, or about 1.9 feet
>
> For 17mm:
> Hyperfocal dist. = 17^2 / (8 * .0254)
> = 289 / 0.203
> = 1,424mm, or 142.4 cm, or about 5.6 feet
>
> There are a number of online hyperfocal distance and depth
> of field
> calculators available, so you can check any combination
> you want
> against your own calculations. Just enter "hyperfocal
> distance
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott Highton
> Author, Virtual Reality Photography
> Web: http://www.vrphotography.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• ... Most important it is NOT 1.5meters and 0.7Meters It is 1,5 and 0,7 feet. The blue are feet the yellow meter. So no wonder you get blurry images if you
Message 4 of 22 , Sep 21, 2010
--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Roger D. Williams" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> I would be grateful if someone who is using this zoom fisheye
> lens could tell me the hyperfocal setting at F/8 (which I think
> is the optimum aperture). I will then tape the focus setting to
> that value. I don't know about the Tokina version, but my
> Pentax version has a focus setting that is all too easily moved,
> and I've just had a blurry result probably due to carelessness
> in handling the lens and/or the wrong hyperfocal setting. I had
> it midway between the 1.5m and 0.7m marks.

Most important it is NOT 1.5meters and 0.7Meters

It is 1,5 and 0,7 feet. The blue are feet the yellow meter.
So no wonder you get blurry images if you used that.
Forget about using these marks, they are not at all correct.

You have to do some real live tests.
Theoretically you should be able to focus at 1m and get focus from 0.5 to infinity at F8.

But in practice this is very un secure.

I usually use the autofocus (just use centre focus point) and focus at 2 meters.
That gives me DOF from 0.6-infinity at F8 and 12mm.

And with that I can also use F4 and still have from 0.95 to infinity.
After I taped it at 2m I do some test shots to confirm it.

Hans

>
> My poor eyesight makes it difficult to tell when things are in
> best focus, and it's difficult with a fisheye anyway. Help!
>
> Roger W.
>
> PS I also find it far too easy to move the focal length away
> from the 10mm I prefer to use. <sigh> More tape!
>
> --
> Pleasure: www.usefilm.com/member/roger
>
• ... While this formulas are true for conventional photography they might be not for panoramic work. The reason for the 0.025mm circle of confusion is the
Message 5 of 22 , Sep 21, 2010
Am 21.09.2010 18:49, schrieb Scott Highton:
> Hyperfocal distance = Focal length2 / (aperture * circle of confusion
> diameter)
> For consistency, let's assume circle of confusion size to be
> 1/1000 inch or 0.0254mm.
>
> So for 10mm:
> Hyperfocal dist. = 102 / (8 * .0254)
> = 100 / 0.203
> = 493mm, or 49.3 cm, or about 1.9 feet
>
> For 17mm:
> Hyperfocal dist. = 172 / (8 * .0254)
> = 289 / 0.203
> = 1,424mm, or 142.4 cm, or about 5.6 feet
>

While this formulas are true for conventional photography they might be
not for panoramic work. The reason for the 0.025mm circle of confusion
is the average resolution of human sight. Experience shows that bluring
is perceived as such if the width of the blur exceeds 2 arc minutes.
Assuming an image is viewed from approximately the image diagonal
distance most of the time results in the a circle of confusion being
1/1700 of the image diagonal. This is 0.025 for 35mm film and a full
frame sensor. It is 0.0175mm for APS-C.

However, situation for zoomable images like VR-panoramas is different.
Here the pixel size needs to be the measure, at least if you want to
zoom in until pixel limit. You need at least two pixels to show a blur,
hence this needs to be the diameter of the circle of confusion (CoC).
For more information and a brief list of CoC values (which can be used
in any DOF calculator or in the above formulas) see
http://wiki.panotools.org/Depth_of_Field

--
Erik Krause
http://www.erik-krause.de
• ... Roger, I go along with the advice that Hans gives. I did my own tests, with 1m as the starting point and ended up with this setting, which works for me:
Message 6 of 22 , Sep 21, 2010
--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans" <hans@...> wrote:
> You have to do some real live tests.
> Theoretically you should be able to focus at 1m and get focus from
> 0.5 to infinity at F8.

Roger, I go along with the advice that Hans gives. I did my own tests, with 1m as the starting point and ended up with this setting, which works for me:

http://www.johnhpanos.com/tok10focus.jpg

John
• ... Thank you, Hans. I realized that soon after I posted my question. It was a silly mistake, as I usually think in meters these days... ... Ah, now THAT is
Message 7 of 22 , Sep 21, 2010
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 02:52:13 +0900, Hans <hans@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Roger D. Williams" <roger@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> I would be grateful if someone who is using this zoom fisheye
>> lens could tell me the hyperfocal setting at F/8 (which I think
>> is the optimum aperture). I will then tape the focus setting to
>> that value. I don't know about the Tokina version, but my
>> Pentax version has a focus setting that is all too easily moved,
>> and I've just had a blurry result probably due to carelessness
>> in handling the lens and/or the wrong hyperfocal setting. I had
>> it midway between the 1.5m and 0.7m marks.
>
>
> Most important it is NOT 1.5meters and 0.7Meters

Thank you, Hans. I realized that soon after I posted my question.
It was a silly mistake, as I usually think in meters these days...

> It is 1,5 and 0,7 feet. The blue are feet the yellow meter.
> So no wonder you get blurry images if you used that.
> Forget about using these marks, they are not at all correct.

Ah, now THAT is news. I really thought I could rely on them.

> You have to do some real live tests.
> Theoretically you should be able to focus at 1m and get focus from 0.5
> to infinity at F8.
>
> But in practice this is very un secure.
>
> I usually use the autofocus (just use centre focus point) and focus at
> 2 meters.
> That gives me DOF from 0.6-infinity at F8 and 12mm.

Yes, I have autofocus set to centre point focus. It is pretty stable.

> And with that I can also use F4 and still have from 0.95 to infinity.
> After I taped it at 2m I do some test shots to confirm it.

Hmmm. F/4? Isn't that rather soft overall?

Roger W.

--
Pleasure: www.usefilm.com/member/roger
• ... Thank you, Erik. That is a really valuable insight into the special factors affecting panoramas. Roger W. -- Business: www.adex-japan.com Pleasure:
Message 8 of 22 , Sep 21, 2010
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 04:18:01 +0900, Erik Krause <erik.krause@...> wrote:

> Am 21.09.2010 18:49, schrieb Scott Highton:
>> Hyperfocal distance = Focal length2 / (aperture * circle of confusion
>> diameter)
>> For consistency, let's assume circle of confusion size to be
>> 1/1000 inch or 0.0254mm.

>
> While this formulas are true for conventional photography they might be
> not for panoramic work. The reason for the 0.025mm circle of confusion
> is the average resolution of human sight. Experience shows that bluring
> is perceived as such if the width of the blur exceeds 2 arc minutes.
> Assuming an image is viewed from approximately the image diagonal
> distance most of the time results in the a circle of confusion being
> 1/1700 of the image diagonal. This is 0.025 for 35mm film and a full
> frame sensor. It is 0.0175mm for APS-C.
>
> However, situation for zoomable images like VR-panoramas is different.
> Here the pixel size needs to be the measure, at least if you want to
> zoom in until pixel limit. You need at least two pixels to show a blur,
> hence this needs to be the diameter of the circle of confusion (CoC).
> For more information and a brief list of CoC values (which can be used
> in any DOF calculator or in the above formulas) see
> http://wiki.panotools.org/Depth_of_Field

Thank you, Erik. That is a really valuable insight into the special
factors affecting panoramas.

Roger W.

--
Pleasure: www.usefilm.com/member/roger
• On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 02:25:49 +0900, Ricardo TVB ... Thank you, Ricardo. That certainly seems to be a comprehensive and useful DOF calculator, although again I
Message 9 of 22 , Sep 21, 2010
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 02:25:49 +0900, Ricardo TVB
<ricardo.araujo@...> wrote:

> Here's my suggestion: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

>> There are a number of online hyperfocal distance and depth
>> of field
>> calculators available, so you can check any combination
>> you want
>> against your own calculations. Just enter "hyperfocal
>> distance

Thank you, Ricardo. That certainly seems to be a comprehensive
and useful DOF calculator, although again I am left wondering
about how to select the right circle of confusion. But Erik has
provided some useful information there. I think I have all I
need to go on...

Roger W.

--
Pleasure: www.usefilm.com/member/roger
• On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 04:32:59 +0900, John Houghton ... Thanks, John. An ounce of hands-on experience is worth a ton of theory. But I note that the focus scale
Message 10 of 22 , Sep 21, 2010
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 04:32:59 +0900, John Houghton
<j.houghton@...> wrote:

> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans" <hans@...> wrote:
>> You have to do some real live tests.
>> Theoretically you should be able to focus at 1m and get focus from
>> 0.5 to infinity at F8.
>
> Roger, I go along with the advice that Hans gives. I did my own tests,
> with 1m as the starting point and ended up with this setting, which
> works for me:
>
> http://www.johnhpanos.com/tok10focus.jpg

Thanks, John. An ounce of hands-on experience is worth a ton of theory.
But I note that the focus scale is completely different on the Tokina
version of this lens, so it is hard for me to use the same setting. At
least I can follow the same procedure...

Roger W.

--
Pleasure: www.usefilm.com/member/roger
• ... No not really. For example allmost all the panos from last Photokina you can see here are at F3.5-4.5 http://www.panoramas.dk/photokina/index.html The
Message 11 of 22 , Sep 22, 2010
--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Roger D. Williams" <roger@...> wrote:

>
>
> > And with that I can also use F4 and still have from 0.95 to infinity.
> > After I taped it at 2m I do some test shots to confirm it.
>
> Hmmm. F/4? Isn't that rather soft overall?

No not really.
For example allmost all the panos from last Photokina you can see here are at F3.5-4.5
http://www.panoramas.dk/photokina/index.html

The entrance and the Lomo pano are 5.6

Hans
• ... Wow, Hans! As you say, not really rather soft. I think I will send my 10-17mm zoom back to Pentax for a checkup. I am not getting this degree of
Message 12 of 22 , Sep 22, 2010
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:27:19 +0900, Hans <hans@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Roger D. Williams" <roger@...>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > And with that I can also use F4 and still have from 0.95 to infinity.
>> > After I taped it at 2m I do some test shots to confirm it.
>>
>> Hmmm. F/4? Isn't that rather soft overall?
>
> No not really.
> For example allmost all the panos from last Photokina you can see here
> are at F3.5-4.5
> http://www.panoramas.dk/photokina/index.html
>
> The entrance and the Lomo pano are 5.6

Wow, Hans! As you say, not really "rather soft." I think I will send my
10-17mm zoom back to Pentax for a checkup. I am not getting this degree
of sharpness with my lense despite very careful and (by my own standards)
expert sharpening.

I like its colour rendering and the overall image "quality" but I need
to use F/8 to get sharpness comparable to yours. And even then it tends
to vary noticeably at different zoom ratios. It is quite clearly inferior
at full aperture. I do hope they won't say "It's up to spec" and are able

Roger W.

--
Pleasure: www.usefilm.com/member/roger
• ... You should get much sharper than me. The Photokina panos are with the 5D 12mp at 10mm shaved which just gives me 6800x3400. You should get around 11500
Message 13 of 22 , Sep 22, 2010
--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Roger D. Williams" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:27:19 +0900, Hans <hans@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Roger D. Williams" <roger@>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > And with that I can also use F4 and still have from 0.95 to infinity.
> >> > After I taped it at 2m I do some test shots to confirm it.
> >>
> >> Hmmm. F/4? Isn't that rather soft overall?
> >
> > No not really.
> > For example allmost all the panos from last Photokina you can see here
> > are at F3.5-4.5
> > http://www.panoramas.dk/photokina/index.html
> >
> > The entrance and the Lomo pano are 5.6
>
> Wow, Hans! As you say, not really "rather soft." I think I will send my
> 10-17mm zoom back to Pentax for a checkup. I am not getting this degree
> of sharpness with my lense despite very careful and (by my own standards)
> expert sharpening.
>
> I like its colour rendering and the overall image "quality" but I need
> to use F/8 to get sharpness comparable to yours. And even then it tends
> to vary noticeably at different zoom ratios. It is quite clearly inferior
> at full aperture. I do hope they won't say "It's up to spec" and are able
> to do something about it.

You should get much sharper than me. The Photokina panos are with the 5D 12mp at 10mm shaved which just gives me 6800x3400. You should get around 11500 pixels at 10mm.

Hans
• ... Yes, the pixel dimensions I can get are exactly as you say. But the images are not sharp enough to take advantage of this. It does seem that I was shooting
Message 14 of 22 , Sep 22, 2010
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:28:01 +0900, Hans <hans@...> wrote:

> You should get much sharper than me. The Photokina panos are with the 5D
> 12mp at 10mm shaved which just gives me 6800x3400. You should get around
> 11500 pixels at 10mm.

Yes, the pixel dimensions I can get are exactly as you say. But the images
are not sharp enough to take advantage of this. It does seem that I was
shooting nowhere near the hyperfocal setting, so I am taking further shots
and will see if quality improves. The dreadful summer-long heatwave here
in Japan (71 days of temperatures in the 30s) has continued after the
briefest of respites and I have not been getting out and about enough to
really thoroughly test this lens. It was 33C in Tokyo yesterday, with very
high humidity--unprecedented this far into September.

Roger W.

--
Pleasure: www.usefilm.com/member/roger
• Yesterday it was 113F in Los Angeles -- the highest temp ever. That s 45C for all you foreigners :-)
Message 15 of 22 , Sep 30, 2010
Yesterday it was 113F in Los Angeles -- the highest temp ever.
That's 45C for all you foreigners :-)

Roger D. Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:28:01 +0900, Hans <hans@...> wrote:
>
>> You should get much sharper than me. The Photokina panos are with the 5D
>> 12mp at 10mm shaved which just gives me 6800x3400. You should get around
>> 11500 pixels at 10mm.
>
> Yes, the pixel dimensions I can get are exactly as you say. But the images
> are not sharp enough to take advantage of this. It does seem that I was
> shooting nowhere near the hyperfocal setting, so I am taking further shots
> and will see if quality improves. The dreadful summer-long heatwave here
> in Japan (71 days of temperatures in the 30s) has continued after the
> briefest of respites and I have not been getting out and about enough to
> really thoroughly test this lens. It was 33C in Tokyo yesterday, with very
> high humidity--unprecedented this far into September.
>
> Roger W.
>
• On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 08:50:52 +0900, Ken Warner ... Yes, but in Tokyo it s not the heat, it s the humanity. Roger W. -- Business:
Message 16 of 22 , Sep 30, 2010
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 08:50:52 +0900, Ken Warner <kwarner000@...>
wrote:

> Yesterday it was 113F in Los Angeles -- the highest temp ever.
> That's 45C for all you foreigners :-)

Yes, but in Tokyo it's not the heat, it's the humanity.

Roger W.

--
Pleasure: www.usefilm.com/member/roger
• ... Humanity or humidity? ;-) -- Erik Krause http://www.erik-krause.de
Message 17 of 22 , Oct 1, 2010
Am 01.10.2010 05:13, schrieb Roger D. Williams:

> Yes, but in Tokyo it's not the heat, it's the humanity.

Humanity or humidity? ;-)

--
Erik Krause
http://www.erik-krause.de
• Roger, I find the ATX stupid to focus. Setting to 0.5m should be the best at F 16. See at: http://www.netzserver2.de/ptgroup/atx107dof.jpg But hard to find
Message 18 of 22 , Oct 1, 2010
Roger,
I find the ATX stupid to focus.
Setting to 0.5m should be the best at F 16.
See at:
http://www.netzserver2.de/ptgroup/atx107dof.jpg

But hard to find 0.5m - I set at the first 0 of 00 and it works fine @12mm
and F13-16.
Although AF sets it just in the middle of 00.
I really don´t know if the above posted table is correct or not.
(Due to production varioation or whatever.)

Ciao
Mike

----------------------------
----------------------------
360° VR Fotografie:
http://www.360de.de

NEU: Abstrakte Fotografie unter:
http://www.abstraktfoto.de
-----------------------------
Aktuelles vom Virtugrafen:
http://virtugraf.wordpress.com
-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com]Im
Auftrag von Erik Krause
Gesendet: Freitag, 1. Oktober 2010 16:33
An: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Hyperfocal setting for Tokina/Pentax 10-17mm
fisheye

Am 01.10.2010 05:13, schrieb Roger D. Williams:

> Yes, but in Tokyo it's not the heat, it's the humanity.

Humanity or humidity? ;-)

--
Erik Krause
http://www.erik-krause.de

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• I didn t get that the first time I read it. That s pretty funny Roger! Good one!
Message 19 of 22 , Oct 1, 2010
I didn't get that the first time I read it.

That's pretty funny Roger! Good one!

Erik Krause wrote:
> Am 01.10.2010 05:13, schrieb Roger D. Williams:
>
>> Yes, but in Tokyo it's not the heat, it's the humanity.
>
> Humanity or humidity? ;-)
>
• Thanks for the link, Mike. The focusing scale on the Pentax version of this lens is long and easy to read. Contrasts favourably with the Tokina version, which
Message 20 of 22 , Oct 1, 2010

The focusing scale on the Pentax version of this lens is long
and easy to read. Contrasts favourably with the Tokina version,
which appears to have a silly little window rather than a long,
fully calibrated (or at least fully marked) scale.

But unfortunately the live view function on the K-x screen has no
zoom function, so I can't use it to check focus. What a pain! I
couldn't BELIEVE it at first, and hunted carefully through all

It's not a disaster, though, as there is a very good 16.8:1
zoom function available on screen for reviewing shots in memory.

I'm wondering whether my lens should go back for a check, as the
images generally tend to be on the soft side... but perhaps
that's because I am doing all my checking at F/3.5.

Actually I wouldn't care to use F/16 at 10mm as that certainly
would be soft due to diffraction...

Roger W.

On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 23:55:57 +0900, ptgroup <ptgroup@...> wrote:

> Roger,
> I find the ATX stupid to focus.
> Setting to 0.5m should be the best at F 16.
> See at:
> http://www.netzserver2.de/ptgroup/atx107dof.jpg
>
> But hard to find 0.5m - I set at the first 0 of 00 and it works fine
> @12mm
> and F13-16.
> Although AF sets it just in the middle of 00.
> I really don´t know if the above posted table is correct or not.
> (Due to production varioation or whatever.)
>
> Ciao
> Mike
>
> ----------------------------
> ----------------------------
> 360° VR Fotografie:
> http://www.360de.de
>
> NEU: Abstrakte Fotografie unter:
> http://www.abstraktfoto.de
> -----------------------------
> Aktuelles vom Virtugrafen:
> http://virtugraf.wordpress.com
> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> Von: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com]Im
> Auftrag von Erik Krause
> Gesendet: Freitag, 1. Oktober 2010 16:33
> An: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Hyperfocal setting for Tokina/Pentax 10-17mm
> fisheye
>
>
>
> Am 01.10.2010 05:13, schrieb Roger D. Williams:
>
> > Yes, but in Tokyo it's not the heat, it's the humanity.
>
> Humanity or humidity? ;-)
>
> --
> Erik Krause
> http://www.erik-krause.de
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>

--
Pleasure: www.usefilm.com/member/roger
• Roger, Flemming Larsen did some really meaningful test which you can find here: http://www.fvlmedia.dk/tokina107/dof.htm Yes, the focus scale of the atx is a
Message 21 of 22 , Oct 3, 2010
Roger,
Flemming Larsen did some really meaningful test which you can find here:

http://www.fvlmedia.dk/tokina107/dof.htm

Yes, the focus scale of the atx is a joke, but I taped it as I said at the
first 0 of 00 and
all came out good @ F11-F16.
At least as far as I could judge them, which could be insufficiant.

Ciao
Mike

----------------------------
----------------------------
360° VR Fotografie:
http://www.360de.de

NEU: Abstrakte Fotografie unter:
http://www.abstraktfoto.de
-----------------------------
Aktuelles vom Virtugrafen:
http://virtugraf.wordpress.com
-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com]Im
Auftrag von Roger D. Williams
Gesendet: Samstag, 2. Oktober 2010 02:43
An: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: AW: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Hyperfocal setting for Tokina/Pentax
10-17mm fisheye

The focusing scale on the Pentax version of this lens is long
and easy to read. Contrasts favourably with the Tokina version,
which appears to have a silly little window rather than a long,
fully calibrated (or at least fully marked) scale.

But unfortunately the live view function on the K-x screen has no
zoom function, so I can't use it to check focus. What a pain! I
couldn't BELIEVE it at first, and hunted carefully through all

It's not a disaster, though, as there is a very good 16.8:1
zoom function available on screen for reviewing shots in memory.

I'm wondering whether my lens should go back for a check, as the
images generally tend to be on the soft side... but perhaps
that's because I am doing all my checking at F/3.5.

Actually I wouldn't care to use F/16 at 10mm as that certainly
would be soft due to diffraction...

Roger W.

On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 23:55:57 +0900, ptgroup <ptgroup@...> wrote:

> Roger,
> I find the ATX stupid to focus.
> Setting to 0.5m should be the best at F 16.
> See at:
> http://www.netzserver2.de/ptgroup/atx107dof.jpg
>
> But hard to find 0.5m - I set at the first 0 of 00 and it works fine
> @12mm
> and F13-16.
> Although AF sets it just in the middle of 00.
> I really don´t know if the above posted table is correct or not.
> (Due to production varioation or whatever.)
>
> Ciao
> Mike
>
> ----------------------------
> ----------------------------
> 360° VR Fotografie:
> http://www.360de.de
>
> NEU: Abstrakte Fotografie unter:
> http://www.abstraktfoto.de
> -----------------------------
> Aktuelles vom Virtugrafen:
> http://virtugraf.wordpress.com
> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> Von: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com]Im
> Auftrag von Erik Krause
> Gesendet: Freitag, 1. Oktober 2010 16:33
> An: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Hyperfocal setting for Tokina/Pentax 10-17mm
> fisheye
>
>
>
> Am 01.10.2010 05:13, schrieb Roger D. Williams:
>
> > Yes, but in Tokyo it's not the heat, it's the humanity.
>
> Humanity or humidity? ;-)
>
> --
> Erik Krause
> http://www.erik-krause.de
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>

--
Pleasure: www.usefilm.com/member/roger

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Thanks again, Mike. ... Yes, these are the best kind of tests. Actual photographs in something like normal use. Very informative. ... Two comments on that.
Message 22 of 22 , Oct 3, 2010
Thanks again, Mike.

On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 00:56:42 +0900, ptgroup <ptgroup@...> wrote:

> Roger,
> Flemming Larsen did some really meaningful test which you can find here:
>
> http://www.fvlmedia.dk/tokina107/dof.htm

Yes, these are the best kind of tests. Actual photographs in something
like normal use. Very informative.

> Yes, the focus scale of the atx is a joke, but I taped it as I said at
> the first 0 of 00 and all came out good @ F11-F16.

Two comments on that. First, I was surprised to see how comparatively
little softening of the image there was at F/16 and even F/22 (although
it is obvious, it is not excessive). Second, the Pentax focus scale is
so different that "the first 0 or 00" doesn't mean anything.

My problem is that the optimum seems to be at 1.5m or 2.0m, both of
which come between the infinity mark and the 0.5m mark, so my nice long
Pentax focusing scale is no help at all! At the moment I cam getting
satisfactory results at F/11 with the setting midway between the 0.5m
mark and the infinity mark.

> At least as far as I could judge them, which could be insufficiant.

It is your judgment that matters. If it's too close to call, it's good
enough!

Roger W.

--