[wim]

Hi Serkan,[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1291968286' post='4919']

That picture with TSE-17mm is really something... I opened it in KUSO exif viewer and with F/6.3 that much DoF is the magic of T&S technology I suppose.[/quote] I only used some shift, no tilt, in order to correct the worst of the converging lines. I left a little convergence to make it look more natural. So, no seemingly extra DoF caused by tilt <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

KUSO shows crazy exif data like; the HyperfocalDist. as 8,42m and CoC as 0,005 (??), FoV 21,7degrees (??).

That is weird indeed. The TS_E 17 has a diagonal AoV of 104 degrees.

And since it's a JPEG I could not see the focussed distance, but I suppose it's just behind the entry gate (and I know one must be careful when using "just" when it comes to T&S wide angle lenses).

Focusing distance was about 2.5 metres: I didn't care about infinity here at all; I just wanted enough sharpness that the bricks in the castle tower were still visible (and would still have some detail), and that I would have enough sharpness in the gateway. I didn't expect the plants in front of the gaterway to be sharp still, but I knew the grass on top would be <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

In the documents Rainer suggested, Merklinger tells to focus at infinity and play with the aperture (by relating the diameter of entrance pupil to the main subjects in the frame). Anyway, both yours and this one sounds practical than the Hyperfocal Distance setting. I'll try them as soon as I find myself in the field...



Regards,



Serkan

Focusing at ininity is fine if you have important parts of the composition in the far distance, like a mountain range. I tis remarkable how soft they look if you get the focussing distance wrong, even with (U)WA lenses <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



I've actually used the 1/3 - 2/3 principle in this particular photograph:





Here I focused on the first full visible wall attachments of the railing, basically because I wanted the tiles at the top (foreground) and the top of the entrance to be all sharp in focus. With the camera pointing down this was 1/3 of the way away from me between the tiles and the vaulted roof of the entrance. This was shot at F/5.6, 1/30s, 1600 iso and if I am not completely mistaken, the 50L - I'd have to check that, as it could have been the 24L, although I doubt that very much considering the perspective. Anyway, the idea to get the designated area sharp in DoF was that further away there was no detail, and no detail small enough that it that mattered.



How important the focus distance selection is, is also shown by this particular picture:





This was shot with the 50L, at F/3.2, focusing distance is the closest tree on the left hand side of the photograph, just next to the road embedded in the hedging. I forgot to stop down actually, and I did use some edge sharpening, but the result is quite interesting from a DoF POV. The focusing distance again was chosen deliberately, as I wanted the trees on the left next to the road to be sharp enough with not enough foregorund OOF to be distracting. I knew I would have enough detail in the background at F/5.6 - F/8 for this to happen, but the unexpected end result at F/3.2 was, even for me, beyond expectation, DoF-wise, or apparent DoF-wise.



Kind regards, Wim