Napioa - Wind Origins

Napioa - Wind Origins
by octopus                

Submit your Photo
Hall of Fame

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is there a good reason why I can turn the focusing ring on my lenses beyond infinity mark on focusing scale? Following recent questions here and here, it sounds like a real usability issue.

Clarification: When I'm focusing manually, I only care about the infinity mark on my focusing scale, but there is around 5-10mm of room (depending on the lens) beyond infinity mark. Why is it there?

share|improve this question
up vote 22 down vote accepted

The most obvious reason is to be sure that you can reach the spot where it focuses at infinity. It would be hard to make the lens stop at exactly infinity, and any little change (temperature, humidity, filters, et.c.) might move that point slightly, making it impossible to focus exactly at infinity.

On a prime lens you would need only a small margin, so they can be adjusted to stop just slightly beyond infinity. On a zoom lens the focus varies somewhat depending on the focal length, so it needs a lot more margin.

share|improve this answer
3  
Good point about the zoom lenses. My 70-200mm really has very different understanding of "infinity" at different focal lengths. When I use autofocus and focus on clouds at 70mm the focusing scale stays somewhere between 10m and infinity mark and at 200mm, it really goes to infinity mark. That means I actually can't trust the focusing scale for manual focusing at focal lengths below 200mm. – Karel Aug 12 '10 at 15:55
    
@Karel True in a sense, but I think you can trust it as much as you ever did. I.e., if you were actually scale focusing, there are enough other sources of error that this one is unlikely to have a significant effect. – ex-ms Aug 13 '10 at 0:22
    
@matt - no, I don't scale focus the 70-200, maybe just the 17-40 sometimes. But if I'd do that, infinity would probably be the only mark I'd really need to be correct. – Karel Aug 14 '10 at 18:58

Found this answer and it makes the most sense. "Autofocus of a lens is an iterative process: the lens barrel quickly changes in one direction, overshoots the target a little, then goes back and settles into the right value (hence, the "hunting" when it can't find the right value in low light, the main reason we turn it off at night). This is very fast on some lenses, but for autofocus to work, the lens barrel cannot bump against the end for infinity focus, as it would not allow to overshoot and iterate the correct focus. To solve this, manufacturers built a small buffer into it, by allowing the lens barrel to travel "past infinity". also allowing subtle changes due to temperature or wear. "Past infinite" makes no sense physically, but rest assured that it is not focusing on infinity, hence, gives you those blurry shots if you put the lens barrel all the way against its stop. On some lenses, that extra buffer is very significant and can be more than the length of the entire ∞ sign on your scale."

The "true" point of focus for Infinity is where the Mark of the upside down L meets the ring. Travel past that and you are focusing "past" Infinity.

share|improve this answer
1  
This answer seems to be roughly what Reid wrote in fewer words 5 years ago. – Caleb Dec 18 '15 at 7:21

The manual focus lenses I've handled (M42 Takumars) actually have stopped right at infinity; it's the AF lenses that have slush beyond. My understanding is that there's two reasons for this:

  1. Conditions (mostly temperature) can move the focus point slightly
  2. The autofocus system needs to be able to "miss" infinity a bit without slamming into a mechanical stop, which would cause excessive wear.
share|improve this answer
    
I also thought about AF calibration, but I'm not sure whether the calibration is a constant offset or depending on distance and it's still should be very small amount. – Karel Aug 12 '10 at 13:33
    
It's less about calibration and more about simple error. Say your AF system misses focus 1 out of 100 times and thinks it needs to go beyond infinity. You don't want it to hit a hard mechanical stop that often (or ever, really). So you could either design fancy electronics that need calibration to detect this situation and initiate a smooth stop that ends exactly at the limit of travel (infinity), or you could add a little extra travel to absorb this error - extremely simple and needs no calibration. – Reid Aug 12 '10 at 15:03
    
I understood your points and my thought regarding calibration was meant as an addition to your list. When AF focuses forward of the subject and it's calibrated to focus a bit further, it might need to go beyond infinity mark also. I've never had my lenses calibrated really, so I don't know how it exactly works. – Karel Aug 12 '10 at 15:41
    
+1 i have the exact same experience and opinion :) – JoséNunoFerreira Apr 5 '11 at 19:17

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.