How to focus with Hasselblad 50mm CF FLE lens?

[DonFilm]

I know how to use FLE ring and Focus ring when photographing a subject within 4 meters away from camera. But I need your advices how I can make tack sharp landscape photos from the closest foreground(eg. 1.5 meters away) to the farthest background at infinity.

I have been focusing at Infinity in landscape photography with aperture set between f 16 and 22 based on the Depth of Field Scale analysis. Recently, I bought a Distagon 50mm f/4 CF FLE lens for my Hasselblad 503CX. I am confused how to use two focusing rings in which order to make everything in focus from the closest foreground to the farthest background.

 

[Sirius Glass]

For the maximum depth of field with a CF or CFi lens, use the smaller f/stops [f/16, f/22, ...] and set the infinity sign over that f/stop mark on the barrel. The other f/stop will show the minimum distance in focus. For the CFLE lens, first set the FLE on the longest focal range and then do the above.

Welcome to APUG Photrio

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I've used the the 50 CF FLE quite a bit; it's a great lens. For what you want, the FLE ring should be set to the [ infinity - 4m ] range. As Sirius suggests, you'll need f/16 or f/22 for the greatest depth using hyperfocal focusing. That is, if your aperture is set at f/16, then on the focus ring put infinity at the 16-tickmark and you'll see 2m (or thereabouts) at the other 16-tickmark. This gives you reasonable depth of field from 2m to infinity.

You can do only so much by stopping the aperture down - actually I prefer not to use f/22, f/32 because diffraction makes the image worse. I think f/8 or maybe f/11 with this lens produces the sharpest results.

The real way to produce an in-focus area across extreme depth is with perspective controls - such as front tilt on a view camera or even a Nikon or Canon tilt/shift lens for 35mm. If you had a Hasselblad Flexbody, you can use that to produce front tilt with your existing Hasselblad lenses.

 

[DonFilm]

Thanks for your advice. Let me try to interprete your advices for a through understanding as follows:

1. I can try to maximize the depth of field by setting aperture at 16 or 22. However, the results may or may not be what I want. When the distance to theI closest subject from the camera would be within the dof scale coverage, then I could expect an ACCEPTABLY SHARP images, but not a tack sharp images all the way from the foreground to the background. Considering the lens diffraction limit, I will get soft images if I set aperture at 16 or 22. If I set aperture at f 8 (sweet spot), then the foreground will be out of focus.
2. For an absolutely sharp images, I need to use tilt and shift lens. Regretfully, this is not a viable option for me having Hasselblad 503 CX.
3. As a practical solution to non-availability of tilt/shift lens, I need to consider taking two shots, one for normal landscape photo with FLE ring set to [infinity - 4m] range and the other one for close up shot by resetting the FLE ring from [infinity - 4m] to [4m - 1.2m?] range. Those two negatives will be blended in photoshop.

Am I understanding your advices correctly?

 

[Alan Gales]

It's called Hyperfocal focussing or Hyperfocus.

https://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/hyperfocal-focusing-photography-tips/

 

[Luis-F-S]

Use the SWC Biogon and be done with it!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
1. I can try to maximize the depth of field by setting aperture at 16 or 22. However, the results may or may not be what I want.

Well, I think you need to try it. At f/16 or f/22 diffraction has an effect, but it might be acceptable depending on how large your print will be and how far away you'll be viewing it. If you pixel-peep it on a screen, you may be disappointed.

When the distance to theI closest subject from the camera would be within the dof scale coverage, then I could expect an ACCEPTABLY SHARP images, but not a tack sharp images all the way from the foreground to the background.

Technically, yes. But "acceptable" means the quality satisfies you. It depends on how critical you are in demanding sharpness - well, resolution actually.

Considering the lens diffraction limit, I will get soft images if I set aperture at 16 or 22. If I set aperture at f 8 (sweet spot), then the foreground will be out of focus.

I would not say the images would be soft - again, this depends on your idea of what is acceptable.

2. For an absolutely sharp images, I need to use tilt and shift lens. Regretfully, this is not a viable option for me having Hasselblad 503 CX.

Sadly, this is true.

3. As a practical solution to non-availability of tilt/shift lens, I need to consider taking two shots, one for normal landscape photo with FLE ring set to [infinity - 4m] range and the other one for close up shot by resetting the FLE ring from [infinity - 4m] to [4m - 1.2m?] range. Those two negatives will be blended in photoshop.

That would be an interesting experiment.


Having the landscape sharp from the tripod legs out to the mountains is part of what I think the Group f/64 movement was about, but I've always thought it strange because human vision doesn't see an entire landscape, front to back, as in focus all at once - instead, we focus on individual parts of a scene. I suppose that could be used as an argument for having an expansive depth of field in the image, but I think few images really benefit from such extreme depth of field. Just my opinion.

Use the SWC Biogon and be done with it!

Yes. This is what we all do eventually.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

For the maximum depth of field with a CF or CFi lens, use the smaller f/stops [f/16, f/22, ...] and set the infinity sign over that f/stop mark on the barrel. The other f/stop will show the minimum distance in focus. For the CFLE lens, first set the FLE on the longest focal range and then do the above.

Welcome to APUG Photrio

I agree. To get critical sharpness at infinity, the lens must be focused at infinity. Don't trust DOF to cover infinity

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I agree. To get critical sharpness at infinity, the lens must be focused at infinity. Don't trust DOF to cover infinity

Actually, your statement disagrees with what Sirius said, which was: "set the infinity sign over that f/stop mark on the barrel".

 

[Sirius Glass]

With the Hasselblad lenses, acceptable sharpness is still pretty damned sharp. Try it you will like it.

 

[DonFilm]

First of all, I must say many thanks to all of you for your sincere advices. Particularly, I appreciate TheoSulphate's detailed reply, and he made me rethink about traditional "maximum depth of field approach to the landscape photography". Looking back on it, I've been taking it a granted philosophy. Honestly, this was a kind of shock to me in a good sense.

Regarding where to focus & which aperture for the maximum sharpness issue, let me put two links below. I am pretty sure that you already saw these articles.
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF6.html
https://kenrockwell.com/tech/focus.htm
Ken Rockwell advised to leave the focusing ring alfter aligning the closest and farthest distance to be covered on the depth of scale while Norman Koren advised to move the infinity mark to the left by 2~3 stop to make up for the weakness of hyperfocal distance theory and film non-flatness risk. Here we are still seeing two different representations from Sirius Glass and RalphLambrecht.

As English is not my native language, my interpretation of the articles of Ken Rockwell and Norman Koren might be incorrect. However, I would highly appreciate if any experienced film users help me correctly understand on the issue "Where to Focus and Which Aperture to Select and How?"
Thanking in advance,

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I'm in mostly in agreement with Norman Koren where he writes:

"I feel safe setting infinity focus opposite the far DOF mark corresponding to 2 stops larger than the actual f-stop setting (half the number). For example, if you are using f/8, it's safe to put the far f/4 DOF mark opposite infinity."

So Norman has set an aperture of f/8, but he using the f/4 DOF marks just to be safe. I'm not that conservative: I'll use f/5.6 -- however keep in mind that what I prefer or what anyone prefers is simply what they are satisfied with. Ultimately you will need to experiment to find the technique that satisfies you. Hopefully you will enjoy doing this!

 

[DonFilm]

I'm in mostly in agreement with Norman Koren where he writes:

"I feel safe setting infinity focus opposite the far DOF mark corresponding to 2 stops larger than the actual f-stop setting (half the number). For example, if you are using f/8, it's safe to put the far f/4 DOF mark opposite infinity."

So Norman has set an aperture of f/8, but he using the f/4 DOF marks just to be safe. I'm not that conservative: I'll use f/5.6 -- however keep in mind that what I prefer or what anyone prefers is simply what they are satisfied with. Ultimately you will need to experiment to find the technique that satisfies you. Hopefully you will enjoy doing this!

Lately, I took several rolls of film last month, slides and color & bw negatives. After seeing the films returned from Film Develop Lab, I was greatly disappointed at the results. I started a deep learning on analog photography from Hasselblad system(mechanical & optical), aperture settings, focusing, etc. I think I am now confident with my knowledge(in my brain of course) on analog photography, I will go out to experiment what I have learned so far. Thanks again!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

With the Hasselblad lenses, acceptable sharpness is still pretty damned sharp. Try it you will like it.

I believe you but,I like infinity ship and not at the threshold of sharpness.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I believe you but,I like infinity ship and not at the threshold of sharpness.

I was explaining the concept. Once someone understands it, then if they choose, they can put infinity a little inside the f/stop mark. With the Hasselblad, putting infinity at the f/stop is still very sharp.

 

[Luis-F-S]

...... After seeing the films returned from Film Develop Lab, I was greatly disappointed at the results.

Why I sold my 50 and bought a 60 some 30 years ago!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why I sold my 50 and bought a 60 some 30 years ago!

I never had the 60mm lens since it is too close to the 80, I have the 50 and I am very happy with it.

 

[MattKing]

My sense of things is that the OP may be putting more weight on the effects of diffraction than necessary.
I don't know that I have seen a quantitative analysis of the issue, but I expect that at non-macro distances the effects of diffraction are at least an order of magnitude smaller than the effects of increasing depth of field by reducing the size of the aperture.
I also expect that the OP may be failing to take into account other effects that have nothing to do with the design of a lens.
For example, atmospheric effects are always in play, even if the air appears crystal clear.
The only way to get "tack sharp", completely in focus results at multiple subject distances is to implement techniques like the "focus stacking" used by some digital shooters, because lenses only focus exactly at one distance at a time.
But exact focus isn't nearly as important as creating a photograph that at several different planes of focus reveals excellent detail rendered in a satisfying and accurate way. And depth of field and hyper-focal calculations aid in that pursuit.
And one final point: while photographs that reveal details from far to near are nice, I'm of the opinion that photographs that look like photographs are just as desirable (if not more so).
From a 35mm negative, exposed in a Trip 35 that I paid $2.10 for :

 

[k.hendrik]

Keep that Hasslebald for snapshots and get a Rolleiflex SL66se & Distagon 50mm for real photography

 

[wiltw]

First of all, I must say many thanks to all of you for your sincere advices. Particularly, I appreciate TheoSulphate's detailed reply, and he made me rethink about traditional "maximum depth of field approach to the landscape photography". Looking back on it, I've been taking it a granted philosophy. Honestly, this was a kind of shock to me in a good sense.

Regarding where to focus & which aperture for the maximum sharpness issue, let me put two links below. I am pretty sure that you already saw these articles.
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF6.html
https://kenrockwell.com/tech/focus.htm
Ken Rockwell advised to leave the focusing ring alfter aligning the closest and farthest distance to be covered on the depth of scale while Norman Koren advised to move the infinity mark to the left by 2~3 stop to make up for the weakness of hyperfocal distance theory and film non-flatness risk. Here we are still seeing two different representations from Sirius Glass and RalphLambrecht.

As English is not my native language, my interpretation of the articles of Ken Rockwell and Norman Koren might be incorrect. However, I would highly appreciate if any experienced film users help me correctly understand on the issue "Where to Focus and Which Aperture to Select and How?"
Thanking in advance,

1. First of all it is important to understand that 'within the DOF zone' means only that "on a 8x10 inch print, things which are 'within the DOF zone' are not blurred enough for your brain to interpret as 'not in focus'...but they ARE BLURRY, just not objectionably so...only things at the plane of focus are perfectly sharp!
2. Next, one has to understand that DOF markings on lenses, and DOF tables and most calculation programs are based upon 'manufacturer standard' assumptions about human visual acuity which are NOT EVEN AS GOOD as what your optometrist corrects you vision to achieve!

So if your aperture was set to f/11, because of better visual acuity than assumed by the engravings, you REALLY SHOULD USE the engraving marks for about f/5.6. For example, with 50mm lens on Hassy set to f/11,

• the f/11 DOF zone engravings would have you wrongly believe that DOF zone is from 1.8m to Infinity when the focus plane is 3.7m away.
• But, the viewer with 20/20 corrected vision actually sees that things outside the true DOF zone of 2.8m to 5.6m are out of focus!
• So using the lens DOF scale marks at f/5.6 show the DOF zone to be 3.2m to 4.5m, which is much closer to approximating what the 20/20 visual acuity vision would detect!

 

[DonFilm]

1. First of all it is important to understand that 'within the DOF zone' means only that "on a 8x10 inch print, things which are 'within the DOF zone' are not blurred enough for your brain to interpret as 'not in focus'...but they ARE BLURRY, just not objectionably so...only things at the plane of focus are perfectly sharp!
2. Next, one has to understand that DOF markings on lenses, and DOF tables and most calculation programs are based upon 'manufacturer standard' assumptions about human visual acuity which are NOT EVEN AS GOOD as what your optometrist corrects you vision to achieve!

So if your aperture was set to f/11, because of better visual acuity than assumed by the engravings, you REALLY SHOULD USE the engraving marks for about f/5.6. For example, with 50mm lens on Hassy set to f/11,

• the f/11 DOF zone engravings would have you wrongly believe that DOF zone is from 1.8m to Infinity when the focus plane is 3.7m away.
• But, the viewer with 20/20 corrected vision actually sees that things outside the true DOF zone of 2.8m to 5.6m are out of focus!
• So using the lens DOF scale marks at f/5.6 show the DOF zone to be 3.2m to 4.5m, which is much closer to approximating what the 20/20 visual acuity vision would detect!

Although I could not completely understand what you are saying due to complicate English, I guess you are with Norman Koren camp. Thanks!

 

[DonFilm]

Keep that Hasslebald for snapshots and get a Rolleiflex SL66se & Distagon 50mm for real photography

It's very unfortunate for me to come to know about Rolleiflex SL66se too late. I almost feel a heartbreak.

 

[DonFilm]

My sense of things is that the OP may be putting more weight on the effects of diffraction than necessary.
I don't know that I have seen a quantitative analysis of the issue, but I expect that at non-macro distances the effects of diffraction are at least an order of magnitude smaller than the effects of increasing depth of field by reducing the size of the aperture.
I also expect that the OP may be failing to take into account other effects that have nothing to do with the design of a lens.
For example, atmospheric effects are always in play, even if the air appears crystal clear.
The only way to get "tack sharp", completely in focus results at multiple subject distances is to implement techniques like the "focus stacking" used by some digital shooters, because lenses only focus exactly at one distance at a time.
But exact focus isn't nearly as important as creating a photograph that at several different planes of focus reveals excellent detail rendered in a satisfying and accurate way. And depth of field and hyper-focal calculations aid in that pursuit.
And one final point: while photographs that reveal details from far to near are nice, I'm of the opinion that photographs that look like photographs are just as desirable (if not more so).
From a 35mm negative, exposed in a Trip 35 that I paid $2.10 for :

View attachment 206296

Thanks for your precious advice! This will be one of My Things To Consider list for my analog photography life.

 

[DonFilm]

I believe you but,I like infinity ship and not at the threshold of sharpness.

Sorry but would you please rephrase in other way? Honestly, I don't understand what you are saying.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It's very unfortunate for me to come to know about Rolleiflex SL66se too late. I almost feel a heartbreak.

No, you make the right choice, the Rolleiflex SL66se can have battery problems. That comment was from someone who is jealous that he did not buy one.