Minimum focus, why is it important?

90cm m.f.d of my Ultron never bothered me.
I am not "brave" enough to get closer to people's face than 90cm, nor do I aspire to that particular measurement of bravery.

So after reading this thread, if anyone start to look at their old Summilux 35mm in disgust and would like to toss it away, talk to me :D
 
I take those kinds of photos all the time. If you do close in work or documentary work it can be very important
Reyes06.jpg
 
I believe my Olympus 35 SP focuses down to 0.7m, which is still a huge distance for me. I often shoot closer than this with my SLRs. Inside cars, trains, buses, in close quarters inside etc. Most of my SLR lenses focus to 0.3m, and I often focus as close as 0.4m in my photos. When I am outdoors minimum focus is not as big an issue, but I down't shoot outdoors all the time.
 
ferider said:
When I walk around with a kit including a Tele (75-90), I don't care how close my 50 focuses.

When I only carry a Leica and a 50, I use 0.7m min. focus quite a bit.

50smc-120415-0025-L.jpg


(taken with M2 + 50/1.4 Takumar)

That being said, I always thought the pre-asph 50 Summilux was a lousy performer closer than 1m - unless you like veiling flare. Better and cheaper lenses out there.

Roland.
Click to expand...

Me too, but with a ridged summicron (that goes down to 3'4" iirc) but I didn't notice the settings when I took this ... and it's not why I lug that lump of a lens round with me ..

 
It's simple... Sit across from someone at a restaurant, or have a conversation at a cocktail party. How far away are you? If you pulled out a tape measure, it would be under 1 meter. In fact, you'll probably be right around 0.7m.

It's a much more comfortable, natural distance. I can't tell you how many times I went to take a picture with the Mamiya 7 (1m min distance), and had to back up or lean back awkwardly. In that time, you've lost any hope of capturing the subject's natural expression.

That 30cm (1 foot) can be the difference between a casual, intimate portrait and a strained, posed shot.
 
I personally find the 1m limit "limiting". I've converted all of my Canon and FSU lenses to focus closer. The "dinner table test" works for me :)
 
Sparrow said:
Do you think that may be why the OP is asking why they think it's important?
Click to expand...

No. I asserted that the answer was relevant to the question. If you're asking what I think why the question itself is being asked, I can only guess: disbelief? Perceived pointlessness? Genuine curiosity?

As seen in the thread already, the question often reveals answers to other questions that were thought to be asked (i.e. "is the Nikon D700 better than a close-focusing non-Nikon lens?")

There are many reasons that minimum focus is important. There are also many reasons why it may be irrelevant. One's take on it does not make one reason less true than others.
 
There are several uses for wides - one is to grab more into frame like our moms did with P&S cameras (this is where 1m limitation isn't limitation at all) and another is to change perspective, create different point of view - that's where 1m or even 60cm limitation stands in way.

Personally I like small minimal focusing distance on wide lenses but some cameras/lenses just are limited to longer distance, which implies certain use of them.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
No. I asserted that the answer was relevant to the question. If you're asking what I think why the question itself is being asked, I can only guess: disbelief? Perceived pointlessness? Genuine curiosity?

As seen in the thread already, the question often reveals answers to other questions that were thought to be asked (i.e. "is the Nikon D700 better than a close-focusing non-Nikon lens?")

There are many reasons that minimum focus is important. There are also many reasons why it may be irrelevant. One's take on it does not make one reason less true than others.
Click to expand...

OK ... you answer the question you think I asked, and go through all these linguistic gymnastics to prove it was irrelevant or disingenuous in the first place if you wish

The question I was curious about was: why do people disregard some camera or lens because it won't focus down to 0.7m? I wondered why it's important to some people but irrelevant to me, do you never question other peoples motivations? or do you already know all the answers perhaps?
 
I don't dismiss a lens if it doesn't focus down to 70cm, but I am wary of its limitations. The dinner table test seems to be pretty common!

If I get a 50 that only focuses to 90cm or 1m I tend to put it on the GXR and use it as a 75mm tele. And I love lenses like Zeiss and Voigtlander that focus to 50 or even 30cm, as they gain a fair bit more flexibility on the GXR.

One thing I like to photograph is what I eat. I can't do that comfortably with a 90cm minimum focus lens, or even a 70cm. I end up using a digital with 30cm or macro function instead, or suffer a brief moment of awkwardness with a RF at the 70cm limit.
 
pb908 said:
because i like to take picture of me, by my self, and i have short arm. (and my leica m2 don't have self timer).. For this reason i really like hexar af, it expand my narcism hoby.
Click to expand...

one of the funniest replies around here for a long while, need a `like' button
 
Sparrow said:
OK ... you answer the question you think I asked, and go through all these linguistic gymnastics to prove it was irrelevant or disingenuous in the first place if you wish

The question I was curious about was: why do people disregard some camera or lens because it won't focus down to 0.7m? I wondered why it's important to some people but irrelevant to me, do you never question other peoples motivations? or do you already know all the answers perhaps?
Click to expand...

It's like asking why people disregard cars without seat belts (lets pretend you have a choice).

Because maybe the seat belt in a car will be of use on one or two occasions and I don't want/can't go by train (use DSLR with macro)?

And why is it irrelevant to you? You just drive very slowly on empty roads or you just know how to pick roads with no traffic or you're confident that your driving skills will never get you in trouble...?
 
dinning table + 1

I still love any lens with 1meter minimal focus, but 0.7 is handy when you are on a date.

but I live in one of the most crowded city.
 
with 35mm I use the 0.7 all the time. it makes a difference compared to 1m. and the parallax isn't a dealbreaker just yet (as opposed to 0.5cm or below).
 
Sparrow said:
OK ... you answer the question you think I asked, and go through all these linguistic gymnastics to prove it was irrelevant or disingenuous in the first place if you wish

The question I was curious about was: why do people disregard some camera or lens because it won't focus down to 0.7m? I wondered why it's important to some people but irrelevant to me, do you never question other peoples motivations? or do you already know all the answers perhaps?
Click to expand...

Wait...so...me knowing why it was important to me and giving that answer means there's a chance I never question other people's motivations (I do...it depends on the people and the motivation) or that I already know all the answers (no, btw)?


I'm not sure if we actually took a left turn at Albuquerque, but it sure don't look like Pismo Beach now.
 
Ah, a metaphor ... that should help to clarify things, and of course had I known you were heading for Pismo Beach I'd have asked a different question in the first place
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom