philip_pj
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
Just as oils ain't oils, infinity is not infinity. Cosina really should have popularised lens designations better. They (and others) refer to M-mount lenses as 'VM' but the other mounts for which they make lenses are just the lens designation. They should be 'VE', 'VZ' and VRF' to avoid the inevitable confusion, as we see in these combined mount lens threads.
Nobody who uses a TTL camera (remember that term?) needs to worry about ring rotation past infinity because they can see focus in their EVF (and OVF in the past, if they were lucky). Zeiss engineers did not make the Voigtlanders, Cosina did and, my word, they know exactly what they are doing.
In fact, ring rotation past the infinity index marks the lens as a serious optic, one that can be used no matter the conditions, and lens/mount tolerances. CZ and Cosina want you to do your own infinity focusing, because they are aware of these issues and the ultra fine tolerances involved in exact focus acquisition with the better lenses.
Infinity is not always the same, and 'optical infinity' enters the fray - not to get into that now. And astro has added more problems to the issue, as well as AF overshoot needs. And a lot of people don't realise you give up DOF when you focus at 'infinity', so what seems straighforward is anything but.
A reasonable fix, if you do the same work over and over and therefore have 'your infinity' defined, is to note where it lies on the distance index, and use that setting.
Some reasonable reading on the subject:
https://photographylife.com/infinity-focus-photography
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3793526
|
