Where's infinity?

Hi,
I'm getting into macro photography, using Live View and manual focus. I've been advised to first set my lens focus to infinity, then either move my camera or subject into focus - BUT my Canon nifty-fifty focus ring has
no infinity indicator - what to do, what to do??????

Many thanks in advance for your responses!

 

hmm, maybe i'm missing something but thats not something i have ever done or heard of
with the technique described i would set a lens to the closest it can focus then move in and out of focus myself for the shot, never heard of setting a lens to infinity

with the different types of lens i have used, 28mm, 65mm 100mm 105mm 150mm 200mm and 400mm i have always focused as close as i can get the lens physically to the subject then taken it from there, the idea of getting the sensor of the camera as close as possible is to make the subject appear as big as possible on the sensor.
i've not checked where the focus is in relation to infinity though, i'll check it next time

a strawberry

 

Thank you very much for your response, it is much appreciated.
There are several macro photographers on YouTube who advise the approach of setting the lens to infinity, then, without touching it, move the camera (or subject) into focus. I've presumed that they speak from experience and knowledge.
I find it interesting that, in addition to the nifty-fifty which has no infinity indicator, I've two other Canon lenses, and they have infinity indicators - but they achieve infinity by turning the lens in opposite directions! So they were of no help - apparently no standardization to offer.
I look forward to hearing about the result of your experimentation, so please advise when accomplished.
Thanks again!

 

I am a little confused.

Infinity is basically as far as the eye can see. So, how would setting your lens to focus on something on the horizon so to speak help you with close up work?

Gary

 

The only time you would set your lens to infinty for a macro shot would be if you were using extension tubes or a supplementary lens together with your original lens. In this case the infinity setting of your lens just becomes the furthest distance away that the combination will achieve focus.
If you want to set an autofocus lens without a scale to infinity just focus on something very distant, it doesn't make any difference if this is 500feet away or at the end of the universe, as far as the lens is concerned. Otherwise if your lens has a scale then infinity is usually marked with a symbol that looks like a number 8 lying on its side.
Different makes and models of lenses turn in different directions, this is just a direction chosen by the manufacturers and makes no difference to how a lens works.

Finally, please stop using the stupid term "nifty fifty" it does nothing to explain the lens you are using and has been used for a wide variety of makes and models of 50mm lenses.

 

I don't know - no one gave an explanation as to WHY one should set the lens to infinity first.
Thanks for your response.

 

Yes, Ray - in fact I am using extension tubes, I didn't believe it necessary to mention that. I realize that each time I use a different combo or single tube, my "infinity" will change, My question was basically how to go about finding where infinity is located/when it is reached/achieved on my focusing ring, without having an infinity indicator on my focusing ring.
I believe that you answered it by stating that "the infinity setting of your lens just becomes the furthest distance away that the combination will achieve focus". That sounds doable to me, and I thank you very much for the education - that's why I joined the forum.

Pictured is a Surinam Cherry/Pitanga/Eugenia Uniflora - considered an invasive plant in Florida. Canon 50mm 1.8 STM + 32mm of Kenko, no stacking, nor post processing. F/14

 

Don't modern lenses suck, no depth of field scale, when your lens is wound in to the body you are at infinity, to test this go outside and focus on a far off point this will give you an idea of where the lens needs to be set

 

Many thanks for your response.

Whether the lens is alll the way "in" or all the way "out", the focus ring can still be revolved, so there's no limit to focus ring travel - weird, and frustrating.
Your solution suggests that it doesn't matter whether or how many extension tubes I use with my Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM, just wind in the lens as far as it will go, and that'll be at "infinity"?

Many thanks, in advance, for your additional thoughts

 

I think that it is more of an "affordable" feature of some lenses. I have a few modern lenses, and they leave the old ones for dead.

Just rotate the focusing ring until the lens group retracts, you can still rotate the ring, but the lenses are not going to go any further inwards. Focus by wire I guess.

I would agree with this. The more tubes, well the length of tubes that is, that you use, the closer the focus point will be to the front of the lens.

A bit of playing around, and you get an idea of how it all works. What other lenses do you own? Maybe one of them could be a better option to work with.

Gary

 

Hi,

My other Canon lenses are a 70-200mm 1.4 L USM, and a 400, and a Canon 400mm 1:5.6, both of which reach infinity by rotating CCW.
Thank you for your response.

 

With a 50mm lens you would need extension tubes of 50mm to get lifesize macro shots (e.g, 1:1 reproduction)
With a 70mm you would need 70mm extension, with 200 & 500 you would need 200mm and 500 mm respectively, so using a normal set of extension tubes with 200 & 500 is going to enable you to get a little closer but not going to achieve macro.

The easiest way to do macro is to get a proper macro lens, not a zoom that has the word macro printed on it (because they are not macro) but a prime lens of 50mm,100mm or greater that is made to do macro and has a reproduction ratio of 1:1. Most people find the 100mm easiest to use and these are widely available either new or used.

 

Thank you.
I understand what you have stated, that the total length of the extension tubes, must be, at the minimum, the focal length of the primay lens, and that any additional mms of tubes increases the ratio to more than 1:1. That part I understand.
I was concerned about the several suggestions that my lens should be set at infinity firstly, because I didn't understand WHY that should be, and because my lens has no infinity indicator. YT creator Allan Walls has stated that when using tubes, one can't achieve "infinity" - so it's a bit confusing, and that's why I posted my question.
Anything additional you'd wish to add would be appreciated, thank you.
Mike

 

the infinity comes from using a secondary lens to the one attatched to the camera, you are talking about high end macro take a look at and pm Allan Walls Photography on you tube, he does alot of extreme macro and he will be able to answer those questions exactly
as for normal lens macro you don't need to worry about infinity, its not something we use.

in the first instance you should also be asking the people that recommended that you use the infinity method, and then when you have the explanation from that source you can come and enlighten us / me as it would be of great interest, one is always out to gain new knowledge

 

Thank you, Caladina.
Allan Walls says that it is not possible to use infinity when using tubes (as I do), that's why I didn't understand why others recommended it.
I'll take his and your (and other's on this forum) word for it.
Having the hassle (and literally additional pain in my 78 year old back) of adding/subtracting tubes during a setup to achieve the composition I wish to achieve, I AM considering a macro lens for my Canon 7D Mark II. I am considering the Laowa 60mm 2x, though, since I'm only doing macro indoors with a tripod, I could use the heavier 100 mm macro, for $50 or so more, which you've listed in your UAS column. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I really don't see a significant advantage of the 100 over the 60 for the tabletop still-images I like shooting.
Your advice is very much appreciated, thank you.

 

with my system the difference between te 100mm and 65mm is the 100mm is ef mount and the 65mm is efm mount.
keeping to the ef ef-s mount though there might not be a huge difference in the 100mm and 60mm but it might be enough that the closer focusing point to the subject on the 65mm is too wide so you ned to get closer and have less working room for lighting or you might en up cropping the final image more than you want to

not sure if i mentioned it but the highest mag i have gotten so far was with a 100-400mm sigma lens, one i us for wildlife and two canon x2 extenders (teleconverters) then 47mm of extension tube, the lens was set at 100mm, it was most definatly a table top set up but i just wanted to see what mag i could get, i ended up with 2mm of ruler on the M50 sensor, somewhere around 12-17 x macro

one day i'll revisit that idea again, as for now i'm very happy with the laowa 65mm on efm and the 100mm on ef mount as my best macro detail lenses, i have the sigma 105mm ƒ2.8 as my lazy day out lens
i can't remember if you mentioned what subject matter you were aiming to photograph on the macro level
were you looking to do 2:1 / 1:1 which are the usual standard ones or were you looking for alot more mag?
if you are chasing anything over 2:1 you'll be wanting to watch quite a few of allan's videos, extreme macro involves alot of image stacking and on the more dedicated level automated sliders that take images at fractions of a mm in camera travel

attatched is the 2mm macro image from the bonkers set up

 

"Bonkers" set up - hah! Cool, dude!
From my very limited "outings", I'll bring back interesting flowers and other natural (usually) objects, which at first glance, appear to have the potential to become interesting (hopefully great) images, if I do my due diligence and "set the stage" and technical instrumentation correctly.
I've been using an articulating (to a limited degree) table lamp with daylight Kelvin bulb for the main light, a small, diffused LED for a fill light, and when desired, I'll light up the background board, (I've white/blue/black). The Canon 7D Mark II is on an old but very serviceable and sturdy, heavy Bogen (now Manfrotto) tripod, to which is attached a Neewer rail.
As mentioned, I'm using a set of Kenko tubes with my Canon 50mm STM f/1.8.
With 68mm on the 50mm lens, and my APS-C camera, I'm getting more than a1:1 image - but, of course the prospect of going further is of interest - even though I do not photograph subjects which are small such as insects and grains of salt, though I take things with grains of salt other than photographs.
It's probably just a UAS syndrome thing - after all, I've 2 violins, 5 guitars, 5 ukuleles, several tinwhistles/pennywhistles, native Ameriacn flutes, harmonicas, keyboards, motorcycles, firearms, archery gear, slingshots and my "ham" radios - blah, blah, blah! Only ONE blowgun...
What I really NEED is more storage space (or a yard sale).

Back to you for your thoughts (getting back to photography) -

 

An interesting and simple expanation. Ray. I hope you do not mind as I am going to copy and present it to my lass.

 

If you use extension tubes, you will loose the ability to focus to infinity. But with a macro lens, you get the best of both worlds. I have both extension tubes, and a macro lens. And yes, I do use them both together at times, but that is another story for another day. The macro lens is easier to use. What focal length to get for you? What are you planning to photograph for starters? And what results are you aiming to get? A close up of an area? Or an overall sort of image?

Gary

 

Hi, Gary
Using a 50 mm lens, 68 mm of Kenkos and a APS-C camera (Canon EF series), I am altready achieving more than macro (1:1) magnification, photographing flowers and other, usually natural, subjects that I find, nothing as tiny as bugs, and although I'm satisfied with the results, I've the itch to "go bigger" - so I'm considering a Laowa, probably the 100mm, but not necessarily the 100mm, for I shoot non-moving subjects, using a tripod, rail, and shutter release cable.
I've been reading that the 100 has better clarity and a larger working distance than the Laowa 60, - but it cost perhaps $50-60 more.
In a few days I'll be receiving an adapter ring to reverse my 50mm onto my 70-200 tele, and evaluate the results of that.
So, at this moment, things are "in the air" while I await your response and the adapter.
Thanks for responding, it's appreciated.
Mike