John Howard Loc: SW Florida and Blue Ridge Mountains of NC.

Since I started shooting about 12 years ago there seems to be (IMO) an evolution in lens design to have more lenses without Depth of Field or even Focus Distance scales on the lens. For all you landscape shooters I would be interested to read your process for setting the proper focus distance to get both your foreground element and the distance elements sharp. I don't want to get in to a discussion on aperture, and diffraction, just what process you use to set the focal distance. Do you rely on Apps on your phone to give you the hyperlocal point? How do you focus to that point if you cannot measure the distance? Do you only enlarge the view (zoom in) and scroll around the image and use your eye to check the sharpness? Do you guess on the 1/3 point and use AF to a single spot? There are a lot of techniques. What do you do? (I am presuming those of you serious landscapers are using a good tripod, remote shutter release, and mirror-up or other vibration reductions like electronic shutter too.) How do you set the focus distance?

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

I turn the lens focus ring while looking through the viewfinder. What’s sharp on the focusing screen will be sharp at the focal plane. Been doing it since 1956,

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

I also miss the technical data that used to be imprinted on lens barrels. Depending on exacting what you are trying to do, more data is always more beneficial than less data.

lloydl2 Loc: Gilbert, AZ

I think the main reason that focal distance scales are no longer on lens barrels is zoom lenses which would change focal points based on zoom factor as well as aperture. Prime lenses are simplier and a single focus distance scale with a corresponding aperture opening range are doable not so on a zoom lens and most of our modern lenses are zoom lenses. In general terms I use a small aperture for max depth of field and on a landscape with depth focus somewhere about 1/3 in and this generally gets me in the ball park.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Yup, just set one end of the distance you want on the f-stop.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Zooms from back in the day also had the focus marks too.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

That's because those zooms slid the barrel to zoom rather than rotate like most zooms do today.

TonyBot

I miss the DOF scales, too, but now when I need to concern myself with it I use "stop-down" feature on my camera body. If I need more precision, I use the "live view" mode and then the focus magnifier (5x or 10x), in conjunction with the stop-down feature. And then there is the "seat-of-the-pants" method: guessing, knowing that the DOF is about a 1/3d closer and 2/3d further than the selected focus point. Most of the time, unless I am shooting at a large (meaning lower numbered) f-stop on a wide- or super-wide angle lens, it is not too often and issue. Now, telephoto, that's a different animal ...

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

I look at the DOF Master website online and figure out what my aperture needs to be to get the area I am interested in in focus. At wide angles your DOF can be very long, even at wider apertures. The website can show you what aperture on what focal length lens will put you in focus from a couple of feet away to infinity.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I try to offer simplified advice based on practical experience but oftentimes I find that folks become too preoccupied with complex technology. As a commercial photographer, I do a significant amount of work that is akin to landscape photography- architectural photography, industrial work that entails vast areas of outdoor locations, and actual landscapes for travel brochures for the hospitality industry. Issues such as depth of field, hyper-focal distances and optical diffraction are all involved.

Nowadays, I handle most of this work with DSLR equipment and just transfer or adopt the methods of the olden days where much of this work was done with large format view cameras where depth of field could be enhanced by certain camera movements. Starting off with good clean camerawork is your best bet.

You are right in precluding any kind of quality lost due to blur caused by camera movement, vibration or poor shutter actuation technique. A rock steady tripod, mirror lock up and cable release or electronic triggering are all good routine and time-honored procedures.

Perhaps some will disagree, but I find that folks are too preoccupied with book-learned theories about diffraction. It certainly factors in but modern high end lenses do not turn into a mass of serious aberrations when the are stopped down moderately. Minor diffraction issues can be corrected in post-processing.

Without a depth of field scale, determining depth of field by setting a hyper-focal distance on an non-existent scale is pretty difficult if not impossible.

I usually start off with that old rule of thumb by focusing bout 1/3 into the scene, using the depth of field per-view while focusing and then, as you alluded to, zoom in on the LCD screen and check things out and make adjustments accordingly. Using theses simple methods, I have never experienced unacceptably out of focus foreground, middle grounds or backgrounds even at significant degrees of enlargement.

Back in the large format era, I could employ the Scheimpflug method, that is, tilting the front standard of the view camera to extend the plane of sharp focus. This enabled using the lenses at (wider) apertures of more optimum performance as opposed to stopping down. There are some perspective control lenses that also can tilt or be used in conjunction with a tilting accessory. I, however, have not found this necessary in most of my current work. Even when using a view camera, it was necessary to carefully inspect the image, at different zones of focus, on the ground glass to make certain there was sufficient depth of field where required.

There are many higher-tech methodologies such as focus stacking and focus peaking that many photographer employ. There are the hyper-focal apps for you smartphone. I have no aversion to any theses tools and techniques but have not found them necessary in my work.

If you do a great deal of serious landscape work, you might consider prime lenses with smaller maximum apertures. An f/3.5 lens will likely perform best around f/8 or f/11 where as an f/2.8 lens may work best at f/5.6. In the former example, stopping down to f/16 should not bring on too much diffraction.

I hope this helps. The best determination of which method works best for you is testing and experimentation with your own gear and scrutinizing the results at the rate of enlargement, viewing method or print sizes that you usually employ. In my own work, I fine a very slightly longer that "normal" focal length for the format produces the best perspective- as the eye sees things in landscape and architectural work. My 60mm f/3.5 is my go to lens for general usage in this category on my full frame DSLR bodies lenses. Wide angle are fine too, but of course, the perspective is different.

John Howard Loc: SW Florida and Blue Ridge Mountains of NC.

[quote=E.L.. Shapiro]I try to offer simplified advice based on practical experience but oftentimes I find that folks become too preoccupied with complex technology. As a commercial photographer, I do a significant amount of work that is akin to landscape photography- architectural photography, industrial work that entails vast areas of outdoor locations, and actual landscapes for travel brochures for the hospitality industry. Issues such as depth of field, hyper-focal distances and optical diffraction are all involved.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. And FYI, I was injured a few years ago and for a while switched to the Sony Mirrorless system due to weight and size limits of one arm. I grew very fond of the Batis line of lenses from Zeiss. They have the meter on the lens that shows when infinity is in focus. All you need to do is set a reasonable aperture, dial in infinity, and you can read the near end of acceptable sharpness. If your foreground is not within that distance, use your feet. Now that I am switching back to my Nikon gear, several of my primes do not have the scales...
Thanks again E.L.

Tronjo Loc: Canada, BC

Look at this: https://photographylife.com/landscapes/how-to-focus-landscape-photography
All Spencer Cox articles are interesting to read.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

I do not own any lenses that don't have distance scales,, but I usually set my distance by looking through the view finder and not looking at the scales!

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Depth of field can be checked with the depth of field preview button or focus on the closest part of the foreground where detail is wanted. Duplicate that distance and set it in your lens.
Wider apertures, as you know, will have less depth o field.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

My landscape lenses are primarily wide lenses. So depth of field is a non issue. However, with the depth of field preview button I could check it to see exactly was in and out of focus. But again, with wides, it's a mute point. And I have assigned my DFPB for matrix metering as my default is center weighted metering.
On my Zeiss T* manual focus lenses for my Nikon the old depth of field is very easy to see on the lens. But, like I said, my primary lenses are wides so I don't even pay attention to those.
But, old Nikon AIS and AI lenses still work on my nikon and you can still buy these for your's, if you own nikon. Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.
PS. with digital, it is easy to see exactly what you get as you change F stops, so, shoot, check, adjust. Yes, it is as simple as that.