I wonder often why that focus to infinity gets less attention than it does.


For example, if I'm out shooting grand cityscapes with my 50mm, I just AF onto a distant target, switch to MF, and then don't worry about focus anymore! In my experience, this has made cityscape/towering architecture shooting much simpler, because I can frame right away, rather than focus-then-recompose. (There are other advantages too.)


So does my own example provide some explanation? Would this strategy be useless with zoom lenses? (I only shoot with three primes.)


But I'm always surprised that the "distance to infinity" never comes up in lens reviews (especially for primes?). It seems to me like a very useful variable to know about a lens. I read a poster (over at FredMiranda, I think?) exult that he does street photography by just locking his 24mm on infinity (because it's so near on such a wide lens). Again, he could quit worrying about focus and just "frame on the first try" (and sometimes shoot without even looking through his viewfinder!) And this opened a huge door in my mind at the time.


So, first, is there something crazy wrong with this strategy (when circumstances suit it)? (I do carefully reset each lens when I pull it out of my bag and mount it again.)


Second, is there some reason that this "stat" never comes up in lens reviews? Does distance to infinity change on zoom lenses at different distances? Or do all lenses of the same length reach infinity at the same distance? If not, then surely this is an important stat?!?


I've learned a ton from reading (and experimenting) over the years - I'm none of a newbie anymore - but this subject seems only vanishingly mentioned. I'd like to write an essay on the subject soon, but I'm leery of trusting all my assumptions with so little exposure to anyone else's. ; )