In fact I have a challenge for Howie - can you produce some tables for us that would allow Ray and I to borrow or rent a large format setup for a weekend and go out and have a good chance of getting the required DoF with a couple of lenses and variety of apertures, and at different print sizes and viewing distances. You may not make any reference to the format/crop.
No, I cannot produce the tables you seek as proof because each photo is different. Simply apply the DoF calculations for each photo at a time.
Tables imply that you have decided on a set of fixed variables (say a print size) and the table then lists some numbers as you change on variable. "DoF tables" are possible only because the user has already arbitarily decided on a certain set of fixed values for teh finished print. It is impossibe to make a two dimensional table that accounts for changing more than two variables. So, the makers of tablrs fix several variables, arbitarily, so they can make a table that shows the effect of changing two variables.
In fact, your tables show only decrete values, like f/stop. The table shows only he common, marked on the lens values. If I want f/9.2, I interpolate.
Lens makers used to put markings on their lenses to show DoF. These were mechanical DoF calcuators. How would you do that for any print size, plus any print viewing distance, plus any viewer conditions, as well as any focus distance, and f/stop. So, they assumed all prints were one certain fixed size, viewed from one certain fixed distance, one CoC fit every condition, and none of their negative would be cropped away. These assumptions had to be made in order to account for all those variables in a "calculator" that was capable of only two inputs. But then the photographer was stuck with a "calculator" on the lens barrel that has only focus distance and f/stop inputs for that focal length lens. Problems are:
1. these assumption just aren't usually (never?) aren't true. I have no prints designed to be 30cm prints and viewed from 50cm and aren't from a cropped negative. How many do you have?
2. Users forgot about how DoF really works and starting thinking the calculators were right for everything.
3. Users began to think the calcualtors worked for every situation. They ignored the assumtions built into the calcuators.
4. Finally, the calcuator was on-line. Has to be true.
On-line calculators usually have more than two inputs. But to produce a table using these calcuators, the user would have to fix all but two (the horizonal and verticle table vaules) in order to produde the third value to put in the tables. You just make a two dimensional (variable, if you will) table with more than two dimensions (variables). If you fix a CoC, then all the CoC pages are reduced to one. One page is all that is needed for one variable. Still too many pages (dimensions). So fix the enlargement size. Still too many pages (dimensions). Fix the format so enlargement can be reduced to one page. How about fix the camera. One camera, one page, and enlargement means only one thing. Can't have more than one full frame enlargement factor for one print size. And the beat goes on.
To make the original aswer to your question more accurate, not a table, but books. You won't carry a programmed pocket calculator, and a ruler. Would you lug around a set of books? No. You would keep throwing away books by assuming your print will fix that variable. Don't need books for all those possible print sizes. You don't have a 400mm lens, so you don't need the 400mm books. But a 70-200 zoom has plenty of focal lengths (books). All those CoC values. Too many. Assume one size fits all. I think you get the idea.
The answer is no, tables don't work for multidimensional problems. DoF, like it or not, is a multidimensional problem. DoF can be simplified by making a lot of assumptions that replace variables with constances. But then you have to live within those assumptions.
If I had only one lens, then focal length would not be a variable for me. If that one lens were a mirror lens, then f/stop goes away. This is getting easier. Why not fixed focus. Only at the hyperfocal distance. But you would argue that focal length, f/stop and focus distance are essential. Why? Because you own a zoom lens with an adjustable iris that you you (or your camera) can focus and you want to make those adjustments. Well, I can make different sized prints. I can crop. So I don't limit myself to 30cm prints from full frame negatives. (I can slice, dice and make julianne fries but that is another topic and some humor.)