100-400: Does microadjustment improve the 'not-good' copies?

Started Jun 22, 2011 | Discussions thread
The_cheshirecat Senior Member • Posts: 1,169
Re: 100-400: Does microadjustment improve the 'not-good' copies?

I think others have provided realistic expectations. All other issues aside, AF MA will only resolve front/back focus issues that may be presented. When performing MA on a zoom general guidance is to test at the most used FL. Some have reported they actually test MA at various FLs then change the MA accordingly in the field.

The lens is not the only variable. The camera body also plays a part. if a lens requiring +2 is mounted to a body requiring -2, the captures will be spot on with no MA. But if a +2 lens is mounted to a +2 body, it is cumulative and a MA of -4 would provide the best results. So what is spot on for one body may be different on yours.

My experince: I have a 100-400 I was happy with. I then got a 70-20 mk2 which was much superior at 200mm. I finally got around to MA the 100-400. Now I use the 100-400 instead of the 70-200, except when I need f:2.8. The MA I performed on the 100-400 improved it that much. I still need to MA the 70-200 and expect it to then be superior to the 100-400.

Still, after all is said and done, everything is relative. At any point f:8 was consistently sharper than f:5.6 on my 100-400.

-- hide signature --

I started in the 50's - my first picture was taken with a Leica and hooked me for life. I no longer use my Leicas, but I am still taking pictures. Some things never change.

 The_cheshirecat's gear list:The_cheshirecat's gear list
Canon PowerShot D10 Canon EOS 450D Canon EOS 7D Canon EF 600mm f/4.0L IS USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM +1 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow