The AFMA myth.

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
DavidArmenPhoto Regular Member • Posts: 354
Re: The AFMA myth.

Andy01 wrote:

I think that AFMA is useful in general, and can be EXTREMELY useful in some cases. I have tested every lens I have owned with 70D and 6D ii (the only two bodies I have owned with AFMA), and every one of them needed some degree of adjustment, often not major though. Lenses include Canon 24-105L, 24-105L ii, 100-400L, 100-400L ii & EF 35 f2 IS, and a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 (which I would rather not even talk about).

I do agree though that there are people here who blame every missed focus on AFMA (or lack of), and there are people here who seem to be much better than me in spotting front or back focusing (a recent example of an orca's fin that was not focused correctly - people spotted front focus on relatively calm reflective water, and suggested AFMA - better than me - AFMA may have been required or have helped, but it was pretty hard to tell from the image in question).

And a mention above of a couple of mm - a couple of mm can make all the difference when trying to shoot a bee in a flower at 400mm

Colin

What’s wrong with your copy of the Sigma 17-50? It’s a pretty sharp lens for its price actually.

 DavidArmenPhoto's gear list:DavidArmenPhoto's gear list
Canon EOS 90D Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
EG
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow