Canon lenses calibration

Started 7 months ago | Discussions
CESA Regular Member • Posts: 485
Canon lenses calibration

Hi all,

I am looking into FoCal to calibrate my canon lenses. I have been progressively changing my lenses to L series due to their quality and durability.

Most of them are bang on with slight adjustments. The 100mm f/2.8L macro is about +3 the 70-200mm f2.8L II on the wide end is about +5 and the 85mm f1.2L II still work in progress couldn't really fine tune it yet.

The main motivation to get the FoCal is really to have the best possible calibration setting and do some other tests that it allows you to, like AF consistency.

I hope that with this the 85mm f1.2L II can be brought to its specification and planning to do some AF consistency check on it as well.

What I would like to know if we need to print the chart that FoCal has got on their website or we can use a high resolution screen like the one in the MacBook pro and simply use it as 'the paper'.

Thanks

Zeee Forum Pro • Posts: 22,191
Re: Canon lenses calibration

CESA wrote:

Hi all,

I am looking into FoCal to calibrate my canon lenses. I have been progressively changing my lenses to L series due to their quality and durability.

Most of them are bang on with slight adjustments. The 100mm f/2.8L macro is about +3 the 70-200mm f2.8L II on the wide end is about +5 and the 85mm f1.2L II still work in progress couldn't really fine tune it yet.

The main motivation to get the FoCal is really to have the best possible calibration setting and do some other tests that it allows you to, like AF consistency.

I hope that with this the 85mm f1.2L II can be brought to its specification and planning to do some AF consistency check on it as well.

What I would like to know if we need to print the chart that FoCal has got on their website or we can use a high resolution screen like the one in the MacBook pro and simply use it as 'the paper'.

Thanks

Not sure how that would work. If you print the target they warn about laser printers ink being too reflective. Screens have refresh rates that may cause issues. I have never heard of using a screen before.

I purchased FoCal's hard target but an ink jet one will work as good. My MFA kit which is always ready to go also includes two daylight balanced studio CFL's to light the target. Canon's most comprehensive document to date talks about lighting conditions. Page 5. This guide should have been out 12 years ago when the 50D came out.

https://cdn.static-bl.com/images/manual/Canon-AF-Micro-Adjust-Guide.pdf

I guess with

-- hide signature --

I feel even more confident that soon things will have a wonderful conclusion

 Zeee's gear list:Zeee's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM +1 more
CameraCarl Veteran Member • Posts: 7,384
Re: Canon lenses calibration

I've heard of using a dollar bill and even a hundred dollar bill as a focusing target. See below:

https://www.gerlachnaturephoto.com/post/2018/05/16/af-microadjust-for-sharper-images

Zeee Forum Pro • Posts: 22,191
Re: Canon lenses calibration

CameraCarl wrote:

I've heard of using a dollar bill and even a hundred dollar bill as a focusing target. See below:

https://www.gerlachnaturephoto.com/post/2018/05/16/af-microadjust-for-sharper-images

You can use anything but bank notes do have a lot of detail. I have used them before I got FoCal.

As for FoCal it requires a specific target developed by company for it to work with the MFA software.

-- hide signature --

I feel even more confident that soon things will have a wonderful conclusion

 Zeee's gear list:Zeee's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM +1 more
highlights Regular Member • Posts: 183
Re: Canon lenses calibration

CameraCarl wrote:

I've heard of using a dollar bill and even a hundred dollar bill as a focusing target. See below:

https://www.gerlachnaturephoto.com/post/2018/05/16/af-microadjust-for-sharper-images

Or - in a pinch - a sheet of newspaper or story page from a magazine inclined at the 45 degrees.

Monty

 highlights's gear list:highlights's gear list
Canon EOS 5DS R Nikon D750 Canon EOS 7D Mark II Nikon D5 Canon EOS-1D X Mark II +20 more
Zeee Forum Pro • Posts: 22,191
Re: Canon lenses calibration
1

highlights wrote:

CameraCarl wrote:

I've heard of using a dollar bill and even a hundred dollar bill as a focusing target. See below:

https://www.gerlachnaturephoto.com/post/2018/05/16/af-microadjust-for-sharper-images

Or - in a pinch - a sheet of newspaper or story page from a magazine inclined at the 45 degrees.

Monty

Canon does not recommend a 45 degree angle. Flat target parallel to the sensor.

-- hide signature --

I feel even more confident that soon things will have a wonderful conclusion

 Zeee's gear list:Zeee's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM +1 more
OP CESA Regular Member • Posts: 485
Re: Canon lenses calibration

Thank you all for your comments. So I will be printing from local supermarket FoCal's target.

Will come back with update.

Zeee Forum Pro • Posts: 22,191
Re: Canon lenses calibration

CESA wrote:

Thank you all for your comments. So I will be printing from local supermarket FoCal's target.

Will come back with update.

Make sure it isn’t laser.  I had trouble with that places like Staples. 
--
I feel even more confident that soon things will have a wonderful conclusion

 Zeee's gear list:Zeee's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM +1 more
OP CESA Regular Member • Posts: 485
Re: Canon lenses calibration

Zeee wrote:

CESA wrote:

Thank you all for your comments. So I will be printing from local supermarket FoCal's target.

Will come back with update.

Make sure it isn’t laser. I had trouble with that places like Staples.
--
I feel even more confident that soon things will have a wonderful conclusion

Which one is advisable?

Zeee Forum Pro • Posts: 22,191
Re: Canon lenses calibration

CESA wrote:

Zeee wrote:

CESA wrote:

Thank you all for your comments. So I will be printing from local supermarket FoCal's target.

Will come back with update.

Make sure it isn’t laser. I had trouble with that places like Staples.
--
I feel even more confident that soon things will have a wonderful conclusion

Which one is advisable?

If you read FoCal’s instructions (which IMO are too long) it warns not to use laser. It says to use ink jet.  I’m busy now but I’ll find it later.

-- hide signature --

I feel even more confident that soon things will have a wonderful conclusion

 Zeee's gear list:Zeee's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM +1 more
J A C S
J A C S Forum Pro • Posts: 17,559
Re: Canon lenses calibration

Why are you doing this? Do you see AF problems?

One of the mistakes people make is to do the calibration with the target too close. This would create more problems than it would solve - been there, done that.

Just use the lenses you normally would and inspect the shots carefully for AF errors. Do MA only if you see consistent front or back focus.

Zeee Forum Pro • Posts: 22,191
Re: Canon lenses calibration

Zeee wrote:

CESA wrote:

Zeee wrote:

CESA wrote:

Thank you all for your comments. So I will be printing from local supermarket FoCal's target.

Will come back with update.

Make sure it isn’t laser. I had trouble with that places like Staples.
--
I feel even more confident that soon things will have a wonderful conclusion

Which one is advisable?

If you read FoCal’s instructions (which IMO are too long) it warns not to use laser. It says to use ink jet. I’m busy now but I’ll find it later.

I see the manual has been updated. Here is where it recommends ink jet but does not say why not to use laser. Matte paper for best results which again prevents reflections. I just used normal basic printer paper before I got the hard target.

https://www.reikanfocal.com/help1/0052.html

Also this from the lighting the target part.

We don’t recommend the use of fluorescent or LED lighting as they can flicker – you won’t be able to see this with your eye, but the camera can be affected and the results may not be as accurate as possible.

-- hide signature --

I feel even more confident that soon things will have a wonderful conclusion

 Zeee's gear list:Zeee's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM +1 more
Zeee Forum Pro • Posts: 22,191
Re: Canon lenses calibration

Zeee wrote:

Zeee wrote:

CESA wrote:

Zeee wrote:

CESA wrote:

Thank you all for your comments. So I will be printing from local supermarket FoCal's target.

Will come back with update.

Make sure it isn’t laser. I had trouble with that places like Staples.
--
I feel even more confident that soon things will have a wonderful conclusion

Which one is advisable?

If you read FoCal’s instructions (which IMO are too long) it warns not to use laser. It says to use ink jet. I’m busy now but I’ll find it later.

I see the manual has been updated. Here is where it recommends ink jet but does not say why not to use laser. Matte paper for best results which again prevents reflections. I just used normal basic printer paper before I got the hard target.

https://www.reikanfocal.com/help1/0052.html

Also this from the lighting the target part.

We don’t recommend the use of fluorescent or LED lighting as they can flicker – you won’t be able to see this with your eye, but the camera can be affected and the results may not be as accurate as possible.

Here we go. The above was a link from FoCal's site. I have two PDF manuals. Quick start and long. Only 177 pages

-- hide signature --

I feel even more confident that soon things will have a wonderful conclusion

 Zeee's gear list:Zeee's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM +1 more
Zeee Forum Pro • Posts: 22,191
Re: Canon lenses calibration

J A C S wrote:

Why are you doing this? Do you see AF problems?

One of the mistakes people make is to do the calibration with the target too close. This would create more problems than it would solve - been there, done that.

This is very true. That is why I called that PDF link the most comprehensive document. I had lots of links to various Canon information. Some said 50X, others said at location, etc. Even the manuals say best to MFA at location. Then add all the home made versions, etc. There were just too many options which was one reason I never liked MFA. FoCal which follows the sensor parallel to target method made my life easier. I followed it's minimal distance recommendations.

Just use the lenses you normally would and inspect the shots carefully for AF errors. Do MA only if you see consistent front or back focus.

-- hide signature --

I feel even more confident that soon things will have a wonderful conclusion

 Zeee's gear list:Zeee's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM +1 more
OP CESA Regular Member • Posts: 485
Re: Canon lenses calibration

J A C S wrote:

Why are you doing this? Do you see AF problems?

One of the mistakes people make is to do the calibration with the target too close. This would create more problems than it would solve - been there, done that.

Just use the lenses you normally would and inspect the shots carefully for AF errors. Do MA only if you see consistent front or back focus.

Well, normally I like to shoot at 2 to 3 meters from subject with this lens. Sometimes 5 meters for full body shot.

I have noticed that my pictures are not coming consistently in focus when I shoot people. For example this weekend went out to shoot and most of the pictures did not came in focus when shot at f/1.2 and f/1.4.

This was shooting people.

When I get myself in a quite place with static subjects like any items I can see that the pictures kinda come in focus most of the time.

So to rule out any possible problem with the lens itself I wanted to calibrate the lens first and do some test shots at several distances from minimum to about 5 to 7 meters.

I am in the process of doing this and I have a suggestion from Nero who has kindly answered to some of my questions on another thread and I will follow his advice.

What I will do is shoot at different distances using natural light and a tripod with a parallel object to the sensor. 3 shots at the time using OVF and live view. Will probably do this for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 meters and see what I get. Will also lock the mirror.

Will come back with the results and let you know. Thanks

OP CESA Regular Member • Posts: 485
Re: Canon lenses calibration

Zeee wrote:

J A C S wrote:

Why are you doing this? Do you see AF problems?

One of the mistakes people make is to do the calibration with the target too close. This would create more problems than it would solve - been there, done that.

This is very true. That is why I called that PDF link the most comprehensive document. I had lots of links to various Canon information. Some said 50X, others said at location, etc. Even the manuals say best to MFA at location. Then add all the home made versions, etc. There were just too many options which was one reason I never liked MFA. FoCal which follows the sensor parallel to target method made my life easier. I followed it's minimal distance recommendations.

Just use the lenses you normally would and inspect the shots carefully for AF errors. Do MA only if you see consistent front or back focus.

Hi both.

I have purchased the FoCal software to perform the AFMA to my lenses specially the 85mm f1.2.

I have done several tests including at different distances or in this case at 2.7m and 3.1m.

The AFMA returned AFMA value of +5. Nothing like the +17 that I was talking about. But there is a catch.

After performing this calibration, I went out to take some close shots or in this full body and some half chest shoots (what's that, 1m and 1.5m or so) and pictures were not perfectly sharp.

Changed the AFMA to +17 and bang on at those distances (half-chest and full body).

Followed everything they recommend with exception of using their target, the ones they sell which I am still waiting for delivery. to repeat the tests. I have printed the target at the local supermarket so it is what it is and don't know if it is suitable. But have repeated the test several times and it was more or less consistent in the sense that the AFMA that returned were pretty close +5 and one time said between +4 and +6 but then ended up in +5 after continuing the test.

Actually, before performing the tests I went out and had the AFMA set to +5 and pictures taken at say 2m or 2.5m were not 100% in focus/sharp f1.2 and f2.

Now, next time I am gonna take a walk will change the AFMA to +17 and will do some tests.

Will also perform the test at 1.5m and see if the camera will show the same AFMA that I got by doing real life tests.

That being said I question the efficacy of this software.

Well known Dustin Abbott has mentioned in one of his videos showing how to calibrate lenses that some of the setting FoCal came out after the test he didn't agree.

The testing conditions, lighting specially probably influence a lot the outcome as well.

I am wondering at which extend this software usefull or not. But had to get it to see by myself. Dustin teaches how to perform the test manually using their targets and the LIVE VIEW shot as starting point.

Additionally did the best aperture and also the AF consistency and they were not consistent as well. That is the best aperture for the sharpest aperture, it gave me different values test at different distances from the target (see above) and the AF consistency gave me slight differences but I was expecting to be the same.

Any comments?

Zeee Forum Pro • Posts: 22,191
Re: Canon lenses calibration

CESA wrote:

Zeee wrote:

J A C S wrote:

Why are you doing this? Do you see AF problems?

One of the mistakes people make is to do the calibration with the target too close. This would create more problems than it would solve - been there, done that.

This is very true. That is why I called that PDF link the most comprehensive document. I had lots of links to various Canon information. Some said 50X, others said at location, etc. Even the manuals say best to MFA at location. Then add all the home made versions, etc. There were just too many options which was one reason I never liked MFA. FoCal which follows the sensor parallel to target method made my life easier. I followed it's minimal distance recommendations.

Just use the lenses you normally would and inspect the shots carefully for AF errors. Do MA only if you see consistent front or back focus.

Hi both.

I have purchased the FoCal software to perform the AFMA to my lenses specially the 85mm f1.2.

I have done several tests including at different distances or in this case at 2.7m and 3.1m.

The AFMA returned AFMA value of +5. Nothing like the +17 that I was talking about. But there is a catch.

After performing this calibration, I went out to take some close shots or in this full body and some half chest shoots (what's that, 1m and 1.5m or so) and pictures were not perfectly sharp.

Changed the AFMA to +17 and bang on at those distances (half-chest and full body).

Followed everything they recommend with exception of using their target, the ones they sell which I am still waiting for delivery. to repeat the tests. I have printed the target at the local supermarket so it is what it is and don't know if it is suitable. But have repeated the test several times and it was more or less consistent in the sense that the AFMA that returned were pretty close +5 and one time said between +4 and +6 but then ended up in +5 after continuing the test.

Actually, before performing the tests I went out and had the AFMA set to +5 and pictures taken at say 2m or 2.5m were not 100% in focus/sharp f1.2 and f2.

Now, next time I am gonna take a walk will change the AFMA to +17 and will do some tests.

Will also perform the test at 1.5m and see if the camera will show the same AFMA that I got by doing real life tests.

That being said I question the efficacy of this software.

Well known Dustin Abbott has mentioned in one of his videos showing how to calibrate lenses that some of the setting FoCal came out after the test he didn't agree.

The testing conditions, lighting specially probably influence a lot the outcome as well.

I am wondering at which extend this software usefull or not. But had to get it to see by myself. Dustin teaches how to perform the test manually using their targets and the LIVE VIEW shot as starting point.

Additionally did the best aperture and also the AF consistency and they were not consistent as well. That is the best aperture for the sharpest aperture, it gave me different values test at different distances from the target (see above) and the AF consistency gave me slight differences but I was expecting to be the same.

Any comments?

Not sure what to say about that part. It has always been bang on for me. I took me 3 days to settle on +13 for my 7D2, 100-400 II and 1.4 @ 560mm. FoCal gave me +13 in 5 minutes. It took me 3 days because I always second guess myself. Maybe they can do a refund I you don't like the product.

On the other hand +17 is a lot IMO. I would not except that. I purchased a 70-200 2.8 II and it needed about +15 at 200mm without a TC on two bodies. I purchased FoCal specifically to verify it. Two Canon techs at New Jersey service told me that with high numbers like that use MFA to get by but it should be serviced. They found a mis-calibrated board.

Back to the 7D2, 100-400 II and 1.4. Without the TC it only needed +3. The TC on primes needed very little as well so it wasn't the TC and the lens was fine. I could only conclude that since the 100-400 II has many moving parts it could be in spec but some components are on one end or the other of said spec. I wasn't sure what Canon could so I decided to leave that particular lens TC combo alone. That was the only exception I have made to date. I know of one more person that had those same results.

-- hide signature --

I feel even more confident that soon things will have a wonderful conclusion

 Zeee's gear list:Zeee's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM +1 more
Zeee Forum Pro • Posts: 22,191
Re: Canon lenses calibration

Zeee wrote:

CESA wrote:

Zeee wrote:

J A C S wrote:

Why are you doing this? Do you see AF problems?

One of the mistakes people make is to do the calibration with the target too close. This would create more problems than it would solve - been there, done that.

This is very true. That is why I called that PDF link the most comprehensive document. I had lots of links to various Canon information. Some said 50X, others said at location, etc. Even the manuals say best to MFA at location. Then add all the home made versions, etc. There were just too many options which was one reason I never liked MFA. FoCal which follows the sensor parallel to target method made my life easier. I followed it's minimal distance recommendations.

Just use the lenses you normally would and inspect the shots carefully for AF errors. Do MA only if you see consistent front or back focus.

Hi both.

I have purchased the FoCal software to perform the AFMA to my lenses specially the 85mm f1.2.

I have done several tests including at different distances or in this case at 2.7m and 3.1m.

The AFMA returned AFMA value of +5. Nothing like the +17 that I was talking about. But there is a catch.

After performing this calibration, I went out to take some close shots or in this full body and some half chest shoots (what's that, 1m and 1.5m or so) and pictures were not perfectly sharp.

Changed the AFMA to +17 and bang on at those distances (half-chest and full body).

Followed everything they recommend with exception of using their target, the ones they sell which I am still waiting for delivery. to repeat the tests. I have printed the target at the local supermarket so it is what it is and don't know if it is suitable. But have repeated the test several times and it was more or less consistent in the sense that the AFMA that returned were pretty close +5 and one time said between +4 and +6 but then ended up in +5 after continuing the test.

Actually, before performing the tests I went out and had the AFMA set to +5 and pictures taken at say 2m or 2.5m were not 100% in focus/sharp f1.2 and f2.

Now, next time I am gonna take a walk will change the AFMA to +17 and will do some tests.

Will also perform the test at 1.5m and see if the camera will show the same AFMA that I got by doing real life tests.

That being said I question the efficacy of this software.

Well known Dustin Abbott has mentioned in one of his videos showing how to calibrate lenses that some of the setting FoCal came out after the test he didn't agree.

The testing conditions, lighting specially probably influence a lot the outcome as well.

I am wondering at which extend this software usefull or not. But had to get it to see by myself. Dustin teaches how to perform the test manually using their targets and the LIVE VIEW shot as starting point.

Additionally did the best aperture and also the AF consistency and they were not consistent as well. That is the best aperture for the sharpest aperture, it gave me different values test at different distances from the target (see above) and the AF consistency gave me slight differences but I was expecting to be the same.

Any comments?

Not sure what to say about that part. It has always been bang on for me. I took me 3 days to settle on +13 for my 7D2, 100-400 II and 1.4 @ 560mm. FoCal gave me +13 in 5 minutes. It took me 3 days because I always second guess myself. Maybe they can do a refund I you don't like the product.

On the other hand +17 is a lot IMO. I would not except that. I purchased a 70-200 2.8 II and it needed about +15 at 200mm without a TC on two bodies. I purchased FoCal specifically to verify it. Two Canon techs at New Jersey service told me that with high numbers like that use MFA to get by but it should be serviced. They found a mis-calibrated board.

Back to the 7D2, 100-400 II and 1.4. Without the TC it only needed +3. The TC on primes needed very little as well so it wasn't the TC and the lens was fine. I could only conclude that since the 100-400 II has many moving parts it could be in spec but some components are on one end or the other of said spec. I wasn't sure what Canon could so I decided to leave that particular lens TC combo alone. That was the only exception I have made to date. I know of one more person that had those same results.

I followed a philosophy of a +-5 being the tolerance I'd leave alone. Anything higher would go in. +-5 to 10 would have been a tougher decision but I have never come across that. If it is out it is out badly and that only happened once to me. I am in minority when it comes to those thresholds but a few years later I found this article so I'm not the only one. Canon told me the same thing.

Sections 10, 11, and 13.

https://photographylife.com/how-to-calibrate-lenses

Have you tried FoCal on other lenses?

-- hide signature --

I feel even more confident that soon things will have a wonderful conclusion

 Zeee's gear list:Zeee's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM +1 more
OP CESA Regular Member • Posts: 485
Re: Canon lenses calibration

Zeee wrote:

CESA wrote:

Zeee wrote:

J A C S wrote:

Why are you doing this? Do you see AF problems?

One of the mistakes people make is to do the calibration with the target too close. This would create more problems than it would solve - been there, done that.

This is very true. That is why I called that PDF link the most comprehensive document. I had lots of links to various Canon information. Some said 50X, others said at location, etc. Even the manuals say best to MFA at location. Then add all the home made versions, etc. There were just too many options which was one reason I never liked MFA. FoCal which follows the sensor parallel to target method made my life easier. I followed it's minimal distance recommendations.

Just use the lenses you normally would and inspect the shots carefully for AF errors. Do MA only if you see consistent front or back focus.

Hi both.

I have purchased the FoCal software to perform the AFMA to my lenses specially the 85mm f1.2.

I have done several tests including at different distances or in this case at 2.7m and 3.1m.

The AFMA returned AFMA value of +5. Nothing like the +17 that I was talking about. But there is a catch.

After performing this calibration, I went out to take some close shots or in this full body and some half chest shoots (what's that, 1m and 1.5m or so) and pictures were not perfectly sharp.

Changed the AFMA to +17 and bang on at those distances (half-chest and full body).

Followed everything they recommend with exception of using their target, the ones they sell which I am still waiting for delivery. to repeat the tests. I have printed the target at the local supermarket so it is what it is and don't know if it is suitable. But have repeated the test several times and it was more or less consistent in the sense that the AFMA that returned were pretty close +5 and one time said between +4 and +6 but then ended up in +5 after continuing the test.

Actually, before performing the tests I went out and had the AFMA set to +5 and pictures taken at say 2m or 2.5m were not 100% in focus/sharp f1.2 and f2.

Now, next time I am gonna take a walk will change the AFMA to +17 and will do some tests.

Will also perform the test at 1.5m and see if the camera will show the same AFMA that I got by doing real life tests.

That being said I question the efficacy of this software.

Well known Dustin Abbott has mentioned in one of his videos showing how to calibrate lenses that some of the setting FoCal came out after the test he didn't agree.

The testing conditions, lighting specially probably influence a lot the outcome as well.

I am wondering at which extend this software usefull or not. But had to get it to see by myself. Dustin teaches how to perform the test manually using their targets and the LIVE VIEW shot as starting point.

Additionally did the best aperture and also the AF consistency and they were not consistent as well. That is the best aperture for the sharpest aperture, it gave me different values test at different distances from the target (see above) and the AF consistency gave me slight differences but I was expecting to be the same.

Any comments?

Not sure what to say about that part. It has always been bang on for me. I took me 3 days to settle on +13 for my 7D2, 100-400 II and 1.4 @ 560mm. FoCal gave me +13 in 5 minutes. It took me 3 days because I always second guess myself. Maybe they can do a refund I you don't like the product.

On the other hand +17 is a lot IMO. I would not except that. I purchased a 70-200 2.8 II and it needed about +15 at 200mm without a TC on two bodies. I purchased FoCal specifically to verify it. Two Canon techs at New Jersey service told me that with high numbers like that use MFA to get by but it should be serviced. They found a mis-calibrated board.

Back to the 7D2, 100-400 II and 1.4. Without the TC it only needed +3. The TC on primes needed very little as well so it wasn't the TC and the lens was fine. I could only conclude that since the 100-400 II has many moving parts it could be in spec but some components are on one end or the other of said spec. I wasn't sure what Canon could so I decided to leave that particular lens TC combo alone. That was the only exception I have made to date. I know of one more person that had those same results.

Thanks for your valuable comment.

The 85mm was bought from an used shop - don't know if I have referred that in this thread. It has now passed the return date - however it has got a 1 year warranty on it.

Despite this, I called canon and asked to speak to a technician. Cutting the long story short he said to not worry about it. If it required +17 it is fine and that is way the AFMA exists. Another question that I did was that how likely would the existing AFMA range in the cameras be enough after the lens gets used more and more and he just said that this wouldn't happen.

Marco, another user in another thread I think he said that sending the lens to canon to get serviced might do more harm than good. If it would be a problem with the board calibration and not related to moving parts or alignment probably that would not be a problem.

In your case, the examples you are giving is related to telephoto lens, like big telephoto lens that in principle are used to shoot very far objects where the DoF is big anyway. So one would expect focal to work properly.

But in my case what I am doing is calibrating a lens at a given distance that ok, I might use it, but will be likely to be used at smaller distances that the calibrated one.

I will repeat the test again when the targets arrive at the recommended distance of 3.5m and at 1.5m and see the outcome. If the AFMA setting comes out to be around the same +17 value then I would not be suspicious of the software but if it comes out different I will have to rethink if this software is somewhat useful with exception of telephoto lens.

Ideally it would be nice to test the lens on another body and see if it requires the same amount. Just out of curiosity has this happened to you? With other lens besides the one on the example you gave above? Is this even possible? If it is possible it means that the 'problem' is in the body?

How likely would they accept to take in the lens to verify JUST if it is some mis-calibrated board? Provided every lens has got one?

Thanks in advance.

OP CESA Regular Member • Posts: 485
Re: Canon lenses calibration

Zeee wrote:

Zeee wrote:

CESA wrote:

Zeee wrote:

J A C S wrote:

Why are you doing this? Do you see AF problems?

One of the mistakes people make is to do the calibration with the target too close. This would create more problems than it would solve - been there, done that.

This is very true. That is why I called that PDF link the most comprehensive document. I had lots of links to various Canon information. Some said 50X, others said at location, etc. Even the manuals say best to MFA at location. Then add all the home made versions, etc. There were just too many options which was one reason I never liked MFA. FoCal which follows the sensor parallel to target method made my life easier. I followed it's minimal distance recommendations.

Just use the lenses you normally would and inspect the shots carefully for AF errors. Do MA only if you see consistent front or back focus.

Hi both.

I have purchased the FoCal software to perform the AFMA to my lenses specially the 85mm f1.2.

I have done several tests including at different distances or in this case at 2.7m and 3.1m.

The AFMA returned AFMA value of +5. Nothing like the +17 that I was talking about. But there is a catch.

After performing this calibration, I went out to take some close shots or in this full body and some half chest shoots (what's that, 1m and 1.5m or so) and pictures were not perfectly sharp.

Changed the AFMA to +17 and bang on at those distances (half-chest and full body).

Followed everything they recommend with exception of using their target, the ones they sell which I am still waiting for delivery. to repeat the tests. I have printed the target at the local supermarket so it is what it is and don't know if it is suitable. But have repeated the test several times and it was more or less consistent in the sense that the AFMA that returned were pretty close +5 and one time said between +4 and +6 but then ended up in +5 after continuing the test.

Actually, before performing the tests I went out and had the AFMA set to +5 and pictures taken at say 2m or 2.5m were not 100% in focus/sharp f1.2 and f2.

Now, next time I am gonna take a walk will change the AFMA to +17 and will do some tests.

Will also perform the test at 1.5m and see if the camera will show the same AFMA that I got by doing real life tests.

That being said I question the efficacy of this software.

Well known Dustin Abbott has mentioned in one of his videos showing how to calibrate lenses that some of the setting FoCal came out after the test he didn't agree.

The testing conditions, lighting specially probably influence a lot the outcome as well.

I am wondering at which extend this software usefull or not. But had to get it to see by myself. Dustin teaches how to perform the test manually using their targets and the LIVE VIEW shot as starting point.

Additionally did the best aperture and also the AF consistency and they were not consistent as well. That is the best aperture for the sharpest aperture, it gave me different values test at different distances from the target (see above) and the AF consistency gave me slight differences but I was expecting to be the same.

Any comments?

Not sure what to say about that part. It has always been bang on for me. I took me 3 days to settle on +13 for my 7D2, 100-400 II and 1.4 @ 560mm. FoCal gave me +13 in 5 minutes. It took me 3 days because I always second guess myself. Maybe they can do a refund I you don't like the product.

On the other hand +17 is a lot IMO. I would not except that. I purchased a 70-200 2.8 II and it needed about +15 at 200mm without a TC on two bodies. I purchased FoCal specifically to verify it. Two Canon techs at New Jersey service told me that with high numbers like that use MFA to get by but it should be serviced. They found a mis-calibrated board.

Back to the 7D2, 100-400 II and 1.4. Without the TC it only needed +3. The TC on primes needed very little as well so it wasn't the TC and the lens was fine. I could only conclude that since the 100-400 II has many moving parts it could be in spec but some components are on one end or the other of said spec. I wasn't sure what Canon could so I decided to leave that particular lens TC combo alone. That was the only exception I have made to date. I know of one more person that had those same results.

I followed a philosophy of a +-5 being the tolerance I'd leave alone. Anything higher would go in. +-5 to 10 would have been a tougher decision but I have never come across that. If it is out it is out badly and that only happened once to me. I am in minority when it comes to those thresholds but a few years later I found this article so I'm not the only one. Canon told me the same thing.

Sections 10, 11, and 13.

https://photographylife.com/how-to-calibrate-lenses

Have you tried FoCal on other lenses?

Haven't tried it yet as didn't have the time yet. Will probably try it on my 50mm next, the f/1.8 version and see how it compares to my real life calibrated AFMA value which is under 10 BTW. The macro will be the next one.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads