Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2012 · No MA needed for my recent EF L lenses
  
 
Photon
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · No MA needed for my recent EF L lenses


I noticed that the four lenses I most recently purchased all focus perfectly with no micro-adjustment. Well, ok, one is the 24 TS-E , and manual focus using LV doesn't count, but the 300/2.8 IS II, 70-200/4 IS, and 70-200/2.8 IS II all nail AF right out of the box. I tested carefully using the "moire target" method, and could not improve on the results. In contrast, the majority of my older L primes and zooms benefit from a few points of MA, and the 135 L (my oldest L) gets +14 to become a super sharp lens.

I mention all this because we used to hear complaints that Canon introduced AF MA to save themselves service requests and allow lax quality control standards. It could easily be a matter of luck for me with these recent buys, but I think there's a chance that AF function is becoming more uniform, and certainly little to suggest that it is less well calibrated than in the past.



Jan 30, 2012 at 02:40 AM
Chumma
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · No MA needed for my recent EF L lenses


I bought three lenses in 2011 (70-200L IS f/2.8 MK II, 24-105L f/4, 50L f/1.2). Only one (50L f/1.2) needed MA.


Jan 30, 2012 at 03:10 AM
TrojanHorse
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · No MA needed for my recent EF L lenses


I've MA'd all my lenses... the least is +5, the most is +14.

Now, if only they would hit the same damn mark every time, life would be perfect.



Jan 30, 2012 at 04:23 AM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · No MA needed for my recent EF L lenses


Here's my current results. You certainly don't see an pattern of improvement with age up to 2010. OTOH, it's not really bad, at all. Most AFma changes are quite small.

My only 2011 lens is the 100-400L, which I haven't yet had a chance to do. It's probably worth noting that my 100-400L seems to nail it with sharp focus nearly every time with my 1D-series bodies (in reasonable conditions), and so it certainly doesn't need much AFma, if any. Of course, that's exactly what I used to say about the other lenses, before doing AFma.

I hope to do the 100-400L and 35L within a week or two, and I'll update this post at that time. The 35L was the one sent in for adjustment. The 28-300L is in my to-sell pile, and so I won't bother doing it.














Jan 30, 2012 at 12:27 PM
molson
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · No MA needed for my recent EF L lenses


I routinely check every new lens I get, and in the past few years I've only had one lens that required adjustment - an old used 50mm f1.4 USM.

Back in the day (before cameras had the MA feature) I had a few lenses that were quite a ways out of calibration, and it was a major headache trying to get Canon to calibrate them properly. Needless to say, I'm very pleased at how much Canon has improved their quality control over the past few years.



Jan 30, 2012 at 03:11 PM
Photon
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · No MA needed for my recent EF L lenses


Jim, your results with extenders are interesting. For example, the 70-200 L II on 1DsIII comes in at -3 for the bare lens, and +1 with the 2x TC, but on the 1DIV you've got it at -1 and -5, respectively. 4 points in the opposite direction. I've found my 1.4x II requires MA about 4 points different from bare lenses, in the same direction on 2 different bodies. (The 2x III doesn't change MA at all!) Shows why we each need to do our own testing, if we want to be fussy enough to do MA at all.


Jan 30, 2012 at 03:19 PM
Photon
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · No MA needed for my recent EF L lenses


Come to think of it, I could add the 2x Mk III to the list of recent lenses that don't require any MA.


Jan 30, 2012 at 03:20 PM
cputeq
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · No MA needed for my recent EF L lenses


Besides just a handful of cases, I have not needed MA for my systems, and I have owned a lot of various setups.


Jan 30, 2012 at 04:05 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · No MA needed for my recent EF L lenses


Interesting. Both of my 1.4x and 2x Extenders are Mk III.


Jan 30, 2012 at 04:24 PM
Hank Endzelis
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · No MA needed for my recent EF L lenses


Are you sure?
Even if all your lenses and bodies fall within their accepted minimum tolerances, what are the odds that they will offset and cancel each other out for a perfect match?
Tuning your body with MA on all of your lenses could still improve and verify what you may believe is already a sharp lens.



Jan 30, 2012 at 04:47 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · No MA needed for my recent EF L lenses


Jess, that has been my experience as well. My recent lenses are pretty much right on the money, always within +- 5 and I am fine with that. To be frank, if the value of adjustment is less than 2 in either direction, I wrote them off as "within tolerance" and left the adjustment at 0 and I have yet to encounter any issue with that setting . My last MFA issue was with my 35mmL that seemed to work fine with bodies that didn't have any MFA feature but it was all over the place with more recent bodies with MFA feature. After I had it calibrated by Canon, the MFA was spot on and consistent with bodies I have.


Jan 30, 2012 at 04:59 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · No MA needed for my recent EF L lenses


That's exactly my experience with the 35L. I haven't checked MA on the 35L since getting it back, but it works fine.


Jan 30, 2012 at 05:14 PM
scalesusa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · No MA needed for my recent EF L lenses


I had the same experience, until I looked more carefully. I bought the lens align unit, and it helps, but it still depends on your jugdement of which image is sharper.

I now use FoCal software, and finally believe I am getting a accurate AFMA at the test distance used. The AFMA varies with test distance.

Some of the AFMA curves have a broad peak, so focus will look good over a wide range. This photograph of my laptop screen shows that you will get a sharp image anywhere from -5 to -10. The ideal might be -8 for this situation.








Jan 31, 2012 at 04:11 PM
D. Diggler
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · No MA needed for my recent EF L lenses


Photon wrote:
the 135 L (my oldest L) gets +14 to become a super sharp lens


I've always wondered about my 135L because it's not especially "sharp" when most
people say it's supposed to be. Unfortunately, my cameras don't have micro-focus adjust



Jan 31, 2012 at 08:05 PM
Photon
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · No MA needed for my recent EF L lenses


D. Diggler wrote:
I've always wondered about my 135L because it's not especially "sharp" when most
people say it's supposed to be. Unfortunately, my cameras don't have micro-focus adjust

I used mine first with film, and was disappointed in it. I should probably have sent it to Canon for calibration, but instead let it mostly gather dust until I got a 1DIII.

You might consider having yours calibrated, if you like the focal length, unless you plan to soon get a newer body with MA.



Feb 01, 2012 at 01:06 AM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · No MA needed for my recent EF L lenses


D. Diggler wrote:
I've always wondered about my 135L because it's not especially "sharp" when most
people say it's supposed to be. Unfortunately, my cameras don't have micro-focus adjust


do you have liveview to try 10x zoom manual focus?
135L should be really sharp, stopped down just a bit even corner to corner on a 5D2



Feb 01, 2012 at 08:13 PM
D. Diggler
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · No MA needed for my recent EF L lenses


skibum5 wrote:
do you have liveview to try 10x zoom manual focus?


No, no liveview.



Feb 01, 2012 at 09:15 PM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · No MA needed for my recent EF L lenses


D. Diggler -- Why delay? You should send to Canon to get the lens checked and adjusted. Otherwise, why not sell it?

I don't have MA either, but I have no problem letting Canon adjust any lens or body that is out of sharp focus.



Feb 01, 2012 at 09:33 PM
twistedlim
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · No MA needed for my recent EF L lenses


I don't have micro adjust but have noticed canon's latest products seem to be much more accurate than before.


Feb 01, 2012 at 09:42 PM
teebat
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · No MA needed for my recent EF L lenses


Photon wrote:
I noticed that the four lenses I most recently purchased all focus perfectly with no micro-adjustment. Well, ok, one is the 24 TS-E , and manual focus using LV doesn't count, but the 300/2.8 IS II, 70-200/4 IS, and 70-200/2.8 IS II all nail AF right out of the box. I tested carefully using the "moire target" method, and could not improve on the results. In contrast, the majority of my older L primes and zooms benefit from a few points of MA, and the 135 L (my oldest L) gets +14 to become a super sharp lens.

I mention all
...Show more

+1 I agree. I think MA can help but I also believe it was because so many lenses & bodies were being returned. Some lenses to 3 trips before the got it right, I think sometimes they cleaned them and just sent it back.

just my opinion.



Feb 01, 2012 at 10:17 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password