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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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 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....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.
, 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.