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

  

Archive 2012 · FoCal question, 400DO + TC weirdness
  
 
mco_970
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · FoCal question, 400DO + TC weirdness


I borrowed a friend's 400DO lens this afternoon, and it MAs to -17 using FoCal. I checked it on a 2nd body, and it's testing out to -19! Eeks. But when I mount a 1.4x TC on the lens and re-do the testing, it's only at -4.

Would a TC somehow be corrective for the 400DO lens??

It makes it hard to tell if the lens actually needs serviced or not. This lens has been repaired by Canon once, and my friend fell with it last season, but thought it still was working OK...

I think I am going to return the lens to him ASAP in any event, just not sure what to tell him at this point. I have not field tested it, and am not too excited to go spend a couple of hours with this lens in my bird blind if it's going to be wasted effort (soft images).



Apr 08, 2012 at 01:58 AM
cputeq
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · FoCal question, 400DO + TC weirdness


Yeah it's possible, which is why bodies will register different MA settings with and without TCs. A TC can be "off" but in the opposite direction, which can nullify a lens's error, to an extent, or if you're really unlucky they'll magnify the error.


If the MA is that far off on two bodies, it might not be a bad idea to get it checked out, though I'm not sure if it's reading that much on his body or not?

Also, there's always the argument - MA is doing what it's supposed to do! I'd also pop off a few shots with the 1.4x and see how they come out - might work just fine..



Apr 08, 2012 at 03:12 AM
AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · FoCal question, 400DO + TC weirdness


Michelle,
That's why Canon recommends to do MA for the bare lens by itself and with a TC as a separate setting. As long as the lens can be adjusted within the MA adjustment range, then it should still be OK.

Edited on Apr 08, 2012 at 03:28 AM · View previous versions



Apr 08, 2012 at 03:23 AM
scalesusa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · FoCal question, 400DO + TC weirdness


If the camera or lens is in warranty, send both in for a adjustment. If not, use the AFMA and hope that it does not go offscale in the future with a new camera body.


Apr 08, 2012 at 03:26 AM
Jim Victory
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · FoCal question, 400DO + TC weirdness


I have been getting some different readings with my long lenses with and without a TC using Focal.

I have run other MA test using my old method of shooting a resolution chart at different MA settings and looking at them at 100% and 200% to get the sharpess settings.

I have compared them to the Focal MA suggestions and my manual MA test settings are much better. I'm getting a target confirmation with the Focal but the MA settings are not the best possible.

I can compare 20 MA settings, both negative and positive, manually and get several in the negative and positive ranges that look close to each other. You would expect a gradual change in sharpness as you moved up the setting level but I get one at 2 that compares to one at -6 that compares to one at 5 and so on. I also notice that the sharpess examples are also the largest size in MP

Jim.



Apr 08, 2012 at 03:30 AM
mco_970
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · FoCal question, 400DO + TC weirdness


Thanks for the responses - Jim, I will definitely give manually verifying MA a go tomorrow just as a curiosity.

My friend primarily uses the lens for lizard research projects, so mostly MF at MFD w/ a Zacuto finder. Could be that he won't care if the AF is off.

The lens probably is 10 years old, so definitely out of warranty.

I will post some samples when I have them. Kind of academically interested now...



Apr 08, 2012 at 03:46 AM
mco_970
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · FoCal question, 400DO + TC weirdness


I am re-running the test indoors at nearer to MFD (15' - which is how the lens is used) and the MA number is +3. I have tested it twice.

I also tested my new 17-55 and I got a really off the wall high results at the 35mm mark on the first test, then a more consistent result on the second test (after stopping FoCal and restarting everything).

Wondering if there's some bad code introduction in the newest version of FoCal, memory corruption, etc. It does not seem as consistent as earlier versions were.



Apr 08, 2012 at 09:01 PM
thedutt
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · FoCal question, 400DO + TC weirdness


400 do is a very interesting beast. When I was researching it, I called canon and the rep explained that once a 400 gets out of alignment , even service center cannot bring it back to 100%. He suggested to carefully evaluate if buying new and avoid buying used?
Given that I would not borrow one.....



Apr 09, 2012 at 12:22 AM
uz2work
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · FoCal question, 400DO + TC weirdness


thedutt wrote:
400 do is a very interesting beast. When I was researching it, I called canon and the rep explained that once a 400 gets out of alignment , even service center cannot bring it back to 100%. He suggested to carefully evaluate if buying new and avoid buying used?
Given that I would not borrow one.....


I have no idea where that kind of crap comes from, but I suspect it is the kind of misinformation that, when repeated a few times, gives birth to internet myths. My experience is that the 400 DO is just as likely to be capable of being properly serviced as is any other lens.

To the OP, I don't have as much faith in micro adjustment as some others do. Precise results require absolutely perfect positioning of the camera in relation to the focus target. If the height is off by just a bit or if the plane of the sensor is not perfectly parallel to that of the focus target, the results will be off. I've tried various methods, both home-made and commercially made, and I've seen that either can produce inconsistent results. Because it is possible to drive oneself crazy with micro adjust, I've finally come to the position that I don't worry about it until/unless I see consistent front or back focusing in real world pictures. If I do see either, then I do the best job I can of making a micro adjustment, and I judge the results of that adjustment by seeing if, in real world shooting, I'm still seeing consistent front or back focusing. I suppose that the good news is that, if you are off by a few adjustment points, the effect when looking at actual prints, not screen images at 200%, is negligible.

Les



Apr 09, 2012 at 01:07 AM
PetKal
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · FoCal question, 400DO + TC weirdness


uz2work wrote:
I have no idea where that kind of crap comes from, but I suspect it is the kind of misinformation that, when repeated a few times, gives birth to internet myths. My experience is that the 400 DO is just as likely to be capable of being properly serviced as is any other lens.

Les


My experience corroborates that: I had an independent shop, which didn't have much prior experience with that particular lens, dismantle my 400 DO, replace the MF mechanism as well as all IS related assemblies, then they put it back together, checked it out, and as far as lens IQ was concerned, it was as good as before the repair, i.e., satisfactory.
Naturally, the replaced lens MF and IS worked like a charm again. No problem whatsoever, a great piece of repair work done there.



Apr 09, 2012 at 01:50 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



mco_970
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · FoCal question, 400DO + TC weirdness


I will probably give the lens a whirl tomorrow in the bird blind and see what happens. I am setup where my target is parallel, etc. - I use my tile floor and the setup is just about perfect. I have had very good luck with it so far and am quite happy with how my long teles are performing with the micro-AF adjustments recommended by FoCal.

I did send a comment about my issue to FoCal support, because it does seem like the current version is a bit flaky compared to the previous iteration.



Apr 09, 2012 at 02:20 AM
lowa2
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · FoCal question, 400DO + TC weirdness


Can't wait to see some test shots Michelle...I've been eyeballing this lens for a whole :-)


Apr 09, 2012 at 02:46 AM
Jim Victory
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · FoCal question, 400DO + TC weirdness


It is quite easy to set up a testing system for MA. I use levels and lasers to make sure my target and lens are perfectly aligned. If you do it properly you will see the results in your photographs.

It is especially nice when using fast lenses where the difference in MA settings are more crucial. Those of you that choose not to use this function on your camera, that offers it, are not utilizing a nice tool to assure properly focused shots.

Jim



Apr 09, 2012 at 04:52 AM
thedutt
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · FoCal question, 400DO + TC weirdness


uz2work wrote:
I have no idea where that kind of crap comes from, but I suspect it is the kind of misinformation that, when repeated a few times, gives birth to internet myths. My experience is that the 400 DO is just as likely to be capable of being properly serviced as is any other lens.
Les


If you noticed, I indicated where this "crap" came from. It came straight from the factory service center support line, to be specific the Virginia center.

The individual I spoke with, reasoned that the lens design of DO is more complicated and the analogy he used was that two elements are setup for DO as pitcher and catcher. If these get out of slight alignment due to a hit or a drop, even the guys in VA service center (where this rep was) would not be able to get it back to 100% factory spec (I think he indicated that they will be able to make it pretty good, say 95% but not original tight factory tolerance). This did explain some of the good copy vs bad copy issues that folks have indicated on this lens significantly more than others.

Les, are you a lens expert and/or have serviced many copies of this lens? If so, I would happily take your word for it vs the rep on the phone.



Apr 09, 2012 at 05:07 AM
stanj
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · FoCal question, 400DO + TC weirdness


Same experience here. The last time I used the 400DO with a TC was on my 1Ds3, and the calibration was equally surprising. But that was in 2009 and I have never used it with a TC since, as the 400 DO doesn't really like to be stretched that thin with current high density sensors.


Jim Victory wrote:
I use levels and lasers to make sure my target and lens are perfectly aligned.


... and I thought I was OCD



Apr 09, 2012 at 05:13 AM
stanj
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · FoCal question, 400DO + TC weirdness


I had my 400 DO serviced once, and while they did bring it back to perfect condition, it cost a good chunk of change ($500 or so I believe, for a cleaning that it badly needed after dust got everywhere at a safari).

The one lens that Canon was unable to fix, despite four attempts at two different service centers, was the 28-300. The last attempt was made by allegedly very senior people as "official Canon business", I guess they were trying to figure out why they can't fix it. But no dice: Apparently when something gets a bit out of whack on that one, you're doomed. After some begging and prodding, they just sent me a brand new one.



Apr 09, 2012 at 05:18 AM
Jim Victory
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · FoCal question, 400DO + TC weirdness


stanj wrote:
... and I thought I was OCD


If you have the tech why not us it

Actually I had several levels and laser lights that were not being used and once I set up my apparatus on a spare tripod it was a permanent and easily adjustable system.

I wish Focal was more dependable but even with their target confirmation the settings they are suggesting are not the best.

Jim



Apr 09, 2012 at 05:54 AM
uz2work
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · FoCal question, 400DO + TC weirdness


thedutt wrote:
If you noticed, I indicated where this "crap" came from. It came straight from the factory service center support line, to be specific the Virginia center.

The individual I spoke with, reasoned that the lens design of DO is more complicated and the analogy he used was that two elements are setup for DO as pitcher and catcher. If these get out of slight alignment due to a hit or a drop, even the guys in VA service center (where this rep was) would not be able to get it back to 100% factory spec (I think he indicated that
...Show more

I don't question, at all, the fact that the design of the DO may be more complicated than that of other lenses. What I do question is whether the lens is any less likely to be able to be repaired within factory spec than other lenses. With the internet being what it is and with the way the internet attracts complainers, both justified and unjustified, I don't recall, on any of the several internet forums that I've followed for years, having ever seen anyone post complaining that they sent a 400 DO to Canon for repair/calibration and that Canon was unable to do the repair/calibration to within spec. I'm sure that it is possible for a lens to be unrepairable. A couple of years ago, I had a 1.4x that had fallen out of spec, and Canon service was unable to bring it back withing spec. And the optics on a 1.4x are about as simple as lens optics can be. Thus, my point is not that there could never be a 400 DO that could not be satisfactorily be repaired. Instead, it is that I have seen no evidence that the likelihood of that happening is significantly greater for the 400 DO than it would be for any other lens.



Apr 09, 2012 at 04:47 PM
thedutt
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · FoCal question, 400DO + TC weirdness


uz2work wrote:
[I don't question, at all, the fact that the design of the DO may be more complicated than that of other lenses. What I do question is whether the lens is any less likely to be able to be repaired within factory spec than other lenses. With the internet being what it is and with the way the internet attracts complainers, both justified and unjustified, I don't recall, on any of the several internet forums that I've followed for years, having ever seen anyone post complaining that they sent a 400 DO to Canon for repair/calibration and that Canon was
...Show more

Fair enough, I have limited exposure to 400DO and very seriously considered it to be my first super tele but upon advise here and after talking with canon rep and getting the data that he shared, I was sold. It does explain the "bad contrast" copy to copy issues it has. Also, I am generally a tough customer, but this rep appeared very knowledgeable and went above and beyond in his service to me.

Anyhow, take it for what its worth. If there are any lens experts here ( Lensrental folks maybe?) who can chime in, that could clear this "crap" up for good.




Apr 10, 2012 at 02:20 AM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password