I've been on the Canon forums and there is a thread discussing micro-adjust to get a camera-lens combo perfectly sharp. It appears quite normal in this camp to expect the need to fine-tune each camera-lens combo. However, I've never seen the topic mentioned in Nikon forum so I'm curious? 1) Is this feature available in Nikon? 2) If not, is there a need or is the sharpness of Nikon body-lens combinations that spot on when purchased? Thanks,
Kevin
i have the:
14-24
16-35
24-70
70-200 VR II
300/2.8 VR
on
D3
D700
i purchased and tested my lenses using a lens align tool after a year and a half of good use. i found within a margin of error that at least my lenses were satisfactory for my uses. my images do not require anwhere near as much post work out of the nikon box as they did with coming from my then canons.
when i was using Canon i did need to tweak a bit here and there.
The feature is available on the higher end bodies. I'm sure I'll miss one, but the D300/s, the D700 and the D3/s/x all have it. I'm not sure if the D7000 does though?
VTHokiEE06 wrote:
The feature is available on the higher end bodies. I'm sure I'll miss one, but the D300/s, the D700 and the D3/s/x all have it. I'm not sure if the D7000 does though?
Where Canon seems to promote the use of this, Nikon almost warns against it. In the manual for the D3 / D3s, Nikon talks more about the lenses not reaching the min and max distances after adjustments. I only use it on a 400f2.8 with the 2X TC. Everything else doesn't need it for what I do.
Until your responses, I had no idea that the feature was available on Nikon bodies. So what impresses me is that even though the option is there, it does not appear that it is needed. The Canon camp seems to just expect that it's something they have to do. That bothers me being in the Canon camp. I'm considering picking up a Nikon body and lens and learning the system as I keep riding the fence of jumping over.
Gyrine wrote:
Until your responses, I had no idea that the feature was available on Nikon bodies. So what impresses me is that even though the option is there, it does not appear that it is needed. The Canon camp seems to just expect that it's something they have to do. That bothers me being in the Canon camp. I'm considering picking up a Nikon body and lens and learning the system as I keep riding the fence of jumping over.
uh oh have your lenses magically became less sharp after learning about this feature? I hate when that happens.
I've had it both on Canon and Nikon cameras.
Sigma 50 1.4 needed - 14
Nikon 50 1.8 (gone through 3 before found 1 that focuses correctly wide open) needed it. This was the main reason I sold my D90 since it lacked this feature and the 50 1.8 had a front focus 2ice and back focus once.
Dont think its maker specific. However, I can say outright that none of the Nikon zooms I've used needed this.
24-70,
70-200 VR 1 and VR 2.
70-300 (F stop on these isnt as wide, so probably harder to notice)
300mm 2.8 AF-S II
Ben, no I have not fallen into the trap about believing my lenses are suddenly less sharp. I did though have to send a 24-70/2.8 lens in for calibration because the lens itself was off and needed adjustments. When I first inquired about it other users simply suggested I micro-adjust. I didn't do that as I simply had the lens adjusted by Canon service and now it's sharp but it brought to my attention that this topic is fairly common on the Canon thread and I think until I started this topic....non-existent in the Nikon camp. Spending my hard earned money, I just want to know if quality control is that much better in Nikon world. At least in terms of that perspective, it would appear the answer is yes.
All of my Nikon lenses have required minor adjustment for perfection, normally four points of adjustment or less. They'd probably be within tolerances for most users and according to the manufacturer.
I do extensive testing for each lens with a focus test chart, tripod, multiple focus distances, and FL's for zooms. It's worth the effort to me. I wouldn't buy a new body without the feature.
I have both Nikon and Canon systems: It is not even a "Dirty little secret" that Canon lenses (the teles especially the "Great Whites" an exception) routinely need MA. Indeed I got tired of calibrating lenses (controversy rages as to the best way-my fall back is to calibrate in the venue under actual conditions) with various bodies.
I shot their 35L for years wide open with a legacy 5D and gave up on AF. I used MF and seldom got critical focus but that was better than NEVER getting focus. Later, with a newer Canon body with the 900dpi LCD and MA, I discovered and "fixed" the problem-more than once.
It may be this is a bigger problem for WA lenses (although my Canon 15mm FE is a focus hero on various bodies)? The virtue of the super fast ISO of the D3/D3s is that I can use the F2.8 zooms. Their, mandatory, F2.8 DOF goes a long way to solving focus problems.
So let's seen how Nikon's critical focus fares @ F1.4 now that they have the 24 and 35.
Nikon isn't perfect with their lenses either, and honestly I can't figure out why. The pro f2.8 stuff is pretty much hand-made and tested; I guess they just get them to 'within spec' and let 'em go. Haven't said that, I do think Nikon has tighter reqirements for a passing lens than Canon. it's rare to hear of someone going through multiple copies to 'get a good one', and many of their lenses are spot-on. My 14-24 & 24-70 were perfect out of the box, the 70-200 VRI required a slight fine tune.
