My lenses used to be accurate to reasonably accurate on my non MA 5D, until I got a 1D3 and had everything serviced. Afterwards I realized that some of my lenses had been underperforming.
Now with my first new camera since servicing I actually didn't need any MA for 11 of the 12 EOS lenses, and the lens that needed MA is a 50L I didn't service together with the previous bodies.
For minor adjustment MA can be the difference between a perfect result or a trip to Canon.
Canon's manual states that in normal circumstances you shouldn't need to do MA. So as long as you don't need it, you don't have to worry about it, but it is nice to know it is there when you do need it.
MA was my main reason for replacing my aging 5D for the mk2.
I played around and found the problem I was having and made the adjustments to the lenses. They are much better now. Although, one is out a long way and might need to go to Canon. Thanks again.----Wigs
It's so strange to hear that some people need adjustment on all their lenses, while some are spot on at 0 for over 6 lenses. I am one of those that needed adjustment on all my lenses.
Canon 7D with the follow lenses & adjustment:
24-70L : -10
17-40L : -5
70-200 f/2.8 : -7
I also check all FL's on each zoom to make sure that the adjustment doesn't make it softer at different FL's. Only my 28-70L had that issue (requiring different adjustments at different FL's).
After the MA, my lenses are superbly sharp. I love this feature. I find it essential now that I've had a chance to play with it on the 50D/7D.
JimboCin wrote:
This is what I have found on my 7D:
- 70-200 f/2.8 IS = Minus 3
- 60mm = Plus 2
- 135mm = Minus 4
- 200 mm f/2.8 = Zero
- 300 mm f/4 IS = Plus 2
- 300 mm w/ 1.4 = Plus 4
- 24-105 = Plus 9.
jp129 wrote:
I am one of those that needed adjustment on all my lenses.
Canon 7D with the follow lenses & adjustment:
24-70L : -10
17-40L : -5
70-200 f/2.8 : -7
After the MA, my lenses are superbly sharp. I love this feature.
+1
I laid a measuring stick on the table at a 45-degree angle, with the 12" mark at the front plane of the box (marked with blue arrow)... http://loco-photo.com/images/kashi-0.jpg
85/1.8 with target at 50x = 4250mm (13.9')... MA = +15
50/1.4 with target at 50x = 2500mm (8.2')... MA = +8
28/1.8 with target at 50x = 1400mm (4.6')... MA = +14
70-200/2.8L = +4 MA
100-400L = +8 MA
Used the moire screen with the 1dMKIII for my 50 1.2, 16-35, 135, 180 macro and 70-200-2.8IS on 3 separate occasions and had zero micro adjustments. In fact I made micro adjustments and induced front or back focus. Guess I'm the 1 in 40. I also purchased all of the lenses from a reputable dealer who does not restock returned lenses and resell them as new.
I tried MA with my 7D and found that the results were all over the place. My camera is now sitting in the Canon service center in Virginia waiting to come back to me after having some 'electrical adjustments' and calibration of the AF system. I can't wait to get it back.
J. Allen wrote:
Used the moire screen with the 1dMKIII for my 50 1.2, 16-35, 135, 180 macro and 70-200-2.8IS on 3 separate occasions and had zero micro adjustments. In fact I made micro adjustments and induced front or back focus. Guess I'm the 1 in 40. I also purchased all of the lenses from a reputable dealer who does not restock returned lenses and resell them as new.
You have great luck! It's just the nature of manufacturing and tolerances. You just happen to be one of the very very few that needed no adjustments on any of your lenses or bodies. I don't feel that a lens or body that needs an adjustment to be "inferior" vs one that doesn't need any. It just happens to be a combination that works given out of spec or in spec pair or pairs.
jp129:
You have great luck! It's just the nature of manufacturing and tolerances. You just happen to be one of the very very few that needed no adjustments on any of your lenses or bodies. I don't feel that a lens or body that needs an adjustment to be "inferior" vs one that doesn't need any. It just happens to be a combination that works given out of spec or in spec pair or pairs.
I've always found this quote from Canon interesting:
Example situation and usage:
AF Microadjustment provides very precise adjustment of the AF focus precision. If the camera develops a focusing problem and there is no Canon Service Centre nearby, you can perform an AF Microadjustment as an emergency measure. You can then, when near a Service Centre, take the camera in for proper adjustment.
I'm not so sure relying aon MA as a permanent solution is a sound approach. My camera was also serviced by Canon early on, although I had no problems with it, to ensure it was within specs so perhaps that helps in the lack of need for any MA.
donmega wrote:
I just read this after seeing the link you posted. Looks VERY promising. I'm going to give it a try when I get my 7D back from Canon tomorrow. Thanks!
--Don
Don,
I had tried every other method but made a printed copy of that one for use in case one step or another slips my memory - I think it's that good.
Using the technique described there is a real eye-opener, and it really makes it possible to dial in each lens very accurately. Also, I'd never noticed the amount of fine detail contained in a US currency bill!
The EOS utility enables viewing the target at a very magnified level - much larger and thus clearer than any view through the camera itself provides, even at 10x.
Once the camera is connected and the program is opened to the 'camera settings' third option the screens which open with each choice will show you details to focus on, or assess your focus that are too small to be seen with the naked eye.
There's a little bit of tedium involved. Each time an adjustment is needed the camera needs to be disconnected in order to be able to open the menu, and doing so closes the EOS program. So each adjustment means starting anew but it becomes a matter of only a few clicks and a few seconds and so isn't all that bad. I think it's well worth the trouble.
Although it's not the subject of this thread this method also allows for an assessment of the sharpness ability of the lenses and I'd advise to be prepared to accept that some lenses simply are not as sharp as others. Doing this on-screen viewing will easily point up the fact that with some lenses a seemingly poor focus is not a matter of focus at all and IS instead the lens's inherently lower acuity.
If you have a 100mm f/2.8 macro, 300mm F/4L, a 400mm f/5.6, (especially these two) or any of the faster long Canon lenses be prepared to be plumb amazed that ANYTHING could be so sharp!
The (or my) 135mm f/2 is also very sharp, but perhaps a little less so than the 300mm or 400mm. Zooms, and I have 24-70mm, 24-105mm, 70-200mm f/4 IS, are sharp but not at all as sharp as the mentioned primes. (I was surprised to find, or to prove, that my particular 24-105mm is capable of finer sharpness than the 24-70mm that I bought with an idea to replace it). The 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 are about equals for me - very good, but not quite crystal sharp clear. I suppose this is where talk of examples begins..
It's also possible to use the EOS Utilities to guage the varying sharpness of lenses over their aperture range too, but that's also off the topic.
When I was doing it I moved my tripod closer or farther depending on which lens was being adjusted. I wanted to have a very large view - only a portion of Jackson's fine visage. Be sure that you don't get closer than a lens can focus. I have a 24 ft office/shop/dungeon here that allows plenty of room for all of the lenses I own. Mostly I was within ten feet of the bill taped perfectly flat on a wall.
The mirror thing is kind of difficult - my camera wouldn't find focus on it when looking at itself. Your result may be better than mine, but in any case the idea is to have the lens perfectly aligned on target and not taking an angled view.
I think we all owe that fellow Aresh, whoever he is, a Thanks for putting this method down so clearly.
edit: One thing more: AF does not ALWAYS hit the same point of focus twice, or repeatedly. If you do this dollar bill trick you'll see that it will range one point (click of "<" ">" keys) in either direction from one time to the next. Repeately throwing it out of focus and focusing again will hit good focus most of the time and I guess that's the best we can hope for. I doubt if any of the variance could be seen in even a small print.
J. Allen wrote:
I've always found this quote from Canon interesting:
Example situation and usage:
AF Microadjustment provides very precise adjustment of the AF focus precision. If the camera develops a focusing problem and there is no Canon Service Centre nearby, you can perform an AF Microadjustment as an emergency measure. You can then, when near a Service Centre, take the camera in for proper adjustment.
I'm not so sure relying aon MA as a permanent solution is a sound approach. My camera was also serviced by Canon early on, although I had no problems with it, to ensure it was within specs so perhaps that helps in the lack of need for any MA. ...Show more →
I agree. If the camera were right there'd be little need for the MF. Trouble is that plenty of people have sent cameras to Canon with focus complaints only to be told that their camera is 'within specs' and returned not improved. So the MF at least provides a way around that somewhat hit or miss adventure of sending a camera to it's maker.
J. Allen wrote:
I've always found this quote from Canon interesting:
Example situation and usage:
AF Microadjustment provides very precise adjustment of the AF focus precision. If the camera develops a focusing problem and there is no Canon Service Centre nearby, you can perform an AF Microadjustment as an emergency measure. You can then, when near a Service Centre, take the camera in for proper adjustment.
I'm not so sure relying aon MA as a permanent solution is a sound approach. My camera was also serviced by Canon early on, although I had no problems with it, to ensure it was within specs so perhaps that helps in the lack of need for any MA. ...Show more →
That is very interesting, thanks for posting that. I just figure that if it works, it works. My pictures come out consistently tack sharp after the MA so I find no need to send it in. Just like Steve said, sometimes no adjustment is made if they find it "within specs".
J. Allen wrote:
I've always found this quote from Canon interesting:
Example situation and usage:
AF Microadjustment provides very precise adjustment of the AF focus precision. If the camera develops a focusing problem and there is no Canon Service Centre nearby, you can perform an AF Microadjustment as an emergency measure. You can then, when near a Service Centre, take the camera in for proper adjustment.
I'm not so sure relying aon MA as a permanent solution is a sound approach. My camera was also serviced by Canon early on, although I had no problems with it, to ensure it was within specs so perhaps that helps in the lack of need for any MA. ...Show more →
The example Canon is giving is for a body that develops a focus issue, you can use the MA as a temp fix until you can have the issue resolved at service as something has clearly gone wrong.
In the main MA is used to combat a lens front\back focus issue. You may have 5 lenses that focus fine and one that has a slight front focus. Your opions are to resolve it using MA or send it in for a service that may or may not fix the issue. Most prefer to use MA as it is the quicker fix and you have control over it. I'm not aware of any side effects documented from using MA correctly?
