Lens Calibration (Page 3): :sm24: :sm24:...

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

TriX wrote:

I have also been shooting for more than 50 years, ... (show quote)

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

OnDSnap wrote:

Some are just satisfied with what they get and not what may be possible.

NormanTheGr8 Loc: Racine, Wisconsin

baygolf wrote:

I use FoCal software to calibrate all my lenses. Certain Canon camera allows for micro adjustments to both wide and tele end of zoom lenses. I also have a Tamron Tap-In console which allows me to input adjustments into the lens as opposed to the camera body for Tamron lenses. However, I have multiple camera bodies and use my Tamron lenses on both cameras, so I do input micro adjustment into the lens only the body.

FoCal works well for me!

FoCal was the best software I have purchased even my Canon 100_400LII needed a minor tweek .I try to check them every 3 to 4 months, well worth the cost and no guessing on my part .

RRS Loc: Not sure

billnikon wrote:

Nikon advises against folks doing their own calibrations, I wonder why that is?

Ok, then why did Nikon add to their high end bodies a program to "Fine Tune" by first shooting a shot in Live View and then being able to use it as a standard for camera calibration? You should maybe call Nikon and get a better reading on this subject. There are too many photographers out there that just enjoy their hobby and would never clean a sensor or God forbid even try and fine tune or micro-adjust a camera body or lens. Something to think about as has already been pointed out, maybe the AF system in the bodies that don't allow for AF adjustments are built to a closer standard. If you can't see a problem then don't mess with it but if you do and now it doesn't look right after you've tried it's so easy to return to where you were before you started. If I was Nikon or Canon or any other manufacturer of cameras I wouldn't want people messing with something on a camera body that they fully didn't understand that could result in producing out of focus pictures, can you imagine the adverse publicity, "keep your hand off"!!! there now I "CMA". This is a subject that can and seems to be thrown around here much to often and there's really no right or wrong answer. We should all just do whatever works for ourselves. There are those that do, those that won't and those that can't.

RRS Loc: Not sure

camerapapi wrote:

I have been shooting for more than 50 years and I ... (show quote)

I feel like I just have to comment of some of what you have said. This thread is about Lens calibration for AF. When we both started shooting a long time ago and I started back in 1954 before many reading this were even born, OK so there are a lot of old folks here reading this. There was no AF back then just manual focusing and if your shots, B&W looked bad you needed eye calibration, glasses. Loved the split image focusing. A lot of things have changed and along comes AF and as good as it is it's not perfect or always repeatable. So much of what kind of photography we do or the lenses we use and buy will determine if any of this is applicable or not. With the lenses that we use being shot wide open when the DOF can change from inches to feet we do what ever we can to try and make all of this investment work and I have invested a lot in time , money and education. Someone that always shoots in good light and 3 stops down from wide open will never see or luckily have a problem. Sure hope you have enjoyed this wonderful hobby and vocation as much as I have, paid all of my bills for over 25 years, now I just enjoy.

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee

Has anybody ever posted before tuning and after tuning photos of a target they use to determine such an adjustment? Something like "here's a shot of the target with the lens in question before any adjustment and here's a shot at +10. See how much sharper it is". Some empirical visual evidence that this works or doesn't work would be a welcome addition to the never ending lens tuning debate.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

saxman71 wrote:

Has anybody ever posted before tuning and after tuning photos of a target they use to determine such an adjustment? Something like "here's a shot of the target with the lens in question before any adjustment and here's a shot at +10. See how much sharper it is". Some empirical visual evidence that this works or doesn't work would be a welcome addition to the never ending lens tuning debate.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-448768-1.html (halfway down on the 1st page...)

AndyW Loc: KY

I recently bought a used Sigma 120-300 Sport lens that was front focusing. I calibrated it on my D810 with the USB dock and it does a much better job now. I had to call Sigma's tech support to find out at what distances to test it though.

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

camerapapi wrote:

I have been shooting for more than 50 years and I ... (show quote)

How not true. Every camera/ lens combination can be off by minute degrees. It can be the lens, the body or both. Sometimes if the lens is manufactured with a negative tolerance and and the body positive, it is possible that combination will never be correct.

Manufacturing includes allowable tolerances and the software in your camera is designed to adjust for the best possible focus.

There is a good chance you can be lucky... but I personally have had an issue like what I describe.

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee

TriX wrote:

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-448768-1.html (halfway down on the 1st page...)

I can easily see a clear difference which should be enough to end the discussion - but I'm sure it won't. Thank you for suppling the link TriX.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

catchlight.. wrote:

How not true. Every camera/ lens combination can be off by minute degrees. It can be the lens, the body or both. Sometimes if the lens is manufactured with a negative tolerance and and the body positive, it is possible that combination will never be correct.

Manufacturing includes allowable tolerances and the software in your camera is designed to adjust for the best possible focus.

There is a good chance you can be lucky... but I personally have had an issue like what I describe.

gessman Loc: Colorado

mwsilvers wrote:

Absolutely agree. It is all about manufacturing tolerances. I've been saying that for years, but few people want to listen.

For those that say 100% of their lenses are always spot-on I would suggest they may be getting very good results from their lenses as is, but probably don't realize they could be getting better results from some of them. I know I thought that way for a long time years ago until I started calibrating my lenses and saw the thin veil lifted from many of my images

Very interesting! Remember our discussion back when about the 60d not being able to be calibrated and having to go to the factory? My, my, how things do change.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

gessman wrote:

Very interesting! Remember our discussion back when about the 60d not being able to be calibrated and having to go to the factory? My, my, how things do change.

I' not sure which discussion you are referring to, but if it was about supposed Canon 60D focus issues, there weren't any. Every other lens I own, over one dozen, worked fine with that camera. The old Sigma 30mm f/1.4 was the exception, not the rule, and even it worked just fine when stopped down to f/4. Auto focus was a bit problematic at f/1.4 and less so at f/2.8 and so I had it calibrated to my camera by Sigma. I drove to the Commack, NY headquarters and they did it for me for free in around 20 minutes.

gessman Loc: Colorado

mwsilvers wrote:

I' not sure which discussion you are referring to,... (show quote)

I advised several people not to get the 60d because it couldn't be microadjusted and had to be sent into the factory and you berated me for a few days because of my comments. Remember now?

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

mwsilvers wrote:

Absolutely agree. It is all about manufacturing tolerances. I've been saying that for years, but few people want to listen.

For those that say 100% of their lenses are always spot-on I would suggest they may be getting very good results from their lenses as is, but probably don't realize they could be getting better results from some of them. I know I thought that way for a long time years ago until I started calibrating my lenses and saw the thin veil lifted from many of my images

I do not fine turn lenses and I print out show prints 20X30 that are tack sharp. Maybe when my prints stop selling I will consider looking into fine turning.
My printer sharpens my prints regardless weather they need it or not. So I see NO reason for fine tuning a lens. With post processing sharpening it seems fine tuning a lens is already OUTDATED.