2mishka

On kits or digital software to calibrate my camera and lens. Any suggestions?

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

I used Spyder Lenscal
It works !!

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

I'm partial to Focus Tune. Can get it at Amazon for $125. Nice step by step Youtube tutorials on how to use it.

https://www.amazon.com/LensAlign-Fusion-Integrated-Calibration-System/dp/B00H86YVZ4/ref=sr_1_15?keywords=focus+tune+lens+calibration&qid=1560800847&s=gateway&sr=8-15

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Riekan’s FoCal is the most accurate system. No subjective judgements, and you get not only a graph of sharpness vs correction, you can get a graph of sharpness vs aperture and repeatability of the AF. Less than $100 for the pro version (less for the standard), and highly recommended. You can buy their target or print your own on any decent photo printer.

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

DON'T DO IT. Leave it alone. You will be sorry.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Surprise! Two consecutive posts with diametrically opposed opinions. And I agree with both. I tried several static products and made my own targets. Reading them has so much subjectivity that I felt I was worse off for using them. I did not trust the results.

I bought FoCal. The bottom line is that you must be fastidious about your technique to assure proper results. Warning: FoCal does not work on lower quality lenses.

If you are looking for a quick and cheap solution, follow billnikon's advice: leave it alone.

markinvictoria Loc: Victoria TX

If you want to do a test on your patience, religion, and mental stability...get a Tamron super zoom like the 18-400 with the Tap-in-console...then proceed to fine tune the lens. It would be lot less frustrating if Tamron would include a decent set of instructions. I believe Sigma has a similar system but haven't tried it. Results are usually a improvement...not sure if it's worth the effort.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

I have the Sigma and you are right, you need a lot of patience, religion and mental stability. If you want the full Monte, four distances for each of four focal lengths. To be sure, at least three shots at each point. By this time, you will need a good stiff drink. However, you are back to the same problem: reading those targets.

One subtle issue about these static tests is that the lens does not focus with each shot unless you defocus manually. FoCal defocuses the lens so it also measures the reproducibility of the focusing. This does not matter for static subjects but it may matter for moving objects as in sports and wildlife photography.

I have noticed that the microfocus adjustments do not vary much from the nearest and furthest distances or focal lengths. That reduces the need to calibrate in between those settings.

Before buying FoCal, make sure you it supports your camera. Also, a 600 mm lens requires about 40' between camera and target. Be sure you have that. If you shoot inside, the target has to be lit very brightly. Having a laptop is nice so you can tether it to the camera.

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

I have to wonder about any product that has almost 40% 1 or 2 star ratings?

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

This is a continuous debate on UHH (whether to calibrate or not) with excellent photographers on both sides of the equation. Interestingly, the anti-calibration folks that I have read never (up to now) say that they have tried it and it doesn’t work - they typically say they have never calibrated their lenses, they work just fine, and that you will do more harm than good, or send them to the factory for calibration of a specific lens to a specific camera.

Rather than replay all of that, let me just suggest that you read this post and also the link in it to the before and after results of an actual lens and decide for yourself: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-508300-1.html

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

Agreed. Many many folks just don't get it. Lens calibration is good for only one distance
Regardless of whatever folks have to say here. And many folks screw it up and lens ends up worse than when they started.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Bill, please read the link above of an actual test at various distances that I just posted and see if you still think that.

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

Lens calibration does not work that way. Sorry.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

What way is that? With all due respect, have you looked at the link? Are you willing to consider actual tested facts or just rely on unsubstantiated opinion? If you can demonstrate that the test is wrong, or if you have tested and found different results, please post them.

Cheers

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

I have a Sigma 100-400 Contemporary that was focusing fine then started going soft at moderate focal lengths. I talked to Sigma after starting a calibration using their dock. Thirty minutes into the process, I called Sigma with a few questions. Their suggestion, “box it up and send it to us, we’ll calibrate it.” Done! I should have it back next week.