# 16-35 MKII USM L > Lens Alignment tool with MA..which looks better?



## revup67 (Jun 30, 2012)

I wasn't sure initially but thought perhaps my 16-35 may have been slightly soft in certain areas of the photos. I finally got out the Lens Alignment tool (MK II version) and set up for preparation

The first image is at "0" whereas the second image has an added Front Focus adjustment of +5. I'm curious as to your thoughts as to which one looks better either photo ending with 75 @ 0 or photo ending with 79 which has the +5 adjustment..I think I'm going blind after staring at dots and stripes for 2 hours. If you can try and ignore the lighting (slight difference) - these are crops from RAW's as JPGs no sharpness or unsharp or other enhancements were done of course. If you think they are both off then advise..thanks n advance..download if need be to zoom


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 30, 2012)

The exposure is slightly different in both as well the framing or cropping is different so it's hard to tell for sure. A more controlled test might yield better comparison's and feedback.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 30, 2012)

I found that it was difficult to intrepret the lens align images, I setup the camera and took a reference image using contrast detect in live view, and then tried to match what I saw by adjusting the AFMA.
When I switched to using FoCal, life was much easier, since the software does a sharpness analysis of the image, and I have never found it to be wrong. Wide angle lenses are just difficult due to their depth of field. I think the top image looks best.

100mm with contrast detect






100mm after MA


----------



## Warninglabel (Jun 30, 2012)

Top one is sharper


----------



## revup67 (Jun 30, 2012)

> I found that it was difficult to intrepret the lens align images, I setup the camera and took a reference image using contrast detect in live view, and then tried to match what I saw by adjusting the AFMA.



I had not thought about the Face View mode which offers the live contrast although I did use Live View and magnified at 10x for hole line up. To line that hole up was a royal pain. Took quite awhile as you say the UWA's are difficult to do. I opted to do some reading on FoCal and saw a varied degree of opinions but still may check into it though I've been fairly happy up to today with the LA MKI. Seems the majority is out so far at 2 to 0 for the default setting thanks to all that contributed here). PS went to the Michael tapes site and reviewed the instructions but might add it makes more sense having the camera near the USB cable/PC so you can download without removing the camera off the tripod and disrupting your setup. You could then review /images on screen and review. That is a time saver for sure.


----------



## suburbia (Jun 30, 2012)

I ended up feeling happy only after the focal route because it gave an automated independently verified scientific approach. Instead of spending too long worrying about my interpretation of various visual cues and just ending up with a headache!

Note the 5D MKIII profile on focal is still semi-auto


----------



## SteenerMe (Jun 30, 2012)

Agree the first looks best, but still off a bit maybe...


----------



## revup67 (Jun 30, 2012)

> Agree the first looks best, but still off a bit maybe...



Thanks but when you say off a bit maybe, do you believe it is front or back focusing ?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 30, 2012)

revup67 said:


> > Agree the first looks best, but still off a bit maybe...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks but when you say off a bit maybe, do you believe it is front or back focusing ?


 
Its close to perfect, but compare it with a image that uses contrase detect. 

The autofocus system works best in very bright light, and tests should be made wiith a lot of light.

Also, your camera needs to be aligned with the lens align tool so that the red in the center hole is not visible (The little hole is centered). Only then is the alignment good enough to be able to get a accurate and repeatable AFMA value. I can't see well enough to determine if its centered.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 30, 2012)

Tough to tell without being able to view at 100%, but the second one is front focused, and the first/top one is slightly front focused. So, you'll need a negative AFMA. 

Is this at 35mm? You might get different results at 16mm or 24mm. 

Personally, I think the LensAlign (I have the old Pro version) delivers excellent results - but testing multiple lenses, at multiple focal lengths for zooms, is tedious and time consuming. That's why I like FoCal - I get equivalent results, and while it's not too much faster, I don't have to spend all that time shooting the images, I can set it up and walk away.


----------



## revup67 (Jul 1, 2012)

> Also, your camera needs to be aligned with the lens align tool so that the red in the center hole is not visible (The little hole is centered). Only then is the alignment good enough to be able to get a accurate and repeatable AFMA value. I can't see well enough to determine if its centered.



Yes you are correct on the hole alignment. It appears spot on meaning the hole is centered with a small trace of red around the outer edge of the hole being visible. I can try again, use brighter light and also use the Face View mode. It was at 16mm and the distance was about a foot and a half (site recommended min. 1.31 feet at 16mm) so was within normal range. Was wondering if I have to test this 16-35 at all ranges or just one?


----------



## revup67 (Jul 1, 2012)

> Tough to tell without being able to view at 100%, but the second one is front focused, and the first/top one is slightly front focused. So, you'll need a negative AFMA. Is this at 35mm? You might get different results at 16mm or 24mm.



I reverted back to the first setting which was the default "0" and will prob tweak more (left tripods in same exact position. This was at 16mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2012)

revup67 said:


> It was at 16mm and the distance was about a foot and a half (site recommended min. 1.31 feet at 16mm) so was within normal range. Was wondering if I have to test this 16-35 at all ranges or just one?



The usual advice for a zoom lens is to test at the long end - that's where DoF will be thinnest and focus most critical. Personally, I test at both ends and in the middle (more tests for a broader zoom range), and two different test distances, and decide on the best setting considering relative DoF and the focal length(s) and subject distance(s) I use most commonly with the particular lens.


----------



## revup67 (Jul 1, 2012)

Neuro and Mt. Spokane..which version of Focal did you acquire? Any downsides? Looks to be about $100 USD for the Pro version..couldn't locate a try before you buy as a few others did not like the app..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2012)

I have the Pro version. No real downsides. There were a couple of bugs, the developer is very responsive. Maybe one downside - it probably won't support my 1D X the day I get it (but IIRC the 5DIII shares the same SDK, so I probably won't have to wait long).


----------



## revup67 (Jul 1, 2012)

I caught this on the FoCal site:


> Incidentally, Canon have acknowledged the need for multiple micro adjustment points on a zoom lens by allowing you to calibrate at both ends of the zoom range on the new EOS 1D-X camera



This is a great added benefit for MA users too bad solely for the 1D-X however.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2012)

revup67 said:


> I caught this on the FoCal site:
> 
> 
> > Incidentally, Canon have acknowledged the need for multiple micro adjustment points on a zoom lens by allowing you to calibrate at both ends of the zoom range on the new EOS 1D-X camera
> ...



The 5DIII has that feature, too.


----------



## revup67 (Jul 1, 2012)

Excellent I did see a T and a W in the MA for the 5DM3 so I guess the W setting would be for 16 and the T would be for 35 in the 16-35 lens example...makes sense - thanks


----------

