# Why you should calibrate Canon EF Lenses



## SPKoko (Jul 14, 2017)

Reikan Focal has just released this interesting article with some graphs showing the percentage of units of each Canon lens that will benefit from calibration:

http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/index.php/2017/07/calibrate-canon-ef-with-reikan-focal/

Honestly, I am not surprised by the high percentages. I do use Reikan Focal and all my fast primes need more or less calibration, but none of them is spot-on without MFA.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 15, 2017)

I took delivery of my new Canon 500mm f/4 MK II this week, thoroughly expecting my luck finally to run out, and that I'd have to AFMA it on my 7D Mk II.

Nope - it's spot-on naked, and with both the 1.4x and 2x TC...


----------



## Otara (Jul 15, 2017)

Pretty big potential selection bias by using the FoCal database to come up with these numbers. For a start, does it exclude people who havent done a good setup, in which case you can get errors where none may really exist.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 15, 2017)

Otara said:


> Pretty big potential selection bias by using the FoCal database to come up with these numbers. For a start, does it exclude people who havent done a good setup, in which case you can get errors where none may really exist.



Exactly! Buddy buys a lens, takes a bunch of test shots, and it is tack sharp so he doesn't run it through focal.....

Jane buys a lens, it is a bit soft, so she calibrates it.....

One of those self fulfilling prophecies......


And besides, this is a company that sells calibration software that is trying to convince you that you need to calibrate everything..... I find it hard to believe such results, particularly when the second best lens for calibration was the 18-200 super zoom..........


----------



## AlanF (Jul 15, 2017)

All of my lenses get put through FoCal as a matter of course. 2/13 require 0 AFMA.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 15, 2017)

AlanF said:


> All of my lenses get put through FoCal as a matter of course. 2/13 require 0 AFMA.



It can come down to a question of what is acceptable and what isn't. I have 11 lenses (I AFMA everything too), none of them had 0 AFMA, but about half were within 3 or 4 units.... the worst was around 14.

Interestingly enough, my worst lens was the Tamron 150-600, but after a LONG! Process with the tap-in console, it is now 0 for AFMA.... being able to AFMA for 6 different zoom values and 3 distances made the AF on this lens a dream to use....


----------



## stevelee (Jul 15, 2017)

I assume that my T3i doesn't support lens calibration, at least directly, and that a 6D II will. Right?


----------



## weixing (Jul 15, 2017)

Hi,
I just send the lenses and the body to Canon service center for calibration.

Have a nice day.


----------



## dpc (Jul 15, 2017)

I own two canon bodies and eight lenses. I've not felt the need to calibrate any of them. I guess my standards as to what is acceptable focus accuracy are lax.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 15, 2017)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> I just send the lenses and the body to Canon service center for calibration.
> 
> Have a nice day.



There are some downsides. It's quicker for me usually to AFMA a lens using FoCal than pack it for sending to Canon. If you send it to Canon, you risk the lens and camera being bumped out of adjustment by the postman on return, and you don't have use for a while. For telephotos, you have no choice of distance for where to optimise AFMA.




dpc said:


> I own two canon bodies and eight lenses. I've not felt the need to calibrate any of them. I guess my standards as to what is acceptable focus accuracy are lax.



You said it.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Jul 15, 2017)

I use Focal, tbh I am very happy with it, the software is great, from 11mm to 1000mm (500ii+2xiii) blar blar blar they are all in and around +\- 5 on two bodies, end of the day if you have the gear I think its only right to calibrate it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 15, 2017)

I just received my new 5D MK IV and will be using Focal to AFMA them all. Its easy to see if they may benefit, I tried my 24-70L and took identical photos of a flower using phase detect and DPAF. I could see more detail in the AFMA photo while the DPAF PDAFwas front focused. I won't know for sure until I do the AFMA, but I'd be surprised if my lenses did not benefit.

One potentially good thing about mirrorless is that there will be no need for AFMA, if focus is not within spec, the lens or the camera has a issue calling for repair.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 15, 2017)

Otara said:


> Pretty big potential selection bias by using the FoCal database to come up with these numbers. For a start, does it exclude people who havent done a good setup, in which case you can get errors where none may really exist.



So, do you think that those lenses that showed a need for a huge adjustment due to a poor setup should have been included to make things look worse yet?

No respectable statistician includes bad data, and no one knowledgable would believe results if they did.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I just received my new 5D MK IV and will be using Focal to AFMA them all. Its easy to see if they may benefit, I tried my 24-70L and took identical photos of a flower using phase detect and DPAF. I could see more detail in the AFMA photo while *the DPAF was front focused*. I won't know for sure until I do the AFMA, but I'd be surprised if my lenses did not benefit.
> 
> One potentially good thing about mirrorless is that there will be *no need for AFMA*, if focus is not within spec, the lens or the camera has a issue calling for repair.



If the DPAF shot (using the CMOS image sensor for phase AF) is front focused, that is a problem! Since on-sensor AF is the only option with MILCs, front- or back-focus can only be addressed by sending the camera in for service, at-home AFMA won't be an option.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 15, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I just received my new 5D MK IV and will be using Focal to AFMA them all. Its easy to see if they may benefit, I tried my 24-70L and took identical photos of a flower using phase detect and DPAF. I could see more detail in the AFMA photo while *the DPAF was front focused*. I won't know for sure until I do the AFMA, but I'd be surprised if my lenses did not benefit.
> ...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 15, 2017)

I spent a few hours getting setup, and did my testing outdoors today. There was almost too much light. 

Here is a summary of the FoCal Test Results.

One lens, my 24-70mm L MK II did not need AFMA, the others benefitted. I only included common lenses in the comparison with my 5D MK III values, Almost all of my lenses have been sold but 4. (I did not test my Tokina 17mm) I also did not test the 70-200mm with TC's. I could not run the Focal Test on the 100-400 with my 2X TC.

5D IV 5D III

24-70L II 24mm +3 70mm +1 24mm +1 70mm +4

100mm L 100mm +9

70-200mm L II 70mm +3 200mm +8 70mm 0 200mm +2

100-400mm L II 100mm +9 400mm +5
With 1.4X TC 140mm -8 560mm +3


----------



## Jopa (Jul 18, 2017)

Interesting thread. I use FoCal periodically or if I see something is clearly wrong or inconsistent. My 70-200 II had severe consistency problems, couldn't ever calibrate it, sent to Canon and now it's requiring 0 AFMA. My other Canon lenses are quite accurate - 0 AFMA, except of the 200/2 which requires +2. My only Sigma (85A) requires +6. I used to run calibration on 2 cameras, and both produce very similar results with either 0 or 1 difference, so now I just take one camera - 5DsR, where AF accuracy is most critical.

To me the only benefit of a mirrorless camera is no more need to do AFMA, because it's a boring manual process (FoCal can't just run in a full auto mode on Canon), which needs to be done from time to time... AF is a critical factor in a photo, no matter how good is a subject, light and composition if the focus is not there, so it's kind of important.


----------



## SPKoko (Jul 18, 2017)

Jopa said:


> *To me the only benefit of a mirrorless camera is no more need to do AFMA*, because it's a boring manual process (FoCal can't just run in a full auto mode on Canon), which needs to be done from time to time... AF is a critical factor in a photo, no matter how good is a subject, light and composition if the focus is not there, so it's kind of important.



Agree 100%. I also have a m43 camera and despite having a very painful continuous AF, its accuracy for static subjects is astonishing. On the opposite side, AF on my 70D is very fast and tracking is very good but when using large apertures it misses a lot of times (it is OKeyshis, but not very accurate) even after AFMA with FoCal.

That is why I am not going to get a 6DII as planned initially. I totally hate AFMA and not accurate AF these days. I tolerated that in the past, but after going through my m43, I know how accurate AF feels. I will patiently wait for a mirrorless Canon FF with EF mount for a couple of years more at least and if my patience gets exhausted, I will be forced to switch to Sony.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 18, 2017)

SPKoko said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > *To me the only benefit of a mirrorless camera is no more need to do AFMA*, because it's a boring manual process (FoCal can't just run in a full auto mode on Canon), which needs to be done from time to time... AF is a critical factor in a photo, no matter how good is a subject, light and composition if the focus is not there, so it's kind of important.
> ...



Yes, but as Neuro pointed out, if focus is off on the mirrorless, only shipping for service fixes things.

I don't understand why people moan and groan about AFMA, really. I can do any lens right from the camera's display screen within 10 minutes. Includes zooms with long and wide settings. All I need is a reliable target and a pair of reading glasses. Back patio has more than enough light in daytime.

AFMA is much less of a PITA than doing dishes, and, umm, ahem, somebody in the house does those every single day. :


----------



## Khalai (Jul 18, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> AFMA is much less of a PITA than doing dishes, and, umm, ahem, somebody in the house does those every single day. :



That's why humanity invented automated dishwashers  And also semi-automated AFMA system as well I guess..


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 18, 2017)

Jopa said:


> AF is a critical factor in a photo, no matter how good is a subject, light and composition if the focus is not there, so it's kind of important.



I'd change that to AF is a critical factor in most photos. I was shocked the first time I went to a Steve McCurry print exhibition, it wasn't so much the focus as the fact that nothing seemed to be sharp in any of his older pictures, and the truth is the older ones were far more compelling than his more recent and 'technically better' work.

There is no doubt that if the subject and composition is compelling enough it can overcome many technical limitations, but I grew up with film so 'accept' some limitations/faults people more used to digital images won't. Indeed on occasions I find ultimate sharpness to be a distraction.

Here is an example where I believe ultimate sharpness would not have improved the image, indeed I believe it would have been a distraction, maybe I am wrong, obviously all these things are subjective, but to me this represents a style of image that is very recognizably Steve McCurry/Nat Geo in the 70's/90's which I like.


----------



## SPKoko (Jul 18, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> I don't understand why people moan and groan about AFMA, really. I can do any lens right from the camera's display screen within 10 minutes. Includes zooms with long and wide settings. All I need is a reliable target and a pair of reading glasses. Back patio has more than enough light in daytime.



I have lost countless hours trying to AFMA my lenses, first with manual methods like Dot-Tune and others and then with FoCal. But I have never really got accurate AF. I focus on the eye and sometimes the focus plane is slightly moved towards the nose and some other times, towards the ears. AF is more frequently off than spot-on. Perhaps the problem is with the 70D, as there have been many forum threads about its lack of accuracy. In any case, I am totally fed up of AFMA and I will only upgrade to mirroless FF now.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 18, 2017)

SPKoko said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand why people moan and groan about AFMA, really. I can do any lens right from the camera's display screen within 10 minutes. Includes zooms with long and wide settings. All I need is a reliable target and a pair of reading glasses. Back patio has more than enough light in daytime.
> ...



I am sorry you are unhappy with AFMA. It's probably your 70D. My 5DIV and 5DSR give spot on AF most of the time after I have AFMAd the lenses using FoCal. That wasn't the case with my 7D.


----------



## SPKoko (Jul 18, 2017)

AlanF said:


> SPKoko said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Thanks for the feedback. Your comment is very important to me, since it kind of confirms my suspicions. It must be a problem with the 7D and the 70D AF system. In:

Why isn't my Canon 70D autofocus accurate

jrista said:

_It should be noted that the 7D AF system is known to have precision problems. I have used the 7D for a couple of years now, and because of the actual design of it's AF sensor, small differences in the actual focal plane for a selected point or zone (i.e. 4.8ft vs. 5ft) are pretty much to be expected. You also get a slight amount of jitter when focusing with the same AF point at the same spot on the same subject over and over. AF won't remain "locked"...it shifts forwards and back by a very slight amount each frame. Using AI Servo, I tend to take bursts of 3-5 shots every time_

Still, even with other DSLR models, people frequently complain about not very accurate AF. That's over for me. These days I am very happy with the AF of my Olympus that has totally displaced the Canon and I am only looking forward to a future Canon FF mirrorles with Dual Pixel AF.


----------



## captainkanji (Jul 18, 2017)

I no longer AFMA my primes since I installed the precision focusing screen in my 6D. I can focus manually better than the camera can. It's a 6D so that's not saying much


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 18, 2017)

Khalai said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > AFMA is much less of a PITA than doing dishes, and, umm, ahem, somebody in the house does those every single day. :
> ...



Good analogy...But, we cook for a family of four, lots of Asian style cooking. We can't put our cast iron in the dishwasher, nor our good knives, nor bamboo chopsticks. That said, the dishwasher helps a lot! Especially with bottles and sippy-cups for two babies!

When I said "ten minutes" for a lens, I meant from the time I set up the target until finished with AFMA. If I do several lenses, less time per lens.

I understand the idea of automating something tedious that needs to be done often, but, honestly, it seems so simple to dial in accurate AF with the in-camera tool alone, and so rarely that I get a new body or see "drift" of AFMA, that learning to use the software and connect to a laptop seems more complicated and time consuming. You might technically be achieving better results, +/-1 unit, but my results seem "spot" on doing AFMA the simple way.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2017)

SPKoko said:


> In:
> 
> Why isn't my Canon 70D autofocus accurate
> 
> ...



While I respect jrista, and he's someone who takes amazing astro shots, I will also point out that he once stated that the 5DIII has, "_Poor, sub-par, unacceptable IQ._" After that, I have tended to take his criticisms of Canon dSLR performance with a rather large grain of salt. 

Having said that, AF system performance for the f/5.6 lines is specified as 'precise within one depth of focus', and with the f/2.8 lines (and an appropriate lens), as 'precise to within one-third the depth of focus', in both cases at the maximum aperture of the lens. Depth of focus is the sensor-side equivalent of depth of field, but the former has very little dependence on subject distance/magnification. Basically, no phase AF system is going to be perfectly accurate or precise, but AFMA at least allows you to properly calibrate the accuracy. 

The other relevant point (mentioned in the post you linked) is that the actual AF point on the AF sensor is larger (i.e. covers a larger area of the field) than the _representation_ of that AF point in the viewfinder. So, while you may be placing the AF point directly on a subject's eye, the eyebrow may have higher contrast (or with a more distant subject, the hairline), and the AF system will lock onto that higher-contrast feature that you only thought was outside the AF point (the Eye AF feature on some newer ILCs is helpful for that). With the more densely packed AF arrays like the 5DIII and later, the actual AF points extend less far from the VF representation, giving the impression of more accurate focus with some subjects.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 18, 2017)

I haven't really been following this thread, but since the 6DII hysteria seems to be dying down a bit, I thought I'd take a look.

I'm afraid I fall into that category of people who know they should do this, but just never seem to find the time or want to invest in an elaborate setup. Candidly, I also find that most of my focusing errors are related to a subject moving rather than the lens. Still, I'm kind of interested in this, especially when people say they can do it easily in the backyard with no special equipment.

I'd be curious what setup people use and how long they spend doing this.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 18, 2017)

I am pretty anal about AFMA as I crop bird photos heavily and want to see the detail on their feathers etc. I Use FoCal. I suppose it takes about 20 minutes, and I usually do repeat runs, each extra one about another 10 minutes. I like seeing the other output about the lens that FoCal gives (astigmatism) and how the lens compares with other peoples measurements.


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 18, 2017)

While I use focal and think it is a good product.

This article appears to just be sales propaganda.


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 18, 2017)

Jopa said:


> AF is a critical factor in a photo, no matter how good is a subject, light and composition if the focus is not there, so it's kind of important.



Some of the finest, sharpest lenses made for Canon can not AF at all. Yet many people take wonderful pictures with them.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 18, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > AF is a critical factor in a photo, no matter how good is a subject, light and composition if the focus is not there, so it's kind of important.
> ...



Which FAST lenses are you talking about? And would that be on today's sensors? By today's standards?

Surgeons used to save lives before X-rays, even before anti-biotics. How is that relevant to good practices today?


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 18, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Jopa said:
> ...



https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1077281-REG/zeiss_2040_292_otus_apo_planar_85mm.html

I heard this one is nice, and it will not AF at all.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 18, 2017)

Made to fit Canon but not by Canon.


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 18, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Made to fit Canon but not by Canon.



*"made for Canon"* yes made to fit not by, probably not even for Canon the company.

Maybe this would have been a better example?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/606804-USA/Canon_3552B002_TS_E_24mm_f_3_5L_II.html


----------



## unfocused (Jul 18, 2017)

AlanF said:


> I am pretty anal about AFMA as I crop bird photos heavily and want to see the detail on their feathers etc. I Use FoCal. I suppose it takes about 20 minutes, and I usually do repeat runs, each extra one about another 10 minutes. I like seeing the other output about the lens that FoCal gives (astigmatism) and how the lens compares with other peoples measurements.



See, this is what I don't understand. Let's say I'm shooting a relatively slow moving bird like a gull. To really nail the eyes I would have to be shooting single point, but that's nearly impossible (for me) to keep focus nailed as the bird soars around and with single-point, as soon as it moves, you completely lose focus. So, I usually use one of the multipoint options, which gives the camera enough information to hopefully at least find the bird and autofocus on it. But realistically, I have yet to find a camera (including the 1DX II) that will consistently nail the eyes at that distance and speed, especially with a long lens. Lucky if it can keep focus anywhere on the head. 

Now I always ask myself, what is the point of AFMA since we are talking about differences of a fraction of an inch in focus; and subject movement, slight shifts in the position of the camera and lens, etc., are going to negate any tiny differences in fine tuning the lens.

Maybe others have better technique than I do or have faster reflexes. I'm curious what your secrets are. I'd love to be so close in focus that AFMA would make a difference. It just seldom seems to be the case.


----------



## Pookie (Jul 18, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Made to fit Canon but not by Canon.



Never said MADE BY CANON...

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit...


----------



## AlanF (Jul 18, 2017)

Pookie said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Made to fit Canon but not by Canon.
> ...



I read your comment perfectly and was pointing it out to YuengLinger who missed it, so don't be so damned rude - I will take you on any day when it comes to comprehension.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 18, 2017)

unfocused said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > I am pretty anal about AFMA as I crop bird photos heavily and want to see the detail on their feathers etc. I Use FoCal. I suppose it takes about 20 minutes, and I usually do repeat runs, each extra one about another 10 minutes. I like seeing the other output about the lens that FoCal gives (astigmatism) and how the lens compares with other peoples measurements.
> ...



90% of my bird photos are for for them perched, and I use single centre point to focus on the eye if they are close enough or on the body if they are small and far away.
For the 10% of birds in flight, they tend to be about 30m or more away and I still use single centre point because it gives the best AF, and I focus on the body or head, depending on how big they are and how fast they are flying. The depth of field at that distance is usually enough so that most of the bird is in focus, unless the wings are long and the bird is sideways on. By AFMAing the lens, more of the shots have the bird at the centre of the focus for a lens that would have front or back focus without AFMA. 

My first really good lens was a 300mm f/2.8 II. It required +7 AFMA on the 7D, and according to the Focal comparative data is typical for this combination, with serious front focus. Without AFMA, it was terrible at f/2.8.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jul 18, 2017)

captainkanji said:


> I no longer AFMA my primes since I installed the precision focusing screen in my 6D. I can focus manually better than the camera can. It's a 6D so that's not saying much



I dot tuned my lenses to my 6D (plus Eg-S) when I got the camera (on center point AF) and it's been fine ever since..

It took me less than hour and I've never had any problem since, or at least I'm as likely to miss focus short as long.

and the lenses are all quite different, IIRC, +8, +5, -3. Well worth doing certainly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Alan, I think one of your countrymen has some appropriate advice for you...


----------



## Jopa (Jul 19, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > AF is a critical factor in a photo, no matter how good is a subject, light and composition if the focus is not there, so it's kind of important.
> ...



Well, I personally have quite a few photos that may be not in a perfect focus, but they still have incredible value for me because of who's pictured on those photos. The same can be said about composition and light actually, and pretty much everything else as long as a photo has some other type of "impact" on a viewer, and if the impact is stronger than the imperfections, it's going to be a great photo nevertheless. But... one simply won't give a customer a blurry picture or a picture with a cut leg etc... so it makes sense to take of the imperfections unless we're talking about Steve McCurry or other big shot photography names 

Your sample looks great because of contrast, color combination and DoF isolation. The monk is not OOF, I would say it's more like a "soft focus"? IMHO if the guy happen to be in sharp focus, the picture would benefit from even stronger subject/background separation.


----------



## Jopa (Jul 19, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > AF is a critical factor in a photo, no matter how good is a subject, light and composition if the focus is not there, so it's kind of important.
> ...



My bad. I meant focus in general, not AF. AF just makes life much easier


----------

