# Auto Focus MicroAdjust--Why the Stigma?



## YuengLinger (Jan 21, 2015)

Lately I've seen more posts than ever here, and on retailers' review sections, stating that a lens was sent back because it needed AFMA.  

Personally, I have several L lenses and a Sigma 35mm Art. Each one benefitted from some Microadjustment, from +/- 3 all the way up to +/- 13, and all these lenses perform great on my 5DIII, phenomenally better, in fact, than on my old 60D which I bought before knowing about AFMA.

I've thought that AFMA is one of the great features of bodies that have it.

So why the increasing shunning of a lens that needs fine-tuning to work its best with a body?

Seriously, look at some of the recent threads about newer lenses and the claims that just the need for AFMA meant the lens got shipped back.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jan 21, 2015)

Are people really saying they are returning lenses that needed a simple micro adjust? Or are people saying they are sending lenses back because AFMA does not fix the problem. 

The two are quite different.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 21, 2015)

A lot of people don't understand AFMA, and return a lens when its the camera that is also a part of the issue.

However, if A lens shows excessive error, needing 17 or higher to correct it, I'll return it, because the next camera I buy might need even more, and I'd be required to pay to have the lens adjusted.

That happened with my 35mm f/1.4, it needed about 7 AFMA on my 5D MK II, but required +17 when I bought a 1D MK IV, likely due to additive errors in the MK IV. I sent the lens in for adjustment under warranty, and it was right-on for both cameras after that.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 21, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Are people really saying they are returning lenses that needed a simple micro adjust? Or are people saying they are sending lenses back because AFMA does not fix the problem.
> 
> The two are quite different.



I would not have thought it bizarre for somebody to return a lens that couldn't be tuned up with a little AFMA. I'm amazed that somebody with a camera that can AFMA thinks a lens is "bad" when a little fine tuning is needed. I can see from your reply you are as surprised as I am!

A quick look through this and other forums backs up what I'm saying...I didn't see a need to quote and embarrass somebody specifically, or start something personal with such a person.

Mt Spokane, good point about AFMA to the limits, but I see people saying even with +/- 6 they sent the lens back.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 21, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Are people really saying they are returning lenses that needed a simple micro adjust? Or are people saying they are sending lenses back because AFMA does not fix the problem.
> ...


 

I've seen the posts, I think they are a minority, after all, its like those returning cameras that don't autofocus accurately, a few are definitely camera issues, and a few are operator issues.

The same with AFMA, its not easy to do it correctly, and its easy to come up with results that are far off.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jan 21, 2015)

Frankly, AFMA scares me a bit. Is there a thread that discusses the right way to do it? Thanks.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 21, 2015)

I work in a research lab. When we get a piece of equipment, the first thing we do is calibrate it. Same thing with a camera or a lens... calibrate before use (AFMA)


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 21, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> Frankly, AFMA scares me a bit. Is there a thread that discusses the right way to do it? Thanks.



The easiest way I know of is Reikan Focal, and run it in automatic mode... very easy!


----------



## Eldar (Jan 21, 2015)

I believe the main discussion around AFMA and returned lenses came with the Sigma 50mm Art. And we had it for at least two reasons. The first was due to the lens being inconsistent and unstable, the other because of the USB-dock. 

The discussion around the first was to debate whether AFMA could solve the problem or not (it certainly did not on my (several) copies of neither the 50 Art, nor the 35 Art, so I have returned both). The other was how to use the dock and why it seemed like we were doing Sigma´s job. That basic calibration should have been done by them prior to shipping the lens.

My experience is that all lenses, in particular the faster ones, need AFMA. I use FoCal and it is a fairly quick job to get good lenses, like the majority of L-lenses, calibrated. Slower lenses may be a bit more difficult, but at the same time less critical. I simply gave up on Sigma, since the AF could not be trusted. An out of focus image is out of focus, no matter how good the optical quality of the lens is ...


----------



## Slyham (Jan 21, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly, AFMA scares me a bit. Is there a thread that discusses the right way to do it? Thanks.
> ...



It scares me too. :-[ I have had my 70D for a couple of months now and I haven't tried it.

Don - Do you recommend the pro version or would the plus version be sufficient?


----------



## Eldar (Jan 21, 2015)

Slyham said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > chrysoberyl said:
> ...


AFMA is rather simple and if you only have one body and a couple of lenses, you may just as well do it manually. In addition to FoCal I use LensAlign. There are lots of videos on youtube, like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k642WWzMcCI You can easily make one that´ll work by your self. Be also aware that you can always go back to zero, so whatever adjustments you make can easily be reversed back to start.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 21, 2015)

Slyham said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > chrysoberyl said:
> ...



unless you have a really long lens (the threshold is 400mm) or you really like running lots of tests, the plus version would probably do. I ended up with the pro version because I needed it to calibrate the Tamron 150-600.


----------



## Slyham (Jan 21, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Slyham said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Good info. I think I will give it a try knowing I can reverse it back the the original state.


----------



## Slyham (Jan 21, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Slyham said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Thanks. I'm going to try it on my own and if that doesn't work I will look into automatic options. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jan 21, 2015)

Just remember that with AFMA you are changing the way the lens will focus on your camera.

If you do it properly, it will improve things
If you do it improperly, it will make things worse.

So if your first attempt at AFMA does not work, don't think your lens is bad. Just go through the AFMA process again and make sure you are careful.

There is nothing to be afraid of. You will not do any permanent damage to your lens... you just may make the problem worse if you are not careful. 

If at first you don't succeed, AFMA again. ;D


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 22, 2015)

The issue that makes AFMA difficult is understanding the limitations and issues with phase detect autofocus. The concept is simple, just adjust your camera body so that it focuses either closer or further away. You can adjust it in small steps.

However, there are some pitfalls.

1. The Target. In order to adjust the AF accurately, you must be certain of the point the camera focused on, and that can be a challenge, since the camera AF system does not always focus where the little red square indicates. Targets specifically designed to assure that the camera grabs focus at the right spot will eliminate the issue.

2. Light Levels. The AF system has a lot more variability in low light. In very bright light, it will not have as much, but its always there, so take several shots and ignore the outliers.

3. Detail in the target can affect the Focus, the AF system generally prefers horizontal lines and will grab those rather than vertical ones.

4. Light color also affects AF. I don't know why, but perhaps its due to the lens.

5. Vibration. You can't detect the best focus if vibration is present.

6. Lens variability. Always start your autofocus at either the mfd or infinity. This will help with lens variability, but some lenses like the 50mm f/1.8 never quite focus at the exact same point.

Software like FoCal takes those things and more into account, even so, its not perfect.

That's not to say that adjusting the AFMAS by trial and error or dot tune is bad, it is going to improve things in most cases, but may not provide a optimal setting.

The final thing to consider is that a error of +/- 3 points is probably not going to make much of a difference. That's because AF does not change much.


Here is a curve from Focal that shows this. The curve is pretty flat near the center. You can see that just keeping the lens set to "0" is not going to make a big difference, even though -2 might be best.









Here is the curve for my 85mm f/1.8. A adjustment of -9 or -10 was definitely a improvement.


----------



## Ryan708 (Jan 23, 2015)

Does anyone know if there is a firmware-type hack for the 60D to alow AFMA? I really wish canon didnt dumb down the 60D


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 23, 2015)

Ryan708 said:


> Does anyone know if there is a firmware-type hack for the 60D to alow AFMA? I really wish canon didnt dumb down the 60D



I believe you put your 60D down by any wireless tablet, then enter the following into a search engine: 7-0-D

Choose a suitable retailer and order. Update complete. :


----------



## jd7 (Jan 25, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> A lot of people don't understand AFMA, and return a lens when its the camera that is also a part of the issue.
> 
> However, if A lens shows excessive error, needing 17 or higher to correct it, I'll return it, because the next camera I buy might need even more, and I'd be required to pay to have the lens adjusted.
> 
> That happened with my 35mm f/1.4, it needed about 7 AFMA on my 5D MK II, but required +17 when I bought a 1D MK IV, likely due to additive errors in the MK IV. I sent the lens in for adjustment under warranty, and it was right-on for both cameras after that.



The issue raised by the OP does seem to come up (disappointingly) frequently enough on the internet, and I can only assume the answer is as above - a lot of people don't understand AFMA. With a fast lens, I would be far more surprised if it didn't need AFMA than if it did! And that is not a criticism of either lens or camera.


----------



## infared (Jan 25, 2015)

Oh..oh...oh..I misunderstood the topic..I thought it said:

Re: Auto Focus MicroAdjust--Why the Sigma? 



(Couldn't resist, it was just too tempting! I am actually a fan of, and own the Sigma 50mm and 35mm Arts).

Yes ...mine are both adjusted via the Stigma Dock. 8)

I am a fan of AFMA ...it's just another tool to get us where we need to be. It's all good. Take it or leave it.
WARNING: Yes...it can get complicated and take untold amounts of time out of your life AND _*sometimes*_ not provide a complete solution to to the problem.
Good luck with your journey.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 25, 2015)

Ryan708 said:


> Does anyone know if there is a firmware-type hack for the 60D to alow AFMA? I really wish canon didnt dumb down the 60D



It's annoying, but that's Canon for you. Magic Lantern tried to hack it back, but they removed the whole firmware part when going 50d->60d, so it's not just hidden in the menu gui but the afma props simply don't work.



YuengLinger said:


> So why the increasing shunning of a lens that needs fine-tuning to work its best with a body?



As argued, it depends on the amount the lens needs - I wouldn't send back a lens for +-5, but if it's +-20 on a €2000+ lens I'd definitely consider it as this range shows their qc failed - who knows what the other issues with this copy are.

But my biggest grief with Canon's in-camera afma is that the required value depends so much on the lens-subject distance. If you're using a prime at mostly the same distance, you'll be fine. But with a multi-purpose zoom or a macro (shooting everything from 1cm to 100m distance) imho it's not possible to perfectly calibrate the lens via afma, much better to try to get exchange it until working by out of the box.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Jan 25, 2015)

I'm not sure I follow this thread. I think perhaps the word "stigma" is being used incorrectly in the title. When I think of AFMA I think of there being a lot of confusion out there about what it is and how it works, even though it's pretty straightforward IMO.

I've also never seen a thread where somebody claimed to send the lens back to Canon for AFMA. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, $20 says it has - I've just personally never seen somebody claim to do so on a forum.

I sent my 70-200/2.8 IS II back to Canon 3 times so far since buying it because it was soft - but it was because it was excessively soft and not something that AFMA could fix.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 26, 2015)

Mitch.Conner said:


> I'm not sure I follow this thread. I think perhaps the word "stigma" is being used incorrectly in the title. When I think of AFMA I think of there being a lot of confusion out there about what it is and how it works, even though it's pretty straightforward IMO.
> 
> I've also never seen a thread where somebody claimed to send the lens back to Canon for AFMA. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, $20 says it has - I've just personally never seen somebody claim to do so on a forum.


 
Many send their lenses and bodies to Canon to have them adjusted. Canon does not do a AFMA, they adjust the lens and the body if required. Its expensive.

Some do take their lens and body to a Camera Repair service which does not have the ability to make the internal adjustments, but will do a AFMA for $60 more or less.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Jan 26, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure I follow this thread. I think perhaps the word "stigma" is being used incorrectly in the title. When I think of AFMA I think of there being a lot of confusion out there about what it is and how it works, even though it's pretty straightforward IMO.
> ...



Interesting. I had no idea. Thanks.


----------



## NancyP (Jan 27, 2015)

Any Mac users out there who have successfully run Reikan FoCal on a Mac?

I have to say I was fortunate. The longer lenses used on the 60D have been fine.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 27, 2015)

NancyP said:


> Any Mac users out there who have successfully run Reikan FoCal on a Mac?
> 
> I have to say I was fortunate. The longer lenses used on the 60D have been fine.


I do. It is not totally stable though. Some times it crashes and I have to rerun.


----------



## dcm (Jan 27, 2015)

NancyP said:


> Any Mac users out there who have successfully run Reikan FoCal on a Mac?
> 
> I have to say I was fortunate. The longer lenses used on the 60D have been fine.



Yes. Latest version 1.9.10 working fine for me with a 6D on a Mac Mini with Yosemite and Mac Air with Mavericks. No crashes so far on this version although I did experience that on some previous versions.


----------



## NancyP (Jan 28, 2015)

Thanks.


----------



## m (Jan 28, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> So why the increasing shunning of a lens that needs fine-tuning to work its best with a body?



You open that package of your brand new otus only to find that the focusing ring is loose.
A note explains how to fiddle around with the lens, focusing on a test subject exactly 1 meter away and to then tighten the focusing ring down with an optionally available special screwdriver.

Checking infinity focus on a fixed star is recommended.
Half a year later, when the earth made it half way around the sun, stick your camera into an oven with the lens pointing to the same star through the oven window. Make sure the lens is in a water bath to prevent overheating. Clean the rim to ensure the lens focuses evenly. As soon as the lens is in focus, keep the temperature constant for several hours (do not open the door!), checking the focus every 5 minutes.

Congratulations. The AFMA of the lens is complete now.
To know when if will actually focus, consult the horoscope. Pick the zodiac that includes the fixed star you used for AFMA.

Depending on how acceptable it is for people to do a part of the manufacturers job, they will or will not do AFMA themselves.


----------



## jd7 (Jan 28, 2015)

m said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > So why the increasing shunning of a lens that needs fine-tuning to work its best with a body?
> ...



This misrepresents the point of AFMA. As someone else has already suggested earlier in the thread, think of AFMA as calibrating your tools.

If you want to say it is the manufacturer's job, you're saying the manufacturer has to use tighter tolerances during the manufacturing process, in which case you had better be happy to pay higher prices for your gear.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 29, 2015)

M, I think you have answered "YES!" to the question asked earlier by an incredulous poster, "Does anybody really think of AFMA as a stigma?"

Do tires, best in the world, need to be balanced when put on a new car, best in the world?

To think that the need for AFMA is indicative of sloppiness by the manufacturer is just wrong.

Camera bodies and lenses are made of materials that must have a certain amount of flex. Furthermore, they are made to tolerances that permit them to be sold for hundreds or thousands of dollars rather than millions.

So being able to fine tune AF with a few pushes of buttons on a camera is a huge benefit to consumers.

Phew!


----------



## candc (Jan 29, 2015)

I don't have an issue doing afma on the canon lenses. If they are off its usually consistent and easily correctable. Its the sigmas that deserve the stigma! The amount of fiddling it takes to get a sigma zoom lens right is ridiculous. I'm camera afma probably won't work so you have to use the dock to do 4 focal length x 4 subject distance corrections. Figure 4 hours and at least a hundred trips up and down the stairs. I just can't believe they can't do a better job at the factory. Once you adjust it with the dock it may need afma on certain bodies which I can understand due to camera lens mount tolerances and such but that initial work you have to do with the dock is like starting from scratch to get the lens where it should have been to begin with.

There, I feel better now.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 29, 2015)

candc said:


> I don't have an issue doing afma on the canon lenses. If they are off its usually consistent and easily correctable. Its the sigmas that deserve the stigma! The amount of fiddling it takes to get a sigma zoom lens right is ridiculous. I'm camera afma probably won't work so you have to use the dock to do 4 focal length x 4 subject distance corrections. Figure 4 hours and at least a hundred trips up and down the stairs. I just can't believe they can't do a better job at the factory. Once you adjust it with the dock it may need afma on certain bodies which I can understand due to camera lens mount tolerances and such but that initial work you have to do with the dock is like starting from scratch to get the lens where it should have been to begin with.
> 
> There, I feel better now.



Sharing your feelings about the Sigma 50mm Art, which was so tantalizing yet so unreliable. To heck with a dock if I already have a camera with AFMA functions. That said, I was super lucky with the 35mm Art, and the Sigma 15mm fisheye has been great in all its fishiness.

For my Sigma 50mm Art, I don't think the problems were AFMA related. I saw a post that suggested, half-jokingly, that some of them seemed to have a random number generator on the AF chip. Sure seemed true.


----------



## gqllc007 (Jan 29, 2015)

dcm said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > Any Mac users out there who have successfully run Reikan FoCal on a Mac?
> ...


I have a macbook retina 13" and FoCal crashes every now and then. I have to rerun...frustrating when it crashes on the last part


----------



## m (Jan 29, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Do tires, best in the world, need to be balanced when put on a new car, best in the world?



The whole point is not about whether it is necessary, but who is supposed to do it and that different people can come up with different answers to that question.
Are you balancing your tires yourself?



YuengLinger said:


> To think that the need for AFMA is indicative of sloppiness by the manufacturer is just wrong.



See, I tried to make my post ridiculous enough to not be taken as a serious opinion but the same "just wrong" point of view from the other end of the spectrum.
And actually having that spectrum is my argument here. _Maybe_ this world has a bit more DR than a single color of "AFMA is awesome and everybody should do it and why the hell is anybody not doing it, OMG!".

There are people with and without auto focus, interchangeability of lenses, shift, mirrors, tilt, film, ...and the desire to adjust auto focus. I wonder if calling it "just wrong" isn't as much of a stigma itself.

I'm not actually having an opinion on AFMA.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Jan 29, 2015)

The only aspect of AFMA that might be considered Canon's job is - if DPAF can be used to semi-automatically achieve proper AFMA (by comparing AF on the same point between PDAF and DPAF), I don't know why they wouldn't implement it. Boasting that their cameras have automatic AFMA would be a major selling point IMO.

The fact that they haven't done it suggests that either cameras don't currently have the required processing power to compare the results between two images taken with the different AF methods, the software required to achieve such a feat cannot be fit within a firmware, or that it simply isn't possible or practical for another reason.

I don't believe in this instance that Canon just doesn't care. They have DPAF, and if it could be used for something amazing like auto AFMA, I have to believe they'd want to implement it to give their lenses and cameras an added competitive edge.


----------



## DominoDude (Jan 29, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have an issue doing afma on the canon lenses. If they are off its usually consistent and easily correctable. Its the sigmas that deserve the stigma! The amount of fiddling it takes to get a sigma zoom lens right is ridiculous. I'm camera afma probably won't work so you have to use the dock to do 4 focal length x 4 subject distance corrections. Figure 4 hours and at least a hundred trips up and down the stairs. I just can't believe they can't do a better job at the factory. Once you adjust it with the dock it may need afma on certain bodies which I can understand due to camera lens mount tolerances and such but that initial work you have to do with the dock is like starting from scratch to get the lens where it should have been to begin with.
> ...



That sounds like me. 
I like Sigma glass, but I have grown to despise the way they handle AF, and the way that their service and support treat users (at least how they've been treating me, and I'm usually not special enough to warrant a unique treatment).


----------

