# Canon 16-35mm II + Reikan FocCal Pro --- Tips



## Dylan777 (Oct 2, 2012)

Hi guys,
I bought Reikan FocCal Pro about a month ago. Believe it or not, I have not yet install the software. I’m going to take 1-2 days off from work to calibrate do microadjustment on my lenses.

My lenses are:
1.	16-35 II - this is the lens I’m going to calibrate first
2.	24-70 II - this lens is sharp. Let see if the lens gets any better after calibration
3.	70-200 f2.8 IS II - this lens is sharp. Let see if the lens gets any better after calibration
4.	50mm f1.4 – I’m so happy with 24-70 II, I now no longer need this lens. Will sell soon

Body: 5D III

This will be my first time doing microadjustment. Also, Reikan FocCal Pro is my first software as a tool. 

Any tips from CRs members are greatly appreciated.

Dylan


----------



## Studio1930 (Oct 2, 2012)

Very sturdy tripod.
Very bright lights (I use studio lights with modeling light all the way up set very close to the test chart).
Print chart and mount on a black foam board and clamp foam board to adjustable stand.
Calibrate at different distances and you may get different results. I pick the one that fits my shooting style the most.
Save your results to view them later and see how close they were.
Save settings in spreadsheet to recall later when you accidentally clear your camera settings.
Print both charts and use the horizontal squares chart to verify focus points.
Check the aperture values of your lenses too to see where they are not sharp anymore (around f8 and up for mine).
TURN OFF IS or you will probably get very bad results.
Use live view to manually focus for aperture tests.
Watch live view zoomed to see if walking around moves your floor and can be detected which means don't walk around your camera while waiting for results (depends on floor type).


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 2, 2012)

Thanks Studio1930.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 4, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Hi guys,
> I bought Reikan FocCal Pro about a month ago. Believe it or not, I have not yet install the software. I’m going to take 1-2 days off from work to calibrate do microadjustment on my lenses.
> 
> My lenses are:
> ...



I do see improvement after AFMA. For the 16-35 II I ended up with -5 @ wider end & 3 at nearer end. 

1 down 2 more to go


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 4, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi guys,
> ...


Depending on the lens and the shape of the curve, even a AFMA of 2 or 3 can make a difference. If the curve is flat, it does not really change a lot.
As you can see, my 16-35 at 16mm and 0.7m to target has essentially no change from plus 3 to -3, but then drops off.






However, my 85mm f/1.8 is off quite a bit, and at a setting of 0, it loses a huge amount of sharpness. The lens is fine, it just has a buildup of tolerances that need a -8 AFMA.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 4, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Hi Mt Spokane Photography,

How do you run full automatic on 5D III? thanks


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 4, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Hi Mt Spokane Photography,
> 
> How do you run full automatic on 5D III? thanks


Right now, for PC's its a semi automatic process, the software prompts you to set the AFMA to different values. From what I understand, the Mac Beta is fully automatic, so I'm hoping they can get to that point with the 5D Mark III on PC's.
However, its not horribly time consuming to do it semi automatically, it tales me 15 minutes to do a prime and about 25 minutes or less for a zoom. Once they are done, thats it until I get a new body or lens.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 4, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Mt Spokane Photography,
> ...



Mt Spokane Photograph...thanks for the hint.

That was my 1st time setting up the software, target setup, testing the lens in semi-auto mode... It took me more than an hour  

But you right, after the 1st run...I now get the ideas how the software works 

I have Canon 24-70 II, I'm not sure Reikan Focal software ready for this lens? I bought the Pro version about 1 month ago.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2012)

I don't think it matters to FoCal what type of lens, as long as it has AF.


----------



## cliffwang (Oct 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't think it matters to FoCal what type of lens, as long as it has AF.



That's right. FoCal correctly adjusted my Tamron 24-70mm VC on 5D3 without any problem.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't think it matters to FoCal what type of lens, as long as it has AF.


+1 
Use it with any AF lens. 
Here is my Tokina 17mm f/3.5 Prime


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 5, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think it matters to FoCal what type of lens, as long as it has AF.
> ...



Mt Spokane Photography, neuro & cliffwang...thanks for the inf on the Focal AF lens.

My 24-70 II is sharp, but I still want to run through FoCal, let see if the lens needs any AFMA or not 

Learn new stuff from CRs members everyday ;D


----------



## cliffwang (Oct 5, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> cliffwang said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I have a feeling you won't need to do AFMA for Canon 24-70mm MK2. I current use FoCal for two 70-200mm F/2.8 II lenses. Both of them are not needed to do any AFMA. Canon has very good QC for all current Canon lenses. Enjoy shoots with your new lens.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 5, 2012)

I just ran my 5d III with 24-70 II through FoCal. This is the test results FoCal gave me on my 24-70 II @ 24mm. (-5 seem to be the best)

Looks good. Its a nice bell curve. I must run the program with different options, I always have many tests near the predicted point. That usually changes the results by a point or two as it gets more precise from more shots.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 5, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > cliffwang said:
> ...



I just ran my 5d III with 24-70 II through FoCal. This is the test results FoCal gave me on my 24-70 II @ 24mm. (-5 seem to be the best)


----------



## Studio1930 (Oct 5, 2012)

So your sharp lens will now be even sharper.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 5, 2012)

Studio1930 said:


> So your sharp lens will now be even sharper.



Yes...slightly over 100 points sharper ;D

I'm not sure if I can see the differences in real life situation, but hey,,,data shows the lens will be sharper if I set it to -5 @ 24mm 

Again....thanks for your helps Studio1930.


----------



## Old Shooter (Oct 5, 2012)

How did it perform at 70mm?


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 5, 2012)

Old Shooter said:


> How did it perform at 70mm?



Old Shooter,
I haven't done at 70mm yet, I was in the hurry to pickup my kids. Will finish it up this weekend.


----------



## Crapking (Oct 5, 2012)

Please share thoughts on the quality scores - how valid/reliable are comparisons BETWEEN cameras/lenses ?
Do 'sharper' lenses (70-200 II, 135) actually score higher or  just more consistently (once AFMA has been done) ? 
Is it 'fair' to use the absolute value of the quality score to make a sharpness comparison between the 24-70 @ 70 with the 70-200 @70 (or the Mk II version of the 24-70 @ 70) ? 

I understand that the test is designed to optimize the AF mechanism between one body and one lens, and thus reduce shot to shot variability in focus distance measurement/lens motor operation, but can we draw conclusions between different combinations once we have 'optimized' a camera body/lens pair ??


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 5, 2012)

Final results I'm getting from FoCal on my 24-70 II: (-5 at 24mm & 1 at 70mm)


----------



## Studio1930 (Oct 6, 2012)

Crapking said:


> Please share thoughts on the quality scores - how valid/reliable are comparisons BETWEEN cameras/lenses ?
> Do 'sharper' lenses (70-200 II, 135) actually score higher or  just more consistently (once AFMA has been done) ?
> Is it 'fair' to use the absolute value of the quality score to make a sharpness comparison between the 24-70 @ 70 with the 70-200 @70 (or the Mk II version of the 24-70 @ 70) ?
> 
> I understand that the test is designed to optimize the AF mechanism between one body and one lens, and thus reduce shot to shot variability in focus distance measurement/lens motor operation, but can we draw conclusions between different combinations once we have 'optimized' a camera body/lens pair ??



I found that setting up the test a different way will result in different quality numbers. Sometime the difference is drastic. One of my lenses was reporting a quality of about 400 or so and the next day I set it up differently and got qualities numbers in the 900s. I think it can be something as little as having a different angle to the test chart.


----------



## revup67 (Oct 7, 2012)

Dylan - congrats on getting the software. Good choice.

Seems like you got yourself underway and are more comfortable since your initial posting. Are you running the Aperture tests as well as the AFMA? What is your distance methodology? A general distance method by Canon is 50mm x lens focal lens. Since 50mm is 1.9685 inches and say you have a 100mm lens this would be a distance of 98.5 inches is where you'd say your lens to the target. Others might say est. the distance you typically shoot a lens to the target to get optimum results. I went with the 50mm x focal length rule. All of my lenses needed calibration except the 100mm USM IS L. The 50mm 1.4 was the worst at -20 (max).


----------



## Sitting Elf (Oct 7, 2012)

Hoping Canon software engineers get off their butts and get the 5Dlll and 1DX programs up to speed soon.

I have 11 Canon lenses I want to calibrate within both of those bodies, and Reikan FocCal Pro is not able to work as designed yet for them... especially on a Mac with Mountain Lion (10.8.2).

Will jump on Reikan software just as soon as that's available!


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 7, 2012)

revup67 said:


> Dylan - congrats on getting the software. Good choice.
> 
> Seems like you got yourself underway and are more comfortable since your initial posting. Are you running the Aperture tests as well as the AFMA? What is your distance methodology? A general distance method by Canon is 50mm x lens focal lens. Since 50mm is 1.9685 inches and say you have a 100mm lens this would be a distance of 98.5 inches is where you'd say your lens to the target. Others might say est. the distance you typically shoot a lens to the target to get optimum results. I went with the 50mm x focal length rule. All of my lenses needed calibration except the 100mm USM IS L. The 50mm 1.4 was the worst at -20 (max).



Thanks revup67,
I haven't done the aperture yet, only AFMA so far. I used x50 rule. So far, I got 16-35 II and 24-70 II ran through Reikan FoCal with AFMA. For the 70-200, I plan to print out larger target sheet(11x17). I'm still very busy at work. When I get home, I have a 4yrs and 1.5yrs kids, quite busy at both ends. 

I'm going to sell my 50mm f1.4 soon and replace with 35L.


----------



## bklein61 (Oct 7, 2012)

Not meaning tto hijack this thread but it is related to FoCal.

I just did my first test with the FoCal Pro Version. I am wondering if anybody can tell me the circumtances that a person would use.

No Target Validation

Target Validation

Target Optimisation

Thanks


----------



## revup67 (Oct 8, 2012)

> Not meaning tto hijack this thread but it is related to FoCal. I just did my first test with the FoCal Pro Version. I am wondering if anybody can tell me the circumtances that a person would use.
> No Target Validation
> Target Validation
> Target Optimisation



Personally, I would not use the software without a Target validation. I've only used Target Validation where you get the green checkmark but have not tried Target Optimisation which is primarily used in Manual mode. Go to this link for further info http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/index.php/tests/ when there, note the links including Target Optimisation


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 8, 2012)

The target validation is going to make sure that you are properly lined up with the target. If you are, the testing will proceed. If not, it asks you to align the camera to the target using the utility provided.
I recommend validating the target for the most accurate and repeatable results. If you are not properly aligned, you might get different values if you come back and run the test again later with a different alignment.


----------



## Studio1930 (Oct 10, 2012)

And for pro users, don't forget a quick dust check. 8)


----------

