# LensAlign mk II generation 2 vs. Spyderlenscal?



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 7, 2014)

My Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II went in for service twice in a three week or so period.

It had a front element defect which was followed by a "misaligned" element upon return which caused very oof (yet inconsistent) corners. Now upon return for the "misaligned"element, the corners aren't perfect, but much better. Unfortunately, everything is slightly oof now. I want to micro-adjust and see how things look then. Using just a yardstick, it appears that the camera is back focusing a bit, but I'd like to adjust using a proper tool.

Reikan Focal is something I want to purchase and use in the near future, but for now I need something that doesn't require a computer and isn't fussy about lighting. Enter Lensalign mk II generation 2 and its quasi copycat, the Datacolor Spyderlenscal.

I am trying to pick one. Here's my analysis of the pros and cons of each as far as I can tell:

Lensalign:
Pros: More sophisticated design with dual sided and dual color (B&W + W&B) measurement stick, better target that includes a built in tool to get the camera center and parallel to it, and the option of a larger measuring stick for super telephoto lenses.
Cons: Supposedly somewhat flimsy design where measuring stick will sag over time and cannot be disassembled and reassembled many times before it becomes damaged. No bubble level to ensure it is level on a tripod that has no level.

Spyderlenscal:
Pros: More robust build quality. Designed to be repeatedly folded flat. Bubble level built into base.
Cons: Less sophisticated design than Lensalign. Measurement stick is basically a ruler. No tool to help align camera to target.

So, for those of you who own one or the other, any info you can share would be appreciated.

Please note: I'm posting this because it seems every other thread on the internet asking the same question was derailed by a bunch of people replying that they use neither and instead use Reikan Focal. I appreciate what Focal has to offer, but in this thread I'm asking about Lensalign mk II generation 2 vs Spyderlenscal - not Focal. Also, if you use Lensalign Pro or Lite, neither product is still sold. The original Lensalign mk II is also discontinued.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2014)

I haven't used either, but I used the LensAlign Pro before switching to FoCal, and I really liked the alignment aid on the LensAlign.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I haven't used either, but I used the LensAlign Pro before switching to FoCal, and I really liked the alignment aid on the LensAlign.



Unfortunately they stopped making the Pro, but the alignment aid (I've been calling it a "measuring stick" because I wasn't sure what the proper term was) for the Lensalign mk II generation 2 is the biggest reason I'm favoring the Lensalign over the Spyderlenscal so far.

If it had a built in level it would be a perfect product and I wouldn't even be asking.

I only have one tripod head with a bubble level and its the one I'd use to take the photos, so I'd have to use a standard small level to make sure the Lensalign is properly level if I want to use it with one of the spare tripods I have.

Given its size, I've been thinking one of my zip-shots would be a good match for it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2014)

Level doesn't really matter, and as a practical matter with the error inherent in bubble levels will be difficult to achieve – more so when both camera and alignment tool must be level. What matters is that the camera's image sensor is parallel to and centered on the focus target. Leveling both accurately is a two-step process that ensures the former, but not the latter. The alignment tool gets the image sensor parallel and centered in one step (and neither camera nor tool need to be level).


----------



## rube_n (Dec 9, 2014)

I'm using the SpyderLenscal and works good.

It's also important to do it right, not only which pattern you use:

- Use maximal aperture (lowest value)
- Maximal focal length on zoom lenses for smallest depth of field
- camera and pattern on same height
- pattern has to be parallel to camera (sensor)


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 9, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> My Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II went in for service twice in a three week or so period.
> 
> It had a front element defect which was followed by a "misaligned" element upon return which caused very oof (yet inconsistent) corners. Now upon return for the "misaligned"element, the corners aren't perfect, but much better. Unfortunately, everything is slightly oof now. I want to micro-adjust and see how things look then. Using just a yardstick, it appears that the camera is back focusing a bit, but I'd like to adjust using a proper tool.
> 
> ...



So I guess I am one of the few that gave up on FoCal and now use a spyder lanscal.

First off the reasons I gave up I on Focal. More complex setup, results were not consistent across lenses and bodies, typically would rack up excessive shutter actuations just trying to get it to provide something of consistency, constant bugs which would cause the application to crash be unresponsive and countless wasted hours dealing with it. What it is good for is testing your equipment to make sure it's working...though I don't believe you can completely determine if it's working properly.

Neuro has had decent results taking the shots manually and importing them later into the application. Definately would help since the direct camera interface has a lot to be desired.

The Spyder lanscal is small but that does have a benefit in that you are forced to target the center of the tool which even if is tilted slightly is still close enough for govt work. The variances in AF accuracy due to lens aging, color temperature of the light, intensity of the light, ambient temperature, really negate the need for perfect parallel setup. Eyeball should get you within 1mm on this target. It's also portable so you can take it anywhere, set it up and verify everything is working as set before you actually start shooting. Yes it has a short ruler but it's fairly easy to tell which wayyou need to go if you are off the scale. Not an issue.

The lensalign product I never used but decided not to buy at the time for the same reasons you did not. I doubt it would hold up very well in the field, especially when calibrating a large supertele. I wanted something I could set up on site in the conditions I am shooting and make final tweaks as needed. Setting up a computer on a football field is not something I really want to do all of the time.

I'm sure Reikan will eventually evolve their product into something more reliable. However the setup is challenging and was not the solution for me. It's easy enough to just use the spyder lenscal and be done with it.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 9, 2014)

rube_n said:


> I'm using the SpyderLenscal and works good.
> 
> It's also important to do it right, not only which pattern you use:
> 
> ...



My understanding is that for zoom lenses, it's best if you do both ends of the zoom range - as you can enter the MA for each with the 5D3, 1DX, 6D, 70D, and presumably the 7D2.

What method are you using to get the camera parallel to the Spyderlenscal? It seems more difficult than using an ISO 12233 chart where you can tape it to a mirror and use the mirror reflection to align the camera.



East Wind Photography said:


> So I guess I am one of the few that gave up on FoCal and now use a spyder lanscal.
> 
> First off the reasons I gave up I on Focal. More complex setup, results were not consistent across lenses and bodies, typically would rack up excessive shutter actuations just trying to get it to provide something of consistency, constant bugs which would cause the application to crash be unresponsive and countless wasted hours dealing with it. What it is good for is testing your equipment to make sure it's working...though I don't believe you can completely determine if it's working properly.



Testing that equipment is working, but not necessarily properly? ??? Sorry, I don't follow. What do you mean?



East Wind Photography said:


> Neuro has had decent results taking the shots manually and importing them later into the application. Definately would help since the direct camera interface has a lot to be desired.
> 
> The Spyder lanscal is small but that does have a benefit in that you are forced to target the center of the tool which even if is tilted slightly is still close enough for govt work. The variances in AF accuracy due to lens aging, color temperature of the light, intensity of the light, ambient temperature, really negate the need for perfect parallel setup. Eyeball should get you within 1mm on this target. It's also portable so you can take it anywhere, set it up and verify everything is working as set before you actually start shooting. Yes it has a short ruler but it's fairly easy to tell which wayyou need to go if you are off the scale. Not an issue.
> 
> ...



Good enough for govt work? I'm hoping to get my lenses as good as I possibly can without using a computer at the moment.

I've been doing more reading on the two products and apparently the Lensalign mk II gen 2 is even more flimsy than I understood. It seems to be a fantastic product if you plan to leave it assembled and stored safely, but not something that will withstand being taken apart and put back together many times. I've read a number of reviews describing it as essentially cardboard. I imagine it's probably more like Coroplast or a similar material, otherwise it would be ruined by humidity alone, but I'm hesitant to spend almost a hundred dollars for a product that won't last.

How would you describe the build quality of the Spyderlenscal? What lenses have you used with it? I'm giving it another look now.

There's apparently another product too, the FocusPyramid, which I'll look into.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 9, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> rube_n said:
> 
> 
> > I'm using the SpyderLenscal and works good.
> ...



The Spyderlenscal is of firm plastic construction and labels are plastic printed, not paper. No worries if this got a little damp or wet. It folds flat and when set up for use puts the target directly at 0 on the scale. The bubble level is handy but as Neuro pointed out is pretty much useless other than to get you in the general ballpark of being level. It does have a 1/4-20 tripod thread on the bottom which is brass and pressed into the plastic base. It's not very strong but doesnt need to be. The brass threads make it easy to attach to a tripod but I find it not necessary, particularly when you are in the field doing a verification. I just set it somewhere and and shoot.

The best part about it is that it's completely portable. I keep it in my bag with my 300 2.8L.

I've used it to calibrate a wide range of lenses from my 7-15mm fisheye zoom to my 600 F4L. It would be nice to have a larger scale for the 600 but in the end it's not really necessary as once you are on the chart it's pretty easy to determine within 1 AFMA unit where the correct setting should be. Final checks are done at infinity shooting a heron or eagle.

Regarding FoCal, it does offer some other tools that are useful for evaluating the condition of your equipment such as what aperture provides the highest resolution for a particular lens as well as being able to AFMA individual focus points to determine if the AF screen is tilted or badly warped. However as I stated before the AFMA results are rather inconsistent and the test is very VERY sensitive to vibration and sufficient and consistent ambient light. Even keeping those the same, for me, the results were not as good or as quick as I can do myself with the SpyderLenscal.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 9, 2014)

PropeNonComposMentis said:


> Seriously !!! "firm plastic" !!!
> You do realize that is an oxymoron right !



There are some very "firm" plastics out there and more are being developed.


----------



## Sabaki (Dec 9, 2014)

PropeNonComposMentis said:


> Seriously !!! "firm plastic" !!!
> You do realize that is an oxymoron right !
> I urge you all to look-up the meaning of these two words, particularly "plastic".
> Our brains are Plastic, but calibration tools should not be.
> ...



Some L series lenses are firm plastic


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 10, 2014)

I ordered the SpyderLensCal. For the price, it's worth a try. I'm probably going to modify it with something that will make aligning the camera easy.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 11, 2014)

Before you buy anything, use live autofocus on a tripod. If the image is not sharp. then there is a issue with the lens. If its sharp, then AFMA should fix it.

I used the lens Align II, but quickly sold it after getting FoCal.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 11, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> I ordered the SpyderLensCal. For the price, it's worth a try. I'm probably going to modify it with something that will make aligning the camera easy.



It's easy without modification. Particularly with the 70-200 which has a pretty thin DOF wide open. For longer teles maybe a meter stick proped up next to it at an angle.


----------



## rube_n (Dec 16, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> What method are you using to get the camera parallel to the Spyderlenscal? It seems more difficult than using an ISO 12233 chart where you can tape it to a mirror and use the mirror reflection to align the camera.



It's quite easy: When looking through the viewer, there shouldn't be any gap between the pattern and the ruler. So the ruler also mustn't be behind the pattern. If ruler and pattern are exactly side by side, the camera is parallel to the spyder lenscal.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 16, 2014)

I bought the Spyderlenscal, but the lens also got sent to Canon.


----------

