# Lens align pro or Spyder lenscal



## Briand (Sep 3, 2012)

I am looking for a great way to properly ensure I have correct autofocus alignment with my lens. Does anyone have experience with either of these, or can suggest something else?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 3, 2012)

Of the two, I prefer the LensAlign - it's easier to properly align the camera to the target. But now, I use Reikan FocCal software instead, and vastly prefer that method!


----------



## Briand (Sep 3, 2012)

Is FocCal software available for the Mac? I am looking for most accurate and easiest, less time consuming method as I would have many lens to align.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 3, 2012)

They were hoping to have a Mac version out in June, then in August, but it's not available yet. Soon, hopefully. I'd say it's worth the wait, it's definitely easier than a LensAlign.

Personally, I run FoCal Pro on my MacBook Pro on a Windows virtual machine in Parallels, and it works fine.


----------



## Briand (Sep 3, 2012)

Just watched a clip on YouTube a little intimidating perhaps, lol. Of the three they offer which version do you recommend.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 3, 2012)

I got the Pro for the fully automated testing (had a 7D and 5DII at the time). With my 1D X (and the 5DIII), only semi-automated is possible.


----------



## victorwol (Sep 4, 2012)

Reikan FocCal too... much better than anything else I've tried.


----------



## Briand (Sep 4, 2012)

So I know what I am in for how involved is it?


----------



## victorwol (Sep 4, 2012)

It's not that complicated. It basically does it all for you. Unless its a 5DMKIII or a 1D X in which case you have to change the values of the adjustment manually since those cameras apparently don't allow that to be done via the USB remote. You will have to print a chart on a good piece of matte paper and put it against a flat surface and the camera on a tripod and start the tests. The Pro version is the best.


----------



## kaihp (Sep 4, 2012)

victorwol said:


> It's not that complicated. It basically does it all for you. Unless its a 5DMKIII or a 1D X in which case you have to change the values of the adjustment manually since those cameras apparently don't allow that to be done via the USB remote. You will have to print a chart on a good piece of matte paper and put it against a flat surface and the camera on a tripod and start the tests. The Pro version is the best.


Good matte paper and an inkjet printer. Laser prints are somewhat reflective, and my fight with getting decisive AFMA prediction results is most likely because of this (I don't have access to an inkjet).
But yeah, +1 on FoCal Pro.
Don't let the 5D3/1Dx things faze you.


----------



## pwp (Sep 4, 2012)

victorwol said:


> Reikan FocCal too... much better than anything else I've tried.



Which version did you choose and why?

Thanks,

-PW


----------



## JEAraman (Sep 4, 2012)

I have the Lens Align m2 + focal pro.. I've lately only been using focal pro after I learned how easy it was to setup and configure. I'd say go for it.


----------



## degies (Sep 4, 2012)

I use the Lens Align kit and it works pretty well

NOV 2011 - Auto Focus Alignment & DOF Basics


----------



## M.ST (Sep 4, 2012)

I am happy with the lens align pro.


----------



## mikenott (Sep 4, 2012)

I have not used any system other than FoCal Pro, but I used it "straight out of the box" with no problems. The results were excellent and it is very easy to set up. The Pro version sets the AFMA in the camera for the body/lens AND extender combination you are using. You can also watch progress "live" on the pc screen as the shots are taken. Target alignment can be fiddly if (as I did) you have a 600 lens on a tripod and a target 25 metres away, but it just takes a little time and the target set up feature helps.

I did not have an ink jet printer - I threw it away when I got my colour laser printer - but I just took the target images to Staples and got them to print them on card for me. Easier to get five printed at once due to one-off service charge.

It does make you realise that plus or minus one AFMA is not that significant, but getting in the right area is! Print off test result pdf files to save rerunning if you update Canon firmware or reset camera.

Michael.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2012)

mikenott said:


> Print off test result pdf files to save rerunning if you update Canon firmware or reset camera.



Firmware updates don't clear out the AFMA data (at least, they never have for me - maybe a firmware update gone bad where you power off the camera in the middle?). Even if you Reset All Settings, that doesn't clear out the AFMA values (it just sets the function to No Adjustment, the values are retained). Only deleting all settings from within the AFMA menu itself can clear them out. 

Still, I keep an Excel table with all my AFMA values, just in case.


----------



## JEAraman (Sep 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> mikenott said:
> 
> 
> > Print off test result pdf files to save rerunning if you update Canon firmware or reset camera.
> ...


----------



## victorwol (Sep 4, 2012)

pwp said:


> victorwol said:
> 
> 
> > Reikan FocCal too... much better than anything else I've tried.
> ...



Pro if you can. It's not that much money compared to other solutions, and this have real analisys tools and does pretty much all for you.


----------



## Studio1930 (Sep 4, 2012)

Yep, FoCal Pro here too. Works great for my 1D4 and 1DX. Best tool I have ever bought. It is aware of the camera body so it knows that a zoom has two adjustments for the 1DX or 5D3 (near and far).


----------



## RC (Sep 4, 2012)

Stay away from the Lens Align MkII version, it's an expensive piece of junk.  Leaving the tool setup for a short period of time on a tripod, you will find that the rule sages to a point where your measurements will be off. I'm sure this is why the pro version and metal ruler became available. 

There is a learning curve, documentation is scattered on the web, good luck.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2012)

RC said:


> Stay away from the Lens Align MkII version, it's an expensive piece of junk.  Leaving the tool setup for a short period of time on a tripod, you will find that the rule sages to a point where your measurements will be off. I*'m sure this is why the pro version and metal ruler became available.*



?

Actually, the MkII vesion replaced both the LensAlign Pro and the LensAlign Lite (both of which have been discontinued), although the MkII does seem to be more of an updated Lite version. Personally, I have the LensAlign Pro.


----------



## RC (Sep 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> RC said:
> 
> 
> > Stay away from the Lens Align MkII version, it's an expensive piece of junk.  Leaving the tool setup for a short period of time on a tripod, you will find that the rule sages to a point where your measurements will be off. I*'m sure this is why the pro version and metal ruler became available.*
> ...



Not sure which version replaced what and when they were released. This is the version I bought and I would avoid it:
http://www.amazon.com/LensAlign-MkII-Focus-Calibration-System/dp/B004G3PANY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346769490&sr=8-1&keywords=lens+align+mk2


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 4, 2012)

I have a lens aligh, but it now stays packed away in its box. I was a early adopter of Reikan FoCal Pro, its automated for my 5D MK II (semi automated for 5D MK III and 1D X).
Its by far the easiest and most accurate, since it does not require you to make a guess at the sharpest image.
It does require that you print out a target and mount it to a flat surface. Once you have it setup, the only thing is to be careful not to vibrate the camera while its shooting, and have enough light so the AF system can be at its most accurate and have the least variation.


----------



## JEAraman (Sep 4, 2012)

RC said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RC said:
> ...



mine's been on the tripod for the past 5 months and i've not experienced what you've mentioned. Which ruler do you have? I have the regular one.


----------



## RC (Sep 4, 2012)

JEAraman said:


> RC said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



The one in the link above is what I have. It's just a flimsy plastic ruler, same material as the tool--probably polystyrene. I did find a post on Michael's website suggesting to remove the ruler for storage. 

I had it setup for about a week as I was going thru all my lens. Never looked at the tool up close until I was finished with my last lens. That's when I discovered the top end of the ruler sagging backwards.


----------



## Briand (Sep 4, 2012)

Thanks for the input about FoCal. Rather than buy windows 7 and parallels, I will wait for mac version, which company states it almost ready for release.

http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/index.php/2012/08/focal-mac-update/#


----------



## bkorcel (Sep 4, 2012)

I tried out the latest version (1.6) of Focal this past weekend and it definitely is an improvement over 1.5. Takes far fewer shots than before and actually gave me an AFMA that I can agree with based on the graph and test images. They really kicked it up a few notches.

To everyone else, don't bother with all of the other testers unless you want to have a second opinion as a sanity check. Reikan Focal 1.6 Pro is what you want (make sure your camera is supported though).



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I have a lens aligh, but it now stays packed away in its box. I was a early adopter of Reikan FoCal Pro, its automated for my 5D MK II (semi automated for 5D MK III and 1D X).
> Its by far the easiest and most accurate, since it does not require you to make a guess at the sharpest image.
> It does require that you print out a target and mount it to a flat surface. Once you have it setup, the only thing is to be careful not to vibrate the camera while its shooting, and have enough light so the AF system can be at its most accurate and have the least variation.


----------



## Jim K (Sep 4, 2012)

Where, in the USA, can one purchase the FoCal software?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2012)

Jim K said:


> Where, in the USA, can one purchase the FoCal software?



It's download only, no box version. PayPal converts US$ to British £, since they're based in England.


----------



## nismohks (Sep 5, 2012)

I stumbled upon this thread and was previously looking at tools to adjust my lenses too.

Ive got 2 bodies, a 7d and a 5d3 and a bunch of lenses etc.

For the Focal software, is the Pro version worth the premium over the Plus version?

I don't do photography for a living, it's just a hobby (albeit an expensive one) so was wondering which version i should get.

Also, does the software offer a full step by step guide on how to microadjust my lenses? How easy would it be on a 1 to 10 scale to do it via FoCal compared to the lens align and other similar product?

thanks


----------



## kaihp (Sep 5, 2012)

nismohks said:


> I stumbled upon this thread and was previously looking at tools to adjust my lenses too.
> 
> Ive got 2 bodies, a 7d and a 5d3 and a bunch of lenses etc.
> 
> ...



Upgrading from the Plus to Pro version is just the cost difference, so starting at Plus and later upgrading is the same as buying the Pro from the start.

Yes, the software guides your through the setup step by step. Also, detailed and (imho) excellent manuals are provided.

For the 7D, your print the target, put it on a wall, light it, put the 7D on a tripod connected to your PC and follow the Target Setup instructions and then run the fully automatic test. First lens may take you 10-15 minutes, from then on it's less than 5 minutes per lens/focal length/distance.


----------



## nismohks (Sep 5, 2012)

kaihp said:


> nismohks said:
> 
> 
> > I stumbled upon this thread and was previously looking at tools to adjust my lenses too.
> ...



Ah ok, that sounds pretty good 

So for the 5D3, it's a similar affair but i have to enter in the microadjustment settings myself after it calculates it, is that right?

Another question, for my zooms (24-70, 70-200) does it have to to adjust for a variety of focal lengths? What are the steps needed to do this?

Also, i only have access to a laser printer, would that be ok for printing the test sheet?

Cheers, much appreciated for the help!


----------



## snowweasel (Sep 5, 2012)

Totally agree with FoCal. It was fantastic on the 7D, and not much more difficult on the 5D III. I just upgraded from, I think, ver. 1.4 last weekend, but I haven't run any new tests to see the difference, but from everything I've heard, it's much better now than when I used it. I recently got my 70-200 2.8L II IS USM, and am looking forward to running it with both the bodies soon. I went ahead and got the pro version (as I recall, it wasn't much more than any of the physical lens testing ruler devices).


----------



## kaihp (Sep 5, 2012)

nismohks said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > Upgrading from the Plus to Pro version is just the cost difference, so starting at Plus and later upgrading is the same as buying the Pro from the start.
> ...


For the 5D3, FoCal will ask you to set the microadjustment amount to the value it needs, for each step (usually, it goes <existing value>, -20, -10, 0, +10, +20, and then a 3/2/1-value stepping depending on the fit quality. Maybe 15 datapoints in total.

For the 7D, you can only enter a single AFMA value, which is used for all focal lengths. For the 1Dx and the 5D3, there are two values: Wide and Tele. I usually do four tests: max Wide/ and max Tele (e.g. 24mm and 70mm on my 24-70mm Mk I) and two distances (2m and 5m to target). It all depends on how much effort you want to put into the calibration.

I used a laser printer for the target as well (I don't have easy access to an inkjet) and while I can see that the glare/reflection causes some loss of accuracy, you should be OK.

I like the Pro features and since it was just £30 more than the Plus (£70 vs £40 for the Plus), I went for it. Again, you can start with the Plus for £40 and if you regret not getting the Pro then just pay the £30 to get the extra features.

Cheers!


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 5, 2012)

Hi guys,
I'm thinking about Reikan FocCal Pro, do they provide setup distance for each lens?

Thanks


----------



## bkorcel (Sep 5, 2012)

For longer lenses I printed the target on A2 paper and just made the target size measurement adjustment under settings. I've found it also helpful to print the target on a full page Avery address label. I then stick that onto a black foam board. Keeps the target flat and stable. Easy to affix to a fence, wall, tree or train trestle (without the train going by). 



kaihp said:


> nismohks said:
> 
> 
> > kaihp said:
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> I'm thinking about Reikan FocCal Pro, do they provide setup distance for each lens?



You choose the distance. Canon recommends 50x the focal length, LensAlign recommends 25x the focal length (i.e. about 16' and 8' for every 100mm of focal length, respectively). 

Personally, I test all lenses at both 25x and 50x the focal length (and multiple focal lengths for zooms, wide, tele and 1-3 in between), then look at the overall results to decide the AFMA value(s). It's going to be a compromise, more data drives a better decision. I take into account the subject distances with the lens (close for the 85L, far for the 100-400, etc.), the usual DoF (weight close distance more with wide lenses). It means lots of testing, which is why the automation is great.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm thinking about Reikan FocCal Pro, do they provide setup distance for each lens?
> ...


For fast lenses, f 1.8 and faster, I tend to prefer the 25X distance, but for telephotos that are used mostly on far away objects, I use 50X if I can.
My Canon 100mm L is a puzzle. A totally different AFMA at close distances of a couple feet or less than at normal 7-20 ft distances.


----------



## Studio1930 (Sep 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm thinking about Reikan FocCal Pro, do they provide setup distance for each lens?
> ...



Which is why I am not happy that Canon took out the ability to change the AFMA via the SKDs meaning that programmers can't automate the 1DX and 5D3.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2012)

Studio1930 said:


> Which is why I am not happy that Canon took out the ability to change the AFMA via the SKDs meaning that programmers can't automate the 1DX and 5D3.



Ditto. Honestly, I haven't tried the MSC mode - I did almost all my lenses before the 1D X was supported, only have the 70-200 II plus 1.4xIII and 2xII left. I found that it was pretty easy to use the manual mode - I took two shots each from -20 to -12 and +12 to +20 in 2-unit steps (misfocused in both directions), and 3 shots each from -10 to +10 (misfocused in both directions, third shot without moving the focus ring). Sounds like a lot, but it actually only took ~10 minutes per set to capture the images. Then I ran them through the Manual Mode in FoCal Pro.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm thinking about Reikan FocCal Pro, do they provide setup distance for each lens?
> ...



Neuro,
To make sure I understand you correctly(50X):

1. 50mm f1.4 ==> 50 x 50mm = 2500mm(8.2 ft) distance from chart to camera

2. 16x35 ==> wide end: 50 x 16mm = 800mm( 2.6ft) distance from chart to camera
==> zoom end: 50 x 35mm= 1750mm(5.7ft) distance from chart to camera

am I on the right track?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2012)

@ Dylan777 - absolutely correct.


----------



## DynaMike (Sep 5, 2012)

Everyone is leaving good info here! I use the lens align. It works, but is kind of a pain in the ass to align. Setting up a 400mm on a 7D at 50x length involves a lot of walking back and forth from target to camera making small adjustments and checking. Takes a while to set up in those situations, and then there's going through the images and deciding what's correct. Gets time consuming, so as soon as the Mac version of FoCal is released; I'm on it! Sounds like a better/ easier system to me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2012)

DynaMike said:


> It works, but is kind of a pain in the ass to align. Setting up a 400mm on a 7D at 50x length involves a lot of walking back and forth from target to camera making small adjustments and checking.



There's still tweaking to align to the FoCal target, but the advantage is the target is flat (e.g., taped to a wall), and you're aligning the camera based on input from the computer via tethering. No more walking back and forth!


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> @ Dylan777 - absolutely correct.



Thanks Neuro


----------



## nismohks (Sep 6, 2012)

lots of great info here!

would the Plus version allow for multiple focal length testing for each lens?

Im just deciding between the Plus and Pro, but decided that i dont really need any of the benefits afforded by the Pro. The most important thing for me is that as long as i can test the AFMA at multiple focal ranges of each lens (as mentioned by several users above) then that would be the choice for me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2012)

You set the focal length for zooms, and you pick the distance.


----------



## kaihp (Sep 6, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> No more walking back and forth!


I still have to walk/move between the tripod and the laptop screen when aligning the target. I'm colorblind and the on-screen markers are nigh impossible for me to see even 3' away. I've fed back to FoCal to add more color/saturation/contrast to make the markers more visible from the distance. Also bigger AFMA numbers for when using the semi-manual mode with the 5D3 (and 1Dx).

What kind of peak QoF figure do you guys get, and how narrow is the peak around the max QoF?
My peaks are quite flat and with my5D3 and the 70-200/2.8L IS Mk I I get around 1000 @ 6meters and 1300 @ 2meters.


----------



## Phenix205 (Sep 6, 2012)

I would recommend FoCal Pro. I've been getting inconsistent results for some of the older lenses such as 28-70 and 50 1.4. Following Neuro's recommendations, I've been testing all lenses at 25x and 50x focal length. In real life shooting, it may not make too much difference if you are within +/- 10.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2012)

Phenix205 said:


> I've been testing all lenses at 25x and 50x focal length. In real life shooting, it may not make too much difference if you are within +/- 10.



If you mean within +/- 10x of focal length distance, probably true. 

If you mean within +/- 10 AFMA units, I'd expect that to make a difference in many situations, either shooting wide open or with close subjects. One unit is 1/8 the depth of focus at max aperture, so a 10-unit difference is substantial. A 1-2 unit difference can be noticeable with an f/1.2 or f/1.4 prime, on average, but any given shot will vary a little too, probably in a similar range. A 3-4 unit difference with an f/4 or f/5.6 lens is probably not too noticeable.


----------



## kaihp (Sep 6, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you mean within +/- 10 AFMA units, I'd expect that to make a difference in many situations, either shooting wide open or with close subjects.


Shooting at f/2.8 on 2 meters distance, being 5 AFMA units just spoils the image because the focus is not where you want it like the attached a 50% crop where focus is not on the eye, but on the body of the duck.


----------



## hoghavemercy (Sep 6, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Phenix205 said:
> 
> 
> > I've been testing all lenses at 25x and 50x focal length. In real life shooting, it may not make too much difference if you are within +/- 10.
> ...



why would it compute on a suggested number when other AFMA scored higher, eg AFMA=3 1645 AfMA=4 1605 AFMA=5 1637 and it picks 4 about 6 to 8 ft from the chart it's pretty accurate but just concern if that's a problem, on the 5DIII it's manual only just wondering if there's a patch or an update.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2012)

hoghavemercy said:


> why would it compute on a suggested number when other AFMA scored higher, eg AFMA=3 1645 AfMA=4 1605 AFMA=5 1637 and it picks 4 about 6 to 8 ft from the chart it's pretty accurate but just concern if that's a problem, on the 5DIII it's manual only just wondering if there's a patch or an update.



Because its fitting a curve based on multiple measurements over a wider range, which is a better approach than using the single highest measurement. There is variability in the AF system, slight differences each time you refocus on the same point. The curve fitting helps pick the best value despite that variability.


----------



## hoghavemercy (Sep 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> hoghavemercy said:
> 
> 
> > why would it compute on a suggested number when other AFMA scored higher, eg AFMA=3 1645 AfMA=4 1605 AFMA=5 1637 and it picks 4 about 6 to 8 ft from the chart it's pretty accurate but just concern if that's a problem, on the 5DIII it's manual only just wondering if there's a patch or an update.
> ...



Thanks for that. I'm learning something new everyday.


----------



## Andy Jazz (Oct 20, 2012)

Just a quick question. When I have calibrated the centre af point on my 1dx should all the Af points be correct?As they all forward focus.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 20, 2012)

Andy Jazz said:


> Just a quick question. When I have calibrated the centre af point on my 1dx should all the Af points be correct?As they all forward focus.



In theory, yes. But FoCal can actually test them all to confirm...


----------

