I would buy FoCal (if you have a lot of gear it is value for money anyway) but I felt it would be too much trouble to get the targets printed at various sizes, hanged 100% vertically and use proper lighting (which I do not have). So I used trial and error and I am satisfied.A few of my lenses looked like rubbish or made the camera seem so until I microadjusted them. I did not even use focal.
A trial and error AFMA for my 85mm 1.2, 135 2 and 35 1.4 worked miracles on all my cameras.
Now something funny:
5DMkII No1: 85 1.2L II +10
5DMkII No2: 85 1.2L II +10
5DMkII No1: 35 1.4L +10
5DMkII No2: 35 1.4L 0 !!!
I think that your trial and error method has something to do with this point. I first tried trial and error, then dot-tune but was never satisfied about the results. The tolerance was there. Focal, which uses statistics behind the screens, is taking care of that error. Focal really looks for the top sharpness. I also think that a 34 1.4 is less sensitive to afma then a 85 1.2. I see that more or less also on my 24 1.4. The longer the lens the more critical. The wide angles have a much wider DOF, so simply by trial and error finding the top level of sharpness doesn't seem simple to me.
Plus a correction: My two cameras are 5DMkIII not II (but the principle is the same).