... For me, a student with basically no money, its not worth it. At the other end, for a full time, well paid working professional its probably a different story....
As someone relying on accurate sharp images for my job, I fall into the second category, and still don't think it's remotely worth it.
Given how often I change camera bodies or buy new lenses, I can think of far better ways to spend $150 for the business.
It's really not that much effort to do some experiments - trust what you find, rather than any 'received wisdom' on the matter.
Same goes for that old photo folklore of hyper focal focusing ;-)
I'd tend to agree with that.
I've found a couple of lenses out of dozens that were way off, my 85mm f/1.8 and my 35mmL. Canon adjusted the new 35mmL, and I used AFMA for the 85mm. If I had had FoCal when I bought the 85mm lens, I'd have had it adjusted, since it took -17 to adjust. There were big differences from camera body to camera body as well.
I rechecked my table of AFMA values and found that my 15mm F/E needed a AFMA of -15 on my 5D MK II, but a +2 on my 7D, so the hyper focal stuff did not bear out. I might run it again on my 5D MK III and save the curve to see the shape (Broad or peaked). Generally, a +/- 3 makes very little difference in sharpness.
I pre-ordered the pro version for far less in late 2011 or early 2012, and I thought the price was steep. I've managed to get a reasonable amount of use from it, and once I printed targets that were good quality, than its fairly fast to test a lens / body. I've also found that I can manually do a adjustment and get into the close enough range in less time by viewing at 10X on the LCD.
$150 seems extreme to me.
I'm expecting Canon to release cameras that have the adjustment built in. There have been two patents in the past year doing some types of AF optimization, and the dual pixel technology seems to produce very accurate AF if you use live view.