70-200 f/2.8L IS II AFMA Settings

[lastcoyote]

Had this lens a reasonably short time and haven't had chance to use it too much yet.
On my first tests I was really pleased with it as far as sharpeness goes. Was similar to my f/4 IS version it replaced.

I've now just spent an hour adjusting AFMA on it and surprised how much I could improve it.
Wide end is now: +10
Tele end is now: +5

My 24-70 f/2.8L II doesn't need any adjustment at all so both set to 0.

Is this quite normal for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II ?
I guess it's not too excessive on AFMA. Maybe the wide end. Anyway I've re-tested over and over and confirm that it nails focus at these settings so I'll definitely leave it set this way.

What do you guys have your 70-200 f/2.8L IS II AFMA set to out of interest?

[JaxPhotographer]

Mine is adjusted as follows:

70mm: -8
200mm: -3

[neuroanatomist]

Mine is +2 at both ends, and at 135mm.  My 24-70 II is 5 units different at the ends, and two intermediate focal lengths (35mm, 50mm) fall right on the regression line. Might be worth checking 1-2 intermediate FLs on your 70-200.

[lastcoyote]

Mine is +2 at both ends, and at 135mm.  My 24-70 II is 5 units different at the ends, and two intermediate focal lengths (35mm, 50mm) fall right on the regression line. Might be worth checking 1-2 intermediate FLs on your 70-200.

oh right, I didn't know I could adjust intermediate points. thought it was just Wide and Tele end settings.
my 5D MKIII seems to auto set intermediate points automatically in relation to the two end settings.

[neuroanatomist]

Mine is +2 at both ends, and at 135mm.  My 24-70 II is 5 units different at the ends, and two intermediate focal lengths (35mm, 50mm) fall right on the regression line. Might be worth checking 1-2 intermediate FLs on your 70-200.

oh right, I didn't know I could adjust intermediate points. thought it was just Wide and Tele end settings.
my 5D MKIII seems to auto set intermediate points automatically in relation to the two end settings.

You can't set intermediate points, just W and T.  My point is that if you test at 135mm, and get an adjustment of +7 or +8, that's fine.  But if 135mm gives you something like +3 or +14, the lens should go to Canon (or be exchanged if its a recent purchase).

[Viggo]

I've had two of them, one was at -1 and -3 and the second was +1 and +3.

[lastcoyote]

Mine is +2 at both ends, and at 135mm.  My 24-70 II is 5 units different at the ends, and two intermediate focal lengths (35mm, 50mm) fall right on the regression line. Might be worth checking 1-2 intermediate FLs on your 70-200.

oh right, I didn't know I could adjust intermediate points. thought it was just Wide and Tele end settings.
my 5D MKIII seems to auto set intermediate points automatically in relation to the two end settings.

You can't set intermediate points, just W and T.  My point is that if you test at 135mm, and get an adjustment of +7 or +8, that's fine.  But if 135mm gives you something like +3 or +14, the lens should go to Canon (or be exchanged if its a recent purchase).

oh right sorry i understand you now.
yes in fact i did actually test at 135mm and it was indeed +8 so that's perfect.
i'm certain this is a great copy that i've got. think it's just that i've only ever adjusted a lens by a couple of digits either way before. i'm very happy with it nailing focus at the settings I mentioned earler.

[beckstoy]

My 70-200 f2.8 II is my ONLY lens which needed no AFMA straight out of the box!  I'm super pleased with how great it works on my 5DM3.  My favorite lens, no doubt.

[lastcoyote]

My 70-200 f2.8 II is my ONLY lens which needed no AFMA straight out of the box!  I'm super pleased with how great it works on my 5DM3.  My favorite lens, no doubt.

this is actually my experience with most of my other L lenses to be honest and in fact at first I thought my 70-200 f2.8L II was the same and needed no AFMA because it was already super sharp but actually doing some microadjustments just makes it even more accurate at nailing focus.
I've checked it over again and actually it's more accurate at +8 on the wide end rather than +10. there's very little in it really. I guess that's a testament to how sharp it is in the first place.

[Viggo]

I have owned 30 lenses on 4 afma enabled bodies, all of them calibrated properly with Canon and it's only ONE lens that needed no afma and that was one of the three copies of the 50 L, but I write that off as pure luck. All lenses to all bodies should be calibrated through Reikan Focal or other equally good methods. I don't believe that one can own 8 lenses and two bodies and no afma needed. There's a difference between good enough and optimal and everyone is different in how much they see or care about it.

If you only shoot stopped down and never larger than f4 I can understand the statement, but f2.0 and bigger will show it. My 200 f2.0 is calibrated at the same place as my 1d, and it needed +4 and the difference is highly noticeable. It's sharp at 0 also, but mindblowing at +4.

[kw]

Has anyone any experience related to different AFMA values for different distances to the subject.
I have tested Sigma 50 1.4 on 5DMIII with Reikan Focal, and I got substantially different AFMA values for different distances:
distance 3 meters -> AFMA=-4,
distance 5 meters -> AFMA=-10.
Is this specific for Sigam (I think I have read some notes about Sigma AF nonconcistancy) or anything more general?

[neuroanatomist]

Has anyone any experience related to different AFMA values for different distances to the subject.
I have tested Sigma 50 1.4 on 5DMIII with Reikan Focal, and I got substantially different AFMA values for different distances:
distance 3 meters -> AFMA=-4,
distance 5 meters -> AFMA=-10.
Is this specific for Sigam (I think I have read some notes about Sigma AF nonconcistancy) or anything more general?

AFMA values can vary by distance, particularly with close subjects.  Personally, I test all lenses at 25x and 50x the focal length.

[lastcoyote]

I have owned 30 lenses on 4 afma enabled bodies, all of them calibrated properly with Canon and it's only ONE lens that needed no afma and that was one of the three copies of the 50 L, but I write that off as pure luck. All lenses to all bodies should be calibrated through Reikan Focal or other equally good methods. I don't believe that one can own 8 lenses and two bodies and no afma needed. There's a difference between good enough and optimal and everyone is different in how much they see or care about it.

If you only shoot stopped down and never larger than f4 I can understand the statement, but f2.0 and bigger will show it. My 200 f2.0 is calibrated at the same place as my 1d, and it needed +4 and the difference is highly noticeable. It's sharp at 0 also, but mindblowing at +4.

actually i totally agree with you here.
people are different on what they consider 'good enough'. as i mentioned before out of the box i considered my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II to need little or no AFMA. if I hadn't been playing around with AFMA yesterday I'd of considered it needed no adjustment. but just a bit of testing and tweaking showed that actually you can get even better results.

i should really spend time to properly callibrate all my lenses even though i'm more than happy with how they perform now.

viggo it sounds like you send your lenses to a canon service center to be professionally calibrated. do you always send your body along with the lens? and does it always come back performing perfectly?

[Viggo]

I have owned 30 lenses on 4 afma enabled bodies, all of them calibrated properly with Canon and it's only ONE lens that needed no afma and that was one of the three copies of the 50 L, but I write that off as pure luck. All lenses to all bodies should be calibrated through Reikan Focal or other equally good methods. I don't believe that one can own 8 lenses and two bodies and no afma needed. There's a difference between good enough and optimal and everyone is different in how much they see or care about it.

If you only shoot stopped down and never larger than f4 I can understand the statement, but f2.0 and bigger will show it. My 200 f2.0 is calibrated at the same place as my 1d, and it needed +4 and the difference is highly noticeable. It's sharp at 0 also, but mindblowing at +4.

actually i totally agree with you here.
people are different on what they consider 'good enough'. as i mentioned before out of the box i considered my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II to need little or no AFMA. if I hadn't been playing around with AFMA yesterday I'd of considered it needed no adjustment. but just a bit of testing and tweaking showed that actually you can get even better results.

i should really spend time to properly callibrate all my lenses even though i'm more than happy with how they perform now.

viggo it sounds like you send your lenses to a canon service center to be professionally calibrated. do you always send your body along with the lens? and does it always come back performing perfectly?

I rarely send my lenses for calibration, but I do send my bodies. In my experience the bodies can get quite a bit more accurate with a calibration and that also makes the lenses hit better. But if I service a lens for something else I ask them to adjust focus also. They always come back better for sure, but I always run them through Focal and do afma myself.