600mm F/4L IS AFMA settings

[East Wind Photography]

Can anyone provide guidance on their AFMA settings used with their 600 F/4L IS? I primarily am using a 5DMIII now.

Also If you've used Focal to calibrate your AFMA settings, what target distance and size has worked best for you? I have had issues getting the software to finish a test and my thoughts are perhaps I am out too far for the software to properly analyze the target. Curious as to others experience.

 

[Loswr]

I test all lenses at both 25x and 50x the focal length, and I use the standard FoCal target. So, for a 600mm lens that's 49 ft (15 m) and 98 ft (30 m). Since I'm using a multiple of the focal length, the target size in the image is the same with any lens (e.g. 24mm at 3.9' is the same FoV as 600mm at 98').

I suspect your problem is either having too much vibration and/or not having enough light. How stable is your setup and what was the EV reported for the test?

When I first started using FoCal, I ran tests on the main floor of my house (hardwood floors), and I had several failed tests. I moved the setup to the basement (concrete slab) and had none. Also, I use lots of light - I point three 150 W-equivalent gooseneck lamps at the target from a distance of 12-14", and my reported EVs are in the 11-12 range when I test indoors. For my 600/4 II, I ran the test outdoors in direct sunlight, and still had the 3 150 W-equivalent lamps pointed at the target, so my EVs were in the 15-16 range. That gave me shutter speeds of 1/1250 s with the f/5.6 combo with the 1.4xIII. I still haven't done the 600 II with the 2xIII testing - I need to find a vacant football field for that...

 

[wearle]

I just calibrated my 600mm f/4.0L IS II today using the latest, non-beta, version of FoCal. I repeated each test twice and got the exact same results each time. I used two 500-watt light bulbs indoors and got EV's between 11-12. My ISOs varied between 200-400 with the 1DX as I was forcing a shutter speed no less that 250. I'm not sure if this was necessary given it was mounted on a sturdy tripod. I may at a future time try lower shutter speeds to keep with an ISO of 100. Here are my results:

1DX

600mm +6
840mm (with 1.4X II) -1
1200mm (with 2.0X III) -7

5D2

600mm +6
840mm (with 1.4X II) -2

I was really surprised with the consistency I got between the two cameras. I'm positive it was just coincidence.

Wade

 

[rpt]

Neuro and wearle are on the money. The only thing I'd add is DO NOT USE FLUORESCENT LAMPS OR TUBES. Sorry for shouting it out but it has been one of the significant reasons my tests failed. Also never raise the central column of the tripod.

Best of luck

 

[weekendshooter]

Neuro and wearle are on the money. The only thing I'd add is DO NOT USE FLUORESCENT LAMPS OR TUBES. Sorry for shouting it out but it has been one of the significant reasons my tests failed. Also never raise the central column of the tripod.

Best of luck

Every single light in my apartment is fluourescent... No wonder FoCal kept giving me inconsistent results. Good to know! I might pick up some cheap lights and then return them afterwards.

 

[rpt]

Neuro and wearle are on the money. The only thing I'd add is DO NOT USE FLUORESCENT LAMPS OR TUBES. Sorry for shouting it out but it has been one of the significant reasons my tests failed. Also never raise the central column of the tripod.

Best of luck

Every single light in my apartment is fluourescent... No wonder FoCal kept giving me inconsistent results. Good to know! I might pick up some cheap lights and then return them afterwards.

It is a real pain. I did it 4 times before realizing it was the fluorescent bulbs! Each time the error would come at a different part of the process. I even wrote to FoCal earlier telling them that I have feedback for them - and that really turns out to be user error! When I changed the bulbs to incandescent, everything worked perfectly!

 

[Mick]

Could you guys post a link to FoCal. Im going to tweak my 500.

 

[Mick]

Hi guys, a google search and I found it. Anyone give me some user experience of Focal? Mates got a lens correction thing that seems ok. How far will I need if I want to adjust my 500 prime? I don't have a huge house. Is it easy to use? And above all, what differences have you noticed?

 

[Loswr]

I test at 25x and 50x the FL, so for 500mm that's 12.5 m and 25 m. May need to head outside.

Print the target on matte paper with an inkjet (not laser), have lots of light so you can get a fast shutter and still have >11 EV (even outdoors in sun, I add light with halogen lamps). Light must be incandescent/halogen, not fluorescent or LED (unless the LED is powered by DC, not AC). Stable tripod, obviously.

If you have extenders, you need to test with them separately (and at even longer distances).

 

[mirekti]

I bought the pro version and I would like to test my lenses. I'd also like to test all AF points.
Based on my lenses 35mm to 400mm what sizes of printed targets would I need?

I don't have a printer and I'll have to go somewhere to print them out so I guess I need to know what to ask for

Would this work fine? http://www.homedepot.com/Electrical-Electrical-Tools-Accessories-Work-Lights/h_d1/N-5yc1vZbm8pZ25egxh/R-203082160/h_d2/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10053&langId=-1&storeId=10051

 

[Loswr]

Just print the regular target and the multipoint target on letter sized matte photo paper. Test at 25x - 50x the lens focal length. You'll be a lot further from the target at 400mm than 35mm, but if you're at the same multiple of the focal length, the target will be the same size in the frame.

 

[mirekti]

That makes sense, still not sure about all the AF points though.
Does anybody know where I could go and print with ink jet? I only have access to laser printers.

 

[Loswr]

still not sure about all the AF points though.

Not sure what you mean here. FoCal provides a specific target for the multipoint test, which is how you test the off-center points (all of them, if you choose).

 

[Zusje]

I test at 25x and 50x the FL, so for 500mm that's 12.5 m and 25 m. May need to head outside.

Print the target on matte paper with an inkjet (not laser), have lots of light so you can get a fast shutter and still have >11 EV (even outdoors in sun, I add light with halogen lamps). Light must be incandescent/halogen, not fluorescent or LED (unless the LED is powered by DC, not AC). Stable tripod, obviously.

If you have extenders, you need to test with them separately (and at even longer distances).

Excuse me if this is a really stupid question, but when it comes to this kind of thing I'm not too bright: Does the camera have to plugged into the computer while you're doing this? If so I guess a desktop computer's not much good if you need to be outdoors for the longer lenses. Can anyone post a basic sketch or photo of the setup for the dummies like me?

 

[weekendshooter]

I test at 25x and 50x the FL, so for 500mm that's 12.5 m and 25 m. May need to head outside.

Print the target on matte paper with an inkjet (not laser), have lots of light so you can get a fast shutter and still have >11 EV (even outdoors in sun, I add light with halogen lamps). Light must be incandescent/halogen, not fluorescent or LED (unless the LED is powered by DC, not AC). Stable tripod, obviously.

If you have extenders, you need to test with them separately (and at even longer distances).

Excuse me if this is a really stupid question, but when it comes to this kind of thing I'm not too bright: Does the camera have to plugged into the computer while you're doing this? If so I guess a desktop computer's not much good if you need to be outdoors for the longer lenses. Can anyone post a basic sketch or photo of the setup for the dummies like me?

Yup, the camera is tethered to the computer for FoCal. It's fully automated for Canon as far as I can tell; for my Nikon I have to manually set the AFMA for each shot and tell the software to take the photo... much more inconvenient.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Could you guys post a link to FoCal. Im going to tweak my 500.

Florescent tubes usually have a frequency, where they flash on and off every 100th second. Because this is faster than the refresh cycle of the human eye, we are not aware of it. But it's more than enough to throw a camera's meter and AF system.

Here's another food for thought, why test a lens indoors at all? Tungsten light generally has a focus shift. The slower the wavelength of light is, the wider the point of focus. Only daylight should be used to calibrate a lens / camera's AF system.

 

[rpt]

Only daylight should be used to calibrate a lens / camera's AF system.

This is certainly food for thought. I will recaliberate on the weekend again!

Thanks for the tip.

 

[East Wind Photography]

If I get an opportunity I will test with tungsten as well a Solux halogen and see if there is any difference. Solux halogens are used in Art Galleries and are "tuned" to reproduce daylight and reduced UV.

Could you guys post a link to FoCal. Im going to tweak my 500.

Florescent tubes usually have a frequency, where they flash on and off every 100th second. Because this is faster than the refresh cycle of the human eye, we are not aware of it. But it's more than enough to throw a camera's meter and AF system.

Here's another food for thought, why test a lens indoors at all? Tungsten light generally has a focus shift. The slower the wavelength of light is, the wider the point of focus. Only daylight should be used to calibrate a lens / camera's AF system.

 

[East Wind Photography]

A couple of issues to consider when calibrating outside. Wind and light variability due to clouds. Focal can tolerate slight variability in light but not a good cloud drifting by. Wind is something that can affect the camera and the target and affect results considerably.

Performing the test indoors helps control those variabilities but as pointed out light focuses differently at different wavelengths. Daylight is certainly better notwithstanding the other forces of nature.

Only daylight should be used to calibrate a lens / camera's AF system.

This is certainly food for thought. I will recaliberate on the weekend again!

Thanks for the tip.

 

[nikkito]

i've calibrated my 85 ƒ1.2 and the difference is impressive! before i had to shoot a lot of pictures to get one in focus. Not anymore.

Thank you Reikan!


(yeah, i know... it sounds like a cheap ad. haha ;D)