Lens micro-adjust

[T_J_G]

Stumbled across this method and have wanted to have a play since I got the 7D (as my old body didn't have the option to).

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1187247

Did the 50mm 1.8 which required +12 adjustment and my 70-200 f4l needed +8 (at 200mm).

Not sure how much real world difference it will make but worth ten minutes of your time.

Any one else had their lenses adjusted to their body?

[DubFan]

The reason for this is that lenses are built to tolerances (just like any engineered item). Measurements of the glass thickness or distances between glass elements will be made to a tolerance of perhaps + or - 3%. Meaning that the distance between the rear element and the sensor in your camera could be a fraction out, resulting in slightly less sharp images.

If you don't have micro adjustments on your camera, you just have to swap lenses till you get one that looks sharp with your camera.
My friend once went through 3 or 4 different copies of the same lens before finding one that gave sharp images on his camera.

[T_J_G]

Wasn't really suffering with non sharp images just wanted to fiddle with something, will see what real world difference it makes.

May do a test shot at either end of the spectrum to see the difference.

[Diamond Hell]

I need to give this a whirl, especially with my 70-300mm lens.  It really isn't sharp and frustrates me massively.  I did a bunch of shots with it yesterday and wasn't happy with any of them, TBH.  Example:



Let me know your results and I'll have to get round to trying it out on my camera, too. 

[Ridg]

I need to give this a whirl, especially with my 70-300mm lens.  It really isn't sharp and frustrates me massively.  I did a bunch of shots with it yesterday and wasn't happy with any of them, TBH.  Example:



Let me know your results and I'll have to get round to trying it out on my camera, too. 

sure it's not the lens / aperture?

You're shooting wide open @ 1600 on a 'cheap' lens, the results aren't going to be fantastic, I'd also question where the camera decided to focus too.

[DubFan]

I need to give this a whirl, especially with my 70-300mm lens.  It really isn't sharp and frustrates me massively.  I did a bunch of shots with it yesterday and wasn't happy with any of them, TBH.  Example:

Let me know your results and I'll have to get round to trying it out on my camera, too. 

sure it's not the lens / aperture?

You're shooting wide open @ 1600 on a 'cheap' lens, the results aren't going to be fantastic, I'd also question where the camera decided to focus too.

Also that's a relatively 'cheap' lens on a 5D2 pro body, which will show up the quality of the glass.
You need the 70-200 f2.8 L 

[T_J_G]

Or the F4 version if you're on a budget. Love mine!


Was that handheld at 1/30 @300mm? If so that's far too slow I'd be looking at at least 1/300 or quicker.

Pre-adjustment:

Wild deer by T_J_G, on Flickr

[Diamond Hell]

You're shooting wide open @ 1600 on a 'cheap' lens, the results aren't going to be fantastic, I'd also question where the camera decided to focus too.

It's manual focus.  Should be sharp in the middle at the very least, I'd say.  The shot was handheld, but very steadily hand-held and chosen from a large number of shots.  All of the shots were *just* so sharp, but no more and definitely not enough for my liking.  I have had the same issue with previous scenarios and been similarly disappointed with the lens.

Also that's a relatively 'cheap' lens on a 5D2 pro body, which will show up the quality of the glass.
You need the 70-200 f2.8 L 

Fact. 

Now where did I leave that spare grand lying about?

[justalex81]

surely there will some movement shooting handheld? 1/30 at 300mm is gonna need seriously steady hands!

[Diamond Hell]

Just man-up