Fine tuning your lenses. Also anyone use FoCal and FoCal Pro?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

B

blong10

Member
Member's gallery
Hello,

I was wondering what different ways you guys fine-tune your lenses to get perfect sharpness. I did watch Steve's video on fine-tuning lenses and it looks very good. I was just wondering what other ways others are using. I did see software called FoCal and FoCal Pro. Is this software any better than the standard tuning?
 
Member's gallery
A search on this site for "fine tuning lenses" will give you a number of options, some threads in great detail about the pros and cons of the subject.
 
Member's gallery
I use FoCal Pro on my Nikon F mount lenses with the D850 and D5. It is not fully automatic, as with Canon lenses, but the only manual steps you have to perform is to change the FineTune value when prompted. It definitely is a time saver, compared to doing it by trial and error. The program shows you a Before and After shots of the target and generates nice reports.
 
Member's gallery
Palouse said:
A brand new version of Focal was just released that automates the process for all major makes, including Nikon.
Click to expand...
Sorry Nick, the new FoCal does not support full auto for Nikon a la Canon, you still have to manually input the adjustments. I have been using FoCal for several years and find it easy to use and very accurate. It's well worth the money.

As a registered user I was informed of the new release and downloadd it for free. It is a signifcant improvement.
 
Member's gallery
BCcanuck said:
Sorry Nick, the new FoCal does not support full auto for Nikon a la Canon, you still have to manually input the adjustments. I have been using FoCal for several years and find it easy to use and very accurate. It's well worth the money.

As a registered user I was informed of the new release and downloadd it for free. It is a signifcant improvement.
Click to expand...
The slick email I got from them promised just that!
I no longer use it, now that I have 2 mirrorless cameras.
 
Member's gallery
I used last year's version of FoCal and could not get consistent results for the life of me. Every test I ran gave different results. I actually thought my lenses or body were all bad.

I then switched to a LensAlign target and shot manual tests indoors with natural light. This gave me consistent, repeatable results every time.

I preferred the LensAlign so much that I never bothered to go back and re-test with FoCal indoors, so I can't definitively say if I was experiencing a FoCal problem or a (imperceptible) wind problem.

But I can tell you-- seeing your DOF on the LensAlign slanted ruler is a game changer. Way better than evaluating a mere flat target like the one FoCal provides.

And I would be remiss to not mention: if you aren't seeing consistent front- or back-focus issues, your lens likely does not need to be calibrated at all.
 
Member's gallery
I use FoCal Pro and it works well for me. It does require some user intervention with Nikon cameras, changing the fine tune value between each shot. I built a FoCal target that incorporates the diagonal ruler. I use Focal Pro to do it's calculation then I shoot a series of images with the target to check focus accuracy. The math teacher in me likes to watch FoCal work, it measures focus accuracy on the target at each setting and uses curve fitting to project the best focus value, it continues to check points and calculates the curve. The closer the results match the projected curve the better the "result confidence" is. I find the results of my nikkor 70-200 f2.8 FL E lens to be spot on while my 70-300AF P to be much less so and I would suspect that is just due to the quality of the lens.

What I have found with FoCal is that you need to be able to maintain consistent lightning to the target throughout the testing sequence. If the lighting changes even a little the results become less confident. I have tried it outdoors but even on a bright day with no wind there can be enough change in the lighting to impact the results. Indoors I have found that I need to be certain that the target does not receive much outdoor window light that might vary during the testing. The process will measure a number of images along the -20 to +20 range so it will take at least 5 minutes to complete the test. A 500mm lens with 1.4 TC takes at least 50 feet to calculate and I have difficulty finding a direct path in my house to make that work well.

I like to use several methods to verify my AF fine tune accuracy. I might use FoCal to measure a value, then use use Dot Tune to see what values it provides, and then I will do some test shots even if it is just the "throw the tennis ball out in the grass" type testing to check the results. They need to all be very close to the same value.
 
Member's gallery
I use Fo-Cal and just updated to the 2020 release. I must admit to some inconsistent results using auto mode so I take a series of three images at each fine tune value then let the software analyse them. Works better for me.

One final thing is Reikan customer support is very good.
 
Member's gallery
I have tried FoCal and also LensAlighn. I found both methods inconsistent with long lenses. What worked best for me was the Dot Tune method.
I found it easy to do, fast and repeatable. I used on my 500/4 lens and also the Sigma Sport 150-600 where 16 calibrations are needed for 4 different focal lengths and 4 distances. Calibrating the zoom with Dot Tune was fairly straight forward while more time consuming as the 500/4 it was vastly quicker than other methods I have used. For me the key was the repeatability I experienced with Dot Tune.
No method is perfect and for a lot of wildlife photography of distant subjects the adjustments may not be critical.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I have used Dot Tune for a long time and I find it to be easy and accurate just as long as you average the results. My newer Nikons do focus fine tuning in camera and I have compared those results with the Dot Tune and they are essentially the same. I average the Nikon fine tune also.
 
Member's gallery
agrumpybirdphotographer said:
I use Fo-Cal and just updated to the 2020 release. I must admit to some inconsistent results using auto mode so I take a series of three images at each fine tune value then let the software analyse them. Works better for me.

One final thing is Reikan customer support is very good.
Click to expand...

I too use Focal and am quite satisfied with it, but have not yet updated to the 2.0 version.

In addition to focus fine tuning, Focal also offers some lens testing and evaluation. It can tell you at what apertures the lens is sharpest and also how the tested lens compares to others of the same version in its data base. I have the Nikon 500 f/5.6 PF, which is reputed to be quite sharp. Calibrating my lens showed that it needed a slight focus fine adjustment and that the optimal aperture was f/8, but results wide open at f/5.6 were only minimally different. The lens quality was average, which indicates that I have a decent sample.

I also have the 80-400 AFS (second version of this lens). It had some impact damage which was repaired by the local Nikon approved repair service for more than $600. In re-testing fine tuning some time later, it was much worse than average with astigmatism off the chart. I sent the lens to Nikon repair in New York and after spending more than $600 in additional repair, the lens performed much better on re-calibration. I am not that enthusiastic about this lens, but now it is at least performing to spec.

Bill
 
Member's gallery
I never felt I need more than a simple Spyder LensCal for it and as long as I pay attention to do the fine tuning in proper lighintg conditions and with the right camera setting the results were always spot on. I have made it a habit to fine tune if I get a new long lens or a new camera, because I found the initial "out-in-a-rush" testing of a new toy can cause confusing results if tolerances add up the wrong way. Even after having sent something to Nikon for checking/repair I take the time and check the fine tune settings, because most likely the situation has changed when looking at these really small tolerances that can cause sub-optimal results in the end. That said, it is important to know that my most critical lens is a 500 f4G. I could imagine that more modern lenses are less sensitive in this respect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top