Can I calibrate a lens myself?

[tjavery]

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

Patti : It is in reference to TJavery's avatar.........
I have no idea why he uses that particular word, but a quick google search, and I increased my vocabulary by one word today....

Just a bit of engineering geekyness

[Jim Victory]

Patti find out how much it is off and you can see if the 1DMKIII will compensate. Be advised that calibrating a zoom lens on the 1DMKIII is not going to be precise. You may be able to calibrate it to give you good results at 400mm but it may not do the same at other FL. There is no way the 1DMKIII can compensate for all FL ranges of a zoom. A workaround would be to set a new lens calibration for each focal range but then you would have to change each time you changed FL.

Luckily I haven't had to use it on any of my lenses but if they get off I will definitely use that function rather than sending it to Canon.

Unfortunately the 100-400 seems to require more servicing than some of the other "L" lenses. I have sent one in before that appeared to be off and it came back the same. Luckily it was still under warranty and only cost me shipping.

I have found over the years that zooms have more of a problem with calibration than primes.

[Glassman]

Patti,
How old is your body? If your body is not over a year old, then you could send it to Canon for calibration with your lens for them to look at. It has been my experience they may calibrate the lens as a courtesy, it might be worth a try.

[Patti Edens]

Originally Posted by Jim Victory

Patti find out how much it is off and you can see if the 1DMKIII will compensate.

Jim, I think based on the white paper that it will compensate, but I'm not sure I'm doing this correctly. The lens is off about 3 inches at 400mm and f5.6 when the subject is about 20 feet away.

So, by the calculation in the white paper, it will compensate for 20 steps and a "step" is the single side depth of focus divided by 8. The DOF at 400mm and f5.6 at 20 feet away is about 1.8 inches. 1.8 divided by 8 and then multiplied by 20 steps is 4.5 inches.

So, is it correct to say that it will compensate for 4.5 inches at 20 feet, 400mm and f5.6? Because if that is correct, then it will more than compensate for the 3 inches that it is off. My problem is that I don't know what they mean by "single side" depth of focus. I'm also interpreting depth of focus as depth of field. Are they the same?

If single side means either in front or in back, then I probably need to divide the entire DOF by 2 which would mean that it will only compensate for about 2.25 inches. If that's the case, it will not work because the lens is off by about 3 inches.

Originally Posted by Jim Victory

... Be advised that calibrating a zoom lens on the 1DMKIII is not going to be precise. You may be able to calibrate it to give you good results at 400mm but it may not do the same at other FL. There is no way the 1DMKIII can compensate for all FL ranges of a zoom. A workaround would be to set a new lens calibration for each focal range but then you would have to change each time you changed FL....

Yes, I did read this in the white paper. It says that it compensates based on the maximum f stop and that will change based on where the lens is zoomed to. I hadn't thought about setting more than one calibration. I thought the microadjustment for AF in the camera would only take one calibration per lens (when in CFn 7 selection2 for by lens) and that it would recognize the lens type (all 100-400's would be treated the same) and adjust accordingly.

Originally Posted by Jim Victory

Unfortunately the 100-400 seems to require more servicing than some of the other "L" lenses. I have sent one in before that appeared to be off and it came back the same. Luckily it was still under warranty and only cost me shipping.

I have found over the years that zooms have more of a problem with calibration than primes.

Interesting that you say this about the 100-400. I think that the lens does have a lot of problems and Canon just will not own up to it. Artie Morris said the same thing at a seminar I went to. He is a Canon spokesman and he ran that lens into the ground right in front of a Canon salesman. He said he had to send his back twice and he ended up selling it never to buy another. As much as I enjoyed the lens when it worked well, I wish I had never bought it.

I was thinking of buying the 70 to 200 IS f2.8 to replace the 100-400, but now I'm not sure I want a zoom. Have you heard of this lens having any problems?

Thanks much Jim!

[Patti Edens]

Originally Posted by Glassman

Patti,
How old is your body? If your body is not over a year old, then you could send it to Canon for calibration with your lens for them to look at. It has been my experience they may calibrate the lens as a courtesy, it might be worth a try.

Billy, Good thought but I've had the camera well over a year. I have seen on another forum where someone had luck finding a sympathetic repair tech at Canon and was able to get him to recalibrate a lens for a much more reasonable price. But I don't see that happening for me.

[Jim Victory]

Originally Posted by Patti Edens

Jim, I think based on the white paper that it will compensate, but I'm not sure I'm doing this correctly. The lens is off about 3 inches at 400mm and f5.6 when the subject is about 20 feet away.

So, by the calculation in the white paper, it will compensate for 20 steps and a "step" is the single side depth of focus divided by 8. The DOF at 400mm and f5.6 at 20 feet away is about 1.8 inches. 1.8 divided by 8 and then multiplied by 20 steps is 4.5 inches.

So, is it correct to say that it will compensate for 4.5 inches at 20 feet, 400mm and f5.6? Because if that is correct, then it will more than compensate for the 3 inches that it is off. My problem is that I don't know what they mean by "single side" depth of focus. I'm also interpreting depth of focus as depth of field. Are they the same?

If single side means either in front or in back, then I probably need to divide the entire DOF by 2 which would mean that it will only compensate for about 2.25 inches. If that's the case, it will not work because the lens is off by about 3 inches.

The depth of focus is both in front and behind the plane of focus. Not sure about the calculations.

Originally Posted by Patti Edens

Yes, I did read this in the white paper. It says that it compensates based on the maximum f stop and that will change based on where the lens is zoomed to. I hadn't thought about setting more than one calibration. I thought the microadjustment for AF in the camera would only take one calibration per lens (when in CFn 7 selection2 for by lens) and that it would recognize the lens type (all 100-400's would be treated the same) and adjust accordingly.

I would have to look into it more because I know you can calibrate a lens with or without a TC as a separate lens designation. I really think this option was more focused toward primes.

Originally Posted by Patti Edens

Interesting that you say this about the 100-400. I think that the lens does have a lot of problems and Canon just will not own up to it. Artie Morris said the same thing at a seminar I went to. He is a Canon spokesman and he ran that lens into the ground right in front of a Canon salesman. He said he had to send his back twice and he ended up selling it never to buy another. As much as I enjoyed the lens when it worked well, I wish I had never bought it.

I was thinking of buying the 70 to 200 IS f2.8 to replace the 100-400, but now I'm not sure I want a zoom. Have you heard of this lens having any problems?

Thanks much Jim!

The technology of the 100-400 is the oldest of the IS generation and many improvements have been made since then that should be incorporated into this lens to make it better. Just look at what they were able to do with the 70-200 f/4L IS. This is a zoom that rivals the quality of primes in that focal range.

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS has had its share of IS problems too and I know of several people who had to have the IS unit replaced. Personally I think the 70-200 f/4L IS is a better lens with better IQ and a better IS unit. If you don't need f/2.8 it is a better choice.

[zeroendless]

Patti,

If i were in your shoe, i would get rid off 1-4 and spend that Mark III fund to get a 500/600mm instead. You would get much much better images from 500 prime + 30d than 1-4 + mark III. Assuming our shooting material is the same here.....

I have not used my 1-4L ever since i returned from Bosque last year. Put that money in great glass, upgrade to Mark III N in the future. Super-tele makes more impact on birds photography that a good body. Its a BIG step up than 1-4L + whatever body you can put you hands on.

fyi, I think someone posted here before about repair warranty. Canon claimed a 30 days warranty coverage if a problem takes place after first repair. But that person was told a year by a Canon's tech... i think is Glassman?? Try calling CS and explain the situation and see you can find one that would agreed to that. By the way, i done once sending a body that's under warranty to calibrate with out of warranty 1-4L, they didn't charge me a dime. See how to get around the problem here :)

[snidow]

Patti,
Sorry to hear your 1-4L is having troubles for a second time I've been lucky I guess and mine has worked well since I bought it. But just like Daniel suggested I ended up changing my mind yesterday on getting a new body and went after a 400L, could not afford the 500 or 600 yet but felt like I could get better sharpness from the 400L then the 1-4 and I also purchased a 1.4 II extender. Can't wait for it all to get here so I can try it out. Good Luck on which ever you decide to do.

[Pascal]

Ouch !!! Now that hurts.

Canon makes/has made 3 such zooms that are highly similar complicated designs. The 35-350mm f3.5-5.6L, 28-300mm f3.5-5.6L, and the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L. I have owned all three at one point or the other and currently only have my trusty 28-300 L.

And guess what. You can expect this service for calibration to happen once every 5-6 years. These lenses do fall out of calibration - especially the older one's. It's just the construction of the lens itself that makes it so difficult to calibrate or repair. Add to this if you have a faulty element that needs replacement.

Before I sold my 35-350L, I sent it in for calibration and that little trip to Canon Irvine cost me around $450 - not including the cost of shipping the lens to them which was another $40. They did a fine job of getting it calibrated and tack sharp (as sharp as the old lens could get) and the extra cost was for replacement of the rear element. The rear element had no visible scratches or indications as such, but I was told that it was part of the problem and a replacement was needed... yeah... right.... Had the lens been under warranty, it would have been covered under warranty.

The fact that you are being charged $340 is not really that bad. Most of the canon "L" lenses cost around $140-$180 to calibrate. The good news is if something goes wrong with it in the next 6 months after repair, you are covered and they do a good job of fixing it up fast and good. Would recommend that you simply bite the bullet and get it done. You can rely on the Mk III's focus adjustment mechanism to correct the back/front focus only to a certain degree. However, with a lens like this, you are simply better of getting it in normal working order than having to fiddle with fine tuning it for each individual focal length.

If you don't want to spend the $$$'s or invest anymore in the lens, I would suggest you get rid of it for a decent price and get yourself a copy from Adorama or B&H's refurbished department for $1269.

Just a friendly word of caution for guys who buy used equipment. If buying these 3 lenses used or for that matter the 3-4 discontinued canon lenses like the 80-200L, 50mm f1.0L, 200mm f1.8L, etc., have to keep in mind what can happen if you get a copy that is not in good condition. Some like the 80-200L, 200mm f1.8L, etc. can't be repaired through Canon and while the 50mm f1.0L can be repaired by Canon, it does cost quite a bit. Ask for pictures taken with the lens as this is the only way you can verify that the lens is in good condition.

[CobyPhoto]

Originally Posted by Pascal

Just a friendly word of caution for guys who buy used equipment. If buying these 3 lenses used or for that matter the 3-4 discontinued canon lenses like the 80-200L, 50mm f1.0L, 200mm f1.8L, etc., have to keep in mind what can happen if you get a copy that is not in good condition. Some like the 80-200L, 200mm f1.8L, etc. can't be repaired through Canon and while the 50mm f1.0L can be repaired by Canon, it does cost quite a bit. Ask for pictures taken with the lens as this is the only way you can verify that the lens is in good condition.

Actually, Canon (CPS at least) will SERVICE my 200 f/1.8, but if it needs parts, that is another deal. They have very limited parts on hand for them and NO elements. I have a name of a company somewhere and a contact that will repair lenses and such like the 50 f/1.0, 200 f/1.8 etc. that are no longer supported by Canon. I think it is Midwestern Camera Repair, but not 100%, just don't have time to dig out the info.

CJ

[Wes]

Originally Posted by Patti Edens

"Don't tell her a joke on Saturday or she'll laugh in church on Sunday."

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

[Patti Edens]

Originally Posted by zeroendless

Patti,

If i were in your shoe, i would get rid off 1-4 and spend that Mark III fund to get a 500/600mm instead. You would get much much better images from 500 prime + 30d than 1-4 + mark III. Assuming our shooting material is the same here.....

I have not used my 1-4L ever since i returned from Bosque last year. Put that money in great glass, upgrade to Mark III N in the future. Super-tele makes more impact on birds photography that a good body. Its a BIG step up than 1-4L + whatever body you can put you hands on.

fyi, I think someone posted here before about repair warranty. Canon claimed a 30 days warranty coverage if a problem takes place after first repair. But that person was told a year by a Canon's tech... i think is Glassman?? Try calling CS and explain the situation and see you can find one that would agreed to that. By the way, i done once sending a body that's under warranty to calibrate with out of warranty 1-4L, they didn't charge me a dime. See how to get around the problem here :)

Daniel, I do love to shoot birds and especially in flight but I can't see me panning with a 500mm. Guess I would have to get a Wimberly and learn to use it.

Thanks for the info about the 30 days vs 1 year. I'll give that a try.

[Patti Edens]

Originally Posted by snidow

Patti,
Sorry to hear your 1-4L is having troubles for a second time I've been lucky I guess and mine has worked well since I bought it. But just like Daniel suggested I ended up changing my mind yesterday on getting a new body and went after a 400L, could not afford the 500 or 600 yet but felt like I could get better sharpness from the 400L then the 1-4 and I also purchased a 1.4 II extender. Can't wait for it all to get here so I can try it out. Good Luck on which ever you decide to do.

Thanks Laurie. I have a 400L and really love it. I do miss the zoom capabillity. I have a lot of photos of parts of critters since I can't always get back fast enough or if I'm sitting in a blind I can't move at all. But the IQ is amazing. I think you will be glad you got it.

[Patti Edens]

[QUOTE=Pascal]Ouch !!! Now that hurts.

...
And guess what. You can expect this service for calibration to happen once every 5-6 years.
...
QUOTE]

Ty, Now that's an Ouch! Thanks for the info. I didn't know this was such a common problem.