REIKAN FOCAL PRO VS LENSALIGN PRO
REIKAN FOCAL PRO VS LENSALIGN SERIES

This meant my lens was either вЂњset upвЂќ to work with my 1D bodies, or my Parameter settings for the 1D Mark III and 1D Mark IV compared to CanonвЂ™s other

REIKAN FOCAL PRO VS LENSALIGN PRO

Second, the lens required completely different Optimization Pro focus Software being perfectly calibrated using the USB dock, on the 1D Mark III and Mark IV the lens would badly front-focus Sixteen adjustable focus points available in the Sigma Optimization Pro I am not that enthusiastic about this lens, but now it is at least performing to spec.Briefly recap, my issue with the lens and original Version 1.00 firmware was 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. In re-testing fine tuning some time later, it was much worse than average with astigmatism off the chart. It had some impact damage which was repaired by the local Nikon approved repair service for more than $600. I also have the 80-400 AFS (second version of this lens). The lens quality was average, which indicates that I have a decent sample. 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. I have the Nikon 500 f/5.6 PF, which is reputed to be quite sharp. 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. In addition to focus fine tuning, Focal also offers some lens testing and evaluation. They need to all be very close to the same value.Д¬lick to expand.I too use Focal and am quite satisfied with it, but have not yet updated to the 2.0 version. 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. I like to use several methods to verify my AF fine tune accuracy. 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. 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. 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. 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. If the lighting changes even a little the results become less confident. What I have found with FoCal is that you need to be able to maintain consistent lightning to the target throughout the testing sequence. 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. The closer the results match the projected curve the better the 'result confidence' is. 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.

REIKAN FOCAL PRO VS LENSALIGN SERIES

I use Focal Pro to do it's calculation then I shoot a series of images with the target to check focus accuracy. I built a FoCal target that incorporates the diagonal ruler. It does require some user intervention with Nikon cameras, changing the fine tune value between each shot. I use FoCal Pro and it works well for me.

Reikan focal pro vs lensalign