5D MKII AF with 50 f/1.4 USM

[xavier_henri]

<p>Focus recompose on the center AF point works very well for me. And LiveView manual focusing with zoom will give you the best accuracy you can ever dream of.</p>

[arthuryeo]

<p>This are the pain and pitfalls for buying fast lenses. They can have front/rear focus issues depending on the mating tolerances of mount.</p>

<p>Is there a AF-tuning option in a 5DMk2, like what a D700/D3 has?</p>

 

[hawkman]

<p>Yes Arthur MKII has MA which is the same as Nikon AF fine tuning , but that is not the problem here as I mentioned since there is no systematic front or back focus. I have a D700 too, there is no comparison in AF between the two but I got the MKII for high resolution landscape and architecture shots, stationary subjects mostly.</p>

<p> </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Arash,</p>

<p>As I mentioned earlier my AF inconsistencies were not all front or back focused but after MA they were eliminated. When I went through the process linked to above it was very interesting to watch the focus ring, it goes past the correct focus and then back to where it thinks is the best. As you dial in adjustments the amount it corrects get less and less.</p>

<p>Anyway, for your intended landscape and architecture uses, whilst I don't excuse the poor AF performance you seem to be getting, Live View is a far far better choice. You will get much better results with it and I am sure you will be happy with the resolution of the 5D MkII.</p>

[hawkman]

<p>Hi Scott,<br>

Can you explain how to perform MA when the results from AF test target seem to be in perfect focus? In other words what amount of MA should I dial in and on what basis? Will this then affect the conditions where AF seems to be good already?<br>

I use live view on tripod it is also easier to frame but sometimes I am handholding and it's difficult to use live view. I am happy with the sharpness and amount of detail in the RAW files it is excellent.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Arash,</p>

<p>If I were in your position, thinking of giving up with the lens, then I would do several series of shots and dial in +10 and -10. Did you use the interference pattern I linked to? It is far more accurate than any test target visual inspection, no ten test shots and asses the results rubbish.</p>

<p>If either shows promise I'd then do two more tests + and - 5 from the setting that helped and narrow it down like that. It is important to have the test subject a distance from the camera, Canon say a minimum of 50 times the focal length, it seems the longer the better for distance work like your landscapes and architecture though.</p>

[hawkman]

<p>I used my usual test image <a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/focustest/">http://www.photo.net/learn/focustest/</a> that I use for my telephoto lenses at about 1.5m from Camera, I will try the wave pattern at 2-3m distance to see if it makes any difference.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

[hawkman]

<p>I did the focus test with the wave pattern at ~ 10ft, result is no MA was needed. I also tested the lens with 7D which not only has better AF than MKII but also all points are cross-type and equally accurate (leaves you wondering why Canon did not put this AF module in the 5D MKII!) anyways the phrase that best describes AF performance of this lens is "crap shoot" as someone said earlier! It is better if you glue the AF switch to manual position.<br>

Looks like 50mm is a real handicap for Canon, for now I am returning this lens and sticking with what lenses I have, I will test the Sigma if AF was any better I will get one. Also I found out that distortion was pretty high for this lens despite being a 50mm prime, not good for architecture work to begin with... </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[hawkman]

<p>Samples from 7D</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[hawkman]

<p>Another one</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[stb]

<p>Sorry, but I have to ask: do you really need AF for landscape photography?</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p><em>"Sorry, but I have to ask: do you really need AF for landscape photography?"</em><br>

<em></em><br>

*sigh*, I can't decide if your question is sarcastic or not. You obviously don't NEED AF for any sort of photography but it is useful and convenient in many situations, including landscape photography.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>The 50mm 1.4 is one of my favorite lenses but the AF has a material margin of error. When precise focus is needed at close distances I us my Minolta manual focus instead.</p>

<p>See a thread I posted on the topic a while ago:<br>

http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00UIER</p>

 

[joe_fikes]

<p>I have the same camera and lens. The 50 f/1.4 is great optically but lousy when it comes to the focusing mechanism. </p>

<p>Here's my question... Have any of you sent the *THIS* model lens back to Canon to have them work on the problem, and what was the result? Cost? Mine is about 6 years old and long out of warranty. It's had the problem from when it was new, but I think it's worse now. It's really not worth spending more than, say, $100 to get it fixed. It would really burn me if it came back as bad is it is now having spent a lot of money to fix it.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Joe</p>

[jake_cole]

<p>Mauro, you sure spent some time on this. I'd never heard that the 50mm f/1.4 had a broad AF tollerance. I think everyone that uses AF knows that sometimes it pays to focus twice or three times to get precise focus, but apparantly that didn't work for Arash on his lens/camera. I wonder if the date of the lens makes any difference, I'm going to try to pay more attention and see if the issue pops up on my sample. Arash's example looks pretty severe where as yours looks like it is closer to normal tollerances. Thanks for the testing.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Your welcome Cole. <br>

You could test it now at home if you have a subject you can shoot with fine detail 20 feet away or so.<br>

Shoot 3 shots at f1.4 and compare them to see whether they all look the same.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>The 50mm 1.4 is one of my favorite lenses but the AF has a material margin of error. When precise focus is needed at close distances I us my Minolta manual focus instead.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why not just manually focus the Canon 50mm? It seems unnecessary to change a standard lens just so you can focus manually.</p>

[hawkman]

<p>I just wanted to add that I returned the 50 lens and got a 24-105L instead to use it for general purpose situations. AF is much better than the 50, even in low light I can track subjects in AI-servo mode, here is one example, peripheral points aren't bad either as long as you give them enough contrast... Time for Canon to make a proper 50mm with good AF and low distortion.<br /> Focus point was on the umbrella.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>My 50 F1.4 has very high IQ but the AF is a bit hit or miss with the 1V, 5DII and even the 7D. Still it is not an expensive lens for the quality of the results.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Arash, glad you resolved your issue! Before I sold my 50 1.4 USM I tested it against my 24-105L, both at 50mm/F4 and found the L zoom both sharper and more contrasty. And, as you noticed, the zoom focuses much better, even in low light.</p>

[caleb_santos]

<p>You guys made me curious. I heard of questionable AF performance with the 5Dmk2, so I googled it and came to this. I know my 50mm 1.4 isn't exactly an AF champ, but I never put the entire AF system into question. I own a 5Dmk2 but it wasn't available for this test. After reading this thread I slapped a calendar up on my desk, grabbed my 10D with 50mm 1.4 and sought my own results. The following test was very make-shift and quick. The calendar was just a few feet in front of me, and I set the focus to infinity before Auto-focusing. Aperture was f/2.8, 1/30 shutter, AWB for the first image (I changed it to tungsten for the next 2). After each photo I manually set the focus distance back to infinity. The results were interesting, but I'm not a super pro so I don't really know how to analyze them. Here are the images at 100% crop.<br>

<img src="http://isensee.zenfolio.com/p135737677/h1a941eee#h1a941eee" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://isensee.zenfolio.com/p135737677/h1a941eee#h85ad5b8" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://isensee.zenfolio.com/p135737677/h1a941eee#h1c52eb15" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://www.santos-isensee.com/ee/media/50mm%201.4%20test/1.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://www.santos-isensee.com/ee/media/50mm%201.4%20test/2.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://www.santos-isensee.com/ee/media/50mm%201.4%20test/3.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>So, why did the focus get progressively better? I turned off the camera and uploaded the pictures to look at them. I put the CF card back in the camera and ran the test one more time. Same results, only, the first picture wasn't as badly out of focus. Any comments from a knowledgeable pro would be cool.</p>