Opinion requested re micro adj required or not

My first reaction was to the foreground clutter in the test shot, which Joe mentioned already. While it appears that the grass is outside the center of the camera's focus zone it does pose a possibility for the auto focus system to become confused. Your target has plenty of contrast so any focus stutter would not likely be related to that.

If I were to try an evaluate this shot with the assumption that AF locked on to the face of the box, I would say that it appears to be back focusing. At that distance and f5.6 the DOF would be quite shallow so the point of focus could be between the box face and just in front of the tire. If that were the case then a negative MA would be in order. It's difficult to find a focus point in your shot, that's why I'm assuming it's where I mentioned.

In order to take away any variables that may make adjustments difficult I would first be sure the distance is correct and that there are no obstructions or wind, secondly be sure that your target is square to your camera's focal plane (sensor). The variables I mention are tricky which is why I picked up a LensAlign Mark II system for my 500L. The LA MKII made all the difference with my MK IV and 500L combo. I was able to get a very accurate MA when including my 1.4X TC as well.

FoCal is new and I've heard good things about it. It may be a very good choice for you, it just involves a laptop in the process.

Nighthound wrote in post #14605556
My first reaction was to the foreground clutter in the test shot, which Joe mentioned already. While it appears that the grass is outside the center of the camera's focus zone it does pose a possibility for the auto focus system to become confused. Your target has plenty of contrast so any focus stutter would not likely be related to that.

If I were to try an evaluate this shot with the assumption that AF locked on to the face of the box, I would say that it appears to be back focusing. At that distance and f5.6 the DOF would be quite shallow so the point of focus could be between the box face and just in front of the tire. If that were the case then a negative MA would be in order. It's difficult to find a focus point in your shot, that's why I'm assuming it's where I mentioned.

In order to take away any variables that may make adjustments difficult I would first be sure the distance is correct and that there are no obstructions or wind, secondly be sure that your target is square to your camera's focal plane (sensor). The variables I mention are tricky which is why I picked up a LensAlign Mark II system for my 500L. The LA MKII made all the difference with my MK IV and 500L combo. I was able to get a very accurate MA when including my 1.4X TC as well.

FoCal is new and I've heard good things about it. It may be a very good choice for you, it just involves a laptop in the process.

Many thanks for the detailed reply. I am prepared to pay for FoCal, but 1st I'll try the cheap method I notice the mkIV can detect the addition of a TC when carrying out MA and it treats the combination as a seperate lens, the adjustment for which it stores in memory.
I can't argue with what you've done though, I've seen many of your bird shots

Update on this, I've tried manual micro adjustments but with only limited success and I'm still not happy with the results obtained.
I've got 5 lenses, a TC and two camera bodies and I'd feel a lot happier knowing they were all as well adjusted as they could be.
I might try the tethered method using the EOS utility to MA the camera focus using wired remote control of liveview but, failing that, FoCal will get my business.

It tough to tell what is wrong from your shot... but it definatly does look a little out of focus. Right now I can't determine where your focal plane is so I have assume it's a general focusing issue and not a front or back focus one.

you could try and angle the box a little and take the picture aiming at the middle of the box so we can see where the focal planes lies

leemik wrote in post #14606712
It tough to tell what is wrong from your shot... but it definatly does look a little out of focus. Right now I can't determine where your focal plane is so I have assume it's a general focusing issue and not a front or back focus one.

you could try and angle the box a little and take the picture aiming at the middle of the box so we can see where the focal planes lies

^^ That's why I suggested what I do. Autofocus it, flick live view on, zoom in, then depending which direction of manual focus brings it into sharper focus you know if it's front or back focusing. Add/minus some MA, test again....

leemik wrote in post #14606712
It tough to tell what is wrong from your shot... but it definatly does look a little out of focus. Right now I can't determine where your focal plane is so I have assume it's a general focusing issue and not a front or back focus one.

you could try and angle the box a little and take the picture aiming at the middle of the box so we can see where the focal planes lies

LeeRatters wrote in post #14607012
^^ That's why I suggested what I do. Autofocus it, flick live view on, zoom in, then depending which direction of manual focus brings it into sharper focus you know if it's front or back focusing. Add/minus some MA, test again....

Thanks for those replies fellas, variations on a theme that I've been trying this afternoon. I have seen some improvements for sure but the results have been inconsistant and I'm still not happy with what I'm getting, especially when I'm testing with the TC added. To ensure I get all my gear MA'd correctly I'm going to go for FoCal.
The way I see it, if I get an OOF shot at present, I don't know whether it's technique or hardware or a combination of the two which is at fault. If I was sure the lenses were all correctly calibrated then there's only one answer...

It could be that the lens is just soft.... not all lenses are razor sharp, especialy if you put a TC on it..

Not that you don't know this but adding a TC requires a new MA combo for the lens and TC. The camera will not pick up the lens and use it's MA.

huntersdad wrote in post #14607539
Not that you don't know this but adding a TC requires a new MA combo for the lens and TC. The camera will not pick up the lens and use it's MA.

Indeed and the fitment of the TC was giving the most inconsistant results in that I'd try adjustment on a test card which would seem better, then I'd take before and after shots of a distant subject and the after shots would be worse. I can only conclude that I'm introducing human error hence wasting my time.

2slo wrote in post #14604699
to me that's OOF hence I think the lens needs MA. That's just my opinion of course, would you agree or am I expecting too much?

without knowing which focus point the camera has used and where on this 100% crop the focus point was, there is no way to tell wether the MA needs changing or not!

if you can please post a complete shot (with all exif still attched) we can have a look & make some informed guesses, rather than crystal ball gazing...

joeseph wrote in post #14607827
without knowing which focus point the camera has used and where on this 100% crop the focus point was, there is no way to tell wether the MA needs changing or not!

if you can please post a complete shot (with all exif still attched) we can have a look & make some informed guesses, rather than crystal ball gazing...

The full EXIF data is on my Flikr, by all means have a look at it. I don't have the original (uncropped) shot anymore.
I used centre point focus, the focus point was the centre of the box face. I lined my camera up level with the box on a steady tripod without legs extended and used a wired remote shutter release.
TBH all I was looking for was opinion as to whether the result was of an acceptable standard or whether, as I think, the combination could and should do better hence MA needs doing.

2slo wrote in post #14607950
The full EXIF data is on my Flikr, by all means have a look at it. I don't have the original (uncropped) shot anymore.
I used centre point focus, the focus point was the centre of the box face. I lined my camera up level with the box on a steady tripod without legs extended and used a wired remote shutter release.
TBH all I was looking for was opinion as to whether the result was of an acceptable standard or whether, as I think, the combination could and should do better hence MA needs doing.

no worries.... I'd read & re-read the thread looking for the info you've just added and wondered how anyone could come to a sensible conclusion at all.

I get the feeling that the focus plane is a bit behind the box face - hard to tell but probably not much in it, so not sure you really need to fiddle.

The Focal software (I own a copy) is really a big time-saver in the MA adjustment process if you do need it - although by trial-&-error you could probably come up with a similar result. You do need to be wary of what target you use, because the focus sensors are a bit bigger then the red-squares and they respond best to contrast so if there's a black/white edge that is within the sensor area then it'll lock onto that much more than a grey/white edge (if that makes any sense...)

joeseph wrote in post #14609358
no worries.... I'd read & re-read the thread looking for the info you've just added and wondered how anyone could come to a sensible conclusion at all.

I get the feeling that the focus plane is a bit behind the box face - hard to tell but probably not much in it, so not sure you really need to fiddle.

The Focal software (I own a copy) is really a big time-saver in the MA adjustment process if you do need it - although by trial-&-error you could probably come up with a similar result. You do need to be wary of what target you use, because the focus sensors are a bit bigger then the red-squares and they respond best to contrast so if there's a black/white edge that is within the sensor area then it'll lock onto that much more than a grey/white edge (if that makes any sense...)

Thanks, I understand. The software seems the best option for reasons I went into above, plus the time it would take for me to go through every combination of body, lens, TC. I'll order it in the next few days.

Update on this. I held off buying the MA software as I decided to do some more testing on this lens first. To cut a long story short, I couldn't get an acceptably sharp image under carefully controlled conditions using any one of 3 Canon DSLRs with this lens (my 1DmkIV, my 7D plus a friends 7D) I tried MA on all three bodies, the results being that the 1DIV produced a slightly better image than the two 7Ds (which were very much the same). None of the images were acceptable so I can only conclude that I seem to have a poor copy of the 400mm f/5.6. I've spoken to the supplier (Jessops) who want it in to sent back to Canon. I'm taking it in tomorrow. Once they've had a look at it, assuming they agree it's faulty, they will either repair or replace. I'll update when I get a response.

Final update: I got my 400mm back from Canon UK yesterday after a 2 week turnaround. They did find issues with the lens, they state they have 'recentred it' and they recommended microadjustment to my camera bodies.I have now microadjusted it (it needed +4) and I'm quite pleased with the results. A couple of shots taken today: