FoCal Results

For those who have any of the below lenses and use FoCal, how does the resolution below compare to your tests?

I was a little disappointed in the 50L and 24L. I also really wish I kept the 35L long enough to test it against my new Sigma 35.

BTW, these results were on a 5D MkII after applying the recommended micro-adjustment.

pixel peeping is a deadly disease

True. I'm just checking to see if I have a bad copy of the 24L or 50L. It's hard to know when you have no alternatives to use for a comparison.

They are both under warrantee, so it won't cost me anything to get them checked. I just don't want to waste Canon's time and drive up prices for everyone else if these resolutions are typical.

Kylemorgan88 wrote in post #15588971
True. I'm just checking to see if I have a bad copy of the 24L or 50L. It's hard to know when you have no alternatives to use for a comparison.

They are both under warrantee, so it won't cost me anything to get them checked. I just don't want to waste Canon's time and drive up prices for everyone else if these resolutions are typical.

that's the biggest problem with this software IMO.

I have the pro version, but dont use it much if any. Dont know what to expect as a baseline figure, so numbers are kind of meaningless.

The resolution data is somewhat meaningless, but the MA feature is very useful.

My 85 1.8 needed -14 MA and I can already tell a HUGE difference. It's like I have a brand new lens.

Charlie- I see you have the 50L. Did you run the aperture sharpness test?

Kylemorgan88 wrote in post #15588913

We know all of these lenses are very sharp. What this tells me is that we can definitely over measure. More sharpness from the lens does not necessarily mean your final print or web image will be any sharper.

You can't compare your resolution results with anybody else unless they had the same printer, paper, distance to target, lighting and camera body among other variables to be able to even remotely compare. There is no way.

Invertalon wrote in post #15589302
You can't compare your resolution results with anybody else unless they had the same printer, paper, distance to target, lighting and camera body among other variables to be able to even remotely compare. There is no way.

This cannot be emphasised enough. As soon as I saw those numbers down the Y-axis I new this would happen.

Well, one thing can be compared - the maximum sharpness aperture, which should be fairly immune to light, target, and even camera variations (as long as these apertures are still far from the diffraction limit imposed by the sensor). It is not a very useful parameter, though.

pulsar123 wrote in post #15590090
It is not a very useful parameter, though.

Yes, optimum aperture can be compared, but I would disagree about its usefulness. I think it's quite handy to know which of my lenses are totally crap when used wide-open and which are OK. Yes, experience gives me a good idea - eventually - but I do like having the hard data to back up what I thought was correct. So now I try to always have my 300 f2.8 +1.4x TC at f4.5 instead of f4.

Kylemorgan88 wrote in post #15588913
For those who have any of the below lenses and use FoCal, how does the resolution below compare to your tests?

I was a little disappointed in the 50L and 24L. I also really wish I kept the 35L long enough to test it against my new Sigma 35.

I have this software and while it's amazing I will be completely honest. You cannot compare the sharpness results vs. other lens period. You notice the numbers get higher as your lenses get longer, thats because your getting closer. Put your 24L 6' away and see the numbers then put that lens 1' away and the numbers are alot higher.

This software was designed for one thing... microadjustment. I do use the aperture test to show me peak for the lens though, that does help but you cannot compare to other lenses.