7D2 + 100-400 II + 1.4 III

My lens and body are almost bang on at 400mm. When I add the 1.4 it requires MFA of +14 @ 560mm. I'm not saying it is a problem. It is what it is. I have read here and on other sites people needing high numbers over +10 as well.

Thought I'd do a survey. Thanks advance for your participation.

+12 at the long end for mine. (0 at the short end.)

Can the mods help me out? I was doing a cut and paste and 16 to 20 category has an extra "Be" in there. I tried to edit and it just added a vote.

Thanks

Archibald wrote in post #17729406
+12 at the long end for mine. (0 at the short end.)

I'm almost with you. 0 at the short end as well.

I just did a quick check with my 5D3. It needed very little if any.

Archibald wrote in post #17729406
+12 at the long end for mine. (0 at the short end.)

You might find this interesting.

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=17732310

This is not current but is pretty good. A lot has changed in the last 3 years with Canon adding the ability to AF at f8.

http://www.lensrentals​.com …009/01/teleconv​erters-101

This never bothered me because it is what it is. As long as the body and lens are dialled in you just work with the TC - which are tuned for prime telephoto lenses. It explains why my 1.4 II almost needed nothing with my 300L F4 IS. I have not tried it with my 300 as I hardly use it but I will now.

I just did this this morning on my 7Dmk2 100-400IS mk2 and 1.4XmkIII and also my 70-200ISmk2. The 70-200 was +3 and the 100-400 was +5 on the tele end. The 70-200 was -5 on the wide end and the 100-400 was 0

I don't what to say. Test after test and focal all say +14. I just tested my 300L F4 IS.

No TC +4

With TC +5

You clearly see the difference with the 100-400 @ 400mm and it is consistent and I'm not the only one. I also read others are getting what you are. What did your tests without the TC show? Based on what lens rentals says perhaps a small difference in normal body and lens tolerances can throw a zoom at f8 out a lot. Exponential error. It is really not an error, just normal tolerances that will be exploited in a certain direction.

A lens and body both the minus range, a lens and body both in a plus range and both opposite can cause different results how the light waves move trough the TC and lens even when final results being +3 or +14 look good. Just guessing. I'm not an engineer. I know it surprised me.

No MA

I used Lensalign I use to always do batteries and sometimes I still do that but the last time I spent 3 days using lensalign I have used focal as well but my results were all over the place so I stopped using it

I have read about that as well and that was one reason I did not use it. I did notice that early on. The developer has done fixes, etc. Not sure which ones. So far I'm getting consistent results but I'm not done yet.

I have used Lens Align as well. Bases on the ruler images I posted, flat targets (money on wall) and real world results all show the same thing. I don't lens align is going to fix this one.

If I was the only person getting these wacky then I'd say I'm doing something wrong. Archibald had these numbers.

140mm = 0

560mm = +12

I'm getting

140m +3

560mm +14

I got the email to update to focal 2.0 but I just did it the old way with lensalign. I am sure since you have already checked it that the results will be closet to the same

Yes I did. I have been keeping up with the updates. Are you using focus tune as well?

I have done all sorts of different methods. What I do now is lensalign outside and then I will check it again if I feel it is off with 5 AA batteries on a table at 45 degree angle 1 inch apart. I only MA outside now. I use to do focal like I mentioned and then I would also use a lens chart and inside I would sometimes do battery test as well. I gave up on MA adjust inside because of varying results. The worst part is I have GAS bad and I have 4 camera bodies I have to check and far too many lens. I had even thought of just getting Sony A7RII system and selling my Canon bodies so I would not have to do this LOL It really sucks to be OCD sometimes