Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
Sure, the zooms should count as 3 or more, but then the 70-200mm should count as 3 or more without the extender, then 3 with the 1.4X and then 3 with the 2X, then times 3 bodies.
Yikes!
I think I 'll just start with one prime and one body until I could figure it all out.
Rich
<span style="font-size: small;"]Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Lane
<span style="font-size: small;"]I just had to give this a try:
<span style="font-size: small;"]3 zooms x 3 focal lengths is 9 x 3 bodies is 27x 2 extenders is 54
<span style="font-size: small;"]5 primes x 3 bodies is 15 x 2 extenders is 30
<span style="font-size: small;"]I think that would be 84 settings to figure out---It took me about an hour with one prime and one body, and I am still not sure if I am dead on or not. So, better take two weekends and don't plan on any sleeping, eating or bathroom breaks[:|]
<span style="font-size: small;"]Bob
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Williams
That would be an underestimate, Bob - you multiplied by 2 for the extenders, but that leaves out adjusting each lens without an extender! Fortunately, you also assumed the extenders are compatible with all the lenses and all lenses are compatible with all the bodies. Looking at Rich's profile, neither is the case. I make it out to be 63 combinations. For me, it takes about 30 minutes per lens+body to do a microadjustment.
Have fun! [:S]
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Details, details[:^)], But..... looks like Rich could pull this off in one weekend (without sleep of course)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Lane
Ok I will try to figure this out to:
Provided you do three settings on each zoom
EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 X2 Bodies would be6 settings (no extender)
EF 24-70mm f/2.8LX 3 Bodies would be 9 settings (no extender)
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II X 3 BodiesX 2Extenders would be 27 settings
EF 85mm f/1.8 X 3 Bodies X 2 Extenders would be 9 settings (EDIT: Not Extender Compatable so this would be 3)
EF 85mm f/1.2L II X 3 Bodies X 2 Extenders would be 9 settings (EDIT: Not Extender Compatable so this would be 3)
EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro X 3 Bodies X 2 Extenders would be 9 settings (EDIT: Not Extender Compatable so this would be 3)
EF 135mm f/2.0LX 3 Bodies X 2 Extenders would be 9 settings
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS X 3 Bodies X 2 Extenders would be 9 settings
Which would come up to 87 (Edit:it would be 69 with thecorrections)if you want to go to that extreme
I would guess, maybe be wrong, that you probably treat your multiple bodies just like I do mine, just selective lenses on certain bodies. One is a back up and its only calibrated to one or so lenses. The 1D IV stays on my big teles and the 70 x 200 so I do not do the wide primes on it. My main 5D is calibrated to most of the same lenses as the 1D IV plus the wide lenses and 100mm macro. And the 7D is calibrated to the 500mm and no other, and it never gets used any more anyway. None of mine are calibrated to the 2x as the IQ isn't good enough in my opinion any way. Only the big tele's are calibrated with the 1.4x because I am not going to use it on other lenses.You get the idea, I doubt you will go to69 different settings unless your are very meticulous and then Ithink you should seek counseling about this disorder.
Your idea of tackling one of the primes first is a good idea. The wide primes are harder to do, and the zooms seem more so. Start with the 300mm with your 1D IV, it would be the easiest.
One thing I found after I got my 1D IV, is how much more accurate the 1D body is than the 7D and 5D. All the lenses I have calibrated with the 1D IV except one have been dead on. The shot patterns out of the 1D IV are tighter. The 7D and 5D both loose an occasional shot for no reason, maybe 1 in 20 it just doesn't focus. The 1D almost never misses. These are just observations off of the tripod using lens align.
Good Luck
Rick
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
Hey Rick, These three lenses are not compatible with Canon extenders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
John
Thanks for correcting me. I was just getting ready to go to the Canon web site and start checking them to see.
But that gets me to 69 compared to your 63, still off somewhere.
I would have thought the 100mm would have been compatable.
Rick
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
Yep, I was off - 69 it is.
Wow!
Thanks for the info guys, now I could at least right this down for a plan. I knew it would be a crazy, and unfortunately Rick I am very meticulous like the rest of you guys and gals (you know who you are; insert your name here__________), when it come to things like this, so now you know why it's still sitting in the box. It's called "avoidance".
Now that my little secret is out of the bag, I guess I better get busy. I'm sure I will be searching the archives and counting on you guys for advise, when I finally get busy.
Thanks again..., now everyone get back to work! [;)]
Rich
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Lane
Rich
When I tested my 70-200mm F2.8L II I got some very strange results with the 1D IV. I ended up with some strange results. I ended up back where I started and decided that what I found is actualy how the lens is set up. It would front focus slightly at most settings and back focus slightly at 200mm.
http://community.the-digital-picture.com/photography_gear1/f/8/p/5577/49657.aspx#49657
Sounds like your going to hae a lot of fun
Rick