Not a good wide standard XL2 Factory lens!!! at DVinfo.net

Antony Quintin · September 14th, 2005, 04:21 AM

I was surprised with the standard lens on the XL2, the point of it not being that wide angled. Compared to my small Panasonic 3CCD DX110, it looks so zoomed in!!!! Does anyone have any recommendations for another lens I could use, but no the 3X wide angle lens.

I nearly have my XL2 set-up completes, with mattebox, radio mic and pro tripod now!! I must admit it does look the part!!! hehe

Jay Gladwell · September 14th, 2005, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antony Quintin

Does anyone have any recommendations for another lens I could use, but no the 3X wide angle lens.

I'm curious. What's wrong with Canon's 3x wide angle lens?

This is the whole idea of having a camera with interchangeable lenses. We call it "flexibility." With these two lenses, an XL2 operator can cover a whole lot more ground than anyone with a single lens camera.

Jay

Antony Quintin · September 14th, 2005, 05:44 AM

Nothing really. Just wud prefer a lens with more zoom AND wider angle.

A

Jay Gladwell · September 14th, 2005, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antony Quintin

Nothing really. Just wud prefer a lens with more zoom AND wider angle.

Well, from your point of view (no pun intended), your options are limited.

Jay

Antony Quintin · September 14th, 2005, 05:50 AM

cheers lol - good pun too!!!

Jeff Miller · September 14th, 2005, 10:33 AM

From what your wants sound like, your best bet is probably a wide converter for the 20x. Then you can have a decent wide angle and if you really need to drill in close on something, you can pop the converter off.

Personally, if I could buy it all again I'd go with the 3x lens. My Century 0.7x might as well be welded onto the 20x OIS. Being able to zoom in to 20x is great, I just rarely need to.

Oh yeah, there are umpteen reviews on wide converters in this forum, heh. But having a single lens with the wide characteristics and 20x zoom is going to be expensive. Also note that a true zoom-though converter is going to add a good pound of glass and metal to the front-heavy XL2.

Antony Quintin · September 14th, 2005, 03:55 PM

thanks jeff

Marty Hudzik · September 14th, 2005, 04:29 PM

Remember that when you add glass in front of your current lens you will take a sharpness hit. I use the really high quality .7x from Century and the image does soften a little. Not a big deal since the XL2 is so sharp and clean anyway. But when you zoom in far, and you have areas of high contrast, the lens will show chromatic abberation. After all, its' bending the light to achieve a wider field of view and that can cause anomalies. In some shots it is un-noticable and in others you can see it.

You need to balance what is important to you personally. If absolute clarity is then the 3x lens is a better fit. If flexiblity in one lens is more important then the CO adapter should be fine.

Antony Quintin · September 14th, 2005, 05:23 PM

great advice thank u :)

Terry Yuen · September 15th, 2005, 08:15 AM

I wonder how this HD-FXR180 will look when fitted in front of the our 20X lens.

Mike Berlucchi · September 22nd, 2005, 10:43 AM

hey guys i havent shot with the 3x lens but i have heard that the quality of the image using the 3x lens is greatly reduced. They say the lens was designed for the xl1 and for some reason it doesnt work as well with the xl2. it will still give you a wider view just it doesnt deliver the full xl2 quality. i would like to see some frame grabs from the 3x, 16x and 20x side by side. if anyone has some please post a link.

Ash Greyson · September 22nd, 2005, 11:39 AM

100% false... I shoot with the 3X all the time on my XL2's and never had any problems. The image is not reduced at all and it is noticeably better than any adapter (the Century ones are the best). Whoever told you that the 3X reduces quality either has never used it or has a broken 3X. A few people have reported back-focus issues but I have never seen anyone say anything about a reduction in image quality and surely not "greatly reduced."

ash =o)

Jeff Miller · September 22nd, 2005, 11:46 AM

I wish I knew firsthand (ie own a 3x :) but I agree with Ash. This has been gone over before

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=49035
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=48768
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=35163

Don't feel bummed out, that misinformation ran pretty deep. I originally heard it from one of the sponsers, but nowadays I think it's a farce.

Mike Berlucchi · September 22nd, 2005, 11:49 AM

hey ash ya i wasnt sure about it when i heard that either since it is a canon lens and it is constanty talked good about. but if you have any footage from it and good post it that would be sweet because ive been looking into the 3x or the 16x and i was shyed away from the 3x when i heard that but if you have some footage or something you could send that would be awesome. they could have been talking about the back focusing problem and i just understood wrong.

Mike Berlucchi · September 22nd, 2005, 11:50 AM

yes that is who i heard it from, one of the sponsors so i fiugred they knew.

September 14th, 2005, 04:21 AM	#1
Antony Quintin Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 83	Not a good wide standard XL2 Factory lens!!! I was surprised with the standard lens on the XL2, the point of it not being that wide angled. Compared to my small Panasonic 3CCD DX110, it looks so zoomed in!!!! Does anyone have any recommendations for another lens I could use, but no the 3X wide angle lens. I nearly have my XL2 set-up completes, with mattebox, radio mic and pro tripod now!! I must admit it does look the part!!! hehe

September 14th, 2005, 05:44 AM	#3
Antony Quintin Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 83	... Nothing really. Just wud prefer a lens with more zoom AND wider angle. A

September 14th, 2005, 10:33 AM	#6
Jeff Miller Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: St Louis, MO Posts: 227	From what your wants sound like, your best bet is probably a wide converter for the 20x. Then you can have a decent wide angle and if you really need to drill in close on something, you can pop the converter off. Personally, if I could buy it all again I'd go with the 3x lens. My Century 0.7x might as well be welded onto the 20x OIS. Being able to zoom in to 20x is great, I just rarely need to. Oh yeah, there are umpteen reviews on wide converters in this forum, heh. But having a single lens with the wide characteristics and 20x zoom is going to be expensive. Also note that a true zoom-though converter is going to add a good pound of glass and metal to the front-heavy XL2. Last edited by Jeff Miller; September 14th, 2005 at 10:37 AM. Reason: Nougat. Chewy, nummy nougate, with peanuts

September 22nd, 2005, 10:43 AM	#11
Mike Berlucchi Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Brighton, Michigan Posts: 47	hey guys i havent shot with the 3x lens but i have heard that the quality of the image using the 3x lens is greatly reduced. They say the lens was designed for the xl1 and for some reason it doesnt work as well with the xl2. it will still give you a wider view just it doesnt deliver the full xl2 quality. i would like to see some frame grabs from the 3x, 16x and 20x side by side. if anyone has some please post a link. __________________ Love Mike http://www.mikeberlucchi.com

September 22nd, 2005, 11:49 AM	#14
Mike Berlucchi Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Brighton, Michigan Posts: 47	hey ash ya i wasnt sure about it when i heard that either since it is a canon lens and it is constanty talked good about. but if you have any footage from it and good post it that would be sweet because ive been looking into the 3x or the 16x and i was shyed away from the 3x when i heard that but if you have some footage or something you could send that would be awesome. they could have been talking about the back focusing problem and i just understood wrong. __________________ Love Mike http://www.mikeberlucchi.com

September 14th, 2005, 05:50 AM	#5
Antony Quintin Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 83	cheers lol - good pun too!!!

September 14th, 2005, 03:55 PM	#7
Antony Quintin Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 83	thanks jeff

September 14th, 2005, 04:29 PM	#8
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	Remember that when you add glass in front of your current lens you will take a sharpness hit. I use the really high quality .7x from Century and the image does soften a little. Not a big deal since the XL2 is so sharp and clean anyway. But when you zoom in far, and you have areas of high contrast, the lens will show chromatic abberation. After all, its' bending the light to achieve a wider field of view and that can cause anomalies. In some shots it is un-noticable and in others you can see it. You need to balance what is important to you personally. If absolute clarity is then the 3x lens is a better fit. If flexiblity in one lens is more important then the CO adapter should be fine.

September 14th, 2005, 05:23 PM	#9
Antony Quintin Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 83	great advice thank u :)

September 15th, 2005, 08:15 AM	#10
Terry Yuen New Boot Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 9	I wonder how this HD-FXR180 will look when fitted in front of the our 20X lens.

September 22nd, 2005, 11:39 AM	#12
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	100% false... I shoot with the 3X all the time on my XL2's and never had any problems. The image is not reduced at all and it is noticeably better than any adapter (the Century ones are the best). Whoever told you that the 3X reduces quality either has never used it or has a broken 3X. A few people have reported back-focus issues but I have never seen anyone say anything about a reduction in image quality and surely not "greatly reduced." ash =o)

September 22nd, 2005, 11:46 AM	#13
Jeff Miller Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: St Louis, MO Posts: 227	I wish I knew firsthand (ie own a 3x :) but I agree with Ash. This has been gone over before http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=49035 http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=48768 http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=35163 Don't feel bummed out, that misinformation ran pretty deep. I originally heard it from one of the sponsers, but nowadays I think it's a farce.

September 22nd, 2005, 11:50 AM	#15
Mike Berlucchi Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Brighton, Michigan Posts: 47	yes that is who i heard it from, one of the sponsors so i fiugred they knew. __________________ Love Mike http://www.mikeberlucchi.com