|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 3rd, 2004, 05:10 AM
|
#31 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Posts: 721
|
My 3x lens goes to every shoot. This is an invaluable tool for scenes that require massive attention to the foreground. As for barrel distortion, this is only present to the highly trained eye. You will see vertical elements slightly distorted (curved) at the edges, but it is not a distraction to the viewer. I guess the big benefit is that you are not adding extra glass. I have never used add- on devices to the front of the 16x or 20x so in that regard I can't comment.
|
|
|
|
October 3rd, 2004, 07:57 AM
|
#32 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
A big advantage to the 3x lens is that it's much lighter in weight compared to any other XL lens (20x or 16x, auto or manual) having a wide-angle adapter mounted on the front.
|
|
|
|
|
October 3rd, 2004, 12:28 PM
|
#33 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Antonio Texas
Posts: 85
|
Ok, so have anyone tried a century optics .6 or .7 adapter on the xl2? ...I wrote an email to century optics asking if the .7 would work on the xl2 and they sent back an email that said something along the lines of.
"WARNING, don't attempt to place your .7 converter on the XL2, we have not done any testing with that adapter and the xl2" So if anyone has tried the Century .7 on their xl2, I'd like to know. And if anyone has an opinion as to why it wouldnt work, please respond. thanks, .j. |
|
|
|
|
October 3rd, 2004, 01:05 PM
|
#34 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
Here's why it won't work. Century is developing a fix for this issue, though.
|
|
|
|
|
October 3rd, 2004, 04:01 PM
|
#35 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Antonio Texas
Posts: 85
|
Why couldnt you just put a UV filter on the 20x's lens ..then put the .7 adapter on the UV filter?
j. |
|
|
|
|
October 3rd, 2004, 04:04 PM
|
#36 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
I don't think you'd want to stress the UV filter with the weight of a WA adapter in front of it. That's just asking for trouble in my opinion... way too delicate.
|
|
|
|
|
October 4th, 2004, 03:05 AM
|
#37 |
|
RED Code Chef
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Holland
Posts: 12,514
|
Also the more glass you add the more chance of (bouncing)
reflections and whatnot.
__________________
Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge | Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers | Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors |
|
|
|
|
October 4th, 2004, 05:08 AM
|
#38 |
|
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,244
|
3x lens is not "soft" on XL2
I just did a shoot for a client this past week-end. It was all interiors in tight locations for a real estate developer on Miami Beach (800 sq. ft. for $1 million--whew!). I had no choice but to use the 3x on this job.
I had read here earlier (prior to the camera's release) that using the 3x lens on the XL2 was/would giving/give soft images. Well, I'm here to tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. The images I got were clear and sharp! From everything I've seen this camera delivers, period! I can only chalk up the early negative comments to sour grapes. Jay |
|
|
|
|
October 4th, 2004, 10:02 AM
|
#39 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Luis Obispo CA
Posts: 1,195
|
Jay
just curious...your experience matches mine for the most part...but have you seen any of the back focus issues I noted in my posting here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=32610 Barry |
|
|
|
|
October 4th, 2004, 10:18 AM
|
#40 |
|
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,244
|
Barry--
No, I didn't see that on any of the footage I shot and there were several zooms, both in and out. Was that on manual focus? Jay |
|
|
|
|
October 4th, 2004, 10:25 AM
|
#41 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Luis Obispo CA
Posts: 1,195
|
It's mostly noticeable on when focusing on relatively close objects 3-5 feet. Manual focus, but also on quick zooms in Autofocus.
Barry |
|
|
|
|
October 4th, 2004, 10:29 AM
|
#42 |
|
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,244
|
This week-end I was shooting, in addition to the tiny apartments, an architect's model of the building complex. At times I was maybe just a foot or two way when zooming out and in on the model, maybe three at times, but never five or more with the 3x. And I always shoot on manual focus.
Sorry I can't be of more help. Jay |
|
|
|
|
October 4th, 2004, 10:33 AM
|
#43 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Luis Obispo CA
Posts: 1,195
|
sounds like it's just my lens...thanks jay.....1.800.call.canon.
Barry |
|
|
|
|
October 4th, 2004, 11:04 AM
|
#44 |
|
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,244
|
Barry--
Just to be totally up front here, I'm not a "technical" person when it comes to all this. Although I've had formal training (many, many years ago), most of what I do is what I would call "flying by the seat of my pants." I know what I want. I understand what I need to do to accomplish it. But outside of the tools and methods I use, don't ask me any "technical" questions. I can't discuss the curves, knees, etc., like you and some others here do. My poor ol' brain has limited disc space, so I'm constantly dumping old stuff to make room for newer more important data! The client tells me what they want the image to look like and I deliver it. As long as they're happy, I'm happy! Best of luck with resolving your focus issue! Jay |
|
|
|
|
October 4th, 2004, 01:25 PM
|
#45 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Antonio Texas
Posts: 85
|
Besides not having full zoom through, is there anything wrong with the century optics .6 adapter for the xl2? I mean, is it going to give a clean image?
My goal is to get a good wide angle image from the xl2. I realize that the 3x lens would achieve that, but then again i dont want to shell out 1,200 bucks. Besides a couple of the obvious things, like "more glass" etc ....are there any real concerns with the .6 adapter? thanks j. |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
