20x lens vs 16x manual

Charles Papert · February 18th, 2005, 11:26 AM

Cheers Olly...

I'm a fan of the Ultracons meself.

Mark Sasahara · February 18th, 2005, 10:40 PM

I haven't really intercut the two lenses much, so I don't know how the two compare in sharpness, color rendition, contrast and overall picture.

The 20X should be quite a sharp bit of glass with the flourite and it's a newer design. It doesn't breathe hardly at all compared to the 16x manual lens when you rack focus, but the manual lens gives you a lot more control. The focus and zoom on the auto lens are electro, not mechanical. I did some testing and posted the results:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=38166

I have both lenses, but primarily use the 16x manual. If I had to shoot lots of tele stuff, I might switch to the 20x. I have used the 20x hand held with stabilisation to good effect, but it can get a little floaty. It's good if you are static and zoomed way in on someone at a podium. The IS can be helpful and the longer focal lengths.

I will soon be getting the Century .7 W/A converter for the 16X. I have the convertor for the 20x and it's quite nice.

I'd really like to see a 2mm to 40 or 60mm zoom and some T/1.0 primes. That would be cool. And I bet they'd look soooo cute in their little case.

Marty Hudzik · February 19th, 2005, 01:02 AM

Mark,
I have been using the 16xmanual lately and it is very sharp. I mounted the .7x wide angle on this unit and it seems to soften the image a bit. Not in a bad way...it almost makes it more film like. With just the 20x or the 16x manual I tend to want to crank down the sharpness of the camera a bit. But with th .7x I don't see the sharpness as much and tend to leave it a t default.

Now none of the images look soft....like out of focus. But some patterns that would normally exhibit moire noise seem to be less "flickery" if you know what I mean.

When you put the .7x out on the end of the 16x manual lens it really starts getting heavy!

Mark Sasahara · February 19th, 2005, 10:44 PM

Thanks Marty and thanks for the email. I have no doubt that the 16x is sharp, or else I wouldn't use it. I do want to play around with the .7 converter some more.

Still waiting for Canon to make XL2 primes :~). I have been tempted to buy some of the industrial ones and figure out how to make them "film friendly". Probably a lot of $$$$$ to modify them.

February 18th, 2005, 11:26 AM	#16
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Cheers Olly... I'm a fan of the Ultracons meself. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

February 18th, 2005, 10:40 PM	#17
Mark Sasahara Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: NYC Posts: 649	I haven't really intercut the two lenses much, so I don't know how the two compare in sharpness, color rendition, contrast and overall picture. The 20X should be quite a sharp bit of glass with the flourite and it's a newer design. It doesn't breathe hardly at all compared to the 16x manual lens when you rack focus, but the manual lens gives you a lot more control. The focus and zoom on the auto lens are electro, not mechanical. I did some testing and posted the results: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=38166 I have both lenses, but primarily use the 16x manual. If I had to shoot lots of tele stuff, I might switch to the 20x. I have used the 20x hand held with stabilisation to good effect, but it can get a little floaty. It's good if you are static and zoomed way in on someone at a podium. The IS can be helpful and the longer focal lengths. I will soon be getting the Century .7 W/A converter for the 16X. I have the convertor for the 20x and it's quite nice. I'd really like to see a 2mm to 40 or 60mm zoom and some T/1.0 primes. That would be cool. And I bet they'd look soooo cute in their little case. __________________ Mark Sasahara Director of Photography

February 19th, 2005, 10:44 PM	#19
Mark Sasahara Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: NYC Posts: 649	Thanks Marty and thanks for the email. I have no doubt that the 16x is sharp, or else I wouldn't use it. I do want to play around with the .7 converter some more. Still waiting for Canon to make XL2 primes :~). I have been tempted to buy some of the industrial ones and figure out how to make them "film friendly". Probably a lot of $$$$$ to modify them. __________________ Mark Sasahara Director of Photography

February 19th, 2005, 01:02 AM	#18
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	Mark, I have been using the 16xmanual lately and it is very sharp. I mounted the .7x wide angle on this unit and it seems to soften the image a bit. Not in a bad way...it almost makes it more film like. With just the 20x or the 16x manual I tend to want to crank down the sharpness of the camera a bit. But with th .7x I don't see the sharpness as much and tend to leave it a t default. Now none of the images look soft....like out of focus. But some patterns that would normally exhibit moire noise seem to be less "flickery" if you know what I mean. When you put the .7x out on the end of the 16x manual lens it really starts getting heavy!