Problem with the 3x on XL2?

Jim Sofranko · February 16th, 2005, 06:36 PM

AJ - Pardon my ignorance but what is CCW? I've never heard that term. Thanks.

Marty Hudzik · February 16th, 2005, 08:09 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Jim Sofranko : AJ - Pardon my ignorance but what is CCW? I've never heard that term. Thanks. -->>>

I'm not AJ but I think it is an acronym for "Counter Clockwise".

And for the record I see the same thing as AJ on this issue.

Jim Sofranko · February 16th, 2005, 09:19 PM

Hey, you learn something new everyday! Thanks.

I have a 3x lense that I shot with all last summer on two docs with the XL1. I love the lense for handheld shooting as well as for wide vistas. The downside to wide vistas can often be the problem with the DV format dealing with small detail rather than the lense itself. Much depends on the subject of the shot as has been previously discussed on this forum.

I'm considering a camera purchase in the near future. One of the compelling reasons for me to stick with the Canon XL series is the 3x lense that I presently own. It can be a diificult lense to focus in low light on any of the cameras. But with a little stop it has tremendous DOF. (Depth of Field)

But with back focus issues, the question I have is...is the lense usable on the XL2? Does it mean that one needs to be a bit more careful on the focus or are there situations that it is simply unusable?

Barry Goyette · February 16th, 2005, 10:06 PM

Jim,

It's not unusable. Realistically you are mostly limited in terms of using the motorised zoom somewhat, as the image may likely lose focus through the zoom range (this issue exists with the xl1s as well, its just harder to see as the xl1s image is less sharp to start with). If you want to use the zoom, you would want to be focused on a middle distance object, and try to keep your f-stop from 4-5.6, this should minimize any back focus problems.

I'm not sure yet that this issue is endemic to the design of the lens, but enough people have seen it to suggest that it might be.

Barry

Andrew Oh · February 17th, 2005, 12:58 AM

Hey Jeff,

My lens as well as my friends, exhibit the same back focus problem on the XL2.

It SUCKS big time because I thought the reason they kept the XL lens mount was for interchangeability. I'm pretty mad about the whole thing but until Canon releases a new lens, were pretty much stuck with it.

Marty Hudzik · February 17th, 2005, 07:15 AM

The good news is that even if you see this problem you can still use the lens and get excellent wide angle shots. You just won't be able to zoom in and focus and then zoom out and retain taht critical focus. Because of the shorter zoom this is not that beneficial anyway. I can tell if I am in focus just as easily with it zoomed or with it pulled full wide.

And my experiences with it once I focus is that is amazingly clean and sharp. The cleanest wide I have ever seen on an XL series camera. I have used the Century Optics adapters for years and find that they do exhibut a considerable softness on the edges at the widest angles and you will se some barrell distortion. I see absolutely no signs of either on the 3x lens. A superb piece of glass.

I am glad that a friend of mine let me borrow it but I am going to miss it when I give it back next week!

Buzz Bell · February 18th, 2005, 07:29 AM

Spoke with Canon yesterday and they said to send the lense back for 'recalibration'. They would not admit any issues inherent with the 3X - XL2 combo, but did infer they had other calls on the same topic.

Will ship it out soon.

A. J. deLange · February 18th, 2005, 07:52 AM

Please let us know if they actually fix it. If you turn out to be the guy that has worked out how to get this problem solved you'll be a big hero around here.

Buzz Bell · February 19th, 2005, 08:52 PM

Will do - a bit nervous to take it out of production as we have come to depend on it...IF we stay wide. And Canon did not acknowlege a problem, they just offered to 're-calibrate' it.

I love all my Canon's from the XL2's to the new sweet little SD300 i just got - (if you are contemplating wait for the SD500 due out next month) - so i don't want to lose faith in them, but this lense does not work across the range so i hope to post back here in 2 weeks or so with good news.

Richard Alvarez · February 19th, 2005, 10:09 PM

Buzz, I am assuming its going to the New Jersey shop, not the one out here in California?

Buzz Bell · February 21st, 2005, 07:13 AM

Yes - Vermont to Jersey....as soon as Presidents Day and the snow passes.

Tony Davies-Patrick · February 22nd, 2005, 08:05 AM

Buzz - did you find out any more information on the x3 lens and back-focus problems?

Here is a thread that I've started on similar problems:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39925

Maybe someone else could comments on their findings?

Richard Alvarez · February 22nd, 2005, 08:31 AM

Tony,

The lens would have gone into the post today... so I doubt he has heard anything back. Interesting results on adjusting the back focus to fit the wide angle adapter on the 16x manual though. I am on the fence about which to buy, so Buzz' experience with canon should tip the scales.

Tony Davies-Patrick · February 22nd, 2005, 09:12 AM

I'm also on the fence at the moment (about buying the X3), but I've got to do a lot more footage and double check the sharpness of the Optex before I decide if its really good enough. First impressions (after adjusting the back-focus) look good, and maybe I don't need that X3 lens after all.

It would have been REALLY nice to have a X3 manual lens (come on Canon!). My Nikkor lenses work great on the XL1s, but even if I used a 13mm f/5.6 or 15mm f3.5 they wouldn't get me wide enough.

Judging by the extra amount of frame using the Optex on the 16X manual, it seems to give me enough space to work inside a boat, and the extra weight of the manual 16X lens + converter (compared to the 3X) should be an advantage in keeping everything steady in choppy waters, and with the MA-200 XLR on the back it should also help the balance.

Richard Alvarez · February 22nd, 2005, 09:15 AM

What is the going rate for the Optex? I did a quick search, and could only find prices in pounds or euros - which seemed to be about 800 dollars US. There are three 3x lenses for sale on ebay right now, for 800-850 dollars. That seems to be the going rate. SO if I was going to spend 800 dollars, is it more efficient to get the OPTEX or the 3x with it's bells and whistles? Just part of what I am thinking.

February 17th, 2005, 12:58 AM	#20
Andrew Oh Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 86	It definitely exhibits backfocus Hey Jeff, My lens as well as my friends, exhibit the same back focus problem on the XL2. It SUCKS big time because I thought the reason they kept the XL lens mount was for interchangeability. I'm pretty mad about the whole thing but until Canon releases a new lens, were pretty much stuck with it.

February 22nd, 2005, 08:05 AM	#27
Tony Davies-Patrick Trustee Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Worldwide Posts: 1,589	Buzz - did you find out any more information on the x3 lens and back-focus problems? Here is a thread that I've started on similar problems: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39925 Maybe someone else could comments on their findings? __________________ www.WILDCARP.com www.NIKON.me.uk

February 22nd, 2005, 09:12 AM	#29
Tony Davies-Patrick Trustee Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Worldwide Posts: 1,589	I'm also on the fence at the moment (about buying the X3), but I've got to do a lot more footage and double check the sharpness of the Optex before I decide if its really good enough. First impressions (after adjusting the back-focus) look good, and maybe I don't need that X3 lens after all. It would have been REALLY nice to have a X3 manual lens (come on Canon!). My Nikkor lenses work great on the XL1s, but even if I used a 13mm f/5.6 or 15mm f3.5 they wouldn't get me wide enough. Judging by the extra amount of frame using the Optex on the 16X manual, it seems to give me enough space to work inside a boat, and the extra weight of the manual 16X lens + converter (compared to the 3X) should be an advantage in keeping everything steady in choppy waters, and with the MA-200 XLR on the back it should also help the balance. __________________ www.WILDCARP.com www.NIKON.me.uk

February 16th, 2005, 06:36 PM	#16
Jim Sofranko Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: West Shokan, NY Posts: 217	AJ - Pardon my ignorance but what is CCW? I've never heard that term. Thanks.

February 16th, 2005, 08:09 PM	#17
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	<<<-- Originally posted by Jim Sofranko : AJ - Pardon my ignorance but what is CCW? I've never heard that term. Thanks. -->>> I'm not AJ but I think it is an acronym for "Counter Clockwise". And for the record I see the same thing as AJ on this issue.

February 16th, 2005, 09:19 PM	#18
Jim Sofranko Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: West Shokan, NY Posts: 217	Hey, you learn something new everyday! Thanks. I have a 3x lense that I shot with all last summer on two docs with the XL1. I love the lense for handheld shooting as well as for wide vistas. The downside to wide vistas can often be the problem with the DV format dealing with small detail rather than the lense itself. Much depends on the subject of the shot as has been previously discussed on this forum. I'm considering a camera purchase in the near future. One of the compelling reasons for me to stick with the Canon XL series is the 3x lense that I presently own. It can be a diificult lense to focus in low light on any of the cameras. But with a little stop it has tremendous DOF. (Depth of Field) But with back focus issues, the question I have is...is the lense usable on the XL2? Does it mean that one needs to be a bit more careful on the focus or are there situations that it is simply unusable?

February 16th, 2005, 10:06 PM	#19
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	Jim, It's not unusable. Realistically you are mostly limited in terms of using the motorised zoom somewhat, as the image may likely lose focus through the zoom range (this issue exists with the xl1s as well, its just harder to see as the xl1s image is less sharp to start with). If you want to use the zoom, you would want to be focused on a middle distance object, and try to keep your f-stop from 4-5.6, this should minimize any back focus problems. I'm not sure yet that this issue is endemic to the design of the lens, but enough people have seen it to suggest that it might be. Barry

February 17th, 2005, 07:15 AM	#21
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	The good news is that even if you see this problem you can still use the lens and get excellent wide angle shots. You just won't be able to zoom in and focus and then zoom out and retain taht critical focus. Because of the shorter zoom this is not that beneficial anyway. I can tell if I am in focus just as easily with it zoomed or with it pulled full wide. And my experiences with it once I focus is that is amazingly clean and sharp. The cleanest wide I have ever seen on an XL series camera. I have used the Century Optics adapters for years and find that they do exhibut a considerable softness on the edges at the widest angles and you will se some barrell distortion. I see absolutely no signs of either on the 3x lens. A superb piece of glass. I am glad that a friend of mine let me borrow it but I am going to miss it when I give it back next week!

February 18th, 2005, 07:29 AM	#22
Buzz Bell New Boot Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: NYC Posts: 15	Spoke with Canon yesterday and they said to send the lense back for 'recalibration'. They would not admit any issues inherent with the 3X - XL2 combo, but did infer they had other calls on the same topic. Will ship it out soon.

February 18th, 2005, 07:52 AM	#23
A. J. deLange Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: McLean, VA United States Posts: 749	Please let us know if they actually fix it. If you turn out to be the guy that has worked out how to get this problem solved you'll be a big hero around here.

February 19th, 2005, 08:52 PM	#24
Buzz Bell New Boot Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: NYC Posts: 15	Will do - a bit nervous to take it out of production as we have come to depend on it...IF we stay wide. And Canon did not acknowlege a problem, they just offered to 're-calibrate' it. I love all my Canon's from the XL2's to the new sweet little SD300 i just got - (if you are contemplating wait for the SD500 due out next month) - so i don't want to lose faith in them, but this lense does not work across the range so i hope to post back here in 2 weeks or so with good news.

February 19th, 2005, 10:09 PM	#25
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Buzz, I am assuming its going to the New Jersey shop, not the one out here in California?

February 21st, 2005, 07:13 AM	#26
Buzz Bell New Boot Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: NYC Posts: 15	Yes - Vermont to Jersey....as soon as Presidents Day and the snow passes.

February 22nd, 2005, 08:31 AM	#28
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Tony, The lens would have gone into the post today... so I doubt he has heard anything back. Interesting results on adjusting the back focus to fit the wide angle adapter on the 16x manual though. I am on the fence about which to buy, so Buzz' experience with canon should tip the scales.

February 22nd, 2005, 09:15 AM	#30
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	What is the going rate for the Optex? I did a quick search, and could only find prices in pounds or euros - which seemed to be about 800 dollars US. There are three 3x lenses for sale on ebay right now, for 800-850 dollars. That seems to be the going rate. SO if I was going to spend 800 dollars, is it more efficient to get the OPTEX or the 3x with it's bells and whistles? Just part of what I am thinking.