16x lens breathing

Tim Martin · April 6th, 2005, 01:52 PM

I've used the 16x lens on a couple of student films. I can not recomend it. For me the purpose of it is to be able to accurately pull focus. It is true that it will allow you to acuratly pull focus, but it looks terrible. The breathing is awful. I feel that one gets a much better look by simply doing the best you can with the 20x, either using the built in "focus puller" function on the lens or do a few takes pulling by hand.

Matthew Nayman · April 6th, 2005, 01:59 PM

This is what I suppsed...

I don't think I could spend $2500 on something with that much compromise..

Marty Hudzik · April 6th, 2005, 02:12 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Matthew Nayman : This is what I suppsed...

I don't think I could spend $2500 on something with that much compromise.. -->>>

What are you spending $2500 on and what is the huge compromise here? The 16x manual is not $2500 and my experience with it is that the breathing is perfectly acceptable. The ability to easily focus and control your image is amazing compared to the servo lens. The only thing I like better about the 20x is the OIS.

Everyone has an opinion but that doesn't mean it is automatically fact.

Matthew Nayman · April 6th, 2005, 03:20 PM

It is 2500 dolalrs canadian... I am from canada.

And the only reason i would get the manual lens is to snap focus, and if it breaths as much as it seems, it isnt worth it.

Matthew Wilson · April 6th, 2005, 03:26 PM

As much as I don't like the excessive breathing of the 16x, I have to admit, I use much more often than the 20x. The 16x is just easier to work with and more dependable for focus. I would highly suggest trying to find a used one. You should be able to get one for around $800 or so.

One other interesting tid-bit of difference between the 20x and the manual 16x is that the 20x can do a much slower creeping zoom than the 16x. Not sure if that is just a limit in the 16x servo or what, but it is quite noticable. In fact, I almost only ever use the slowest zoom setting if I really have to zoom in a shot and don't find the 16x slowest zoom speed very usable, it's just to fast.

I use the Century 0.7x WA for the 16x manual and it works fine, thoug it is quite soft at the edges at full ap.

Marty Hudzik · April 7th, 2005, 08:13 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Matthew Wilson :
I use the Century 0.7x WA for the 16x manual and it works fine, though it is quite soft at the edges at full ap. -->>>

Matthew......I experience the same thing with the softness at the edges. However I have to say that is is much better than on the 20x where I would get considerable softness further into the image. What is your experience with the .7x and the 20x lens?

Something I'd lke to add to this. I am not an optics expert and I don't play one on TV. But in my talks with some Canon Tech and lens gurus it has been eluded to me that the Servo lens is designed to mimic a manual lens to the best of it's abilities. However it achieves this by moving multiple elements around inside the barrell to achieve a desired focus or zoom. All of this is achieved by a samrt chip that reads you current lens setting and helps to determine how best to achieve what you are inputting into the lens via the ervo ring. In other words a simple rack focus on the manual may be moving a single element forward or backward on a fixed path or track that is exactly the same everytime. The same rack focus in the servo may cause several elements to move based on the logic of the XL2 lens. Therefore the 20x may show less breathing because multiple pieces of glass move to compensate for this. This is a theory based on discussions with Canon guys.

If anyone can back this up or refute this please do as I am just throwing it out for discussion.

Matthew Wilson · April 7th, 2005, 12:00 PM

Unforntunately, the Century WA I have only workks with the 16x manual, it won't fit the 20x, gotta buy that one separately. I am interested in the Canon 3x. I'm hoping that it's a little sharper at the edges and maybe less barrel distortion as well. Anyone got one for sale?

You explanation of the breathing may be right, but I've used other pro ENG lenses that didn't exhibit as much as the 16x manual, of course, you do get what you pay for.

Marty Hudzik · April 7th, 2005, 02:50 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Matthew Wilson : Unforntunately, the Century WA I have only workks with the 16x manual, it won't fit the 20x, gotta buy that one separately. I am interested in the Canon 3x. I'm hoping that it's a little sharper at the edges and maybe less barrel distortion as well. Anyone got one for sale?

You explanation of the breathing may be right, but I've used other pro ENG lenses that didn't exhibit as much as the 16x manual, of course, you do get what you pay for. -->>>

But those ENG lenses probably cost more than $1300 right? Like you said you get what you pay for. It would be nice if you could clarify what price range those pro ENG lenses are in. It might help people to understand how hard it is to get good glass at a good price.

Richard Alvarez · April 7th, 2005, 03:38 PM

I just googled "Fujinon Lenses ENG" and found this bargain;
Fujinon A13x4.5BERD
Our Price: US$16,999.00

Other lenses were a bit higher.

Marty Hudzik · April 8th, 2005, 09:26 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Richard Alvarez : I just googled "Fujinon Lenses ENG" and found this bargain;
Fujinon A13x4.5BERD
Our Price: US$16,999.00

Other lenses were a bit higher. -->>>

You could buy 4 XL2's for that ammount! And that's just the glass! No electronics.

I'd guess there are some other ENG lenses that are less than that but still way more than the retail price of the Canon 16x manual.

Thanks.

Tony Davies-Patrick · April 8th, 2005, 11:14 AM

Not a Canon mount lens (Sony, this one) but it shows that some good Fuji lenses can be bought fairly cheaply:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3319&item=7505984159&rd=1

Richard Alvarez · April 8th, 2005, 11:48 AM

Yup, deals can always be found for used equipment.

Marty Hudzik · April 8th, 2005, 12:08 PM

While it is true that these ENG lenses can be found in a price range that is not too far beyond the cost of the XL series manual lens, unless someone can verify that these "cost effective" lenses don't breathe then we have proven nothing. Someone stated that they used ENG lenses and never saw any breathing issues with them. Obviously ENG lenses cover a large range of prices and quality so I asked for some clarification on the price range of the lenses that were actually used and didn't breathe. If that FUJINON lens for $2500 at BH and chepaer on Ebay doesn't breathe then I think those of you that are upset by the manual 16x canon lens have a little bit of a point. Because that is not that much more expensive glass. However as we have seen some ENG glass can exceed $15K. I'd expect much better performance from that.

Still.....so many of us complain about the cost of the Canon lenses yet we whine because they are not perfect. If Canon made a 16x manual that didn't breathe but it cost $$2500 would that make us happy? If it was identical to the current model just breathing was eliminated would it be worth $1000 extra bucks? Or would we complain because it was out of the price range for a prosumer camera?

Just wondering.......

Matthew Nayman · April 8th, 2005, 12:56 PM

I am wondering... which converter works fro Prime Nikon Lenses?

Matthew Wilson · April 8th, 2005, 12:58 PM

Actually, I said that I have used other ENG lenses that do not exhibit as much breathing as I see in the 16x Manual. I don't think you have to spend a ton either. I owned a Canon 18X IF lens that didn't breath AS MUCH and it sells for around $2300 or so. I also checked a couple other 1/2" lenses yesterday and, while they exhibit the same effect, it is not as pronounced; however, I have a feeling some of the problem may be more related to the difference in DOF between the smaller and larger chip cams. The breathing seems to be more noticable when there is not as drastic a difference in focus between rack settings. With the 1/3" camera, unless you are pretty telephoto, it's hard to get shallow enough DOF to hide the effect well. But that's just my opinion.

As I said before, I use the 16x a lot and have learned to live with what it is, which is still a pretty good lens.

April 6th, 2005, 03:26 PM	#20
Matthew Wilson Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 259	As much as I don't like the excessive breathing of the 16x, I have to admit, I use much more often than the 20x. The 16x is just easier to work with and more dependable for focus. I would highly suggest trying to find a used one. You should be able to get one for around $800 or so. One other interesting tid-bit of difference between the 20x and the manual 16x is that the 20x can do a much slower creeping zoom than the 16x. Not sure if that is just a limit in the 16x servo or what, but it is quite noticable. In fact, I almost only ever use the slowest zoom setting if I really have to zoom in a shot and don't find the 16x slowest zoom speed very usable, it's just to fast. I use the Century 0.7x WA for the 16x manual and it works fine, thoug it is quite soft at the edges at full ap. __________________ MW

April 7th, 2005, 12:00 PM	#22
Matthew Wilson Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 259	Unforntunately, the Century WA I have only workks with the 16x manual, it won't fit the 20x, gotta buy that one separately. I am interested in the Canon 3x. I'm hoping that it's a little sharper at the edges and maybe less barrel distortion as well. Anyone got one for sale? You explanation of the breathing may be right, but I've used other pro ENG lenses that didn't exhibit as much as the 16x manual, of course, you do get what you pay for. __________________ MW

April 8th, 2005, 11:14 AM	#26
Tony Davies-Patrick Trustee Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Worldwide Posts: 1,589	Not a Canon mount lens (Sony, this one) but it shows that some good Fuji lenses can be bought fairly cheaply: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3319&item=7505984159&rd=1 __________________ www.WILDCARP.com www.NIKON.me.uk

April 8th, 2005, 12:58 PM	#30
Matthew Wilson Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 259	Actually, I said that I have used other ENG lenses that do not exhibit as much breathing as I see in the 16x Manual. I don't think you have to spend a ton either. I owned a Canon 18X IF lens that didn't breath AS MUCH and it sells for around $2300 or so. I also checked a couple other 1/2" lenses yesterday and, while they exhibit the same effect, it is not as pronounced; however, I have a feeling some of the problem may be more related to the difference in DOF between the smaller and larger chip cams. The breathing seems to be more noticable when there is not as drastic a difference in focus between rack settings. With the 1/3" camera, unless you are pretty telephoto, it's hard to get shallow enough DOF to hide the effect well. But that's just my opinion. As I said before, I use the 16x a lot and have learned to live with what it is, which is still a pretty good lens. __________________ MW

April 6th, 2005, 01:52 PM	#16
Tim Martin Tourist Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1	I've used the 16x lens on a couple of student films. I can not recomend it. For me the purpose of it is to be able to accurately pull focus. It is true that it will allow you to acuratly pull focus, but it looks terrible. The breathing is awful. I feel that one gets a much better look by simply doing the best you can with the 20x, either using the built in "focus puller" function on the lens or do a few takes pulling by hand.

April 6th, 2005, 01:59 PM	#17
Matthew Nayman Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 917	This is what I suppsed... I don't think I could spend $2500 on something with that much compromise..

April 6th, 2005, 02:12 PM	#18
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	<<<-- Originally posted by Matthew Nayman : This is what I suppsed... I don't think I could spend $2500 on something with that much compromise.. -->>> What are you spending $2500 on and what is the huge compromise here? The 16x manual is not $2500 and my experience with it is that the breathing is perfectly acceptable. The ability to easily focus and control your image is amazing compared to the servo lens. The only thing I like better about the 20x is the OIS. Everyone has an opinion but that doesn't mean it is automatically fact.

April 6th, 2005, 03:20 PM	#19
Matthew Nayman Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 917	It is 2500 dolalrs canadian... I am from canada. And the only reason i would get the manual lens is to snap focus, and if it breaths as much as it seems, it isnt worth it.

April 7th, 2005, 08:13 AM	#21
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	<<<-- Originally posted by Matthew Wilson : I use the Century 0.7x WA for the 16x manual and it works fine, though it is quite soft at the edges at full ap. -->>> Matthew......I experience the same thing with the softness at the edges. However I have to say that is is much better than on the 20x where I would get considerable softness further into the image. What is your experience with the .7x and the 20x lens? Something I'd lke to add to this. I am not an optics expert and I don't play one on TV. But in my talks with some Canon Tech and lens gurus it has been eluded to me that the Servo lens is designed to mimic a manual lens to the best of it's abilities. However it achieves this by moving multiple elements around inside the barrell to achieve a desired focus or zoom. All of this is achieved by a samrt chip that reads you current lens setting and helps to determine how best to achieve what you are inputting into the lens via the ervo ring. In other words a simple rack focus on the manual may be moving a single element forward or backward on a fixed path or track that is exactly the same everytime. The same rack focus in the servo may cause several elements to move based on the logic of the XL2 lens. Therefore the 20x may show less breathing because multiple pieces of glass move to compensate for this. This is a theory based on discussions with Canon guys. If anyone can back this up or refute this please do as I am just throwing it out for discussion.

April 7th, 2005, 02:50 PM	#23
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	<<<-- Originally posted by Matthew Wilson : Unforntunately, the Century WA I have only workks with the 16x manual, it won't fit the 20x, gotta buy that one separately. I am interested in the Canon 3x. I'm hoping that it's a little sharper at the edges and maybe less barrel distortion as well. Anyone got one for sale? You explanation of the breathing may be right, but I've used other pro ENG lenses that didn't exhibit as much as the 16x manual, of course, you do get what you pay for. -->>> But those ENG lenses probably cost more than $1300 right? Like you said you get what you pay for. It would be nice if you could clarify what price range those pro ENG lenses are in. It might help people to understand how hard it is to get good glass at a good price.

April 7th, 2005, 03:38 PM	#24
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	I just googled "Fujinon Lenses ENG" and found this bargain; Fujinon A13x4.5BERD Our Price: US$16,999.00 Other lenses were a bit higher.

April 8th, 2005, 09:26 AM	#25
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	<<<-- Originally posted by Richard Alvarez : I just googled "Fujinon Lenses ENG" and found this bargain; Fujinon A13x4.5BERD Our Price: US$16,999.00 Other lenses were a bit higher. -->>> You could buy 4 XL2's for that ammount! And that's just the glass! No electronics. I'd guess there are some other ENG lenses that are less than that but still way more than the retail price of the Canon 16x manual. Thanks.

April 8th, 2005, 11:48 AM	#27
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Yup, deals can always be found for used equipment.

April 8th, 2005, 12:08 PM	#28
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	While it is true that these ENG lenses can be found in a price range that is not too far beyond the cost of the XL series manual lens, unless someone can verify that these "cost effective" lenses don't breathe then we have proven nothing. Someone stated that they used ENG lenses and never saw any breathing issues with them. Obviously ENG lenses cover a large range of prices and quality so I asked for some clarification on the price range of the lenses that were actually used and didn't breathe. If that FUJINON lens for $2500 at BH and chepaer on Ebay doesn't breathe then I think those of you that are upset by the manual 16x canon lens have a little bit of a point. Because that is not that much more expensive glass. However as we have seen some ENG glass can exceed $15K. I'd expect much better performance from that. Still.....so many of us complain about the cost of the Canon lenses yet we whine because they are not perfect. If Canon made a 16x manual that didn't breathe but it cost $$2500 would that make us happy? If it was identical to the current model just breathing was eliminated would it be worth $1000 extra bucks? Or would we complain because it was out of the price range for a prosumer camera? Just wondering.......

April 8th, 2005, 12:56 PM	#29
Matthew Nayman Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 917	I am wondering... which converter works fro Prime Nikon Lenses?