wide angle lens for xl2 is a converter any good? at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon HDV and DV Camera Systems > Canon XL and GL Series DV Camcorders

Canon XL and GL Series DV Camcorders
Canon XL2 / XL1S / XL1 and GL2 / XM2 / GL1 / XM1.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 15th, 2006, 02:33 AM   #1
New Boot
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22
wide angle lens for xl2 is a converter any good?

I am shooting a cooking show and I need to get in close to the food being prepared and then back to the talent but I am having to step back too far to fill the frame with them.
Is a wide angle converter any good?
Copy below link to address bar and have a look

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/New-72mm-0-5x...QQcmdZViewItem

The canon xl2 wide angle is to xxxy at the moment

And what would be the best setting for TV?

Thank you
John
John Court is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2006, 04:45 AM   #2
Trustee
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 1,589
The Red Eye .7X lens adapter, and the Optex .7X adapter are good options for getting wider images with the 16X or 20X lenses.
__________________
www.WILDCARP.com
www.NIKON.me.uk
Tony Davies-Patrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2006, 05:41 AM   #3
Trustee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lipa City Batangas, Philippines
Posts: 1,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Davies-Patrick
The Red Eye .7X lens adapter, and the Optex .7X adapter are good options for getting wider images with the 16X or 20X lenses.
But are they "digital" like the one in the ebay sale?

I have the Century Optics adapter. I'm quite happy with it, since it's zoom-through, but it is pretty heavy and also the rubber lens hood is exorbitantly priced. (And it's not digital.)

Richard
Richard Hunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2006, 07:34 AM   #4
Trustee
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,135
You really should try the Canon 3x lens for this. It works great. Bob
Bob Safay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2006, 12:43 PM   #5
Trustee
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 1,689
Century makes good ones but th 3X is the best. The cheap adapters on eBay are junk...



ash =o)
Ash Greyson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2006, 05:31 PM   #6
Trustee
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 1,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Hunter
But are they "digital" like the one in the ebay sale?

I have the Century Optics adapter. I'm quite happy with it, since it's zoom-through, but it is pretty heavy and also the rubber lens hood is exorbitantly priced. (And it's not digital.)

Richard
Since when is a lens adapter digital? Only the actual camera can be digital. (Ash is right, by the way...steer clear of most of the cheapo non-known-brand converters sold on Ebay)

Optex (recently stopped trading but is still available), Red Eye, and Century all produce non-zoom through 0.7X adapters, and all are pretty much equal in the sharpness stakes (I think that the non-zoom through versions are slightly sharper than the zoom through version).

I own both the Optex and Red Eye lenses in both .7X and .5X versions. The .5X is not in the same league as the .7X, so I advise most people to only go for the .7X versions, as these will maintain most of the sharpness of the original master lens with minimal distortion and colour fringing.

The Red Eye does offer some big advantages over the the much bulkier Optex, in that a hood or matte box can be used with the Red Eye and it can even be combined with a thin polarizer.

If I were to split hairs, I would say that the Optex .7X is very slightly sharper to the corners and provides less fringing than the Red Eye.

The Red Eye can sometimes give a very slight mauve/pink biased image in some extreme cases (the .5X is worse in this regard).
The Optex glass is very large at the front and has no way of accepting a lens shade/hood.
There is no vignetting with either the Optex or Red eye using a 16X Manual lens at its widest angle, but the 20X lens + Red Eye can sometimes show slight vignetting at the extreme lower corners when the XL2 is set at 16:9.

I tend to use the Red Eye .7X for most of my wide work, or when the XL2 is inside an underwater housing.

I'm looking forward to testing the new Canon 6X lens when it arrives this autumn (although I'm not sure if I'll like the launch asking price!).
__________________
www.WILDCARP.com
www.NIKON.me.uk
Tony Davies-Patrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2006, 05:35 PM   #7
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: DFW area, TX
Posts: 6,108
Images: 1
Tony,

The Century Optics .7 I have is full zoom through. The .6 adapters are not and accordingly they cost less.

Just wanted to clarify.

-gb-
Greg Boston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2006, 07:11 PM   #8
Trustee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lipa City Batangas, Philippines
Posts: 1,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Davies-Patrick
Since when is a lens adapter digital? Only the actual camera can be digital.
Sorry Tony, I thought it was obvious that I was only joking. Should have added a smiley or 2. :)

Richard
Richard Hunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 16th, 2006, 12:44 PM   #9
Trustee
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 1,589
The Optex and Red Eye are both partial zoom through, although I tend to prefer to keep the main lens fixed at its widest setting for all shooting - and as all converters, they maintain the IS, unlike the X3 lens (...although I agree that IS is not needed for all wide angle situations).

The zoom-through versions such as the one by Century, does have more glass elements, and this tends to produce a softer image than the single element converters...although I doubt if most viewers would notice the difference, as long as the actual footage is powerful, interesting and well shot.
__________________
www.WILDCARP.com
www.NIKON.me.uk
Tony Davies-Patrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2006, 12:38 PM   #10
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 2,205
Hope you won't mind me bringing this thread back up.

I'm curious to know why the cheap eBay wide angle lenses are to be avoided. Of course I'm conditioned to not expect great quality at a low price, but in what specific ways are these lenses poor?

Has anyone ever tested them against the more expensive lenses from, say, Century Optics?

Is it that they just don't work, they display dire vignetting, they mush up your image, they damage the thread on your lens, or what?

Having just spent a significant sum of money on the camera itself I'm not in a position to spend a further significant sum on accessories, much as I'd like to! But would buying one of the cheapos on eBay be a total waste of money?

Interested to hear your views.

Cheers.

Ian . . .
Ian Stark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2006, 03:59 PM   #11
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 649
Well, the Century adapters at $500- $850 are pretty good, but still exhibit some fringing, distortion and softness at the edges, so I imagine that the cheapo "digital" adapters are going to be stink-o bad. You can actually see the fringing and softness in their example photo. If that's the actual image.

I just don't think no-name have as much R&D, or experience behind them as Century do. Century have been around over 50 years designing and manufacturing lenses for cinematography and video. They were recently bought by Schneider.

You get what you pay for. Sometimes, you get a very expensive paperweight.
__________________
Mark Sasahara
Director of Photography
Mark Sasahara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2006, 04:43 PM   #12
Trustee
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 1,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Stark
Hope you won't mind me bringing this thread back up.

I'm curious to know why the cheap eBay wide angle lenses are to be avoided. Of course I'm conditioned to not expect great quality at a low price, but in what specific ways are these lenses poor?

Has anyone ever tested them against the more expensive lenses from, say, Century Optics?

Is it that they just don't work, they display dire vignetting, they mush up your image, they damage the thread on your lens, or what?

Having just spent a significant sum of money on the camera itself I'm not in a position to spend a further significant sum on accessories, much as I'd like to! But would buying one of the cheapos on eBay be a total waste of money?

Interested to hear your views.

Cheers.

Ian . . .



People just dont really understand optics in general, you are not alone. Would it be a waste of money to buy a new porsche and add a cheap component to the engine that will make the top speed 40 MPH? They cheap adapters are not bad, they are HORRIFIC. They will kill nearly all the great aspects of the XL2. Your color will be worse, your aberrations magnified, your light diminished, your noise increased, etc. etc. etc. Not worth anything, unless you need a paper weight.




ash =o)
Ash Greyson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2006, 02:28 AM   #13
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 2,205
Hi Ash,

In London, you may as well limit your Porsche to 40mph - you ain't gonna go any faster!

I am convinced that what you're saying is true but I am still wondering whether anyone has actually done any comparison tests with the cheap lenses to see just HOW bad they are.

I own a Canon WD58 lens (cost around 75) which I used on my XM2 and to be honest it was just fine. Sure, at certain lengths there was some distortion but I just kept away from those certain lengths. I know that it's unsafe to compare the XM2 with the XL2 but if the cheap lenses are THAT bad you'd think I would have noticed it more.

Is it possible that one of the cheap manufacturers has developed a process which means they are able to produce a much better quality lens (even if it isn't quite up to the standard of the higher priced ones)?

Not looking to pick a fight here :-), and I defer to your clearly superior knowledge, I'm just genuinely interested to see if anyone has done any comparison testing. Personally, I have decided that I'm not buying a wide lens until I can afford something like the Canon 3x.

As an aside, I just want to say how enormously impressed I was with your preset efforts. I am absolutely a newbie with the XL2 but I was so taken with the concept of presets that I am about to try and create some of my own, based very loosely on the Magic Bullet presets. Don't hold your breath!

Cheers.

Ian . . .
Ian Stark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2006, 10:37 AM   #14
Trustee
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 1,689
It comes down to glass.... quality glass is expensive and cannot be compensated for. There is no way to manufacture cheap quality glass.




ash =o)
Ash Greyson is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon HDV and DV Camera Systems > Canon XL and GL Series DV Camcorders

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:25 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network