Wide angle Adapter for XL1- suggestions?
 

I am new here.

I just bought a used Canon XL1 and was considering buying a wide angle adapter that fits on the front of the 16x lens. It is at B&H and made by Century Optics:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

It is $350 and looks like a good piece of gear.

Are there any others out there? Maybe cheaper ones?

Thanks,
Shawn

There are cheaper ones but they dont look good. Century is the bare minimum. Many people like the 0.7X because it is full zoom thru but I think it adds too much distortion and aberration. The 0.6X is better IMHO. Best bet of all is to get the Canon 3X wide. I have seen them used for $750 and the glass is amazing...




ash =o)

Thanks Ash!

That is a great help.

Shawn

Shawn, I concur with Ash, the Canon 3X is a great wide angle lens. I have had mine for years and could not get along without it. Perfect for tight interior shots and for doing interviews. Bob

Ash, Bob and others:

Is the Canon 3X as wide as the .6 adapter by century?

Or is it wider or maybe about the same?

Thanks,
Shawn

PS - Where is a good place to buy these lenses used? I don't use e-bay, I know I should but it is just hard for me to get that sense of trust. Especially with big ticket items.

Thanks,
Shawn

You have the premier camera in this class whose biggest and exclusive feature over the rest is that it has interchangeable lenses. Don't cheap out and ruin your image quality adding more glass when you don't have to. The 3x lense is fantasitc. Read up on it in the DVINFO section dedicated to lenses for the XL1. Wide angle is for when you are close. Zooming thru 16x by adding an adapter serves only to diminish the image quality of a shot you could have gotten with the 16x anyway.

If you don't use e-bay, finding a used one will be difficult. B&H has a used section. In general, this equipment holds it's value very well. Expect to pay over $800

I use the Century 0.6x (partial zoom through). Should net to about 3.3mm effective focal length ful wide when use with Canons standrd 5.5-88mm zoom lens. Works well for my applications; e.g., small dance floors at receptions. Have not used the Canon 3x so I cannot compare/contrast them.

i concur, I love my 3x lens. The only reason you'd get a screw-on for the 16x was if the 3x was impossible to afford. I've seen the results on a couple of screw ons, the image can get blurred, distorted images around the edges of the frame.... and if you're too wide it can viginette (which might not be noitcealbe in the small viewfinder ;)

You may find the limitations of a screw-on to be more of a hassle. If you do get a screw-on, go out on a few practice shoots and learn what you can and can not do with it.

... or to screw on the front of one of the canon manual lenses.

I just ordered the Century .6x for my XL-1. I can post stills when I get it. I simply don't have enough money to buy the Canon .3x. I also currently own the Century Fisheye Adaptor for my XL-1, so I can also post a still of that if anyone is interested. I mostly use it for action sports and run-and-gun shooting when I don't have much time to set up. It does vignette, but quite minimally, if at all.

FWIW, the Century 0.6x gor the XL1 is not screw-on, it is bayonet mount and uses the lens hood mountng lugs.

Ok I received the .6x Century Wide Angle today! I am quite pleased with it so far (though I don't have the .3x to compare it to or anything). Here are some comparison pics:

Keep in mind, I just put the camera on auto and this is in my kitchen, kind of a low light situation, colors don't look too great! The camera was exactly 19 inches from the two glass things on the window sill (end of the lens was at the very edge of the window seat). It was positioned on my leg, 2 inches above the window seat.

Stock XL1 Lens (sorry my leg doesn't have a level bubble, kind of crooked hah!):
Click!

Century .6x Wide Angle:
Click!

Century Pro Series Fisheye Adaptor:
Click!

So yes...as you can see the distortion is very minimal on the wide angle. As noted above, you can also see some vignetting from the fisheye in the upper corners. Well, hope this helps someone out!

Well you may consider the distortion to be 'very minimal' with that 0.6X Mike, but I would find that unacceptable on a camera of the XL1's class. Remember that even fisheye lenses dont distort straight lines that pass through the centre of the frame, and your test shot effectively does just this.

Canon's 3x wide-angle zoom is better in this respect - as it should be at the price. Trouble is it isn't very wide and it doesn't zoom far and it has no image stabilisation and it costs a lot of money. Better that you'd gone for a simngle element aspheric. It wouldn't have been totally zoom through, but at least it would keep straight lines straight.

tom.

Thanks to all.

Who cares about a distorted line . . .
 

Who cares if it doesn't keep all the lines perfectly straight - we use lenses to tell stories. Use lighting well, and nobody is going to care about a distorted line. Read Robert Rodriguez's "Rebel Without a Crew" and you'll quickly learn that everything doesn't have to be sanitized and "follow-the-leader"....Break away and do some creative stuff with the tools you have and can afford!! Don't buy a lens simply for the fact it keeps a line straight in the frame....

That's my take on that....I see too many "perfect" type movies out there that are too "formula" and look like everybody elses....Your a videographer - tell a story and make use of what you have.

Unless you're doing a shoot for an architectural client, screw it (on) or bayonet it on or however it goes on.....with simplicity and get the Century...