XL2 and EF Lens Adapter / EF Lenses / EOS Lens

Russell Newquist · September 22nd, 2004, 04:09 PM

I'm going to apologize up front, because I'm sure this question has been asked before. I really did run a search (actually several searches) through this forum first, but couldn't quite find the answer I was looking for, though I did find lots of discussion on the topic.

From what I can gather, it seems to be the opinion that using the EOS adapter and Canon's 35mm still lenses brings superior image quality to the XL series of cameras. I'm quite aware of the DOF issues involved, and the 7.2x multiplier, but I can't seem to find a straight answer to this. Is the image quality actually any better when shooting this way, and does anybody have some test footage showing a comparable setup with both a regular XL series lens (any of them is fine with me) vs. an EOS lens? I'd really like to see the difference for myself if I can.

Barry Goyette · September 22nd, 2004, 04:35 PM

Russell

Several people have claimed that the 35mm lenses with the adapter produce superior results. I have yet to see this backed up with a good comparison image. Hopefully someone will find time to post something, because I'd sure like to know as well.

Barry

Kevin Chao · September 22nd, 2004, 05:19 PM

me too...

one more thing...how do wide-angle el lense perform with the eos adapter??

i'm also wondering if you can use xl lenses on you eos cameras??

Chris Hurd · September 22nd, 2004, 05:46 PM

<< how do wide-angle el lense perform with the eos adapter? >>

All EOS lenses on an XL2 camera have a field of view equivalent to 7.8 times the focal length when shooting in 16:9, and almost ten times when shooting in 4:3. Therefore, a wide-angle 18mm EOS lens on an XL2 in 16:9 mode will give you a field of view as if you were using a 140mm lens, and in 4:3 mode it'll look like you're using a 172mm lens. Any wide-angle EOS lens on an XL2 becomes telephoto.

See my page Guide to XL2 Lens Options for more info.

<< i'm also wondering if you can use xl lenses on you eos cameras? >>

No you can't, nor would you want to. An EOS camera utilizes an image plane measuring roughly 35mm across the diagonal. XL lenses produce an image more than seven times smaller than what an EOS camera requires. Hope this helps,

Jeff Donald · September 22nd, 2004, 09:04 PM

Diagonal for 35mm film is about 43mm.

Michael Wisniewski · September 22nd, 2004, 09:28 PM

Would a fisheye lens give you a proper wide angle?

Jeff Donald · September 22nd, 2004, 09:38 PM

No, the Canon fisheye is 15mm and would only give you 100% barrel distortion. When multiplied by the factors you would still end up with a telephoto with extreme barrel distortion.

Lauri Kettunen · September 23rd, 2004, 02:20 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Goyette : Several people have claimed that the 35mm lenses with the adapter produce superior results. -->>>

I can definitely demonstrate this with the material I've filmed with my XL1. The sharpness of the EOS lenses is significantly better than that of the 16x or 3x XL-series lenses. However, there is one detail to take into account. The huge magnification with the EOS lenses with XL1 tend to imply there is far less details compared to footages filmed e.g. with the 3x lens. Thus, the question is not only of the lens but as well of the compression; The less details, the easier the footage is to compress to DV format.

I'll post examples in a few days to demostrate the point. Should get the XL2 very soon and will then be able to demonstrate the XL2 footages with EOS series lenses.

The EOS lenses I use regularly are 70-200mm/2.8, 100mm macro,300mm/2.8, 400mm/2.8 and 600mm/4.0. By testing I've noticed that there is a difference between these ones and e.g. the 300mm/4.0, which does not yield that sharp images as the 300mm/2.8. The 70-200mm/2.8 zoom produces amazingly sharp images and is one of my favourites.

Barry Goyette · September 23rd, 2004, 08:19 AM

Lauri

Thanks for offering to do this. It would be greatif you could include comparisons that show the two lens systems at the same focal lengths...obviously this limits the range of the eos lenses you have available, but would be the best way for everyone to evaluate the differences.

Barry

Russell Newquist · September 23rd, 2004, 08:36 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Goyette : Lauri

Thanks for offering to do this. It would be greatif you could include comparisons that show the two lens systems at the same focal lengths...obviously this limits the range of the eos lenses you have available, but would be the best way for everyone to evaluate the differences.

Barry -->>>

Yes, this is exactly what I was hoping to get when I posted. Thanks, Lauri, for your help.

Bill Ravens · September 23rd, 2004, 08:39 AM

I will report that I've used EOS lenses, most noteably and EOS 135mm prime on my XL1s, using a mechanical adapter (no glass), manufactured by XL1solutions. The image quality is quite good, with a few examples posted on the XL1solutions website, that I sent them after my tests. People have issues with XL1Solutions that are, perhaps justified, however, the adapter works with a magnification factor of ~1.5, significantly less than the Canon EOS adapter. This smaller magnification factor makes EOS lenses quite workable in more mundane shooting situations. My own tests, which I reported here show decreased depth of field with an EOS lens and this adapter.

I will add a few comments about the mechanical construction of this adapter. While the adapter works, its mechanical finish is quite crude. The cost is approximately what you could expect if you had the adapter custom manufactured for you at a machine shop. Assembly and function is also a little crude. As for use, I've noticed that it will allow focus over the range of the lens, up to and including infinity, however, this appears to not be true for EOS zoom lenses, which seem to focus at infinity at the max zoom ratio, only.

Despite the complaints, I've managed to use these adapters successfully. I will note, also, that ND filters must be used to adjust exposure, since the inherent electronic aperture control isn't available with this adapter. I 've also used FD series lenses, with a mechanical aperture ring, quite acceptably.

One more caveat...I have no association with XL1Solutions other than my purchase. I offer my experience only for others to gain in knowledge.

David Lach · September 23rd, 2004, 09:39 AM

Thanks Bill for the info.

You say you've experienced a magnification factor of about 1.5x with this adapter. On the site it says they have experienced a 2x to 4x effect with the EF adaptor. Just wondering where those numbers came from (subjective or objective testing). I also don't understand how the magnification factor could vary from 2x to 4x. Shouldn't it be one or the other?

Also when you say the adapter costs the same as have it custom made, do you speak from experience (or know someone who does this)? Cause I sure could use a custom adapter for Bayonet mount 16mm cine lenses, but all there is commercially available on the market right now is Arri PL to XL. There's often amazing deals on the Net on used cine lenses but very rarely are they PL mounted.

David Lach · September 23rd, 2004, 09:43 AM

Thanks Lauri for your contribution. If you have either a 14x or 16x servo manual lens, I'd be very interested in a side by side comparison with the EOS glass.

Bill Ravens · September 23rd, 2004, 10:00 AM

David...

My day job is as a mechanical engineer. I routinely use machine shops in my daily job and am quite familiar with their rate structure. I've also known people who've had custom lens mounts made, so, I have a fairly accurate knowledge of the cost of such fabrications. There are two problems associated with making your own adapter.The biggest problem in designing your own lens adapter is determining an accurate lens back surface to focal plane distance(lens mount to camera body mount). The next issue to be concerned with is the parallelness of the lens adapter's two mating surfaces. Any non-parallelness will produce tip/tilt errors between the lens and the sensor.

The issues that exist with XL1Solutions seems to be around the exact magnification factor he gets with his adapters. The optical magnification is a function of the distance he chooses, as I described above. Apparently, he experiments with differing lens spacings, resulting in the variation in magnification. For the version I have, I've measured a mag factor of ~1.5, as I've described in older threads on this forum.

I'm sure fabrication of a custom lens adapter is probably feasible for whatever lens you want to mount, as long as the focal plane distance is consistent with the geometry of the camera body. And, of course, the lens has a large enough clear aperture for the sensor on your camera. Sometimes, it's easiest to scavenge the lens mount from an older(and otherwise ruined) lens or camera to use on your adapter. Some camera manufacturers will also sell you just the lens mount.

best of luck.

David Lach · September 23rd, 2004, 10:22 AM

I get ya Bill, thanks for the precision. Well I certainly won't be the one to design such an adapter. I'm no engineer and have zero knowledge in that department. I wonder if Optex, who have a PL to XL adapter, could fabricate one though. Worth asking, although I don't think they would.

1.5 magnification factor seems great I have to say. You can still use an ultra wide prime and remain pretty wide.

Would you by any chance have a manual lens on your XL1s and if so, did you compare them side by side to see what kind of gain in resolution and sharpness you had by using EOS glass?

September 22nd, 2004, 04:09 PM	#16
Russell Newquist Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Huntsville, Alabama Posts: 44	XL Series Cameras with EOS Lenses I'm going to apologize up front, because I'm sure this question has been asked before. I really did run a search (actually several searches) through this forum first, but couldn't quite find the answer I was looking for, though I did find lots of discussion on the topic. From what I can gather, it seems to be the opinion that using the EOS adapter and Canon's 35mm still lenses brings superior image quality to the XL series of cameras. I'm quite aware of the DOF issues involved, and the 7.2x multiplier, but I can't seem to find a straight answer to this. Is the image quality actually any better when shooting this way, and does anybody have some test footage showing a comparable setup with both a regular XL series lens (any of them is fine with me) vs. an EOS lens? I'd really like to see the difference for myself if I can. __________________ Russell Newquist http://www.russellnewquist.net/

September 22nd, 2004, 05:46 PM	#19
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	<< how do wide-angle el lense perform with the eos adapter? >> All EOS lenses on an XL2 camera have a field of view equivalent to 7.8 times the focal length when shooting in 16:9, and almost ten times when shooting in 4:3. Therefore, a wide-angle 18mm EOS lens on an XL2 in 16:9 mode will give you a field of view as if you were using a 140mm lens, and in 4:3 mode it'll look like you're using a 172mm lens. Any wide-angle EOS lens on an XL2 becomes telephoto. See my page Guide to XL2 Lens Options for more info. << i'm also wondering if you can use xl lenses on you eos cameras? >> No you can't, nor would you want to. An EOS camera utilizes an image plane measuring roughly 35mm across the diagonal. XL lenses produce an image more than seven times smaller than what an EOS camera requires. Hope this helps, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

September 22nd, 2004, 09:04 PM	#20
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Diagonal for 35mm film is about 43mm. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

September 22nd, 2004, 09:38 PM	#22
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	No, the Canon fisheye is 15mm and would only give you 100% barrel distortion. When multiplied by the factors you would still end up with a telephoto with extreme barrel distortion. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

September 23rd, 2004, 08:36 AM	#25
Russell Newquist Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Huntsville, Alabama Posts: 44	<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Goyette : Lauri Thanks for offering to do this. It would be greatif you could include comparisons that show the two lens systems at the same focal lengths...obviously this limits the range of the eos lenses you have available, but would be the best way for everyone to evaluate the differences. Barry -->>> Yes, this is exactly what I was hoping to get when I posted. Thanks, Lauri, for your help. __________________ Russell Newquist http://www.russellnewquist.net/

September 22nd, 2004, 04:35 PM	#17
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	Russell Several people have claimed that the 35mm lenses with the adapter produce superior results. I have yet to see this backed up with a good comparison image. Hopefully someone will find time to post something, because I'd sure like to know as well. Barry

September 22nd, 2004, 05:19 PM	#18
Kevin Chao Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: United States Posts: 37	me too... one more thing...how do wide-angle el lense perform with the eos adapter?? i'm also wondering if you can use xl lenses on you eos cameras??

September 22nd, 2004, 09:28 PM	#21
Michael Wisniewski Wrangler Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Makati, Metro Manila Posts: 2,706 Images: 32	Would a fisheye lens give you a proper wide angle?

September 23rd, 2004, 02:20 AM	#23
Lauri Kettunen Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Kangasala, Finland Posts: 445	<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Goyette : Several people have claimed that the 35mm lenses with the adapter produce superior results. -->>> I can definitely demonstrate this with the material I've filmed with my XL1. The sharpness of the EOS lenses is significantly better than that of the 16x or 3x XL-series lenses. However, there is one detail to take into account. The huge magnification with the EOS lenses with XL1 tend to imply there is far less details compared to footages filmed e.g. with the 3x lens. Thus, the question is not only of the lens but as well of the compression; The less details, the easier the footage is to compress to DV format. I'll post examples in a few days to demostrate the point. Should get the XL2 very soon and will then be able to demonstrate the XL2 footages with EOS series lenses. The EOS lenses I use regularly are 70-200mm/2.8, 100mm macro,300mm/2.8, 400mm/2.8 and 600mm/4.0. By testing I've noticed that there is a difference between these ones and e.g. the 300mm/4.0, which does not yield that sharp images as the 300mm/2.8. The 70-200mm/2.8 zoom produces amazingly sharp images and is one of my favourites.

September 23rd, 2004, 08:19 AM	#24
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	Lauri Thanks for offering to do this. It would be greatif you could include comparisons that show the two lens systems at the same focal lengths...obviously this limits the range of the eos lenses you have available, but would be the best way for everyone to evaluate the differences. Barry

September 23rd, 2004, 08:39 AM	#26
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	I will report that I've used EOS lenses, most noteably and EOS 135mm prime on my XL1s, using a mechanical adapter (no glass), manufactured by XL1solutions. The image quality is quite good, with a few examples posted on the XL1solutions website, that I sent them after my tests. People have issues with XL1Solutions that are, perhaps justified, however, the adapter works with a magnification factor of ~1.5, significantly less than the Canon EOS adapter. This smaller magnification factor makes EOS lenses quite workable in more mundane shooting situations. My own tests, which I reported here show decreased depth of field with an EOS lens and this adapter. I will add a few comments about the mechanical construction of this adapter. While the adapter works, its mechanical finish is quite crude. The cost is approximately what you could expect if you had the adapter custom manufactured for you at a machine shop. Assembly and function is also a little crude. As for use, I've noticed that it will allow focus over the range of the lens, up to and including infinity, however, this appears to not be true for EOS zoom lenses, which seem to focus at infinity at the max zoom ratio, only. Despite the complaints, I've managed to use these adapters successfully. I will note, also, that ND filters must be used to adjust exposure, since the inherent electronic aperture control isn't available with this adapter. I 've also used FD series lenses, with a mechanical aperture ring, quite acceptably. One more caveat...I have no association with XL1Solutions other than my purchase. I offer my experience only for others to gain in knowledge.

September 23rd, 2004, 09:39 AM	#27
David Lach Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, QC, Canada Posts: 570	Thanks Bill for the info. You say you've experienced a magnification factor of about 1.5x with this adapter. On the site it says they have experienced a 2x to 4x effect with the EF adaptor. Just wondering where those numbers came from (subjective or objective testing). I also don't understand how the magnification factor could vary from 2x to 4x. Shouldn't it be one or the other? Also when you say the adapter costs the same as have it custom made, do you speak from experience (or know someone who does this)? Cause I sure could use a custom adapter for Bayonet mount 16mm cine lenses, but all there is commercially available on the market right now is Arri PL to XL. There's often amazing deals on the Net on used cine lenses but very rarely are they PL mounted.

September 23rd, 2004, 09:43 AM	#28
David Lach Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, QC, Canada Posts: 570	Thanks Lauri for your contribution. If you have either a 14x or 16x servo manual lens, I'd be very interested in a side by side comparison with the EOS glass.

September 23rd, 2004, 10:00 AM	#29
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	David... My day job is as a mechanical engineer. I routinely use machine shops in my daily job and am quite familiar with their rate structure. I've also known people who've had custom lens mounts made, so, I have a fairly accurate knowledge of the cost of such fabrications. There are two problems associated with making your own adapter.The biggest problem in designing your own lens adapter is determining an accurate lens back surface to focal plane distance(lens mount to camera body mount). The next issue to be concerned with is the parallelness of the lens adapter's two mating surfaces. Any non-parallelness will produce tip/tilt errors between the lens and the sensor. The issues that exist with XL1Solutions seems to be around the exact magnification factor he gets with his adapters. The optical magnification is a function of the distance he chooses, as I described above. Apparently, he experiments with differing lens spacings, resulting in the variation in magnification. For the version I have, I've measured a mag factor of ~1.5, as I've described in older threads on this forum. I'm sure fabrication of a custom lens adapter is probably feasible for whatever lens you want to mount, as long as the focal plane distance is consistent with the geometry of the camera body. And, of course, the lens has a large enough clear aperture for the sensor on your camera. Sometimes, it's easiest to scavenge the lens mount from an older(and otherwise ruined) lens or camera to use on your adapter. Some camera manufacturers will also sell you just the lens mount. best of luck.

September 23rd, 2004, 10:22 AM	#30
David Lach Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, QC, Canada Posts: 570	I get ya Bill, thanks for the precision. Well I certainly won't be the one to design such an adapter. I'm no engineer and have zero knowledge in that department. I wonder if Optex, who have a PL to XL adapter, could fabricate one though. Worth asking, although I don't think they would. 1.5 magnification factor seems great I have to say. You can still use an ultra wide prime and remain pretty wide. Would you by any chance have a manual lens on your XL1s and if so, did you compare them side by side to see what kind of gain in resolution and sharpness you had by using EOS glass?