Hello,

Has anyone used the XL2 with EF adaptor with a 70-200mm f2.8 L (non IS) Series Lens? I already have the 70-200mm lens & a heaps of other EOS glass from my 35mm stills kit & was thinking of mounting it on a XL2

I've heard mixed reports that the EF adaptor is not very sharp on the XL2...

I'm mostly shooting surfing from the shore so a long lens seems ideal....

Hi James;
I have that setup and am pleased with the results on an XL1. There is a question of the 70-200 and, in particular, the adapter being sharp enough for the XL H1. The 70-200 is an excellent lens and I think you would be happy with the results when used on your XL2.
Check my website for some help with stability.

[QUOTE=Ron Armstrong]There is a question of the 70-200 and, in particular, the adapter being sharp enough for the XL H1.QUOTE]

Hi Ron,
So it's more of a question of the EF adaptor being the problem on the XLH1 rather than the lens itself?

Would you say the 70-200 f2.8 is sharper than the stock lens the XL2 comes with?

Hi James;
IMO the adaptor is the weak point in the system and would show up more in the XL H1 due to more detail required in HDV. Tests are being done, and other threads cover this; However no concrete decisions have been reached.
I have only had experience with an XL2 demo from Canon and found the lens much improved over the XL1 lens. I recall trying the 500, the 100-400, and the 300 L lenses, all were very good and would hold up as well or better than the stock lens. However, I can't remember the 7-200 without looking up my notes. I don't use that lens much because of the overlap with the stock lens. I am impressed with the 70-200 and would feel strongly that it is better than the 100-400.
Would I say it's sharper? I would say it's at least as sharp as the XL2 stock lens. Would the average TV viewer see the difference? No.

Ron

they're roughly the same for sharpness, in my opinion, but the 70-200mm will take you places the 20x cannot. you can get the most amazing detail with the 70-200mm, that you cannot with the 20x. 70-200mm may even be a tad sharper. if you add a teleconverter (more glass) to the 20x and compare, the 70-200 wins...the 70-200mm is very good combined with the EF adapter and XL2. if you already own a bunch of EF lenses, the adapter will only set you back a few hundred dollars, nothing compared to the lenses themselves! that lens is a winner with the XL2, but how it performs with the H1 is under consideration.

go to this link for info about the H1 with the 70-200mm with EF adapter.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=56642

it's a long thread, but there's a 70-200mm with EF adapter test shot. also the same test shot with a 400mm prime, which is much sharper than the zoom. but primes generally are....

I am using a Canon FD 300mm 2.8 lens on an XL2 and the quality is outstanding, the advantage of the FD is I am able to mount the lens with a straight adaptor, whereas the EF adaptor has an intermediate lens. Even with a 2x extender (Optex) on the 300mm the quality is very good.

I am using on bird photography

I just captured footages to hard disk which were shot last May with the EF 70-200 lens and XL2. I know that I used both the EF 70-200mm lens and the 20x lens, but now afterwards, I'm not able to say which footage was taken with the EF lens and which not. Still, I do remember well, that the image on the EVF made me suspicious on the 70-200mm lens, and that I made afterwards tests which led me to the conclusion the 70-200 lense is slightly less sharp than the prime EF lenses. But as said, it seems very diffucult to detect the same afterwards (now I've forgotten the details).

I'm mostly shooting surfing from the shore so a long lens seems ideal....

i have been shooting a lot of surfing lately, and the problem is that you will almost always need a quality zoom lens to keep the frame full, as the surfer is moving down the line.

i don't know of any 35mm lens that will give you zoom control on these video cameras, but if anyone does, please speak up.

I realise that power zoom is not on with these Canon lenses, but I assume that you do still get autofocus, and aperture priority and shutter priority auto-exposure, if you use the EF convertor with the XL2?

no auto-focus, you need to use long lenses on full manual.

Thanks for confirming my fears, Meryem.

what applications were you considering, alan? i hate to be the grim reaper! maybe there's a way to turn what appears to be a disadvantage into something workable....

James, I posted couple examples to you. These images

www.luontovideo.net/Woodpecker.tif
www.luontovideo.net/Woodpecker2.tif

are taken with XL2, EF-adapter and EF 400mm. The difference between EF 400mm and EF 70-200mm is rather small.

Open the images in photoshop and set pixel ratio to DV PAL 16:9.

Thank you for the offer of help, Meryem. At the moment I am trying to find out just what the XL2 is capable of, largely to convince myself that spending £3000 on a hobby is justified.

Most of what I do is videoing birds, partly from hides, but also stalking. I have an XM1/GL1 at the moment, but this is about to give up the ghost. I would probably need to replace that for the stalking.

I use it with a Sony 1.7X convertor on a tripod in hides, but would welcome some extra focal length. I have some problems due to a stroke, so need to use some automation.

An alternative route to this long focal length would be Canon's own 1.6X convertor - I assume this retains the auto-functions of the 20X lens?

Century also do a 1.6X convertor which attaches to the front of the 20X. Obviously this would retain all the metering/focussing/zoom functions of the XL2. This is twice the price of the Canon convertor, though.

awhile back, i heard of people stacking canon's 1.6x, which rear-mounts on the lens, with the century 1.6x, which mounts on the front. that's some serious reach, which i believe maintains auto-functions. but i don't know how much softness or vignetting that would introduce to the image. maybe take a look at this link and shoot darren (who planned to do this very thing) an e-mail to get this question answered:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=35078&highlight=canon+1.6x+century

the 1.6x's occasionally come up for sale here in the classifieds, and you can save a coupla bucks. also the XL2, for that matter. if auto functions are a priority, i'm betting this is about as long a reach as you'll get, and even with the purchase of two teleconverters and an XL2, it's still cheaper than getting bitten by the long lens bug! suddenly, you'll be waking up in the night wondering where you can find room in the budget for one of these:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=183203&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

(that's an exaggeration, of course, but lens addiction is a real thing!)

Thanks,

I'll probably go with just the Canon 1.6X and see how it goes - this will give me more reach than I have now. Realistically this is probably as much length as I can use without problems.

Before switching to video I used a Nikon 1000mm F11 mirror lens with various Nikon 35mm bodies. This was the size of a waste-paper basket and weighed about 7 lbs. You had to hunt for the camera body on the back of that beast!

You are right about addiction to long lenses, but you soon enter a region of diminishing returns. Ironically landscape photographers feel just the same, wanting to be always a litte wider.

Many thanks for your help!

Hi guys

My experience is identical to Laurri, in that I used the 70-210 on the XL2 and could not say that it was much different from the 20x standard lens footage when I got down to editing it. My impression is that the 20x standard is higher contrast if anything. My most used combination is the 135-400 Sigma on a standard Canon EF adapter - amazing quality for the price. I am however interested in the comments about the use of an old 300mm FD Prime lens by BOB THOMPSON, which fits without a standard Canon adapter. Can he supply some further information please, e.g where he got it and how much.

Thanks

Rod Compton

Hi Rod;
I use a 50 300 FD L lens consistently on an XL1 and the XL H1 with good results. Optex used to make an adapter for the FD lenses, however they have recently gone out of business. ZGC handled ther equipoment and may have an adapter in stock. Contact chris@zgc.com for more info.

Thanks Mate

Have done, are they in the UK or USA do you know. What's the difference between the EF and FD in terms of quality. I know the former has more glass but that's just to correct the exit pupil size and disposition - seems unnecessary if a spacer adapter does the job.

Rod C

In New Jersey, USA. Great people. They are one of my dealers!
The EF lenses use an adapter that contains glass, in my opinion, glass of a lower quality. The Canon FD and the Nikon lenses do not use an adapter with glass because of the method of adjusting aperture.Therefore, again in my opinion, the older FD lenses are comparable to the EF lenses on the XL cameras.

Rodney,

In the uk you need to speak with this company http://lesbosher.co.uk/ .They make various adapters and are recognised by Canon and JVC amongst others.

Regards

Mick

Hi Rodney,

I have also found this one, a former Optex employee who has started up on his own after its collapse. He was responsible for the lens developments for 17 years with them. He is also producing adapters http://www.mtfservices.com/page3/page3.html

The lenses that have an aperture ring on the actual lens barrel (Canon FD & Nikkor Ais) are the best lenses to use, because then you have full manual control of the iris.

Rodney, I would also advise that you use a quality prime SLR lens alone, rather than adding the 1.6 extender to the Canon 20X lens. A zoom will help you to fix focus easier, but I would go for a fixed prime lens, especially if most of your work is on a tripod from a hide. A 200mm f/2.8, 300mm f2.8, or 500mm f/4, or 600mm f/4 would be best. To cut down in weight and size, choose a 200mm f/4, 300mm f/4 or 600mm f/5.6.

Thanks Tony

Yes, I more or less decided to upgrade to a prime from the excellent, but slow Sigma Zoom. I've got some fab Nikkors, but only one is in the frame, which is a 180 f2.8. The stuff I got using the 135-400 at about f11 in bright light was excellent - but not so good wide open. Stills on: www.xyris.tv/%20%20%20pages/diary.htm This lens is fitted using the standard EF adapter. I might well get a new Canon 400 f4 which will serve on my stills camera as well. My main query was about the glass versus the glassless adapters.

Rod C