In my visual tests with the XL2, I couldn't discern much difference between the performance of the new 20x lens and my older 16x manual lens.

<<<-- Originally posted by David Mintzer : Oh---the L's for the most part are very expensive but very good----I use a 70-200mm 2.8 L series that is about as sharp as you can get with a telephoto----- -->>>

Since I dont own an XL1 or XL2 I cant comment on Image Stablization. All I can say is that on my 10D DSLR the 70-200mm is remarkable. I recently did a theater shoot with minimal lighting, hand held the camera and got great results. Would love to know how and if it works on the XL2. I am very tempted to buy one.

The 70-200mm L is is about as sharp as EF zoom lenses get. Prime lenses generally better MTF than zooms. The specs for 35mm film are 24mm by 36mm, with a 43mm diagonal. These dimensions are for 35mm still film, not motion picture film.

I haven't read the whole thread, so I'm not sure if this has been covered or not, BUT the 7.8 multiplication factor seems flawed. I know this is the factor initially released by Canon based on the diagonal of the 16:9 area. Since then, Canon has removed the 35mm equivilent focal lenth from their website.

The sensor is the same width as the sensor in the XL1s right? When I think of angle of view, I usually think "width" not "diagonal". If you think width, the XL2 will give you the same angle of view with your lenses in 16:9 mode as it did on the XL1s. The only difference is that the image is cropped.

I don't know why people calculate angle of view using diagonals, because people don't look at things diagonal, they look them leveled and I believe that the holizontal angle is what gives us a sense of perspective.

Anyway, the horizonal plane of your field of view should be the same on both cameras, but the vertical plane cropped.

Also, there is a Sigma 8mm eos lens, that would probably give a somewhat "normal" angle of view on the XL2. My only question is how can a lens that's designed for a 35mm camera look very good on the XL2? The reason why I ask is that one of the reasons that teleconverters are rarely recommended is because they not only magnify the image, but also magnify all of the lens's imperfections. You would think that the effect would be the same when mounting a eos lens on an XL2.

Personally, I can't see any difference, mainly because each lens' footage is with a different focal length and different subject. How could you possibly know how both lenses will preform under identical circumstances by looking at that footage?

Jeez, this thread was hopping until I came along... doesn't anyone have anything to say about my first post above?

Er... no. ;)

The short answer is that you're right, you can't really know.

To *MY EYE* there appears to be a very subtle difference between the footage shot with the EF lenses and the footage shot with the XL lenses. It's very subtle, though, and I couldn't see it on the LCD screen on my laptop, only on the higher quality CRT monitor I've got at home. I don't know how to describe it, either. It's just a very, very subtle difference.

I can see this "improvement" across all of the EF lenses, and on none of the XL lenses, which is why I think it's somewhat valid to make a statement. I do agree with you, though, that you can't make any definitive case until Lauri gives us a true apples to apples comparison on the XL2, as has been promised.

Lauri - I do have another question. When you use the EOS adapter, do all the auto functions of the EF lenses still work (autofocus, setting f-stops, etc)? Or do you have to manually do this? The threads I've read about this seem to have conflicting answers.

<<<-- Originally posted by Russell Newquist : Lauri - I do have another question. When you use the EOS adapter, do all the auto functions of the EF lenses still work (autofocus, setting f-stops, etc)? Or do you have to manually do this? The threads I've read about this seem to have conflicting answers. -->>>

The f-stops could be set to automatically, but I never use that myself, for getting from one value to another is a real step -not a(n almost) nonvisible transition as in case of the XL lenses.

Autofocus -no it does not work with the adapter. The other switches such as focus range, speed etc. do work.

Personally, with the EF series lenses I've never felt focusing is a problem although with the standard XL1 16x lens it's indeed bit tricky.

Still waiting for my XL2 (or for a definite answer when it will arrive) -perhaps tomorrow. You guys in Northern America are lucky in the sense that in Europe serving customers is generally not taken as seriously as there.

Thanks again! Sorry you're having delays getting your camera.

see my new thread in the XL1S watchdog section with comparisons of lenses with the EF adapter.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32734

I received my XL adapter a day or two ago and decided to try it with a tamron 200-500mm lens I have.

What was impressive was the amount of the zoom I could use. If you want to improve your chances of getting some great wildlife stuff, eagles, birds, etc, I would recommend this to you. The tripod should be solid and I don't think you could even consider this a handheld option, but I was impressed with the sharpness and quality.

BTW, I'm using an XL2

DBK

There is now a footage at www.luontovideo.net/XL2-lens-test.html demonstrating the image one gets with the XL2 PAL in 25p mode using the XL-EF adapter and various EF-lenses. The lenses I used were:

XL 3x 3.4-10.2mm and
XL 20x 5.4-108mm lenses
EF 17-35mm F/2.8L USM,
EF 70-200mm F/2.8L USM,
EF 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS USM,
EF 400mm F/2.8L USM.

The file is rather big, 207Mb, and an avi file employing the Microsoft codec. (The clips were imported to Premiere through a standard firewire port.) Some fog appeared, when I attached the EF 400mm lens, and it shows.

Some comments:

The EF 100-400mm lens was very difficult to focus in the 400mm end. I do not find personally that lens useful. Neither the EF 70-200mm was easy to focus.

Some first impressions of the XL2 compared to the XL1:

Improvements: Audio, nex 20x lens, sharpness, colors, knee & black adjustments, custom functions, optical image stabilator

Improvements but could be further developed: display (can't see any flickering), audio inputs (balanced line input missing, but can live with that)

Not happy about: The iris/set knob (would have preferred the dial of XL1 but can live with the new knob) and with the mechanical design of the plastic covers of the inputs; My concern is that the small rubber rod between the cover and the camera body will break in parts at some point next winter.

yes, it is a nice color-show. Can't play the video, only some color blocks. Do we need a codec?

Yea, you have to recompress it. someone can get a seizure from that file.

how do we recompress the file?

Hmm, somebody seems always to have some problems. Guess one needs Premiere or some other software to view the clip. I'll create another version of the clip as soon as have a chance for that. Sorry for the inconvinience, "please do not shoot the pianist."

This has nothing to do with compression or re-compression. It is
a DV file and something went wrong. It is indeed faulty. I suspect
something went wrong when you uploaded it (perhaps your FTP
program was set to text while uploading instead of binary mode).

it isn't a software issue but a codec or encoding

Rob, thanks, you guessed the source of problem. It was in ftp and the default ascii mode it assumed.

I just deleted the old avi file and a new one will be available in couple hours.

Please wait till 11:30 pm London time before trying to download the new file.

(I'm filming at the altitude of the artic circle and it takes some time to ftp the file again to the server for I have only a slow connection available.)

Really Thanks Lauri !!

You are very very Kind

Best reagards


Gabriele

The file is okay now indeed. Glad I could help in solving the
problem. Thank you Lauri for putting the footage up!

I made another sample demonstrating XL2 together with EF 400mm/f2.8 L USM lens. The sample requires canopus codec and is available at

www.luontovideo.net/XL2-lens-test.html

There are two clips in the sample. The other object was taken 100 meters away and the other 6 meters away from the camcorder. Be aware, that since the magnification with a 400mm lense is huge, when the object is far away, humidity and the motion of air easily blur the image. This sample was taken in rather good conditions in this respect.

Has anyone used the Sigma 12-24mm lens with the EF adapter? I'm concerned about being able to change the aperture electronically because there's no aperture ring on the lens. Also, is it true that the EF adapter doesn't autofocus with 35mm lenses?

Tony

I haven't used this specific lens, but I have used other Sigmas with the EF adapter. You change the aperture using the camera's iris wheel (or whatever you call it on the XL2) in exactly the same way as you do with the stock XL lenses.

Yes, it is true that you lose any autofocus function on a 35mm lens when using the EF adapter.

Regards
Duncan

Ok, thanks for the info. I think the 12-24mm Sigma would be a sweet lens for the EF adapter. It would be cool if Canon would update the EF adapter for EF-S lenses. That new 10-20mm EF-S would probably be pretty handy.

They still end up being a telephoto.

Anyone remember what the factor is when using SLR lenses with the EF adapter?

Tony, you might want to know that. I thought it was around 1.5 so a 16mm SLR lens becomes a 24mm lens on the XL2?

I completely forget the conversion factor :(

The crop factor is x7.8 using the XL2 at 16:9, so even at its widest (12mm), this lens will have the same angle of view as a 94mm lens on a 35mm SLR.

I'm really not sure there is any reason to use wide angle SLR lenses on an XL2 via the EF adapter.

Wow, that's crazy! Now that I think about it, I think my rate factor was based on using 35mm SLR lenses on 35mm digital SLR's (not video cameras).

The crop or magnification factor is related to the size differences of the chips vs. 35mm film. Some dSLR's (Canon 10D, 20D) have a 1.6x factor and some (Nikon D100, D70) have a 1.5x factor. The Canon 1Ds and new 1DsMkII are 1:1, meaning the chip is the same size as 35mm film.

Now they just need to do that for video, (use 35mm size CCD's). Not for the added resolution, but for 35mm depth of field. Even a downsampled 35mm CCD image at 720x480 resolution would make me happy - currently I'm using the mini35 to optically reduce images from 35mm lenses to 1/3" CCD's.

Can somebody tell me why the new conversion factor for the XL2 is 7.8 when the chip is the same size? The top and bottom have been deactivated, so it's like shooting in 16:9 mode on the XL1s because the width of the ccd is the same. I don't know why people use diagonals to calculate the angle of view if what they are really concerned with is the horizontal axis. If you put the same lens on the XL1s and the XL2 you'll get the same image in the XL2's viewfinder as you do between the 16:9 guides on the XL1s.

Also, like I pointed out a few weeks ago, Canon has removed any mention of a 7.8x conversion factor from their website. When the camera first came out they said it was 7.8 and told what the equivalent focal length of the new lens was, but that has all been removed for some reason. Perhaps they are reconsidering that.

Has anybody tried the EF Adapter for Canon XL's? I wonder how it works if we attached a Canon Macro EF Lens onto the XL2 via this adapter. I know the focal length will be x7.2 or something but will it still perform to shoot macro?

Thanks.

On our PAL 4:3 aspect ratio the crop factor is 9.6.
I have tried the 100mm f2.8 USM Macro lens today with the XL Adapter on the XL2. Focus is very, very critical, very, very short, but I did not try actual macro focussing, I'll do that tomorrow and I'll report back.

I have played around with EF adapter on my XL2.
Attached Canon 100-400mm F4 IS/USM and 600mm.
More of my work was with telephoto side. Concur
that focus is very short and critical. Sorry, have not
tried any sort of macro shot on this end.

-Terry

Surf Shooter Hawaii
Kapolei, Hawaii
http://www.surfshooterhawaii.com

Thank You guys. Just want to make it clear. What you mean by focus is very short and critical, are you saying that the depth of field is very very shallow?

Nico, that's exactly the macro lens I have in mind 100mm f2.8 USM Macro. I'll be very excited waiting for your test result.

Thanks again.

Hi Desmond,

As it looked as if it was going to rain I conducted some tests in my study.

I mounted the XL2 on a sturdy Manfrotto tripod 055NAT2 equipped with a Manfrotto 516 head and I also attached the NebTek Panasonic 7” LCD monitor on the XL2 to facilitate manual focussing.

The camera lens and the target, a clock, were on a level plane.

As I did not know exactly where the focal plane is situated in the XL2, I measured the distance from the beginning of the lens housing on the body of the XL2 to the object when I obtained the sharpest and nearest focus. That was exactly 29cm at 1/6th of a second at f/8.00. The focus ring of lens was on the 1:1 mark. I have florescent lighting in my study.

Do not even try do use this lens on a XL2 without a tripod for macro work. It is almost impossible to focus it and holding it still.

The depth of field on that distance and exposure is less than the width of a hair! I could see the individual drops of paint on the clock with a number in focus but if you move the camcorder a fraction of a millimetre it is out of focus.

Desmond,

I've noticed focusing was fairly hard using my 100-400mm.
Not the greatest lens to be using with XL2 and shooting
surf. A very very stable platform is required. I noticed
a great deal of shake when zooming out on surfers.

Again, I was just playing around. I usually use standard
20X lens for shooting surf. It works fairly well for me.

If you didn't catch it on the board, I connected
my 600mm EF on my XL2. Shot the full moon
Chirstmas Day evening.

You can find clip on my video clip page:

http://www.surfshooterhawaii.com/video.html

Sorry I can't help you more. Sounds like Nico provided
you some great information.

Aloha,

-Terry

Nico. Thanks a bunch for your info. I really appreciate it. That was really helpful.

Terence, when you attached your 600mm EF on your XL2 to shoot that moon, were you having problem with focusing as well or you put the camera on a tripod?

Thanks again guys.

I had a little problem finding the moon... ha ha...
zoomed out that far into the dark space... Lined up the
setup and finally found the moon. It wasn't too hard
focusing the moon since it was fairly large and not
moving as fast as some surfers I shoot. I had my
600mm mounted on my Wimberly Gimbal mount which
is attached to my GITZO tripod. I then attached
XL2 with EF adapter to my 600mm lens. Pretty much
turned it into some sort of telescope. I just had a wild
hair and wanted to see what it will do. I've read
someone attaching 1200mm lens to the XL1s awhile
back ago. I did remember playing around with
my 100-400mm lens with the XL2. I zoomed in
on a table lamp in the house. It zoomed in pretty good.
When I have the time, I have to try out other lenses.
So far, I am happy with the stock 20X lens shooting
surf. I have yet to find any of my EF lenses that
will do better at this time.

-Terry

Is there any reason to have this tool if you are not thinkg in shooting wild nature documentaries?

Usually you ask this the other way around. You have an imaging
problem and need a solution. Sports / wildlife shooting seem to
be the prime candidates indeed.

The applications best suited for the EF adapter are situations reguiring extreme telephoto fields of view, such as wildlife videography and surveillance. Those are the two big uses for the EF adapter.

Well, i was wondering if it could be used in short films or things like that, because any lense attached at would be a telephoto. Even a 24 mm canon lense will convert to a 160 mm, wich is not a very angular lense. ;-P

<<<-- Originally posted by Miguel Lopez : Is there any reason to have this tool if you are not thinkg in shooting wild nature documentaries? -->>>

I use the EF-adapter for wildlife filming, but another special use comes in mind: Take Xl2, EF-adapter, and Canon EF macro lens such as the 100 or 200mm one. The result is like having a microscope. I once tested that it is possible to enlarge one half of the Times Roman 12pt "l" character to the whole screen from bottom to top. Using a "tube" (what do you call that thing which is like a conventer, but there are no lenses, just the tube/frame) between the lens and adapter, one can go even beyond that.

Just out of curiosity how do the EF lenses function with the XL body?

Can you change their aperture or are they left wide open, and how about focusing (manual I suppose)?

As the camera magnifies the focal length by 7.8 times (or whatever) is there any type of wide angle lens that would not be transformed into a massive 200mm size?

What does a fish eye lens look like when magnified to this degree?

Thank you, Chris

Have you seen my fields of view comparison at http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article10.php?

Focus is always manual. Exposure can be auto. Image stabilization is preserved.

For more info, see an older article from the XL1 Watchdog:
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article21.php.

See also http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article04.php#ceos.

Thanks for the info.

Are there any downloadable clips to show what the picture quality is like?

Just how do the prime lenses (Canon brand) compare to the 20X lens?

There is also an FD lens convertor. This seems to me an even more sensible purchase because without the AF function on the EF lenses you are essentially paying more for a function on a lens you cannot take advantage of (unless using it for stills).

FD lenses are better built (well, in my opinion any way) and have a really smooth focusing action. Because they are getting on in their age you can snip up some real bargains all over the placel. Has anyone tried the FD convertor?

Chris:

<< Are there any downloadable clips to show what the picture quality is like? >>

What will video clips show you, that still images won't? The quality will be as good as the lens. If you're using inexpensive Sigma lenses like I did for my field-of-view comparison, then the quality is not so great. If you are using high-end Canon "L" series lenses, then the quality is superb. As a general rule, the more expensive the lens is, the higher the image quality.

<< Just how do the prime lenses (Canon brand) compare to the 20X lens? >>

The 20x lens uses fluorite elements, just like any "L" series Canon lens. There really is no point in making such a comparison though, since I can't imagine why you would want to use a photo lens instead of a video lens. There is no motorized zoom on a photo lens, so you will not be able to smoothly change focal length during a shot. The photo lenses are best suited only for situations where you need extreme telephoto, beyond what the 20x can provide.

<< There is also an FD lens convertor. >>

It is not a Canon product, it's a third-party solution. Therefore it will not communicate with the camera and you lose all electrical compatibility. In addition to not having auto focus, you'll lose auto exposure as well. FD lenses were discontinued nearly twenty years ago, so you are right, there are some bargains to be found on Ebay and similar sites.