I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but have a questions about the EF adapter and it sounds like Chris Hurd has experience with it.

I have several EF lenses that I use with a Canon digital camera. I am looking at the XL2 and the possibility of using these lenses with the XL2 and the EF adapter. Here are the questions:

1. The EF lenses have a focus motor built into them. Why don't they keep their auto focus ability when used with the EF adapter?

2. Does the EF adapter have a lens inside or is it just a tranfers of the different mounts?

3. Do you loose any light (f stop) when you use the EF adapter?

4. If there is no lens inside and it doesn't transfer the focus information, why is the cost over $600? You can buy an extender (teleconverter) for the EF lenses for about $350.

Thanks for any help you can give.

Hi Lloyd,

1. I don't know. That's a question for Canon.

2. Yes, there are optical elements within the EF adapter.

3. The maximum aperture for an XL lens is f/1.6. With the EF adapter, you're limited to the max. ap. of the EF lens. Only the most expensive lenses are anywhere near that fast... f/2.8 or so if I recall correctly... and the majority of EF lenses in general have a max. ap. of f/4.0 or so. In other words, yes, you'll need more light depending on the lens you're using.

4. If it wasn't expensive, it wouldn't be Canon. Hope this helps,

I'm a pro photographer (still) and am looking at the XL2. I'm attracted in large part because it accepts my EOS lenses with an adapter. I have some questions for anyone who has used the XL2 with EOS lenses. I'd really appreciate respones:

1. Is autofocus retained?

2. What's the crop factor?

3. Most important, what's your impression of the camera with EOS lenses? Good? Bad? Not worth it?

4. Which EOS lenses do you prefer using and why?

An unrelated question: As a photographer, I was alarmed to read that Canon's lower-end DVs have selectable focus points, as I'm used to with still cams, but the XL2 apparently does not. Why is this and what am I missing?

Answers to any or all questions much appreciated.

Hi George;
I use an XL1, but the characteristics you aSk about are basiCally the same for both cameras.

1: The EOS lenses are all going to be manual everything. No autofocus, no auto aperture, no auto zoom.

2: The 35mm camera lenses are magnified over 7 times. 300mm = 2200mm (approx.) on the XL2. Reduction in picture size will be relative.

3: I switched from still photography to video and havn't looked back! I have a full Canon 35mm outfit I continue to take for a backup and have never used it as such. My impression of the camera with the 35mm lenses is excellent. I can shoot later and earlier in the day than my friends with 35's , much to their dismay.
The picture quality is excellent.

4: You will be surprised to know that I primarily use FD lenses, with great success. A 50 - 300L and a 600, both 4.5.
I also use an older 300mm 2.8L EOS lens, and a 70 - 200 2.8L. all lenses produce superior results. Don't worry about the focus points!

Hi George;
Sorry, left for lunch. Focus points are of no value IMHO. More concern would be the change in mental attitude toward the DV. Where we are concerned about lack of movement in 35, we are totally concerned about it in DV. Smooth pans and tilts. Picture quality will be dissapointing compared to 35. But the 72 DPI video will not be hung on a wall or printed as a 300 DPI print will. It looks great on TV. The technical aspects of 35 are valuable in DV, but the mechanical requirements are going to be new.
I found my notes on magnification for the XL2 and EOS lenses:
in 16:9, magnification will be 7.8 times and the 4:3 format will be 9.7 times.
My website shows various lenses used on the XL series cameras, and in addition to those shown, I have customers and aquantenances who use Canon and Nikon 400mm 2.8, 100 - 400, 600 EOS, 50 - 350 and others. I have pro 35 shooter friends that also use XL* cameras. People you would know.
You won't be sorry to add DV to your experience.
Check my website.

Best of luck;

Ron

Thanks a lot so far for the responses. Now for the final question before I give my credit card number to the evil photo/video dealer in NY:

Would I be sorry going with a GL2 instead of the XL2? I know you'll have lots of questions as to my use and experience level, but really what you're looking at in me is a 1-series Canon user who wants performance but is not sure if the weight of the XL2 is going to bug me.

Perhaps what I really should be looking at is getting the XL2 and a more pocketable DV recorder.

I'd love to hear anyone's thought process in deciding to go with the XL2 versus, say, another Canon model or even, in this day and age, the latest Sony high-def model. I mean, if someone's going to want me to shoot their wedding in high def, then I'm out of that job, right?

Love to hear your thoughts. Thanks again.

Hi George;
It really depends on what your shooting. If its wildlife or a requirement for interchangable lenses, there's not much choice. However, there are those using the GL2 for wildlife. If its weddings, you may need two cameras. The GL2 would be a good choice there. If Hi Def is what your customers request, then your choice is narrowed. One question to your customers, - how do they play Hi Def?
You won't be sorry with either camera.
Check with ZGC.com for cameras. Talk with Chris.

Best;

Ron

I tried the GL2 today and it really felt and looked like a toy. I understand it takes nice videos, but if Canon is going to put out a really nice cam, why house it in such plasticky junk?

Perhaps I'm too used to the quality feel of the 1-series film and digital bodies. But even in still cameras, the 20D feels like a quality instrument. Not the GL2, IMO.

Amazes me to read all the glowing reviews about the GL2. Maybe people have just gotten used to feeling plastic in their hands and pushing tiny buttons and scrolling through silly menus to adjust parameters.

Reminded me of the old days when using a Coolpix camera.

I think I'm headed for the XL2. That's a real camera, right?

Hi George;
It's part of the mental thing I talked about. The XL2 is more professional, however is still considered a prosumer camera. We are used to professional 35mm cameras. As you go up in price for DV cameras , the mechanical quality gets better; But the picture quality remains much the same in 3 chip DV.

You would probably feel more professional with the XL2 and have more flexability with the added controls and the available accessories.

Again, it kind of depends on which subject area you are in.

Best;

Ron

<<<-- Originally posted by Ron Armstrong :1: The EOS lenses are all going to be manual everything. No autofocus, no auto aperture, no auto zoom. -->>>

Ron, The EF-adapter does allow auto aperture. Just turn the small switch on the adapter to the other position. Still, I'm not saying it is that useful.

> George: Which EOS lenses do you prefer using and why?

The EF 70-200mm/f2.8 USM produces very sharp images, as well as the 300mm/f.28, 400mm/f2.8, 600mm/4.0. Then zooms with a wide range, such as 35-350mm, 100-400mm etc., are not that good. The difference is noticiable.

> Georger: Canon's lower-end DVs have selectable focus points, as I'm used to with still cams, but the XL2 apparently does not. Why is this and what am I missing?

I suspect that this almost endless discussion with the focusing of the 20x and 3x lenses has to do with two things:

1. The viewfinder is quite not able to give a feeling that the image is in focus although it is. There are simple too small number of pizels. At least, it happens to me all the time and after seven years with the Xl1 and Xl2 I still find myself struggling with the same question: While taking the footage I'm concerned of the focus, but then when I view the footage on a proper monitor everything is just perfect.

2. It's difficult to get used to the idea that setting the focus depends on how quickly one turns the ring. Comibing the effects of the viewfinder and the servo control imply, one has to turn the focus ring slowly back and forth and seek for the best point of the images appearing bit out of focus.

I think such a system is bit poor for human beings. For, when ever our muscles in the hands and the visual perception work together --such as when reaching some object from the shelf-- the visual perception "guides" the mechanical control. When the viewfinder blurs the visual control and this is combined with the sliding focus position, we simply find the situation akward. Conversely, this perhaps explains why the XL12 is easier to focus with the EF lenses. (The focus point does not drift.)

Finaly, I'm not sure selectable focus points in a video camera were such a good idea as in the EOS-bodies. In fact, in my experience, the autofocus is not that useful for serious video production, for the system may loose or change the focus when you did not want that to happen at the first place.

It's difficult to follow moving objects, and the question is, whether you want to have things somewhat in focus all the footage, or to have them precisely in focus and then loose that the next moment. Not so clear, which is better for the audience. But you see my point, in still photography it's all very different. (If you take a sequence of still photos, you may always throw away the frame which is out of focus and still have many good frames. In a footage, one short moment focus point shifting back and forth may ruin the whole thing.)

Thanks Ron and others. I appreciate your patience and responses.

Ron, are you saying that while the XL2 offers much better manual controls and a better overall feel, the picture quality over the GL2 will not be that stunning.

I talked to a Canon rep yesterday who said the XL2's picture was markedly better than that of the GL2; he referred to intangible qualities that made me think kthe XL2 was much more than just better handling and control.

Lauri,

I checked out your web site and am impressed. You and I have similar interests, namely, wildlife and photography. I own the Canon 600mm and 500mm lenses and have been shooting (still) wildlife for the past 10 years.

I *never* considered until recently adding video, mainly because I didn't think the quality would approach what I'm getting with still.

Question: so will the XL2 equipped with a 500mm f/4 IS lens deliver the kind of sharpness I expect from a wildlife photo? I would be amazed.

<<<-- Originally posted by Georg Herbet : Question: so will the XL2 equipped with a 500mm f/4 IS lens deliver the kind of sharpness I expect from a wildlife photo? I would be amazed. -->>>

The Canon 500mm f/4.0 is a wonderful lens. It creates as sharp images as you ever can expect to get with a video camera. Of course, any video frame is not comparable to a still photo, but in the class of video footages the combination of XL2 + 500mm f/4.0 is on the top.

Thanks, Lauri.

I use a Wimberley head for my long lenses. The camera body, of course, dangles from the mounted lens. How does one mount a long lens with a presumably very heavy body such as the XL2? The same way?

Hi Georg;
Lauri has done a good job of explaining the advantages of EOS lenses. Sorry Lauri, forgot the switch.
I have seen the XL1 mounted on a Wimberely head. Seemed a little awkward to me; But I have seen others use fluid heads for their 35 mm cameras with success.
To support your XL2, start with a good fluid head mounted on a sturdy tripod built for video cameras. Naturally, you should use my RONSRAIL to support and balance the lens - camera combo. The interface between the lens, adapters, and camera are the week point in the system. Cameras hanging off the back of a long lens are an invitation to disaster. I've seen many instances of major damage. When we do wildlife, we subject our equipment to adverse conditions, we need all the support we can get. The majority of of wildlife videographers I come in contact with use a lens - camera support.

Use a RONSIGHT to find the subject in your limted field of view.

Tripods made by Sachtler, Vinten Mitchel, Cartoni, Miller are all used in the industry. Bogen is a less expensive option. Get the best you can afford.

If you haven't had the chance, check my website for the various setups.


Best;

Ron

Georg;
Forgot to mention the Gitzo tripods. You may have one. If it has a removable top plate, there is available, a half ball adapter that will allow the use of a video fluid head. My 400 series Gitzo tripod does have a removable top plate. Gitzo has the adapter,however, I don't have access to the stock number.

Could save having to buy a new tripod.

Ron

<<<-- Originally posted by Georg Herbet : How does one mount a long lens with a presumably very heavy body such as the XL2? The same way? -->>>

I'm afraid the Wimberley head is not that useful, but instead you needed a fluid head. I tried the Wimberley head (which is marvellous taking still photos of birds) at some point, for the head would have been rather practical in a hide, but was not satisfied with it.

I have Manfrotto tripod and fluid head and have used Vinten 5 as well. I attach the plate to the lens using both the 1/4" and 3/8"screws. Then by sliding the plate on the fluid head it's easy to find the balance. The weight of XL2 is no problem. So, my experience supports what Ron said about fluid heads. Yes, Ron has also a point that since the XL2 extends by 7.4x the focal length of EOS lenses, it is sometimes difficult to pinpoint the subject one wants to film. Notice also that on warm days the huge magnification together with the moving air may blur the image. In winter time I haven't had problems, but once when filming an eagle nest about 100m away, the whole tree appeared like a piece of rubber wiggling in the wind.

I was fortunate enough this winter to video a mountain lion about mile away. I didn' feel the conditions were right with heat waves and the distance involved, so I didn't take much footage. I used a 600mm f4 lens, opened up all the way and on reviewing the pictures wished I had taken more footage. The cat had two full grown kittens with her that I wish I had taken!!! The video was taken with the temp somwhere between 0 and 10 deg. f., late afternoon and in snow.
Wouldn't have been able to find the subject without the RONSIGHT.

Ron

Very, very interesting.

I'm thinking a lot about the XL2, nature photography, and the other topics mentioned here today.

You know, to make the investment, I'd need to know whether/how you folks sell videos of wildlife. I know how to do it with stills: I use galleries.

I'm not sure, though, that I want to delve into this, with this much expense over my already expensive still equipment, and not be able to recoup the costs. In other words, for my own pleasure I can't justify this.

Perhaps I will hold my nose and use a GL2 for lightweight videos, non-nature. I can't see giving up still, and I surely can't see lugging both rigs with me in the field.

<<<-- Originally posted by Georg Herbet : You know, to make the investment, I'd need to know whether/how you folks sell videos of wildlife. -->>>

Yes, I do sell the wildlife videos. My customers are broadcasting companies, advertising agencies etc. Still, I have no wisdom, how to do it. The best comment/advice I've ever heard was given by a manager of a broadcasting company, who said, they seek for professionalism. At that very moment I realized there must be a lot of people who are not able to make their point aptly and efficiently, but instead, they steel time from the already busy people.

So, in the end of the day, everything seems to boil down to private relations which have to be built with time. Second, every chance is unique, and thus, should be taken accordingly. I often say to myself: "It's now or never, are you willing to do simply your very best."

Finally, Ron has definitely a point with the RONSIGHT. Some equippment is often needed to find the target one wants to film. For the same reason, one needs a suspended fluid head. If the suspension is based on friction (as in the Wimberley head), it becomes rather difficult to control the movement of the camera.

sigma is about to release this lens that's compatible with the ef mount... i know that canon has a 10-22mm ef-s lens, but that does not fit on the ef adaptor (i tried with the 17-85 ef-s)...

sigma's however, would fit the adaptor... with the multiplication factor, it should get a fov of roughly 70-150mm, which is usable... when using my 50mm ef lens on my xl2... i see that the DOF is way more shallow than the 20x lens... and the focus ring is much more manueverable... anyone plan on using the combo of the ef adaptor w/ the sigma 10-20mm?

I would like to get the Canon Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM as my second zoom with the X20 which comes with the camera.
Does the IS version justify the extra 500-600 $ or can I do without? Keep in mind I need it for wildlife and it will always be on a tripod.
Thanks!!
Ido (-;

... Does the IS version justify the extra 500-600 $ or can I do without? (-;

The image stabilizer in the EF series lenses does not function the same way as in the XL series lenses for the very reason that the EF series lenses are designed to still photography. It is a rather different thing to adjust the floating lens to get a sharp still photo compared to taking a long footage with minimal vibration.

In my experience the image stabilizer is not much of use with the XL2. In fact, I always turn the IS off and instead make sure the tripod is set steadily on ground. So, my best advice is, you don't need the IS, but of course, somebody may disagree. If you ever plan to sell the lens, the version with the IS may retain better its value, for the IS is such an advantage in still photography.

Hallo

I would buy the 2.8 is, I have it and it is a fantastic lense. I have other L series and it is by far the best. There is also the fringe benefit of being able to use it with an SLR ( I cut still pictures into my editing a lot ), also it will hold its value better.

I'll pretty much second all the previous motions. Image stabilization (IS) in the XL2 + 20x lens is superb and of great value for handheld shooting. On the other hand, Lauri rightly pointed out that IS is not really important for tripod shooting with the XL2. Since I don't use 35mm lenses with my XL2, I can't personally say with certainty but I'd doubt that the IS on an EF lens would work with the IS system on the XL2 body -- although for the extreme telephoto, I can see how even on a tripod one might like to have it. Lauri, can you clarify, does the IS function at all using EF lenses, or totally unavailable?

On the digital still photo side of life, I can say that the IS on EF lenses does truly allow you to get away with 1-2 stops slower shutter speed using my wife's Canon 20D. Has definitely been very handy.

Lauri, can you clarify, does the IS function at all using EF lenses, or totally unavailable?

The image stabilizer of EF-series lense do function with the XL2, but my point was that the IS of EF-series lenses is not the same IS you find on the standard 20x lense of XL2.

The reason of this is intuitively easy to understand; If one takes still photos the very idea of the IS is to compensate the motional effect in order to create a sharp still image. So, it's design such that at the very moment one takes the photo, the floating lense counterbalances the unwanted motion yielding a sharp still image. What ever happens the very next moment after taking the photo is less important. (This is an oversimplification, for the IS of EF-series lenses have different options depending what kind of still photos one is taking.)

Now, when it comes to a video camera the question is not of taking sharp frames, but instead the IS is designed to remove (especially high frequent components of) vibration from the footage as they result in a shaky and akward image. And this time, it really matters how the IS operates from one frame to another. Summing up, the two image stabilizers do not function the same way.

Thanks, Lauri. So it sounds like the only reason for Ido to spend the big premium for an IS lens would be it is also going to be used on a still camera? (I wouldn't recommend spending THAT much more strictly for resale value alone).

OK, here's the deal:

I have a micro35 on order that I plan to use exclusively with a yet-to-be-purchased XL2. I'm doing independent film and that cinematic shallow depth of field is what I'm looking for.

In the micro35 setup, the lens that attaches between the camera and the micro35 has only one use: to focus on the ground glass.

Originally, I was going to get the XL2 package with the 20x lens. However, it looks like I won't be using any of the capabilities of this lens, so I'm wondering if it might be better to get an XL2 body-only, the EF adapter and an EF lens. I'm wondering if there might be deals out there like this instead of the XL2/20x package deal.

Well, I guess first I'll get feedback on that plan.

Assuming it is a good plan, any suggestions on a no frills lens? I need a fast lens (low f) since the micro35 will definitely make me lose some light.

Thanks,

Kelly

Hi Kelly,

Just so you're aware, the Canon EF adapter runs about $450. Fast lenses command a premium price, so your requirements for "cheap" and "fast" are mutually exclusive terms. The lower the f/ number (that is, the larger the aperture), the more expensive the lens is. You can save some money by getting a Sigma EF substitute instead of a Canon, but remember, you get what you pay for.

If you can get by with a prime lens instead of a zoom, then it becomes a little more affordable. The Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro Autofocus lens costs about $240. A better lens is the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Autofocus Lens for about $310. If a prime lens will suit your needs, then it's just a question of what focal length... common primes in this series are 20mm, 28mm, 50mm, 85mm and 100mm, all below the $450 price point. Whatever you do, avoid the bargain-basement $75 lenses as those things are only going to impede your image quality.

Chris,

Thanks for your reply.

Since this lens will essentially just be used to focus on the ground glass and then forgotten about, I won't need a zoom lens and I won't need autofocus, so that might bring the price down.

However, I just did a search on BHphoto for Canon film lenses and they ALL seem to be autofocus. I saw a 50 mm f/1.4 for around $300 which with the EF adapter and the XL2 body would be cheaper than the XL2/20x kit (but it wouldn't include the accessories, so it might not be worth it).

The one problem that was pointed out was that the EF adapter will multiply the focal lenght by 7, giving me a 350 mm lens.

With that kind of focal length, I wonder if it will even be possible to focus on the ground glass (even through the micro35 achromat).

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

Kelly

Oops, I forgot about the magnification factor (in the XL2 it's 9.6 times in 4:3 mode and 7.8 times in 16:9 mode). You'll have to take that up with the Micro35 guys over on their forum at the redrock site.

And yes, all EF lenses these days are autofocus. They're switchable to manual though.

how about the 50mm f/1.8? it's got a plastic (erm i meant polycarbonate) mount, but it's exceptionally sharp and clear, and the price of $60us can't be beat. the lens is very light too, so this may help out with the XL2's front-heavy problem too.

does anyone have any screen caps or footage from an XL1 with an EF adaptor and an EF lens?

Browse through my XL1 Watchdog and XL2 Watchdog sites located at www.dvinfo.net for various articles and image galleries featuring XL/EF lens frame grabs.

Dear sears,

I use a Canon XL2 camcorder for my film recording and I am very satisfied.

Next year I will make a 6 weeks trip through New Zealand to make a wildlife film.

To be able to recording animals it might be necessary to use a telephoto lens, for that matter a lot of Canon EF lenses are available. An other possibility is to use the extender XL16.

According my opinion the best solution will be an EF lens with the XL adapter,
For example the EF 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/2.8
Considering the magnification factor of at least 7.8 applied to the focal length the effective focal length will be 2340 or 3120.

My question is, what do you recommend?


Thank you in advance

Hi Tonnie and welcome to DVinfo! I've moved your post to the XL2 forum from the XL1/XL1s forum because there are a number of people here who use either the EF adaptor or the extender with the XL2 exactly as you intend to do -- they'll be more likely to see this and respond.

I've not personally used either the extender or the EF adaptor, but either way of course you'll need a rock steady tripod!

Hi,
I have used both on the XL1 and 2.The extender is OK but you do get a loss of sharpness at full zoom.Although not recommended by Canon I have stacked 2 extenders to achieve that extra long range shot of distant birds(and autofocus still works!!)
I have used a Sigma 50-500 and this gave fab results,very sharp and extreme telephoto range.I know there are arguments for using prime lenses,but I find that the zoom helps me locate the bird(or animal) first and then zoom in.Trying to find a small bird in a tree with a 400mm lens(2940mm equivalent 35mm)is extremely difficult!!
You do,of course lose autofocus with EF lenses,but the results are worth it.
Hope this helps

Hi,
Does anyone know of a long tripod plate..(purchased or plans for a homemade job would be fine)...so that I can mount the XL2 and the tripod mount of my Canon 100-400mm to the same plate?
The holes where you attach a tripod are not in line,due to the offset position of the XL lens mount,so the plate needs to be some sort of dogleg design.
Other ideas how to improve the steadiness of long EF lenses on the XL2 will also be welcomed
Any ideas?...thanks

Tonnie-
I have owned both the XL1 and now the XL2. I film/video nature and wildlife as a profession and I lean towards the XL2 for everything. I find I use the 20X lens 60% of the time even w/o the extender which by the way works very well at all ranges maybe slightly soft at full w/ the 1.6. This is the most economical and lightest way to go however you should only consider this as convenience or a last resort. The next most useful zoom lens is the 100-400 IS USM. For large game (bison, elk, grizzly...) they are almost full frame at 200 yds full zoom. My third lens is a 600mm nikon which I used more with the XL1 than the XL2. Now with the XL2, the multiplication factors, with an adapter, is 9.6 (4:3) and 7.8 (16:9). If you use a 600 prime at 4:3 and you film a bald eagle, you would need to be over 200 yds away or you jeopardize cropping your subject. After spending many hours editing with fcp I have to conclude the difference in sharpness between the 20x and a prime is miniscule. You should have a good tripiod but you absolutely must have a quality video head for wildlife telephoto.

Hey James,

This is the only one I know of: http://www.ronsrail.com/

Ron is on here alot and might be able to tell you all about them first hand.

Travis

Travis.....thanks for this very rapid response!!
Cheers
James

James,

I am not familiar with the Canon lense, but I use a Sigma zoom with the XL1s. I have a simple plate that supports the camera and lense and connects to a Manfrotto 501. The good thing about the Sigma is that when it's mounted on the camera the tripod foot is at the same level as the XL1s tripod mounting face. I did the basic design work and got it machined at a local engineering workshop, total cost with materials £30.

I could send you a copy of the drawing if you think it might be of use.

Regards,


Chris.

Chris,would appreciate a copy of the plan..thanks
Can you mail me through the site please?
James

Chris,

I would appreciate a copy too.

Many thanks in advance,

Best regards,

Guus

James/Guus

Sorry for the delay, have been away on holiday for a week.

I will get my original drawing scanned and send copies as soon as possible.

Regards,


Chris.

I make a similar adaptor used to mount a spotting scope and a camera together. I am sure it could be used for stabilizing a telephoto lens on an XL1 or XL2. You can find in on this website:
www.teterhorn.com

Jared

When you use the Canon 35mm lenses, you obviously have no power zoom. I suspect the autofocus will not work either?

Does the autoexposure still work - for wildlife I would regard this as essential?

Does anyone know what is the equivalent 35mm lens focal length for the 20X zoom with, and without, the extender?

Sorry if these questions have been asked before, but I cannot get search to work on this section of the forum only.

I prefer to use Nikon prime lenses for wildlife. My favourite is the Nikkor 300mm f2.8 EDIF - extremely sharp on the Canon XL camera. This lens is also superb to produce full-frame sunsets or moons. I also sometimes use the Nikkor 600mm EDIF, but very rarely as it often gives just too much magnification.

No matter which lenses you decide to use, it is important to use a rock-steady tripod and tripod/camera mount system. For subjects that are not moving too much, I always use the XL wireless remote control so that I don't need to touch the camera while recording.

Thank you, I realise this, I have benn videoing wildlife for some time. I am thinking of upgrading my present Canon XM1, and I am trying to find out how much automation I would have if I were to use 35 mm lenses with the adaptor for the XL2.

I am also trying to find out the effective (i.e. 35mm format) focal length of the standard lens (20X does not tell me much that is useful), and the alternatives which need the adaptor.

I believe the CCDs are 1/3", so it should be possible to work out an approximate conversion factor?

Sorry I am a little late in the post. The figures Bill Taka gave for the focal length of 9.6---4.3 and 7.8---16:9 are relative to the XL lens also. I believe the wide end of the XL lens is 5.4. 5.4 times 9.6 in 4:3 mode is 51.8mm. The long end is 9.6 times 108mm --1036.8mm, 35mm still camera format. EF lenses have no auto functions with your XL2, everything is manual exept for the button on the side of the EFadapter. I have not found it of much use. Time to put in a plug for my RONSRAIL and RONSIGHT. Take a look at my website for those items and various tripods ,heads and lenses.

I have heard that the 7.8x magnification is due to the CCD's being much smaller than the 35mm image and that you are effectively using the middle part of the lens (when using the EF adapter), which is the best part of any lens, so it may not be necessary to spend loads on a still lens.

I use an EF75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 that came with a canon EOS300V for £120.

I've only used this on the moon for an actual shot and the results were excellent. I have tested it in daylight (point at some distant trees), and again I was pleased with the results.

In my humble opinion, when using this configuration, the tripod is where the money should be spent!! :=)