Thanks for putting this together so fast, Chris.

Pretty impressive specs, but it looks like Canon has left us EF lens users without an invitation to the ball. Have they improved the way the XL2 will interact with EF lenses (like allowing auto focus, or not defaulting to f/5.6 every time the standby mode activates)?

Hi Steve,

I'll check with Canon USA in the morning, but my understanding is that there is no change in the way EF lenses integrate with XL bodies.

Canon's site says, "The optional EF Adapter fits onto the XL2 allowing use of Canon EOS EF lenses for quality still imaging."

I'm thinking seriously about trading my PD150 in for an XL2. I have a number of EF lenses, so I'm wondering what sort of utility I'd realize from the EF adapter. What does Canon mean when they say it allows use of EOS glass for *still* imaging? Can I not use my EOS EF lenses with an XL2 for video?

Indeed you can use your EOS EF lenses with an XL2 for video. See my article, Guide to XL2 Lens Options (http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article04.php#ceos).

Blanton, you can use the EF adaptor to mount certain EOS EF lenses on the XL-series of camcorders. And, you can use them to capture video footage on rolling tape. I think Canon's reference to still imaging refers to the primary usage of that type of lens, which is with still cameras. It's probably just a little gap in interpretation in the translation.

Steve McDonald

Thanks, Chris & Steve.

Blanton,

with EOS lenses mounted via EF adapter- get ready for some serious tele-video possibilities......you'll be able to spot ants up trees!

The video is also likely to be tack sharp- that was my finding when used on an XL1S. That EF adapter is awesome for nature videography- nothing else quite like it in miniDV videography.

http://www.digitalcrossing.ca/ef-1.htm

Not mounted on the Xl2, but this gives you an idea of the power you can get by mounting the EOS lenses.

enjoy,

Michael

Steve & Michael, thanks very much for the information. The XLx and EOS combination looks like fun.

I've got the 35-350, 70-200, 100-400, the remarkable 400 DO, and a bit of other stuff, down to 14mm. I'd love to try the new 70-300 DO.

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do/

Do you happen to know if IS works through the adapter? (I would doubt that AF would work)

Thanks for the pointer to your site, Michael.

Yes, IS works, manual focus.

I am planning to buy xl2..soon...replacing my xl1s...got a good offer. Well as i am a wedding video grapher I want to know is it good to shoot wedding with an Canon EOS 100-400 lens., and like to know anybody who is doing this...Positive replies greatly appreciative.

vamshi

Only if you're standing way, way back. All EOS lenses on an XL2 will be extremely extreme-telephoto: see this page for an explanation (http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article04.php#ceos). That 100-400mm lens is a like a telescope on an XL2.

Yeah...that would be, in effect, about a 700 - 2800 mm lens. You could get a couple of kilometers away and get a closeup of the bride's eyelash.

Ah Chris, post the link to the pics with the really BIG Canon lens again. I never get tired of seeing that one. You know the one that's a two man lift.

You mean... the bazooka (http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php)?

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

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

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??

<< 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 (http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article04) 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,

Diagonal for 35mm film is about 43mm.

Would a fisheye lens (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=search&Q=&a=700_6187&shs=&ci=8429&ac=&Submit.x=13&Submit.y=7) give you a proper wide angle?

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.

<<<-- 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.

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

<<<-- 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

David...

yeah, I'm also using a 16x manual lens on my XL1s. The comparison tests I made show the EOS lenses and the 16x to have about the same resolution. Sorry, I don't have the equipment for a more technical qualitative comparison between the two other than to say they look about equal. The biggest difference I noted was the reduced depth of field with the EOS lenses. This is due to the larger max aperture these lenses are designed for that more closely approximate a film camera DOF.

You can now download a sample avi file of the XL1 (PAL interlaced) images from

www.koillismaa.fi/~lkettune

The sample file has images filmed with the following lenses

EF 100mm macro
EF 70-200mm/2.8 zoom
EF 400mm/2.8
EF 600mm/4.0 (OIS)
Standard XL1 16x lens
Wide angle XL series 3x lens

As far as I can say, in my eyes the EF series lenses produce a much more pleasant image. But these things seem to be in the eye of the beholder.

The file is 128Mb for it is as raw material as possible. I just picked from my harddisk several files which I had earlier captured directly from the tape. There is no filtering.

The file may require you to have the Canopus codec, and if you don't have that, it can be downloaded for free from Canopus web pages.

As soon as I get the XL2, I'll set up a similar sample.

<<<-- It would be greatif you could include comparisons that show the two lens systems at the same focal lengths -->>>

Barry, good idea, I'll do this with the XL2.

<<<-- Originally posted by Lauri Kettunen : You can now download a sample avi file of the XL1 (PAL interlaced) images from

www.koillismaa.fi/~lkettune

The sample file has images filmed with the following lenses

EF 100mm macro
EF 70-200mm/2.8 zoom
EF 400mm/2.8
EF 600mm/4.0 (OIS)
Standard XL1 16x lens
Wide angle XL series 3x lens

As far as I can say, in my eyes the EF series lenses produce a much more pleasant image. But these things seem to be in the eye of the beholder.

The file is 128Mb for it is as raw material as possible. I just picked from my harddisk several files which I had earlier captured directly from the tape. There is no filtering.

The file may require you to have the Canopus codec, and if you don't have that, it can be downloaded for free from Canopus web pages.

As soon as I get the XL2, I'll set up a similar sample. -->>>


the download for the codec at the site doesn't work, thanks for wasting my time.

thanks for trying though!

I had to go find the codec through a Google search, but I did find it and it works fine. If I remembered where I got it I'd post a link, but really, it was just a simple search.

Thanks for the footage, Lauri. It's very helpful. I can't really tell much of a difference in quality between the lenses, but I haven't had a chance to view it on a good monitor yet. I will be doing that soon. But even so, it does give me one good answer immediately, which is that the XL1 is capable of really good footage with any of those lenses.

I haven't bought a camera at all yet. I'm still trying to work out a bunch of details, including what I really need for what I want to do. But since I plan to use it for a bunch of projects over a period of time, I really want a total system (including everything, not just the camera) that's really flexible and allows me to add or upgrade components at my own discretion without having to throw away all my previous investments. The XL series cameras, especially with the EOS adapter and/or the availability of the Min35, seems like the perfect camera for this because I can reuse those 35mm lenses with future upgraded cameras and with a still camera, which means a substantial reusability factor. Your footage has helped convince me that I'm thinking along the right lines for what I need, and that's reassuring.

Another question: this footage is labeled "XL1". Just for the sake of perfect clarification, was this an XL1 or an XL1s? I've been trying to decide whether to go ahead and bite the bullet on an XL2 or just get a used (and therefore much cheaper) XL1 or XL1s, and if that was really done on an XL1 then I think the answer is that that's all the camera I need right now, and I can save myself a bundle of money and upgrade when I'm ready to.

Thanks again for your help, and I'm extremely interested in seeing the comparable focus length tests after you run them.

Rabi, I'm sorry to hear you were not able to open the file. There's now another file which is in the standard Microsoft avi format available at www.koillismaa.fi/~lkettune

Hope this resolves the problem you had. (I can't guarantee that.) The mutually incompatible systems is a sad fact of life.

Is anybody able to create a quick time file from the canopus codec avi file?

Russell, it's indeed XL1 not XL1s.

ftp://www.canopus.com/pub/drivers/misc/dvcodec.exe

http://dvd.box.sk/index.php?pid=soft&prj=info&pol=4&rid=7725

theres a link. to lauri. those werent shot wide open? do you have any more footage also. i am going to be using these lenses and want as much footage as possible.

thank you

<<<-- those werent shot wide open? do you have any more footage also -->>>

Typically with the EF lenses the iris is almost closed -the f value is big-- for the 2.8 lenses have a lot of "light power". Basically, I have hunderds of hours of material, but the 30s footage takes already 128Mb of disk space.

do you have any material of human atcivity or wide shots. what i saw was great but i want to see the raw footage so i visulise what it might look for my movie. i was stunned to see the insects so upclose and then made the distiction that you must of had pretty big lenses.

Can somebody explain the meaning of the descriptors "EF" and "EOS" when describing Canon 35 mm SLR lenses that can be used with the XL adapter?

Hugh, l don't recall reading or hearing ever an explanation to acronyms EOS and EF Canon employes. EOS refers to the camera body and the system and EF is an acronym Canon uses to describe their professional lenses designed mainly to the EOS system. If needed, look at

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=111

Rabi, sorry, my material is not about human activities. When filming, that's what I very carefully try to avoid! Besides, the EF lenses are not that practical in filming human activities for the magnification is huge. If the lens is longer than 400mm, there is another problem to use them on warm days as the moving air causes interesting optical distortion. For example, I have some footages in which pines tree looks like piece of rubber wiggling in the wing.

What does “EOS” mean?

Canon’s line of autofocus-capable SLR cameras is sold under the name EOS. This stands for “electro-optical system”......etc


What does “EF” mean?

Lenses built by Canon for use with their EOS series of cameras are technically known as EF-series lenses. This acronym stands for “electrofocus.” Older Canon lenses which are not marked EF, such as FD and FL series lenses, are not compatible with EOS cameras.....etc...

Yes and EF series lenses aren't necessairly pro lenses---They would have to have the "L" affixed to them. L series Ef lenses are the best.

Lauri, now that I've finally had a chance to view the footage on a decent monitor (rather than my laptop), I think I have to agree with you that the EF lenses look better than the XL lenses. It's a subtle difference, but I think it's real. I'm betting it would be even more noticeable on the XL2 with its higher resolution, so I'm very interested in seeing your test results when you get them.

Thanks again for your help. It's really helped me nail down what I think I need as far as gear.

<<<-- Originally posted by David Mintzer : Yes and EF series lenses aren't necessairly pro lenses---They would have to have the "L" affixed to them. L series Ef lenses are the best. -->>>

FYI-
The 20X lens that comes with the XL2 is an "L" designated lens. I find it to be extremley sharp.

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-----

<<<-- Originally posted by David Mintzer : Yes and EF series lenses aren't necessairly pro lenses---They would have to have the "L" affixed to them. L series Ef lenses are the best. -->>>

Yes, and thanks for raising the point.

<<<--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-->>

Agree on this point as well. At some point by making experiments I discovered that not all L series EF lenses are of equal quality. Then after looking Canon specifications it became obvious why e.g. the 70-200mm 2.8 L series lens (with or without OIS) creates sharp images. This happens to be a very good zoom lens. Those L series lenses which have maximum aperture -small f value- tend to create the best and sharpest images with XL1. Presumably the same holds with XL2 . Again, this is also what the Canon specs. suggest; The 300mm f/2.8 L is supposed have better lens elements than the 300mm f/4.0L lens.

Things which in my experience do not work well with XL1 are the 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters, and also the EF series lenses together with the XL1 16:9 mode yields rather poor image quality -much worse than the standard XL1 16x lens in 16:9 mode. I've never bothered to find an explanation for this.

I've not found much use for the image stabilizer of the L series lenses when attached to the XL1. I suspect, in fact, that the image stabilizer built for still cameras is different compared to a one designed for a camcorder. Not sure of this, but this is a kind of hypothesis I've made from testing the L series lenses image stabilizers with XL1.

Finally, will post some samples with the XL2 and EF lenses in the near future, as soon as I get my hands on the camcorder.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : Diagonal for 35mm film is about 43mm. -->>>Yeah, I think it's called 35mm because the entire width of the film, not just the image area, is 35mm.