I'm close to pulling the trigger on an XL1S purchase. I intend to go with the 16x Manual lens.

However, I would like your comments on whether I would be better off buying the 3x lens or purchasing a wide angle adapater (from either Canon or Century Optics) for the 16x lens.

What would I lose with the adapter?

I bought the Canon 3x lens and I like it. I don't think Canon make a WA adapter.

With the Century adapter (if you get the correct one) you save a few $$$ over the 3x lens and you get a full 16x zoom through, and perhaps aquicker change back to the normal zoom lens (just pull the adapter)

The adapter adds weight, the 3x would be a lighter package (including your wallet). Also, the 3x might be able to take filters, the adapter might not

Hi everyone

I want to shoot in wide-angle with my XL-1. I have bought a PAL body (from ZGC for $2,400) and am now trying to choose the best lens for it. So what would you all suggest?

Canon 3x wide-angle lens (about $1,200)? I hesitate on this option because a) it limits me to wide-angle shots only and b) I've read that the focus is soft.

Canon 16x manual lens ($1,600) with a 0.6x adaptor ($500)? I hesitate on this option because a) more expensive and b) not sure if 16x manual takes the adaptor and c) not sure of the quality of these adaptors.

Looking for your experiences or advice.

Thanks in advance.
Phillip

Always get a lens rather than an adapter if possible. A lens' optics are designed specifically for a range off tasks. Adapters are for folks that have no other choice.

Canon's 3x lens is outstanding and the "soft focus" stuff is a load of bull cr*p with respect to this lens. Whoever told you that doesn't (a) know much about lenses, (b) knows nothing about this lens and (c) has never used this lens. End of that story.

But, back to you, when you say "I want to shoot in wide-angle with my XL-1." what the heck do you really -mean-?

Thanks for the advice, KenTanaka. By "I want to shoot in wide-angle with my XL-1", I mean that I'd like to be able to use the same lens in any situation (closeup, long shot, zoom between the two), at least initially since I can afford only 1 lens at the moment. If I buy the wide-angle lens, won't I be limiting myself??

As for the "soft-focus" of the 3x lens, I read about it on some posts in the Lens forums. Below is what I have read.

-----------copied from LENS forum--------------

The auto-lenses (16x, 3x)are both a little soft. Peter Koller in Image: 16x manual vs 3x wideangle thread.

I also have the 3X Wide Angle Lens and although it gives a nice "wide angle", I find that it gives a softer look than the standard lens as well. I'm also considering using a good wide angle adapter with the manual lens in hopes to get sharper wide shots than with the 3X Lens. Donbarzini in XL1(S) 16X Manual Lens thread

I used the 3X Wide Angle Lens, and to me, that was a pain to use as well. I never knew if I was in focus, it was always a gamble. It also never seemd to provide a good sharp image which to me is critical, especially in a wide shot. Donbarzini

------------end of copy------------------------------

KenTanaka wrote "Canon's 3x lens is outstanding and the "soft focus" stuff is a load of bull cr*p with respect to this lens.", so just looking for some more opinions out there.

Thanks!
Phillip

If you guys had the option (money was no object) would you get the 3X wide lens For the XL1s, the .6x or the .7x.
I have a 16x manual on there now but am in the market for somthing a little wider for tight shots.
I'm concerned the adaptors will morph the edges of the frame.
Any feed back would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Dan O'Bannon

3x lens. That's a no brainer.

Dan,
I -basically- second Dylan's opinion (and own a 3x and 16x manual, but not a wide adapter for the 16x). The 3x is a pretty good piece of glass.

My only qualification is the possibility that you might want to retain the manual controls and dual-stage ND filters offered on your 16x. In that case you might find a wide adapter a more appropriate choice. But it would be a very specific application, such as a particular filmmaking shoot, that might drive such a choice.

Adapters, no matter how high of a quality, always represent some compromise in imaging when compared to lenses designed for specific optical ranges.

Thanks Ken, I appreciate your help!

Dan O'Bannon

Dan...

I have the Century 0.7 adapter and keep it mounted on my lens almost full time.

If there is any difference in sharpness, it's so slight as to be unnoticable.

The only noticable difference is some barrel distortion at the widest setting. It's where straight lines take on a slight curve. Not a big deal when shooting in most situations, but if you're doing interior architectural shots, it can be a significant problem.

I don't know if the 3x lens has the same problem but it would be worth checking out.

The biggest advantage of putting a 0.7x on the 16x manual is having a much greater zoom range than the 3x. Swapping lenses isn't a problem for most of the shooting I'm doing right now.

But if I'm doing run-and-gun work, then swapping lenses is out of the question. The 0.7x/16x manual combination would be the natural choice.

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions

Thanks Dean, now if I can find out if there is "any" distortion at the widest end of the 3x lens, I can make my decision.

Dan

The optical nature of all true wide-angle lenses is that there will be some barrel distortion on the edges. It's just physics. The wider the lens the greater the distortion. The XL1's 3x will bend lines close to the edges, but not radically.

There's a couple of wide angle adapters available from Century precision optics for the 16x canon XL lens. One is a .6 and one's a .7 and both are pretty expensive.

My questions is:

What gives you a better looking image: The 16x lens with an adapter or the 3x wide angle lens? As a general rule, wide angle adapters cost you some sharpness and contrast, but I've also heard that the 3x isn't as sharp as the 16x lens. The adapter would be cheaper and more convinient, but if it doesn't look as good, I might consider the lens.

Thanks,

Tony

Could somebody move this to the XL2 watchdog forum, since nobody seems to be around here?

The 3X.

The 3x is a lot lighter, and a lot easier to shoot with, than a 16x with an adapter on the front (this combo is a little on the heavy side). You're giving up the OIS, but you shouldn't need it on a wide-angle anyway.

About the Century adapters, the wider of the two is not full-zoom through, it loses the telephoto half of the lens. The other one lets you zoom all the way through the entire range of the lens.

Chris, what is the minimum focus for the 3X?

I see 3/4" at widest zoom on this canon page

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelFeaturesAct&fcategoryid=115&modelid=8274

But at adorama and other retailers I see 0.5 m...

http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20171962.html

Can you tell me which it is? Thanks.

See the bottom of my 16x review page (http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article82.php).

Thanks, Ken. I'm wondering if it's just a typo on that canon page; do you think it's something else that the 3/4" could be referring to?

Roger,
One of the hazards of transcribing spec data from the little lens sheets is that you get cross-eyed after a while and are no longer thinking about what you're typing. That's apparently what I did on that comparative chart.

The 3x lens' minimum focusing distance at its widest setting is 20mm, not 20cm. That, of course, converts to just above 3/4". I just tested this with my own lens and it is accurate.

The other error regarding the 3x lens on my chart is that it does have a built-in ND filter, whereas I indicated that it does not.

My sincere apologies for misleading you. I'll see if Chris can make the corrections pronto.

I can confirm this as well. Several years ago I shot some wildflowers in the early morning with dew on them. I got so close that I got dew on the front element. The dew drops on the lens are in perfect focus. If I can find the footage, I'll make a screen grab and post a link to the shot. On another occasion I got spider webs across the lens hood and the silk from the web is in focus.

Thanks again, Ken.
Your updated spec and Jeff's anecdote have more or less convinced me to get this baby.

rog,

i have the 3x and through horsing around with it, i have felt that it has become an indispensible tool for closeups. if i need to utilize telephoto then i put on 16x auto but 3x all the way for closeups. in fact if you don't have 3x then it just doesn't have that 'broadcast quality'. i suppose part of the appeal of broadcast cams like real-world or newsmedia shows is that their lens is wider. apparently making everyone look a bit fatter is 'professional' =^).

Thanks, I think I'll get the 3x now... besides I guess I'll be able to use it when I upgrade my camera.

Gotta love that built-in macro. The little Canon single-chip DV cameras have this, too. Zoom out to full wide, and they'll focus right up to the glass.

Hi,
I read a lot here in the forum to make up my mind about the 3x vs. Century .6 or .7.

In the end I tested them side by side and I can agree with all who say that the 3x is worth the money (although not cheap).

So I've got one myself and I can say: It is now the standard on my XL1s. I only use the 16x when true 16x is needed.

I am very pleased with it, but have to admit, that the "getting the picture sharp" is an issue. As someone said here in the forum: Tha Canons are a bit on the soft side ;-)

Cheers from Germany
Jan