Landscapes of sand dunes would probably look just fine on DV with the 3x lens as long as you made a good exposure, didn't shoot in the middle of the day and took care to get your colors correct.

Landscapes with a great deal of chroma and luma detail get shakey, as I noted earlier.

i don't have the 3x and am thinking about getting it, that's why i want you guys expertise. i mean i have the 16 now and if it'll shoot about the same type of footage as 3x (vistas and close ups) then there's no point for me to get the 3x. also considering 16x with century optics.

Still owning an XL1 I have found the 3x to be very valuable. The 16x alone doesn't give you the same flexibility. Before I bought the 3x, I thought that I could get by with the 16x and nothing else. Some of my first shots required a greater field of view. Room interiors, car takes (here you need wide!!) besides the 3x allows you for interesting frame composition, not possible with the 16x alone.
I know it's a $1,300 investment but if you can afford it go for it.

I think the XL2 without the 3x lense would not provide the same field of view=production value as the DVX100

ah... so ironically the 3x lens should be used for close-ups and 16x for landscape/vista shots, am i correct? =). either way, are you saying that i should buy 3x no matter what? i see one onsale for a very cheap price... =).

I'm not really saying that you should, you could shoot with or without the 3x. However, when it comes to composition (like trying to imply that everything inside a room is far apart, thus giving an aspect of more open space around a character) then a wide lens could come handy. For some closeups a wide lens could give you interesting results. If you watch "12 Angry Man" Sidney Lumet progresses from using wide lenses first, as the movie evolves and the conflicts become more intense then he moves into using the longer focal lenses to produce a sense of tension a claustrophobia. At the end of the film he uses a very wide lense to show the character leaving the building as a sign of relief.

I think if your particular project calls for the use of a wide lens, then you might consider it.

Alain,
That was an excellent example of using field of view (i.e. lens selection) to subliminally accentuate dramatic effect.

Another good one is "Network" (This one is about a TV network-1976) Here, he not only employs lenses for dramatic purposes but he also gradually changes the film stock and lighting. Which starts with a documentary style (rough); towards the end it bocomes a very well lit, and framed series of compositions. Almost looking like a TV commercial. All this to show how the TV network corruption had absorbed its principal characters.

Please post XL2 and Canon 3x results
 

I'm curious to know how does the 3x performs with the XL2. Please describe the soft image (if any) that was associated with the Xl1/XL1s and the 3x wide lens.

Thanks

XL2 with 3X lense ?
 

I wonder...

is the 3X lense is sharp enough for the XL2 ? (from f2.8 to f16)


thanks

See this thread for information and footage:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=32610

3X Wide Angle Lens Question
 

Does the 3X wa lens create that teenage skateboard video, fish eye look? ....or does it create a more realistic look ...like that of the WD-58 .7 wide angle converter? ..I've got a huge project coming up, and I really want to use the XL2 ..but i need a good wide angle shot. I did some test footage today using a GL2 with the wd-58 ..and i love the look that it gives ..with one exception ...it really created a lot of glares ..and "reflections".

So I guess I really have 2 questions.

1. Does the 3x wide angle lens create that cheesy fish eye look?
2. Will I get the same type of glares and "reflections" using the
3x's lens ..as I got using the WD 58, converter?


thanks,

j.

1. No. It's not a fisheye. It's just a wide field of view.

Without owning the 3x lens, I can answer one thing for certain, you won't be getting a fisheye look even at its widest setting, which is 26mm in 35mm equivalent. It's wide, but barrel distortion should be minimal. Fisheyes, to create that rounded look, opperate in a much wider range, and they have to heavily and unnaturally distort the field of view to cover that much ground horizontally (and vertically). 26mm, again, is pretty wide, but certainly not enough to make it look like a fisheye adapter, so don't worry about that.

As for flares, the coating on the adapter sure plays a role in minimizing distortion and unwanted light, but since it covers more space and cannot be flagged or matted very much because of the very wide angle of view, it's normal to get more flares (with any kind of wide glass). Thing is to be extra careful about the light that enters your lens directly (at all times, but especially when shooting in a very wide setting) so that it doesn't flare.

Thanks for the good info.


2 more questions.


1. I'm not good with the numbers, so which one would give a
wider view. the 3x's or the WD-58? ...and which ever one is
wider, by how much?

2. Is the 3X's really worth the cost?


thanks,

j.

1. your .7x adapter will convert the 16x into a 30mm, while the 3x is about 27mm. So it's a difference of about 3mm (in 35mm equivalent). By the way those numbers are for the angle of view assuming you're shooting 16:9.

2. Of course, if you have an adapter and find it to be sharp enough, I personally wouldn't shed an extra 1K to get the 3x, but it's a matter of opinion, since I don't need AF.

If you plan on getting the 16x manual lens with the XL2, then the 3x might be a good investment. If you want the AF Fluorite 20x lens, then maybe an adapter is your best bet (although I'm not sure it'll fit, might want to check that, I believe there's no adapter yet that works with the 20x).

If you need the full zoom range, you'll need a zoom through converter.

It's up to you, based on your needs.