Canon 3x wide angle lens

Ken Tanaka · July 28th, 2004, 03:23 PM

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.

Yi Fong Yu · July 28th, 2004, 04:46 PM

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.

Alain Aguilar · July 28th, 2004, 07:36 PM

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

Yi Fong Yu · July 28th, 2004, 09:42 PM

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... =).

Alain Aguilar · July 29th, 2004, 09:43 PM

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.

Ken Tanaka · July 29th, 2004, 09:51 PM

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

Alain Aguilar · July 29th, 2004, 10:23 PM

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.

Alain Aguilar · September 4th, 2004, 11:15 PM

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

Antoine Fabi · September 27th, 2004, 12:11 PM

I wonder...

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

thanks

Rob Lohman · September 30th, 2004, 03:32 AM

See this thread for information and footage:

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

John Wheeler · October 2nd, 2004, 08:44 PM

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.

Chris Hurd · October 2nd, 2004, 11:06 PM

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

David Lach · October 2nd, 2004, 11:14 PM

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.

John Wheeler · October 3rd, 2004, 12:17 AM

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.

David Lach · October 3rd, 2004, 12:59 AM

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.

July 28th, 2004, 03:23 PM	#16
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	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. __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

July 28th, 2004, 04:46 PM	#17
Yi Fong Yu Trustee Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vulcan Posts: 1,564	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. __________________ bow wow wow

July 28th, 2004, 07:36 PM	#18
Alain Aguilar Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: North Bergen Posts: 170	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 __________________ Alain

July 28th, 2004, 09:42 PM	#19
Yi Fong Yu Trustee Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vulcan Posts: 1,564	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... =). __________________ bow wow wow

July 29th, 2004, 09:43 PM	#20
Alain Aguilar Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: North Bergen Posts: 170	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

July 29th, 2004, 09:51 PM	#21
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	Alain, That was an excellent example of using field of view (i.e. lens selection) to subliminally accentuate dramatic effect. __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

July 29th, 2004, 10:23 PM	#22
Alain Aguilar Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: North Bergen Posts: 170	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. __________________ Alain

September 4th, 2004, 11:15 PM	#23
Alain Aguilar Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: North Bergen Posts: 170	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 __________________ Alain

September 27th, 2004, 12:11 PM	#24
Antoine Fabi Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: sherbrooke (Quebec) Canada Posts: 108	XL2 with 3X lense ? I wonder... is the 3X lense is sharp enough for the XL2 ? (from f2.8 to f16) thanks

September 30th, 2004, 03:32 AM	#25
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	See this thread for information and footage: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=32610 __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

October 2nd, 2004, 08:44 PM	#26
John Wheeler Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Antonio Texas Posts: 85	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.

October 2nd, 2004, 11:06 PM	#27
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	1. No. It's not a fisheye. It's just a wide field of view. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

October 2nd, 2004, 11:14 PM	#28
David Lach Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, QC, Canada Posts: 570	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.

October 3rd, 2004, 12:17 AM	#29
John Wheeler Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Antonio Texas Posts: 85	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.

October 3rd, 2004, 12:59 AM	#30
David Lach Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, QC, Canada Posts: 570	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.