Canon 3x wide angle lens
 

will 3x wide will look better than 20x (L) lens on the xl2? i mean with 'native' 16:9 support now 3x should look better, at least in theory.

Don Berube shot a little at DV Expo with the 3x lens; hopefully he'll offer some input on his experience.

hpoefully (rubs palms together in a sinister way) some screencaps? =^).

I hope it works better on the new XL2. I still have Xl1 with the 3x, however it seemed to give the image a very slight blur look.

I think it would still be soft. I hope they'll introduce a new, sharper 3x. With manual focus and zoom. Black. Yeah..... That'd be sweet.

so from experience you guys think that 3x is very blurry?

No. The 3x lens is not really the key culprit although it can get a little edge fuzz at open aperture. The resolution of most of these prosumer cameras is simply not good enough to do justice to wide shots. Even 1/2" cameras struggle with wide shots.

I -suspect- that the XL2 will actually do better with the 3x.

I first read the slight fuzz thing on a comparison test. I then did a test of my own and as Ken says it only happens in full aperture (in a low light situation) and is very minimal. I I think the XL2 actual true 16:9 ratio will defentelly work great with the 3X.

I've been shooting a lot lately with the 3x on the XL1 and it seems slightly soft particularily in low-level, soft light conditions. It's not as bad when the shadows are harder in low light conditions.

But I have found it to be a great handheld doc lense when used up close, just stay away from those tempting wide landscapes.

but i thought the 3x was made for those wide-landscapes?

My experience is that wide shots...not necessarily wide angle...just shots with a lot of information in them, don't hold up very well in DV. I own the 3x lens, and, for the most part, I don't use it except for times when, as Jim said, I want to get up close and personal.

That said, I have often been stunned by how good the wide, and wide angle footage looks on my dvx100. Leading me to agree that the xl1's lower resolution is the culprit. I have high hopes that the xl12, with the 3x lens, will provide a similar result to the DVX.

Barry

I was shooting a doc recently about a group of artists and their artworks. The 3x did wonders in being able to shoot the artist next to their work. The only time it didn't work out well was when the work was especially tiny. Then I went back with the 16x.

It is also very helpful in getting shots inside cars with several passengers. You can easily pan around and get 2-3 people in the frame inside a car with the 3x.

Also in small groups of 2 to 6 people it works out nicely as well. But if it is a larger group of people I tend to stay on the 16x.

It would be great if the XL2 yields a better resolution for wide landscape shots on the 3x and, for that matter, the 16x as well. I'm looking forward to hearing some real world observations using all the Canon lenses on the XL2 compared to the older XL's.

I use the 3X for tight inside shots. I videoed the inside of an engine room on a ship and it was fantastic. Really crisp and with great color (being able to turn down the sound was great as the noise level was deafening). I also used it two weeks ago at a wedding reception in Colorado. The clients LOVED the dancing footage that were shot with the 3X. I really feel that the 3X was not intended for landscapes but for close inside or tight places. As I said before, I never realized I needed a 3X until I realized how often I was borrowing one. Bob

so guys... does this mean that using DV to achieve wide-panning vistas and landscapes similar to 'lawrence of arabia' CANNOT be achieved? that it is reserved for film or HD-only?

Depends on your meaning of CANNOT.

You can certainly shoot them but they do break down a bit. Test it yourself before coming to any steadfast conclusion as to what you find acceptable particularily for what the eventual distribution of your video may turn out to be. A lot depends on the content of the shot and also how you plan to display your shots.

For the small screen, wide vista shots are just on the edge of acceptability IMHO. Much depends on how long the wide shot is onscreen and how interesting the composition is before you begin to notice the problem the format has in discerning small bits of information.

For film out it must be much more noticeable although I have not personally tested it yet. The bottom line is TEST, TEST, and then TEST some more!

Hope this helps.

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.

My 3x lens goes to every shoot. This is an invaluable tool for scenes that require massive attention to the foreground. As for barrel distortion, this is only present to the highly trained eye. You will see vertical elements slightly distorted (curved) at the edges, but it is not a distraction to the viewer. I guess the big benefit is that you are not adding extra glass. I have never used add- on devices to the front of the 16x or 20x so in that regard I can't comment.

A big advantage to the 3x lens is that it's much lighter in weight compared to any other XL lens (20x or 16x, auto or manual) having a wide-angle adapter mounted on the front.

Ok, so have anyone tried a century optics .6 or .7 adapter on the xl2? ...I wrote an email to century optics asking if the .7 would work on the xl2 and they sent back an email that said something along the lines of.


"WARNING, don't attempt to place your .7 converter on the XL2, we have not done any testing with that adapter and the xl2"


So if anyone has tried the Century .7 on their xl2, I'd like to know. And if anyone has an opinion as to why it wouldnt work, please respond.

thanks,

.j.

Here's why it won't work. Century is developing a fix for this issue, though.

Why couldnt you just put a UV filter on the 20x's lens ..then put the .7 adapter on the UV filter?


j.

I don't think you'd want to stress the UV filter with the weight of a WA adapter in front of it. That's just asking for trouble in my opinion... way too delicate.

Also the more glass you add the more chance of (bouncing)
reflections and whatnot.

3x lens is not "soft" on XL2
 

I just did a shoot for a client this past week-end. It was all interiors in tight locations for a real estate developer on Miami Beach (800 sq. ft. for $1 million--whew!). I had no choice but to use the 3x on this job.

I had read here earlier (prior to the camera's release) that using the 3x lens on the XL2 was/would giving/give soft images. Well, I'm here to tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. The images I got were clear and sharp!

From everything I've seen this camera delivers, period! I can only chalk up the early negative comments to sour grapes.

Jay

Jay

just curious...your experience matches mine for the most part...but have you seen any of the back focus issues I noted in my posting here:

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

Barry

Barry--

No, I didn't see that on any of the footage I shot and there were several zooms, both in and out. Was that on manual focus?

Jay