difference between xl2 with manual lens and eos adapter
 

Hi. I was wondering if anyone had experience with the qualitative difference between a canon with the manual lens (16x for instance) or using the eos adaptor and 35mm lenses. will the image quality differ between the two options?

This is purely a question that addresses quality of image not magnification or wide angle, etc.

Thanks

Well, there is no wide-angle whatsoever with an EF lens on an XL2. As far as "quality," if the EF lens is an L-series (containing flourite elements), then yes it's better. But the focal length determines whether or not you'll actually use it for any practical purpose, so the issue is moot... since all EF lenses, no matter how wide, become extreme telephoto on the XL2. The XL 16x manual lens delivers excellent quality and a highly utilitarian range of focal length. EF lenses with the adapter are pretty much limited to surveillance and wildlife applications and not much else.

So, as a film maker, one would probably stick to the 16x or the wide angle lens built for the xl2 and stay away from the adapter and 35mm lenses?

The EOS adapter and 35mm still photo lenses, no, not very useful for a filmmaker. The Mini35 adapter and 35mm motion picture lenses, however... *very* useful for a filmmaker.

Yes, but a difference of many thousands of dollars, right?

If you want to produce nature or wildlife documentaries the EF adapter and EOS lenses are great. But for almost any other application, it's useless.

Deron: yes, the mini35 adapter itself is $10,000 and that is without
any lens etc. Ofcourse it is available (in a few select places) for
rent as well.

Okay, does anyone have an opinion about the qualitative difference between the 16x manual and the 20x that comes with the xl2?

They are both high quality lenses, just with a different feature set.

Does either provide a wider image?

As you can see in our XL2 lens guide, the 20x is slightly wider
than the 16x manual.

I have been experimenting a lot with the 20X, the 16X manual and recently with a borrowed 3x wide angle.

The 20X can do pretty much what the 16X can. I have been able to reproduce with the 20X almost anything I can do with the 16X. As it was mentioned before, the 20X is a little wider than the 16X, but the 3X is the champ, and after my personal tests I have decided to buy the 3X and not the 16, maybe later, when the budget allows.

my 2 cents.

Sebastian

Thanks. That helps a lot. I was wondering about the 3x as well.