ef adaptor w/ sigma 10-20mm
 

sigma is about to release this lens that's compatible with the ef mount... i know that canon has a 10-22mm ef-s lens, but that does not fit on the ef adaptor (i tried with the 17-85 ef-s)...

sigma's however, would fit the adaptor... with the multiplication factor, it should get a fov of roughly 70-150mm, which is usable... when using my 50mm ef lens on my xl2... i see that the DOF is way more shallow than the 20x lens... and the focus ring is much more manueverable... anyone plan on using the combo of the ef adaptor w/ the sigma 10-20mm?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM IS or not IS?
 

I would like to get the Canon Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM as my second zoom with the X20 which comes with the camera.
Does the IS version justify the extra 500-600 $ or can I do without? Keep in mind I need it for wildlife and it will always be on a tripod.
Thanks!!
Ido (-;

The image stabilizer in the EF series lenses does not function the same way as in the XL series lenses for the very reason that the EF series lenses are designed to still photography. It is a rather different thing to adjust the floating lens to get a sharp still photo compared to taking a long footage with minimal vibration.

In my experience the image stabilizer is not much of use with the XL2. In fact, I always turn the IS off and instead make sure the tripod is set steadily on ground. So, my best advice is, you don't need the IS, but of course, somebody may disagree. If you ever plan to sell the lens, the version with the IS may retain better its value, for the IS is such an advantage in still photography.

Hallo

I would buy the 2.8 is, I have it and it is a fantastic lense. I have other L series and it is by far the best. There is also the fringe benefit of being able to use it with an SLR ( I cut still pictures into my editing a lot ), also it will hold its value better.

I'll pretty much second all the previous motions. Image stabilization (IS) in the XL2 + 20x lens is superb and of great value for handheld shooting. On the other hand, Lauri rightly pointed out that IS is not really important for tripod shooting with the XL2. Since I don't use 35mm lenses with my XL2, I can't personally say with certainty but I'd doubt that the IS on an EF lens would work with the IS system on the XL2 body -- although for the extreme telephoto, I can see how even on a tripod one might like to have it. Lauri, can you clarify, does the IS function at all using EF lenses, or totally unavailable?

On the digital still photo side of life, I can say that the IS on EF lenses does truly allow you to get away with 1-2 stops slower shutter speed using my wife's Canon 20D. Has definitely been very handy.

The image stabilizer of EF-series lense do function with the XL2, but my point was that the IS of EF-series lenses is not the same IS you find on the standard 20x lense of XL2.

The reason of this is intuitively easy to understand; If one takes still photos the very idea of the IS is to compensate the motional effect in order to create a sharp still image. So, it's design such that at the very moment one takes the photo, the floating lense counterbalances the unwanted motion yielding a sharp still image. What ever happens the very next moment after taking the photo is less important. (This is an oversimplification, for the IS of EF-series lenses have different options depending what kind of still photos one is taking.)

Now, when it comes to a video camera the question is not of taking sharp frames, but instead the IS is designed to remove (especially high frequent components of) vibration from the footage as they result in a shaky and akward image. And this time, it really matters how the IS operates from one frame to another. Summing up, the two image stabilizers do not function the same way.

Thanks, Lauri. So it sounds like the only reason for Ido to spend the big premium for an IS lens would be it is also going to be used on a still camera? (I wouldn't recommend spending THAT much more strictly for resale value alone).

Cheap EF lens for XL2 body-only?
 

OK, here's the deal:

I have a micro35 on order that I plan to use exclusively with a yet-to-be-purchased XL2. I'm doing independent film and that cinematic shallow depth of field is what I'm looking for.

In the micro35 setup, the lens that attaches between the camera and the micro35 has only one use: to focus on the ground glass.

Originally, I was going to get the XL2 package with the 20x lens. However, it looks like I won't be using any of the capabilities of this lens, so I'm wondering if it might be better to get an XL2 body-only, the EF adapter and an EF lens. I'm wondering if there might be deals out there like this instead of the XL2/20x package deal.

Well, I guess first I'll get feedback on that plan.

Assuming it is a good plan, any suggestions on a no frills lens? I need a fast lens (low f) since the micro35 will definitely make me lose some light.

Thanks,

Kelly

Hi Kelly,

Just so you're aware, the Canon EF adapter runs about $450. Fast lenses command a premium price, so your requirements for "cheap" and "fast" are mutually exclusive terms. The lower the f/ number (that is, the larger the aperture), the more expensive the lens is. You can save some money by getting a Sigma EF substitute instead of a Canon, but remember, you get what you pay for.

If you can get by with a prime lens instead of a zoom, then it becomes a little more affordable. The Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro Autofocus lens costs about $240. A better lens is the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Autofocus Lens for about $310. If a prime lens will suit your needs, then it's just a question of what focal length... common primes in this series are 20mm, 28mm, 50mm, 85mm and 100mm, all below the $450 price point. Whatever you do, avoid the bargain-basement $75 lenses as those things are only going to impede your image quality.

Chris,

Thanks for your reply.

Since this lens will essentially just be used to focus on the ground glass and then forgotten about, I won't need a zoom lens and I won't need autofocus, so that might bring the price down.

However, I just did a search on BHphoto for Canon film lenses and they ALL seem to be autofocus. I saw a 50 mm f/1.4 for around $300 which with the EF adapter and the XL2 body would be cheaper than the XL2/20x kit (but it wouldn't include the accessories, so it might not be worth it).

The one problem that was pointed out was that the EF adapter will multiply the focal lenght by 7, giving me a 350 mm lens.

With that kind of focal length, I wonder if it will even be possible to focus on the ground glass (even through the micro35 achromat).

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

Kelly

Oops, I forgot about the magnification factor (in the XL2 it's 9.6 times in 4:3 mode and 7.8 times in 16:9 mode). You'll have to take that up with the Micro35 guys over on their forum at the redrock site.

And yes, all EF lenses these days are autofocus. They're switchable to manual though.

how about the 50mm f/1.8? it's got a plastic (erm i meant polycarbonate) mount, but it's exceptionally sharp and clear, and the price of $60us can't be beat. the lens is very light too, so this may help out with the XL2's front-heavy problem too.

does anyone have any screen caps or footage from an XL1 with an EF adaptor and an EF lens?

Browse through my XL1 Watchdog and XL2 Watchdog sites located at www.dvinfo.net for various articles and image galleries featuring XL/EF lens frame grabs.

Canon EL lens for Canon XL2
 

Dear sears,

I use a Canon XL2 camcorder for my film recording and I am very satisfied.

Next year I will make a 6 weeks trip through New Zealand to make a wildlife film.

To be able to recording animals it might be necessary to use a telephoto lens, for that matter a lot of Canon EF lenses are available. An other possibility is to use the extender XL16.

According my opinion the best solution will be an EF lens with the XL adapter,
For example the EF 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/2.8
Considering the magnification factor of at least 7.8 applied to the focal length the effective focal length will be 2340 or 3120.

My question is, what do you recommend?


Thank you in advance

Hi Tonnie and welcome to DVinfo! I've moved your post to the XL2 forum from the XL1/XL1s forum because there are a number of people here who use either the EF adaptor or the extender with the XL2 exactly as you intend to do -- they'll be more likely to see this and respond.

I've not personally used either the extender or the EF adaptor, but either way of course you'll need a rock steady tripod!

Using Extender or EF lenses
 

Hi,
I have used both on the XL1 and 2.The extender is OK but you do get a loss of sharpness at full zoom.Although not recommended by Canon I have stacked 2 extenders to achieve that extra long range shot of distant birds(and autofocus still works!!)
I have used a Sigma 50-500 and this gave fab results,very sharp and extreme telephoto range.I know there are arguments for using prime lenses,but I find that the zoom helps me locate the bird(or animal) first and then zoom in.Trying to find a small bird in a tree with a 400mm lens(2940mm equivalent 35mm)is extremely difficult!!
You do,of course lose autofocus with EF lenses,but the results are worth it.
Hope this helps

Tripod Plate when using EF lenses
 

Hi,
Does anyone know of a long tripod plate..(purchased or plans for a homemade job would be fine)...so that I can mount the XL2 and the tripod mount of my Canon 100-400mm to the same plate?
The holes where you attach a tripod are not in line,due to the offset position of the XL lens mount,so the plate needs to be some sort of dogleg design.
Other ideas how to improve the steadiness of long EF lenses on the XL2 will also be welcomed
Any ideas?...thanks

Using Extender or EF lenses
 

Tonnie-
I have owned both the XL1 and now the XL2. I film/video nature and wildlife as a profession and I lean towards the XL2 for everything. I find I use the 20X lens 60% of the time even w/o the extender which by the way works very well at all ranges maybe slightly soft at full w/ the 1.6. This is the most economical and lightest way to go however you should only consider this as convenience or a last resort. The next most useful zoom lens is the 100-400 IS USM. For large game (bison, elk, grizzly...) they are almost full frame at 200 yds full zoom. My third lens is a 600mm nikon which I used more with the XL1 than the XL2. Now with the XL2, the multiplication factors, with an adapter, is 9.6 (4:3) and 7.8 (16:9). If you use a 600 prime at 4:3 and you film a bald eagle, you would need to be over 200 yds away or you jeopardize cropping your subject. After spending many hours editing with fcp I have to conclude the difference in sharpness between the 20x and a prime is miniscule. You should have a good tripiod but you absolutely must have a quality video head for wildlife telephoto.

Hey James,

This is the only one I know of: http://www.ronsrail.com/

Ron is on here alot and might be able to tell you all about them first hand.

Travis

Thanks
 

Travis.....thanks for this very rapid response!!
Cheers
James

James,

I am not familiar with the Canon lense, but I use a Sigma zoom with the XL1s. I have a simple plate that supports the camera and lense and connects to a Manfrotto 501. The good thing about the Sigma is that when it's mounted on the camera the tripod foot is at the same level as the XL1s tripod mounting face. I did the basic design work and got it machined at a local engineering workshop, total cost with materials £30.

I could send you a copy of the drawing if you think it might be of use.

Regards,


Chris.

Yes please!
 

Chris,would appreciate a copy of the plan..thanks
Can you mail me through the site please?
James

Chris,

I would appreciate a copy too.

Many thanks in advance,

Best regards,

Guus

James/Guus

Sorry for the delay, have been away on holiday for a week.

I will get my original drawing scanned and send copies as soon as possible.

Regards,


Chris.

I make a similar adaptor used to mount a spotting scope and a camera together. I am sure it could be used for stabilizing a telephoto lens on an XL1 or XL2. You can find in on this website:
www.teterhorn.com

Jared

When you use the Canon 35mm lenses, you obviously have no power zoom. I suspect the autofocus will not work either?

Does the autoexposure still work - for wildlife I would regard this as essential?

Does anyone know what is the equivalent 35mm lens focal length for the 20X zoom with, and without, the extender?

Sorry if these questions have been asked before, but I cannot get search to work on this section of the forum only.

I prefer to use Nikon prime lenses for wildlife. My favourite is the Nikkor 300mm f2.8 EDIF - extremely sharp on the Canon XL camera. This lens is also superb to produce full-frame sunsets or moons. I also sometimes use the Nikkor 600mm EDIF, but very rarely as it often gives just too much magnification.

No matter which lenses you decide to use, it is important to use a rock-steady tripod and tripod/camera mount system. For subjects that are not moving too much, I always use the XL wireless remote control so that I don't need to touch the camera while recording.

Thank you, I realise this, I have benn videoing wildlife for some time. I am thinking of upgrading my present Canon XM1, and I am trying to find out how much automation I would have if I were to use 35 mm lenses with the adaptor for the XL2.

I am also trying to find out the effective (i.e. 35mm format) focal length of the standard lens (20X does not tell me much that is useful), and the alternatives which need the adaptor.

I believe the CCDs are 1/3", so it should be possible to work out an approximate conversion factor?

Sorry I am a little late in the post. The figures Bill Taka gave for the focal length of 9.6---4.3 and 7.8---16:9 are relative to the XL lens also. I believe the wide end of the XL lens is 5.4. 5.4 times 9.6 in 4:3 mode is 51.8mm. The long end is 9.6 times 108mm --1036.8mm, 35mm still camera format. EF lenses have no auto functions with your XL2, everything is manual exept for the button on the side of the EFadapter. I have not found it of much use. Time to put in a plug for my RONSRAIL and RONSIGHT. Take a look at my website for those items and various tripods ,heads and lenses.

I have heard that the 7.8x magnification is due to the CCD's being much smaller than the 35mm image and that you are effectively using the middle part of the lens (when using the EF adapter), which is the best part of any lens, so it may not be necessary to spend loads on a still lens.

I use an EF75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 that came with a canon EOS300V for £120.

I've only used this on the moon for an actual shot and the results were excellent. I have tested it in daylight (point at some distant trees), and again I was pleased with the results.

In my humble opinion, when using this configuration, the tripod is where the money should be spent!! :=)

Thanks Ron, for confirming what I expected about the Canon 35mm lenses.

I am still puzzled about the differing focal lengths quoted for 4:3 and 16:9 with the same lens.

My knowledge of optics (remembered from a first year university course nearly 50 years ago!) suggests these figures must be based on the horizontal field of view. My memory says that the actual size of the image of a given object at a given distance is independent of the format - it depends only on the focal length of the lens, as the angle of view is the same for all formats.

alan, for wildlife filming, you actually *don't* want autoexposure with these big lenses. one of the reasons to use these lenses, besides the obvious advantage of their long reach, is the fantastic shallow depth of field you can achieve with the manual focus. you want to be able to get razor sharp focus on the animal and let the background be what it will without autofocus hunting or flattening the image. the shallow DOF is very dramatic, and the manual focus is very easy to use on these lenses. you never have to argue with the servo. try it, you'll love it. making this move is expensive, though. you need to buy the adapter, the lens, and possibly a more heavy-duty tripod mount. plus a way to transport all of it, for hiking or overseas travel or whatever. it's a big investment. the lens itself is just the beginning......

EOS lenses on the XL2: any info?
 

I'm pondering the purchase of a Canon still camera and am trying to plan way ahead to the possibility of using it's lenses on my XL2. Does anyone use (or at least have more info then the canon website) the EOS lens adapter?

What I'm basically wondering is stuff like:
Will it run EF and EF-S lenses?
If you put an EF on there does it add to the focal length multiplier inherent of the adapter? How about the EF-S?
Any experiences, good or bad?
This is silly, but on BH it shows a battery next to it. Does the adapter require power?

Thanks, video people! :}

Jeff, you're looking at the world's largest online XL2 user community. This place is filled with discussions about the EF Adapter. Just roll your sleeves up and dig in. All those threads are right here at your fingertips.

EF, yes. EF-S, no, as those lenses will fit only the Canon Digital SLR still photo cameras.

The focal length is not multiplied; but the resulting field of view is magnified by a factor of 7.8 times when shooting in widescreen 16:9 and 9.6 times when shooting in 4:3. And yes that's with then lens attached. No difference between EF and EF-S except of course that EF-S lenses are not compatible with the EF adapter.

See http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article04.php

and http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article10.php

Hope this helps,

Thanks for all the info Chris! This will certainly keep me busy
PS I did search before asking, I guess I didn't look hard enough :}

Check my website for different lenses on the XL1. All these lenses will work with th XL2 also.

jeff, do a search under "wildlife" to find the best info on EF/EOS lenses (there are several threads) for use with the XL2.

i researched this long and hard before i purchased the canon EF 70-200mm 2.8. i have to respectfully disagree with chris. it is actually *not* easy to cull this information from the dvinfo site. it's there, but it is kind of difficult to find, and there is no single, sustained conversation about using EF lenses with the XL2. you have to piece it together yourself. also, check out www.fredmiranda.com because they do extensive reviewing of EF lenses for dSLRs, including the "L" series EF lenses. (also the best place to pick up used EF lenses and Canon still cameras for cheap.)

it is well worth it, though, if you can afford a long lens. the nature/wildlife/outdoor footage you can get with the XL2/long lens combo is fabulous.

ahem, a wildlife forum would be the logical place to have such a sustained discussion!

I really appreciate your feedback, Meryem... perhaps now is the time to begin a Special Interest area dedicated to wildlife videography?

woo-hoo! excellent!

and if there is anything i can do personally to help you to get a wildlife forum started...

...just e-mail jeff sayre! heh!

no, kidding aside...i know the boys in the "wildlife videographers" thread who have been lobbying for a special interest forum will be thrilled to hear you're considering it. there are definitely people making money with their cams in this niche, and i think it will be happily received. thanks!

By its very nature and location, both of which are extremely varied and often far from controlled conditions, wildlife videography is begging for frank and open discussion. Please let it happen Chris.

There's an infant DV industry out there waiting for a thousand video entrepreneurs.