|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 15th, 2006, 01:33 AM
|
#1 |
|
New Boot
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22
|
wide angle lens for xl2 is a converter any good?
I am shooting a cooking show and I need to get in close to the food being prepared and then back to the talent but I am having to step back too far to fill the frame with them.
Is a wide angle converter any good? Copy below link to address bar and have a look The canon xl2 wide angle is to xxxy at the moment And what would be the best setting for TV? Thank you John |
|
|
|
June 15th, 2006, 03:45 AM
|
#2 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 1,589
|
The Red Eye .7X lens adapter, and the Optex .7X adapter are good options for getting wider images with the 16X or 20X lenses.
|
|
|
|
|
June 15th, 2006, 04:41 AM
|
#3 | |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lipa City Batangas, Philippines
Posts: 1,110
|
Quote:
I have the Century Optics adapter. I'm quite happy with it, since it's zoom-through, but it is pretty heavy and also the rubber lens hood is exorbitantly priced. (And it's not digital.) Richard |
|
|
|
|
|
June 15th, 2006, 06:34 AM
|
#4 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,557
|
You really should try the Canon 3x lens for this. It works great. Bob
|
|
|
|
|
June 15th, 2006, 11:43 AM
|
#5 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 1,689
|
Century makes good ones but th 3X is the best. The cheap adapters on eBay are junk...
ash =o) |
|
|
|
|
June 15th, 2006, 04:31 PM
|
#6 | |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 1,589
|
Quote:
Optex (recently stopped trading but is still available), Red Eye, and Century all produce non-zoom through 0.7X adapters, and all are pretty much equal in the sharpness stakes (I think that the non-zoom through versions are slightly sharper than the zoom through version). I own both the Optex and Red Eye lenses in both .7X and .5X versions. The .5X is not in the same league as the .7X, so I advise most people to only go for the .7X versions, as these will maintain most of the sharpness of the original master lens with minimal distortion and colour fringing. The Red Eye does offer some big advantages over the the much bulkier Optex, in that a hood or matte box can be used with the Red Eye and it can even be combined with a thin polarizer. If I were to split hairs, I would say that the Optex .7X is very slightly sharper to the corners and provides less fringing than the Red Eye. The Red Eye can sometimes give a very slight mauve/pink biased image in some extreme cases (the .5X is worse in this regard). The Optex glass is very large at the front and has no way of accepting a lens shade/hood. There is no vignetting with either the Optex or Red eye using a 16X Manual lens at its widest angle, but the 20X lens + Red Eye can sometimes show slight vignetting at the extreme lower corners when the XL2 is set at 16:9. I tend to use the Red Eye .7X for most of my wide work, or when the XL2 is inside an underwater housing. I'm looking forward to testing the new Canon 6X lens when it arrives this autumn (although I'm not sure if I'll like the launch asking price!). |
|
|
|
|
|
June 15th, 2006, 06:11 PM
|
#8 | |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lipa City Batangas, Philippines
Posts: 1,110
|
Quote:
Richard |
|
|
|
|
|
June 16th, 2006, 11:44 AM
|
#9 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 1,589
|
The Optex and Red Eye are both partial zoom through, although I tend to prefer to keep the main lens fixed at its widest setting for all shooting - and as all converters, they maintain the IS, unlike the X3 lens (...although I agree that IS is not needed for all wide angle situations).
The zoom-through versions such as the one by Century, does have more glass elements, and this tends to produce a softer image than the single element converters...although I doubt if most viewers would notice the difference, as long as the actual footage is powerful, interesting and well shot. |
|
|
|
|
August 7th, 2006, 11:38 AM
|
#10 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 2,237
|
Hope you won't mind me bringing this thread back up.
I'm curious to know why the cheap eBay wide angle lenses are to be avoided. Of course I'm conditioned to not expect great quality at a low price, but in what specific ways are these lenses poor? Has anyone ever tested them against the more expensive lenses from, say, Century Optics? Is it that they just don't work, they display dire vignetting, they mush up your image, they damage the thread on your lens, or what? Having just spent a significant sum of money on the camera itself I'm not in a position to spend a further significant sum on accessories, much as I'd like to! But would buying one of the cheapos on eBay be a total waste of money? Interested to hear your views. Cheers. Ian . . . |
|
|
|
|
August 7th, 2006, 02:59 PM
|
#11 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 649
|
Well, the Century adapters at $500- $850 are pretty good, but still exhibit some fringing, distortion and softness at the edges, so I imagine that the cheapo "digital" adapters are going to be stink-o bad. You can actually see the fringing and softness in their example photo. If that's the actual image.
I just don't think no-name have as much R&D, or experience behind them as Century do. Century have been around over 50 years designing and manufacturing lenses for cinematography and video. They were recently bought by Schneider. You get what you pay for. Sometimes, you get a very expensive paperweight.
__________________
Mark Sasahara Director of Photography |
|
|
|
|
August 7th, 2006, 03:43 PM
|
#12 | |
|
Trustee
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 1,689
|
Quote:
People just dont really understand optics in general, you are not alone. Would it be a waste of money to buy a new porsche and add a cheap component to the engine that will make the top speed 40 MPH? They cheap adapters are not bad, they are HORRIFIC. They will kill nearly all the great aspects of the XL2. Your color will be worse, your aberrations magnified, your light diminished, your noise increased, etc. etc. etc. Not worth anything, unless you need a paper weight. ash =o) |
|
|
|
|
|
August 8th, 2006, 01:28 AM
|
#13 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 2,237
|
Hi Ash,
In London, you may as well limit your Porsche to 40mph - you ain't gonna go any faster! I am convinced that what you're saying is true but I am still wondering whether anyone has actually done any comparison tests with the cheap lenses to see just HOW bad they are. I own a Canon WD58 lens (cost around £75) which I used on my XM2 and to be honest it was just fine. Sure, at certain lengths there was some distortion but I just kept away from those certain lengths. I know that it's unsafe to compare the XM2 with the XL2 but if the cheap lenses are THAT bad you'd think I would have noticed it more. Is it possible that one of the cheap manufacturers has developed a process which means they are able to produce a much better quality lens (even if it isn't quite up to the standard of the higher priced ones)? Not looking to pick a fight here :-), and I defer to your clearly superior knowledge, I'm just genuinely interested to see if anyone has done any comparison testing. Personally, I have decided that I'm not buying a wide lens until I can afford something like the Canon 3x. As an aside, I just want to say how enormously impressed I was with your preset efforts. I am absolutely a newbie with the XL2 but I was so taken with the concept of presets that I am about to try and create some of my own, based very loosely on the Magic Bullet presets. Don't hold your breath! Cheers. Ian . . . |
|
|
|
|
August 8th, 2006, 09:37 AM
|
#14 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 1,689
|
It comes down to glass.... quality glass is expensive and cannot be compensated for. There is no way to manufacture cheap quality glass.
ash =o) |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
