It's easy to miss...especially if you are tossing things out quickly to get to the lens :)

It is with a 3" by 4" folded piece of paper in a plastic sleeve.

Yes, I agree entirely...although the main problem of fringing with the 20X lenses is at the extreme telephoto end.

I had the 6X zoom for two days, and I think will have it mounted on my XL H1 permanently! I think Canon have done a really nice work here.

What size (UV) filter is needed for the 6x? I can't seem to find this information in the usual places...

Sorry, just found it: 82mm

I think you will need "slim" screw in filters to avoid vignetting.

SOOOO much nicer than the 3x SD lens,

Jonas, were those barrel distortion examples at the widest setting? it's definetely there but not bad at all, looks pretty similar to some of the images i've gotten with the 20x at full wide.

Yes, on the widest. It,s noticable but not annoying!

Hi All, I am new to this group, and new to film making but I am having a go and loving it.

If you look at the meta info in the files you will see the f/stops.

The photo of Jonas's doughter was shot at a f-stop of 1.6 and Focal Lenght of 3.4mm

--
Peter Greenfield

OK, thank you (more then I know!)

Who is selling the body only Kit? I cannot find it anywhere or on Canon USA's web site.

Zotz Digital. They are great to work with.

http://www.zotzdigital.com

This is not a super wide angle so a slim filter may not be required. A Hoya "Pro1 Digital" filter seems to work OK (i.e. no vignetting visible in the viewfinder but as we all know that favorite part of the camera underscans some). This is not designated as a "slim" filter but a "low profile frame" is considered a feature of this series.

New protective filter, new polarizer, new Expodisc.....sigh!!!

You may be right (but better safe then sorry I thought). I tried to see if a couple of millimeters would wignette the corners, and for what I can see, it is a close call.

And at Scandinavian Photo (my shop) the price is still the same, so I will go for the slim fit!

You are absolutely right on that - best to try and see really but when I went into the local supplier's show room they laughed and said they couldn't remember the last time someone had asked for a filter as big as 82 mm. In the protective filter the difference in cost wasn't much but a "wide angle" polarizer, which can't be thin so they get wide by stepping up (the ring which mates with the lens is 82 mm but the front ring is 95) did cost me extra - a lot extra - and I'm not sure it's necessary. And it must weigh half a kg (a pound) but it is a beautifully made thing.