16x Manual: Is this lens still viable?
 

I'm thinking of getting this lens used on eBay for a pretty low price (under $500) I'll be using it w/ my XL2 but plan on keeping it when if I upgrade to a XL H1.

My question is how much detail is lossed with the 16x as opposed tp the 20x HD stck lens? And could the glass be any worse than th stock glass that comes on the HVX or JVC Fujinon 16x stock?

Thanks.

-Robert

Keep in mind the 16x lens is not an HD lens, it is SD. I used it on the XL-H1 when we were shooting SD, and the video was better than the stock lens. By better I mean sharper. I did not use it for shooting HD though, we used the 20X HD lens that came with it. I use it strictly with my XL-2.

I can't say I have used it extensively with the H1 but I did do some tests including a spot check of MTF which I found to be about the same as the stock lens. This doesn't mean it is as good at all settings but at least nominally it is about the same i.e. no appreciable loss.

I have a feeling the will finaly introduce an HD Lens for the H1 at NAB.
Darrell
FIRST CINEMA PICTURES

The lens is great until you get it wide open and at the most extreme telephoto. It goes a little soft here. But 3.2 to 5.6 and it looks great!

It's a little soft in the corners at full telephoto, but it looks surprisingly good in HD overall. It has CA in different places than the stock 20x, but what's cool about it is it seems, to my eye, to be a bit contrasty and renders more vibrant color.

Strange, but true. I think the MTF has to be quite good for quality 1/3 SD lenses already, so HD isn't necessarily unapproachable with a good lens like the 16x.

In some ways I think the 16x is actually better than the 20x... I use it often. I agree that it's slightly contrastier - and although it does exhibit CA more than the 20x or the 6x, it's not distracting like it can be on those lenses - I'm not sure why - maybe the "NOT HD COMPATABLE" resolution of the 16x is actually working to its advantage when it comes to focusing different parts of the spectrum (softer edges blending?)...

I use a 1/2 SoftFX almost all the time (with all three lenses) because it takes the raw HDV edge off - especially with people (which is (90+% of what I shoot) and with the 16x it gives a nice creamy look to the image that I like.

It feels so nice to focus too, like a real lens - even better than some of the 16mm and 2/3" zoom lenses I've used in the past.

Oh, and by-the-way, don't be afraid of f1.6. I shoot wide open a lot and, even if the edges are soft, the selective focus at the center is terrific. And it holds f1.6 through the zoom range.

Agreed, Steve. It's an excellent lens and a pleasure to use. It's certainly HD-compatible to me!

I guess the only downside to the 16x not mentioned thus far is that it breathes a bit, but on the whole it's acceptable to me and overall the 16x is an amazing value.

I'm also looking at this lens for use on the H1 and was wondering how much (if any) CA was noticed when shooting at f1.6? This is a concern after coming from other manual lenses/cameras that suffered bad CA shooting wide open. Have you had a chance to look at it on a good 20 or 24 calibrated studio monitor?

R.W. Swanson, If you find another 16X with clean glass for $500 please let me know, all I see are ones in the $800-$900 range.

Thanks!

Daniel: It is my experience that different people have different needs, and as a result view things very differently - just look at the variation of critic's opinions of the same movie.

I do not do extensive tests on my lenses - I shoot footage in the normal way I would - and evaluate that footage. When I bought the H1 in Dec '05, I still had an XL2 with the 16x lens so I shot some interviews with that lens because I needed manual focus... The footage intercut with the 20x and it looked fine (viewing through a Black Magic card on a 26" Panasonic LCD and an 18" Sony CRT) - that was all I asked of it.

Subsequently I sold the XL2 with that lens - but missed it, so I bought another 16x (new from ZGC) and have been using that one for about 6 months now, intercutting with the 20x and the 6x.

This is more than you need to know, but the point is - you may not like the look of the lens as much as I do, depending on what type of material you are shooting.

I make (mostly) social issue documentaries, and am willing to sacrifice a little bit of chromatic aberation for the convenience of smooth, predictable manual focus and the lens' ability to hold the f1.6 stop through the entire zoom range.

In my type of films, if the audience is noticing chromatic aberation and not paying attention to the story, then I need to be in another profession.

That said, if Canon does introduce an HD compatable 16x at NAB, I'll be one of the first in line to buy it.

It's all good information Steve, I prefer a more well rounded version over short and sweet any day as I'm a "details" person.

I only wish I could shoot a little with this lens first, it might be what I need to do in order to justify my purchase. Although I'm leaning sight unseen at the moment.

I like shooting with both lens types manual/servo, although I have yet to try a manual lens on the Canon, I'm more than sure I would like the control. Some people might not agree but the servo zoom simply works better in some shooting instances, smoother and more fluid zooming. But for tight controlled shooting it's downright horrid. ;)

Steve, I would like to know how you pick your lens when shooting since you have both. You mention the manual for documentary work (understandable) but when do you use the stock lens?

Thanks for the info.

In a direct contradiction to what you are hearing, I personally tend to see "less" CA with the 16x lens in general. I do experience some with it at full tele and the aperture wide open. But I hardly shoot like this. I shoot a lot with it at its full wide setting and find this better than the 20x lens at full wide. The 20x HD lens shows a lot of fringing at the outer edges. I can see it in a lot of outdoor footage shot by others as well as myself. I just see less of it with this lens.

One other thing to know about this lens. It breathes quite a bit. When zoomed on a subject and you adjust the focus the image will slight enlarge or decrease in size. This is just how this lens is setup. I don't personally mind. I have seen this in big budget pictures too. When a person is up close to the lens and is in focus, a subject appears in the distance and a rack focus takes place. The subjects relative size shifts as the lens move to acquire the new focus. I think it looks cool myself! Some hate it. That is your personal choice but it does this for sure.

And to answer your one question (even though it wasn't directed to me), I generally always use the 16x lens unless I need long zoom and OIS. Otherwise it is this lens all the time. I have to say it produces amazing images. I haven't tested the exact resolution but honestly, to my eyes it looks almost sharper than the 20x. This is probably due to the fact that it is more contrasty than the 20x. After shooting with it the 20x seems kinda washed out....IMHO.

Thanks Marty!

It sure makes it easier to invest in one alongside the 20X-HD. I'm more than familur with breathing, rack focusing on the JVC produces a fair amount with the 16X Fujinon, it took some getting used to. It would be easier if I prefered this as you do, but it's a look that is more ENG, reality TV in my opinion than cinematic. However, I'm all too occustomed to taking the good with the bad, and less percieved CA is very good in my book.

If I can just find one that is priced right, I'm seriously well overbudget on gear purchases for the year.

Does that include Red #977? :)

I guess I should clarify that I don't necessarily "prefer" it, but I find sometimes it looks like rack focus moves I have seen in movies. Not all movies have this obviously but I have seen it in bigger budget films too. So obviously it exists in some higher end lenses too. I will gladly take this trade-off to have true manual focus. It is going to sound crazy but this lens makes it much easier to focus with the LCD of the H1. Things just appear clearer to me and I can feel when my focus it hitting it's mark.

With the 20x lens, it feels so spongy that I have a hard time telling when I hit the focus exactly and sometimes because of it's servo design, it is hard to stop it on the exact focus point. I find myself going back and forth trying to nail it whereas with the 16x manual I seem to just hit it right the first time.

I also do a lot of candid shooting and like the reliability of being able to go full wide and just turning the focus ring until it hard stops and knowing 100% for certain that everything beyond 2 ft or so is in focus. It is a life saver when things get crazy and you are trying to keep up with unscripted action.

And I have seen in a few cases where people have worked around the "breathing" by temporarily using the backfocus adjustment to pull focus. This would only really work on a set where you could set it up.....but I saw a great rack focus using this techniquie that was maybe a 5 ft to 20 ft rack that did not breath at all. The problem is you need to reset the backfocus after doing this so it is limited to scripted controlled environment.

Peace!

Ha! No, I believe I will be hocking the company car and a couple of staff for that one. ;) All joking aside that is going to be a small chunk of change for us.


Marty,

The 20X is a bit "spongy" when I'm hunting for focus at times, could not agree more. With the peaking turned on, and I little bit of practice with a servo lens again, I'm managing. Not having a hard stop to set focus at full wide as you mention however is going to suck. I'm seriously starting to miss the manual control of a lens already... just not the 16X Fujinon. ;)


I'm more than sold on finding a good used lens.

Daniel: I too tend to use the 16x most of the time, especially handheld. I don't like (or trust) the auto focus on the 20x, and it's really almost the only reliable way to focus that kind of lens quickly (except I have recently found that I can focus the 20x using the Chrozsiel DV Follow Focus unit, because the small gear reduces the ratio and makes fine tuning possible).

I do use the 20x if I need OIS - and contrary to what I originally thought a year ago, I do find OIS useful.

I tend use it (the 20x) more since getting the 6x WA because the two lenses feel similar, and it's not such a shock when I change. But, in general, if I had to chose one lens to take on shoot (as I do today), it would be the 16x.

Marty: I agree that the 16x seems to have less CA to my eye... But ALL of the tests I've read/heard have said it has more, so in recommending one lens over the other I have to defer to the more technical types that have those nice pretty charts.

When I zoom to the absolute max and I am in a dark environment where I opoen up to f1.6 I occasionally see a little CA. WHile it stinks that it is there, at least you can do this. Try to see if the 20x has CA at full Tele and f1.6. You can't! Cause the 20x has no neck! (can anyone place that obscure reference?)

Steve,
Could you give me the full description of the filter you mentioned?(1/2 SoftFX ).
Thanks
Bruce S. Yarock
www.yarock.com

Bruce: The Tiffen SoftFX series was originally designed for shooting close-ups of women's faces - it's basically a piece of optical glass with minute divits or dimples in it that create a soft diffusion. They are available from #1/2 (I wish there was a 1/4 and/or 1/8 as there is with Promists) to #6, I believe.. Anything over #1 starts to be too much. I have a #2 that I bought to shoot an interview with an older woman movie star (at her request) and I've never used it since.

Although intended for shooting faces in film, many, myself included, have used the #1/2 as a general softening filter for subjects other than faces in video. I started using it with DVCAM in the 90's because it gave a nice, less edgy, look to the footage I was shooting for a documentary TV series I was working on.

With HDV, I find it extremely useful to soften the (what I call) raw look of the format. It gives a "creamier" look to footage, even exteriors. As I said above, it really enhances the 16x. It looks great with lights in the shot, like bar signs, because the light's soft glow becomes very pleasing.

Problems are similar to any diffusion filter, mainly 1) if you shoot toward a light source there may be excessive flaring 2) if you shoot with the lens wide and stopped down below f4, the dimples may show up, especially if shooting toward a window. 3) When shooting wide with the 6x you need the aperature wide open all the time or the dimples WILL show in almost any lighting condition, just like dust specks.

I have a 1/2 SoftX in both clear and warm (the warm has an 812 added) for both my 3x3 and 4x4 matte boxes. I seldom shoot without one.

Steve,
Thanks for the info.I don't have a 16x.How will it work with the stock lens? Are you saying that it's not good for faces? Most of wht I'm doing lately is events like weddings, and I'm having to crank the gain in lowlight receptions. Would the filter be usefull in those situations?
Bruce S. Yarock
www.yarock.com

Bruce - it works with any lens - I would imagine that it would be excellent for weddings - for that purpose you might also like the higher numbers too - much better than the ubiquitous fog and star filters...

If there's a pro store somewhere near you, try a few different densities... I would guess you'd like the 1/2, 1 and 2 (#2 is too dense for my tastes, but I don't shoot weddings).

And yes, it's great for faces, women love it (when I said "other than faces" I should have said "as well as faces")...

But, again, be careful to keep your aperature as open as possible to reduce depth-of-field and keep the filter's surface from coming in to focus (same as you would with a star filter or a ProMist).

Great info on the filters Steve. Have you even found a post process or plugin that comes close? Magic Bullet has a few presets that will soften/bloom with settings to tweak, but I have not compared to doing it with actual glass/filter. I'm always afraid to use too many on camera filters, figuring I would have more control in post (my girlfriend would say it's likely just commitment issues, HA).

If you ever get a chance to post some pics of your setup it would be much appreciated. ;)

Btw, I should have a 16X manual lens sometime next week to try first hand, our Canon rep has been very good to us (not to mention all the evaluation time we had with the H1, more than accommodating on this point). I appreciate all of the feedback you guys have given on this lens, I'll be sure to share my own thoughts once it arrives.


Peace!!

Daniel: I posted a pic on Nov 1st that coincidentally does have the 20 on it - it's in a thread titled ARTICLE ON TV SHOW SHOT WITH H1 or something like that... I don't want to clutter this space up w/ repeat pix and I don't think you'll have trouble finding it...

Ahhh yes, I do remember seeing that setup, I liked it!
Nice customized package you did. Makes me want to get back into the shop and start cutting & grinding again. ;)

I guess this lens will have to do. Canon is never going to release a manual HD version of any lens for the H1. So grab the current 16x now before they stop making them all when the stop making the XL2. oh wait they are stopping the XL2.

Craig: I think you're probably right.. unless of course they repackage the current 16x so it doesn't have the "HD INCOMPATABLE" warning and add another grand to the price...

As much as I love this camera (and have learned to like HDV), I'm frustrated by the lack of pro support from Canon in terms of lenses and viewfinders...

As a result the new 2/3" Panasonic is very tempting to me for my upcoming feature length documentary... P2 cards, pro finder, shoulder balanced, 4.2.2 sampling to DVCPRO HD... (Don't know yet what chips they're using though)...

And you can bet that if, and when, I get one, it'll be with a terrific fully manual Canon lens...

I'm with you on that steve, 2/3" is always tempting, until you total everything up in earnet. I'm also not seeing a lot of pro supported items for the H1 yet. You could argue that the H1 is not a "Pro camera" at under 10K, but then that goes against everything that has been stated by Canon directly. And as such a professional camera should have gear to support the industry using it. The whole "Prosumer" term may be gone but the soapy film left behind is still hanging in there. Not directed at Canon but all of the current HDV cameras on the market.

Also, if you stop to think about it, the H1 is at the top end in cost compared to the other HDV cameras on the market (by nearly double in some cases), even a big jump in cost over the previous XL series cameras. Just a guess but I doubt it has helped market share by having a higher price tag camera, and fewer supported professional lens options. It's all a trade off I guess. After using all of the sub 10K cameras I'm more than familur with each ones weaknesses.

I personaly like being the odd man out for our area (just as we did working with our first HD100), and working with the H1. After all is said and done it's the end result that matters most.

Daniel: True, it is the end result that counts, and as such I have tolerated the "prosumer" label because the H1 images are just so damned good compared to almost anything but a Cine Alta...

I went head to head with an XDCAM a few weeks ago, and in my opinion the Canon more than held it's own - I thought it was better.. of course the XD owner doesn't agree.. and I was using the 16x at the time, so this comment is relative to this thread...

Cost isn't a huge issue for me (other than dropping more than 100Gs).. I would consider paying $30,000+ for a camera & lens because the documentaries I make are broadcast - and the next one, feature length, may go to film.. probably not, but I have to consider the posibility.. That's why I was testing the XD..

Now I've got to get my hands on the new Panasonic - and look at the Red... But I'm not selling my H1, or my 6x lens, or my 16x lens, or my A1 - yet - but stay tuned to this channel...

16x manual
 

I have had a serious problem with the 16x manual lens on the XLH1. I used it on an important set of interviews for a broadcast television project in preference to the 20x auto as I much prefer a fully manual lens to the horible infinite focus servo 20x1. On my old XL2 I nver had any problms with the 16x1. However when you add into the mix the horrendous viewfinder on the XLH1 you have problems waiting to happen. I thought I protected myelf at least by having a broadcast Sony monitor on location but that didn't help on this occasion. I shoot interviews more often than not in lowest possible lighting conditions with lens wide open and about mid way down the focal length to maximise depth of field out of focus effect in the background which is difficult in HD but important to my style. Key light is provided with a kinoflo which is wonderfully gentle. Well, the lens was hopeless nd the interviews, which are irreplaceable and cant be done again are nearly unuseable. It is impossible to find the point of focus in the picture nd the skin looks completely soft. Is the focus point behind the interviewee, or in front of them, frankly no-one can tell me, and I work in the professional broadcast sector on professional editing gear? As a result I abandoned the XL H1 on this project and all the rest is shot on digibeta. Crystal sharp! I'm not sure if I am going to persevere with the XL H1 to see if they bring out a proper HD manual lens that I an afford, or whether I will simply sell the whole lot and move on.

1. was it a HD monitor you were checking focus on?
2. did you properly adjust your back-focus for the H1? (you have to adjust
it if you used it on the XL2 last)
3. did you try using the magnification feature on the horrid viewfinder?

We have had > 0 < problems with focus on any lens with the H1, especially
the 16x. It would be a perfect lens if it had a iris ring. We lost focus
1 time with the 6x wide lens, but that was user error caused by bumping
the AF switch.

John,
Before you give up, maybe you should try the fu-1000 monochrome viewfinder. It's razor sharp for focus, and if you have another monitor for color, you're in business. I use mine whenever I can. In run and gun, changing light conditions, I'll leave the stock piece of shite viewfinder on the H1, but if I can, i'll use the fu 1000.
good luck

...or if you are doing a bunch of interviews just buy a Marshall HDSDI monitor
which isn't much different in price than the fu-1000. (Not too good for run
and gun though.)

John,
I forgot to mention...I also use a Varizoom Switt monitor when I can shoot tripod mounted. The switt works well whether I'm shooting in Sd or Hd. manfrotto sells a locking arm which keeps it pretty steady on your tripod arm. The Switt is around $1100.
Bruce S. Yarock
www.yarock.com

Just for the sake of debate, I have the 16X manual lens and whilst I think it's fantastic for operation, I find the picture quality it produces unacceptable.

It's not something that particularly bothered me on set monitoring on the Panasonic 8.4" HD LCD, or in the SD final DVDs which most of our work goes to. But I just cut a new showreel from all our original HDV tapes and monitored the HD-SDI output from the camera through a Blackmagic HDlink into an Apple 23" monitor. The difference between the stuff shot with the stock 20x and the manual 16x was really noticeable to my eye - the image looked pretty soft overall, particularly towards the edges and there were some awesome bits of chromatic aberation - any remotely contrasty edges were outlined in blue.

I have in my kit the big test that was done giving the suggested apertures and focal lengths that work best with this lens, and when possible I do try and stick within them which does improve the image a bit. However, for me (your mileage may vary), this sort of restriction makes the lens unusable choice for "real-life" production where you can't always work around that sort of thing.

The absolute final straw though is that it flares horribly! Even nicely flagged I've found that any light sources remotely pointing towards the lens cause the image to become really milky and unpleasant.

This is all just my experience and I understand people have had a great time with this lens - it's been fantastic for me on occasions when we've needed to run remote focus on steadicams and jibs and only a manual XL mount lens will do. However, I would much rather put up with the annoying servo focus (and inability to focus and zoom at the same time!) of the 20x to maintain the image quality.

If anyone in the UK would like a flightcased 16x manual XL lens in pristine condition for a bargain price, give me a buzz!

I'm really surprised by your report. I have had great luck with the lens so far. I will agree that it does look softer when zommed in all the way with a wide open aperture but I have not seen any of the other issues you mention. Especially the softness at the edges. Mine seems to be sharp edge to edge. If it is less sharp than the 20x overall, it is at least unifrom across the frame.

I"d love to have a manual HD lens but probably could not afford it! So this is a good option for now. I have been shooting with the 20x a little more lately but mostly because I have need the longer reach and the OIS. I find the servo design very frustrating but I do like the indicators in the EVF to tell me my zoom and focus numbers.

I also notice no big problems with lens flares......but I may not have been in the right situation to show this.

Good Luck!

Marty; Me too.. well, maybe that's too short an answer -

I pretty much use the 16x 90% of the time and hardly ever use the 20x anymore, because I prefer manual focus..

I recently had a screening of a film I made with the H1 on a huge screen - I opted to make an HDV master and play back component out from a Sony deck. Now, that is admittedly not an HD setup, but it looked fantastic, and the 16x material was terrific looking intercut with 20x and 6x. Since I've had an HDCAM dub made from that master, and it is amazing looking (remember, if you will, that I didn't originally like HDV).

There may be some variations in individual lenses, but I've owned two 16xs and I thought they both were pretty darn good (I sold one with my XL2 and bought another)...

I do admittedly wish Canon would offer an HD manual lens, but they don't, so the 16x is all we got...

I have you beat! I have owned 3 of them! One with my XL2 and then I sold it with the XL2. One with my first H1 that I sold with my first H1 and now another with my 2nd H1. I have a problem. I know.

Do you have drug habit? (:

I need to get this lens. Are you guys rebuying these 16xs new or used? And how much are you paying?

They move fairly regularly on Ebay for around 800 dollars.