It's been a while. No one has an answer to this?

I'll take a shot.
Yes, the 8mm would give the field of view of a 57mm.
It might have some barrel distortion but I've never tried one myself so I can't say for sure. If your camera came with a stock lens, you'll be much better off using that. The 8mm won't give you any more of a "film look" than the stock lens, and may not be wide enough to give you the versatility you want when you shoot.
Before you get 'corrupted' by the shallow depth-of-field consortium, rent and study "Citizen Kane" and "Wuthering Heights." You don't need shallow DOF to obtain a magnificent cinematic look.

Don't worry im not too concerned with the shallow depth of field. I'm just wanted ot know if I could get a closer to film look with it. SInce i cant aford a min35mm adapter lol, and I alreadt have the EF though maybe I could achieve this lol. And even if it dont work i guess id have a cool lens for my Rebel XT.

This has been discussed many times before. The mini35, micro35, G35 all give a shallow depth of field. This is their main reason for existing. The EF adaptor won't give you the shallow depth of field that the mini35 (or other adaptors) give you. It doesn't retain the DOF and angle of view properties of the lense when used with an SLR.

If you aren't concerrned with getting super shallow DOF, then there won't be any advantage to using the EF adaptor and a fisheye lense, except you can hit focus marks and the image may even be worse than the standard lens. I agree with Dan - you'll probably be better off with the standard lens.

The only real reason I can see for using the EF adaptor is to get the equivalent of extreme telephoto lenses for wildlife videography or whatever.

Answer to the same question wanted!
 

Hi all,

I would like to know the answer to your question too! Has anyone tried this lens with the XL1S?

Sorry for my ignorance, I also don't know if the IS and AF functions are still enabled with the EF adapter to the XL1S. How about if I attach an EF or XL extension tube?

Thanks!

Eugene

I was contemplating to buy the 8mm Peleng Fish-eye lens, are you refering to this one?

I think the multiplication factor will negate the wide-angle-ness of any fish eye lens. i imagine even a 180degree fisheye. i wasn't talking about a specific model or brand.

EF lenses and XL cameras ???
 

just wanting some opnions...

i shoot photos alot and have a EF 70-200 Lseries 2.8 lens

if i now buy a canon XL camera body only (xl1 xl1s or xl2) and the EF lens adapter... am i now able to film as if it were a normal lens...?

ive read about the 7 X magnifier... but all the links ive found only talk about photos being taken with theese lenses on them...

Hey
 

Hey man, here is a link for you to check out.

www.adapterplace.com

he has EF lens to XL body adapters I think.

Good luck.

I just used my EF adaptor for the first time last night, The photographer was a great guy and let me borrow his telescopic lense and put it on my camera, wow was it great getting a fullscreen video of the full moon


While the lense was already a tele I couldnt see having an application for it in wedding videography (less you regularly get stuck in the balcony of some large churches.)

My impartiality on this matter can be expressed by the fact that I have an EF adaptor for sale... And im not trying to tell you its the answer to your prayers ;)

Which canon EF lens?
 

Hello everybody,

I have the canon EF/XL adapter foro my XL1s, and am intersted in purchasing a long EF lens. I am familiar with the 7.2 mag. factor, which is good for my purposes. I will be shooting the moon, a bit of wildlife, some Grand Canyon, (when I go next summer), and airplanes taking off the runway from a long distance. I have narrowed my choices down to just a few lenses.

Either:
-Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (the $1100 version, not $1700 version.)
-Canon EF 35-350mm f/3.5 USM (I know it's discontinued, would have to buy used)
-any other suggestion you may have. (Prefer the white barrel lenses)

What I'm looking for help with is which of those two lenses to go with. I prefer the greater zoom ratio of the 35-350mm, but the 70-200mm is newer. Also, I believe the 35-350mm has better lens quality -21/15 groups/elements compared to 15/18? I understand the 70-200mm has better f/stop range, but this is not a huge factor for me. One of the biggest deciding factors is if the 70-200mm lens is push-pull zooming or not. I know it throws off the centre of balance, and can even disrupt dust in the lens, but I kinda like the idea of it (makes the camera seem bigger- big plus!).

Another big issue is compatibility with the EF extenders. If both are compatible, the next biggest issue is push-pull zooming.



Well, it will be really great if someone can help steer me in the right direction, or give me another lens suggestion.

Thank you very much,

~Clint Grant~
P.S. I know that the old 35-350mm lens was replaced by the 28-300mm, but that one's just a bit over the budget!

Have you considered the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5/5.6 IS lens? Optically it's probably a better lens than the 35-350 over the majority of it's range. If you thought you'd be using mostly the short range (35-100) then I'd opt for the 35-350. If you think you'd be working at the other end of the zoom range (or considering a TC for greater reach) then I would get the 100-400. The later will also hold it's resale value, since it's not discontinued.

Very true, thanks a lot. Yes, after I posted the first message, I started re-considering the 100-400mm lens. Now that I think about it, are all three of these lenses compatible with the 2x extender? I know for a fact that the 100-400 is a push-pull zoom. However, my other problem is that I'm not sure how often I would be at the short end of the zoom. I think it would be better to have a wider zoom range; or something that is shorter anyways......

Which has better image quality: The 70-200mm, or 100-400mm?



Thanks again,

~Clint Grant~

Just checked the stats, and can confirm that the 100-400mm is compatible with the 1.4 and 2x TC's. Thanks,

~Clint Grant~

Darn, now I'm even worse off. I've been doing a lot of reading here around the forum, and now REALLY can't decide.

Now it's between:
-EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM -supposedly the best image quality, but not definate on that,
-EF 100-400mm f/4.5L USM - has the longest telephoto range, okay optics
-EF 35-350mm f/4.5L USM - has widest zoom range, apparently the smoothest for push-pull zoom, good optics.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that the 35-350mm has 21 elements in 18 groups, whereas the 70-200mm has 15 elements in 18 groups. How much of a difference would this make? Would the 70-200mm optics be better because it's newer? Sorry for all this trouble, but I'd like to get the best image wuality out of these three lenses.

Thanks very much, and I apologize for all this.

~Clint Grant~

clint,

this link may or may not help you... it's a review forum for ef lenses.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=2

Optically the 70-200 is the best lens, but does it meet your needs? You need to figure out what you anticipate shooting and get the lens most appropriate for your needs and your budget.

Thank you very much for that link, Cho. It was of a bit of help. And, thanks for the clarification on the image quality, Jeff. As far as deciding on exactly what I need to do with it; I'll still have to think about it a bit. I guess time will clear all this up for me. Once again, thanks.

Thanks for your time,

~Clint Grant~

Yes, I'd agree with the thoughts above, that a real-time event such as a wedding means you certainly don't want to be vaught fiddling about changing lenses too often.

Remember too that many of the EF series of lenses (and especially the zooms) are much slower than your standard 16X. You have the f/1.6 end to resort to if it gets gloomy (as it often does at 'romantically lit' weddings) but an EF lens might well be 3 stops slower than this - f/4.5 or so. You'll be using loads of gain-up to claw that back.

tom.

thank you
 

thanks for the link seems like a good alternative

This adapter seem to be only a mechanical one. There is no electronical connection like with the canon ef adapter. With a mechanical adapter, you won't be able to control the aperture on the camera body or use the AV mode. You will also have the "Check the lens" message in the middle of the viewfinder. If you can live with these shortcomings, a mechanical adapter is a good alternative since the cost is definitly lower.

Regarding your question, you can effectivly shot normal with an ef lens on an XL camera. But, due to the physical size of the CCDs (which is about 7 times smaller than a 35 mm negative) the focal lenght is multiplicated by this amount. Your lens will act like a 504-1440 lens... Great for wild life or astronomy, but not really usable in most situations.

Mekhael, see http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article10.php -- written for the XL2 but also applies to XL1.

the short answer is "yes," you can use it...and it is a very nice lens, sharp, makes great video. but it is telephoto only. if you want to shoot birds or wildlife or sports, it's terrific. does nice shots of the moon, too. but your range is pretty limited to objects far away or extreme close-ups.

I have used all three of these lenses extensively for wildlife, and have even used the 500mm f4 to a certain extent. It is delivers a superb image for distant wildlife but is not a recommended option as it is hard to find your subject with the narrow field of view. I prefer the 100-400mm for most long range work, and the 70-200mm f2.8 for moderate range, and poor light work. It appears to me that this lens is significantly sharper than the 100-400 and the 100-400 is quite a bit crisper than the 35-350. The 35-350 of course is easier to use at close range than the others. I have found that one needs a mounting plate to stabilize the 35-350 or the 100-400mm. The 70-200mm works quite well without one, so I often use the normal lens at the closest ranges and switch to the the 70-200mm if I need a bigger lens in a hurry. {The need for a stabilizer plate was discussed on this board quite extensively about the time the XL1-s first appeared on the scene} Any of these lens work acceptably well with the 1.4 extender, but I only use it when absolutely necessary as it does degrade the image to a certain extent. Even thought I advocated use of the 35-350 lens at one time, I find that I seldom use it any more. If I could have only one L Zoom I would get the 100-400mm at this time.

i went through the same mental gyrations about purchasing telephoto lenses for my XL2 and finally settled on starting with the 70-200mm. it is a fantastic lens, super crisp and vibrant. i probably will eventually purchase the 100-400mm, too, but i think for the price and for versatility, the 70-200 is a good place to start. i don't think it is an either/or choice here, but rather, an if/when choice, as in which do i want to own first? and how much money do i want to spend right now? because the difference in price is thousands of dollars, and, as someone mentioned the 100-400mm requires more stabilization, translating into maybe hundreds more to steady the lens, whereas the 70-200mm is out-of-the-box ready.

I have used the 70 200 and the 100 400 lenses previously referred to as well as various other lenses including the FD lenses up to 600mm. I can honestly say that the 70 200 and the 300 L lenses are considerably better than the discontinued 35 350. The 100 400 does not come up to the performance of either of these two lenses either. I believe the 70 200 2.8 L with a 1.4 extender would still be superior to the others.
Canon also has a 28 300 L lens available. It has a very nice range; But my belief is that the broader the range, the less qulity you have at the shortest and longest ends.
A good combo would be a 70-20 2.8 L lens for mid range, with a 1.4 for medium long range and the standard lens for the shorter end.
To stabilize the longer lenses and to find your subject faster, look into the RONSRAIL products for the RONSRAIL and the RONSIGHT, as well as various lens -tripod combinations at the website below

Using a 70-200mm EF lens with extenders
 

i am totally in love with my 70-200mm lens mounted on my XL2 but want to extend the range just a bit. i'm thinking about the 1.4x or 2x extender. does anyone know if there is a substantial quality difference or a vignetting issue if one of these is mounted on a 70-200mm lens? can anyone using either of these combinations report on it? how does using an extender with this lens compare to a 100-400mm lens? i've read the fred miranda reviews, but those are mostly for still image cameras, and i want to know how XL cameras and these extenders work. does the extender mount to the front of the camera lens or to the EF adapter?

thanks!

Meryem;
I use the older non IS 70 200 EFL lens with the 1.4 and 2X extenders now and then. I find that with the older extenders that the image is compromised somewhat. In particular the 2X. I would suggest not using it, and do not use it myself, anymore. However, the 35mm still guy's use both of the new model extenders with little or no image loss. I have tried a 500 mm EFL lens with a 1.4X and was very impressed with the image quality. The extenders mount between the EF adapter and the lens. If you have the new IS 70 - 200 mm lens it would be worth it to either rent the 1.4, borrow one or buy one with the option of returning it if you don't like it. You may be impressed.
The short end, with the 1.4 will be 98mm and the long end will be 280mm in the 4:3 mode.
Check my website for various pics and equipment for long lenses.

wow, ron, that's exactly the info i was hoping for. thanks. i've been to your website to drool over the excellent photo gallery of long lenses several times. from what you're saying, the teleconverter will probably not scratch my itch for more range. i may have to find the cash for a canon 100-400mm lens or else a sigma 50-500mm. and a ronsight...!

Meryem;
Sorry, I gave you wrong info. The figures above are for an XL1. The magnification for the XL2 is different. My filing system doesn't allow me to fined the actual factors; But as I recall, the focal lenght of EOS lenses should be mutiplied 7.8 times for the 16:9 mode and 8.7 for the 4:3 mode. With your 70-200mm lens with a 1.4 adapter, in 16.9 mode you should be around 2184mm in 35mm still camera comparison.The short end would be 546mm without the converter.
The 100-400 is a popular lens for the XL cams, and I see quit a few in the field. However, some have commented on its loss of sharpness above 300 mm. This could also be due to the small aperture settings in bright sun. It is also almost impossible to zoom with the barrel zoom feature. I have always wondered about Canons 28-300 L lens, But worry about it being soft at both ends because of the wide focul length. They are both somewhat slow at 5.6.
I use a 50 300 FD L lens with pretty good results. But again have to be careful with aperture settings. I also use the 70 200 and suplement on the long side with a 300 2.8 L lens, sometmes with a 1.4 adapter. Alas; always a compromise.
Almost forgot!! You would really need a RONSRAIL, along with the RONSIGHT, with those long lenses!!!!!

hi ron: the big criticism that i keep hearing about the canon 100-400mm lens is that the push pull focus draws dust into the lens, and i live in a dusty, semi-arid place. now you are mentioning softness over 300mm. maybe i would be better off with the sigma 50-500mm lens. the problem with getting into big lenses is, when you choose poorly, it is an expensive mistake, although these big lenses seem to hold their value very nicely. so far, though, it is hard to beat the fast lens on the 70-200mm 2.8...it has spoiled me for a slower lens, though there is the issue of extending the reach. still, i can't believe what amazing images this lens generates. it is taking my video to a whole new level....

the ronsrail seems like a very nice product, too. my main issue is with having to lug too much gear too far. i like to be able to take my gear pretty remote places, and i am trying to develop better beanbag technique, just so i can save weight on tripods. i will have to see how a new bigger, longer lens will perform with my bogen 516 and a long plate. one of the nice things about the 70-200 is that i can still get away with a lighter head, one which i can carry easily, as opposed to the 516, which weighs a ton. of course, with that big lens, i can just sit on my front porch and shoot for miles....i'll never have to leave the house!

Hi Meryem I have trouble keeping lenses over 300 mm steady in the wind or just touching the tripod. It takes alot of practice and self discipline to obtain good solid images with anything above 300mm. I also find myself getting more background and less close ups and head shots, as age catches up with me. 35mm still camera shooting liked that type of shooting;But I find it more satisfying to be a little more cautious and get closer if I need super cu stuff.
I have used the 50-300 f 4.5 FDL lens a lot and find that range very adequate. Unfortunately, Canon doesn't make a lens similar anymore. The closest one being the 28-300 5.6, which is a little slow and is a push pull with its inherent disadvantages. .
I have a friend that I see in Jackson Hole and Yellowstone quit often who uses a 70 200 and wouldn't change it for anything.
Tough decisions
Good luck!!!!

I have now had the chance to very briefly put the 70-300 DO on the XL-1s. I didn't have any time to shoot footage - it was just a very quick handling sort-of test.

Here are my thoughts:

Pros:
- The lens is much shorter, lighter and much less front-heavy than the 100-400 IS
- The focus and zoom controls stay near the mount of the lens when zooming in (the shifting of the controls as you zoom the 100-400 has always bothered me)
- The lens has a zoom-lock switch at the wide end (and only at the wide end!) that can be easily toggled
- The lens does not have the tendency to zoom in or out on its own when tilted up or down (because it has rotating zoom control)

Cons:
- The zoom ring was not easy enough to turn on the lens I used (particularly at the wide end) - but that's probably something that changes with use

I din't see any glaring image quality problems, but this was only judged through the EVF, pointing at scenes in subdued lighting conditions.

I have not formed a definte opinion at this point, but the lens is worthy of further investigation, I think. It handles well, and that's a very good start. If the image quality is suitable, it might well be worth it.

Has anyone else done some more comprehensive testing with it in the meantime?

HTH,

Ron

Compatible Lenses For EF Adapter?
 

Not being a Canon SLR photographer (I use Nikon from way back) I'm a little confused as to the lens designations from Canon.

I have an EF Adapter for the XL and recently purchased a Canon 18-55mm EF-S USM lens (which I thought the EF designation made it EF/EOS compatible), yet the lens will not mount into the EF Adapter.
It's the "cheaper" plastic (rubber) mount type lens, as opposed to a metal mount.

Can anyone assist as to why this lens wouldn't mount, and maybe you could steer me to a good resource which explains the differences in the "EF" lens desinations?

That would help tremendously so that I won't be purchasing a bunch of gear that I wouldn't be able to use.

Many thanks in advance!!

EF-S (it's canons "digital" lens class) is a different mount that the plain 'ol EF mount. Its basically for the 1.6x multiplier cameras (10D, 20D, & the rebels) and will not fit on a standard EF mount. I have a D60 and they will not fit on mine either. If you look at one of the supported canon cameras, you'll notice a white block that designates where an EF-S mount fits into the mount at, an EF is inserted at the red dot.

If you do not need it for a canon camera, I'd try to return it and get an EF mount lens. If you want to give one a try, look for the 50mm f/1.8, I got mine for like $70 @ B&H several years ago.

If you have the $$$, the 24-70L is a nice lens, though a bit heavy. The 17-40L is a good wide angle lens too, I have both and have used both quite often.

If you need telephoto, look for the 70-200L lenses. I think the 70-200L f/4 is noted to be a very good lens and not nearly as heavy as the f/2.8 versions. I had the f/2.8 IS model and it was HEAVY, but boy was it sharp! I kinda miss it...

Awesome, Mike! Thanks for all the great info on lenses, and the heads-up on the different "EF" designations.

Will definitely take your recommendations on board. Feel much better now that I have a more informed idea of what to look, and look out, for.

Lens Adapter for using EOS lenses on XLS1..any thoughts?
 

I am traveling to Bangkok next week from Nepal for supplies and whatnot, and I am wordering if anyone here uses the Lens Adapter that allows for EOS lenses to be mounted on the XLS1s? Possible uses? Is it worth it? Is it true u need batteries? Does autofocus really work with a rig like that?

I have a large collection of nice canon eos lenses (and others with canon mounts) used on my D1 and other film cameras, so I am wondering if I can get creative with these, as they mostly lie dormant now.

Thanks for your thoughts!
jigs in kdoo

There is a Canon EF adapter for the XL series camcorders; it's been around since 1998. Autofocus is not enabled with this adapter. It will magnify the field of view of any EOS lens by a factor of 7.2 times, so even the widest angle lens becomes telephoto. Sorry about that,

happy reading!

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...ght=EF+adapter

Simultaneous post -- jinx on Meryem!

(yes I did get your email, thanks for the reminder!)