Just curious, which Canon 35mm EOS lenses do you have? You'll be giving up any ability to do smooth motorized zooms with this method. Plus you'll have nothing but telephoto focal lengths due to the 7.2x multiplication factor. The ability to use an EOS lens on the XL1 is mainly beneficial for wildlife and surveillance videography. Beyond that, it doesn't have much practical purpose. If you can't afford the 16x manual lens, then the standard 16x auto lens should serve you quite well. I use it all the time on paying jobs. Hope this helps,

Due to the 7.2x multiplication factor of the focal length, using a Canon EOS lens on the XL1 will prevent you from doing any kind of serious indoor close-up work, unless you can position the camera from a long way away, down a long hall or several rooms over. Plus you'll need to add a lot of light. This particular set-up is best suited for outdoor long-distance wildlife or surveillance work. You'll have a difficult time using it indoors, and the close-ups will be *extreme* as in microscopic.

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : Just curious, which Canon 35mm EOS lenses do you have? You'll be giving up any ability to do smooth motorized zooms with this method. Plus you'll have nothing but telephoto focal lengths due to the 7.2x multiplication factor. -->>>

I've got a 28/70 and a 70/300, but I'm ready to buy a 15/80 or else if I can find a way to compensate the 7.2X adapter factor with a 0.3X converter or else.
In this particular case, I will have a 32/172 fully manual lens without the cost of the canon manual 16X, and added possibilities of the Eos adapter.
It sounds to me a pretty good solution, except I need to find a 0.3 converter which can be fit onto a widezoom photo lens.
I don't think something bigger (like a 0.2 converter :-) ) is existing.

If anyone know a good (and cheaper than canon 16X manual) combination of zoom photo lens and converter to fit on, I'll be glad to heard about it :-)

I'm not sure if Canon have a 15-80 EF lens. The widest Zoom I'm aware of is a 16-35mm and it costs around the same as the 16x Manual Servo Lens. If I'm wrong please point me in the direction of the 15-80 as I'd be interested in it for my still work.

Everyone speak of the 7.2x focal length multiplier, as if it were a teleconverter.
Actually, the focal length remains essentailly the same, it is just that most lenses intended for a 35mm still camera are rather longer focal length than the video lenses used with the 1/3" CCD so the CCD sees a much narrower field of view. When enlarged to the same image size on the display it has a telephoto sort of effct.

Consider the standard lens at 5.5mm. It produces a field of view similar to a 40mm lens on a 35mm still camera, a field-of-view factor of about 7.2

<<<-- Originally posted by afterburnerDV : I'm not sure if Canon have a 15-80 EF lens. The widest Zoom I'm aware of is a 16-35mm and it costs around the same as the 16x Manual Servo Lens. -->>>

I've no idea if there is a 15-80 or not, it was just for exemple!

But, I just saw a Sigma (cheaper but still very good) 17-35 lens at about 400$.

Now, I need to find the second part:
a 0.3X lens converter (82mm diameter filter mount)
That's the difficult part :-)


Nobody ever try this before???

The Sigma is a great ultra wide lens. I used one a few times in Canada for shooting some halfpipe stills. It had a max apature of F2.8-4. It should work well but the 82mm dia will cause some problems in finding a WA converter

Maybe it's possible to use an adapter ring from 82 to the larger 0.3 avaliable (like the Century fisheye).
I'm not sure if there is problem of vignetting, because the lense is only used at its center.

Abilities of the EOS Lenses?
 

I posed the following questions to Michael Pappas, perhaps some here may be able to answer the following questions as well:

I am going to be shooting an indie film this summer. For obvious reasons we don't want to use the standard 16x lens. We are now debating between the "Pappas System" with the EOS lenses and a standard 14x manual lens. I can see that with a 15mm EOS lens and the .42x adapter it is possible to achieve the equivalent of a 45mm lens. We will be shooting in a house, and will need to be at times, a lot wider than 45mm. Now here are my questions:

Q. What is the best way to accomplish a wide angle? Use the 14x manual and the .42x wide angle adapter? Or just use the Canon 3x Wide Angle Lens for the XL1?

Q. How is the depth-of-field affected with the EOS lenses? I would assume the depth-of-field becomes a lot shallower with the 35mm lens. What has been your experience?

Q. How is the depth-of-field affected in the "Pappas System?" With the light passing through a wide angle lens, then an EOS lens, and then the .42x adapter, how does this affect the depth-of-field? I see that with the 15mm EOS lens it becomes the equivalent of a 45mm lens... does the depth-of-field correspond to that as well?

Q. Is more light needed in general with the EOS lenses compared to the standard or manual video lenses to obtain the same exposure?

Q. On another topic. The only real place I know of in LA to rent Canon and XL1 related DV equipment is Samy's Camera in Hollywood. Is there any other places that you know of that rent a lot of DV equipment, lenses, and adapter like those I've mentioned?

Apollo

Howdy from Texas,

<< For obvious reasons we don't want to use the standard 16x lens. >>

What are those reasons, because they're not obvious to me. Steven Soderbergh just shot a feature in which 85% of the material comes from an XL1S with the standard 16x lens.

<< Q. What is the best way to accomplish a wide angle? Use the 14x manual and the .42x wide angle adapter? Or just use the Canon 3x Wide Angle Lens for the XL1? >>

Not possible to accomplish wide angle with an EOS lens on the XL1. Best to use the Canon 3x lens, or a wide angle adapter on a longer 14x or 16x lens. For example Soderbergh used a Century Optics .7x on the 16x standard lens.

<< Q. Is more light needed in general with the EOS lenses compared to the standard or manual video lenses to obtain the same exposure? >>

Yes, because different EOS lenses have different minimum apertures. Only the most expensive EOS lens are anywhere near as fast as the video lens. Most have minimum apertures of f/2.8, f/3.5, f/4 etc.

The Pappas System idea which Michael submitted many many moons ago was basically a work-around which served before the Canon 14x even existed. These days, it would be more expensive to implement, and less considerably effective, than nearly any other lens option.

<< Q. On another topic. The only real place I know of in LA to rent Canon and XL1 related DV equipment is Samy's Camera in Hollywood. Is there any other places that you know of that rent a lot of DV equipment, lenses, and adapter like those I've mentioned? >>

Most be several in L.A. but Birns & Sawyer comes to mind right away.

Pappas System
 

Chris,

Thanks for the reply.... You had mentioned that the Pappas System was an old work around and really had no relevance today. Why is that? To me the biggest advantage of using the Pappas System is still valid -> that being you can acheive a 45mm focal length at the widest, but by using the EOS lens your depth of field would remain much shallower than if you just used any video lens.

I want to achieve a depth of field that is similar to 35mm. The only way to do this (other than the P+S Technik) is to use an EOS lens.

I get shallow depth of field all the time with the standard 16x auto lens. Just add plenty of light, a wide aperture and a fast shutter! Presto... shallow depth of focus. Try shooting in AV mode at f/2 with bright lighting and the shutter will automatically adjust accordingly. Should give you what you're looking for.

Bird Watching
 

Hey XL1'ers and Mr. Hurd,

I am looking into buying an EOS adaptor and telephoto lens.
I am taking some footage of a Blue Heron rookery here
in Michigan. I use the 1.6 extender now on the 16X, and it works
pretty good, but I need MORE ;)


I've been reading the other posts, but I am still not sure
which lens it is that Canon is recommending for nature
videography. Is it the
Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM Autofocus

I am correct that auto focus will NOT work?

Has anyone priced them?

B&H the place to buy?

eos lenses on xl-1
 

I have used a cheapo 75-300mm Canon lens on my Xl-1 for some time, and am happy with the results. What everyone has said earlier is absolutely true- a good set of sticks AND a really expensive head are necessary for truly professional results. The image clarity is there, and the tremendous focal length available is really useful in the nature photography I do, BUT, focusing is very critical, as the auto focus does not work with this setup, (nor does auto exposure)and seems to vary somewhat depending upon the focal length used. I suspect the cheapo 75-300 I'm using is the reason. I'd like to hear from others using the higher quality zoom lens, as I'm considering getting one as well. Overall though, I'm happy with the results I'm getting- I'd say the clarity, and color are as good as the 16x lens, when not zoomed out all the way. I would recommend this arrangement. Mike

additional note on lens speed
 

I've found that light-gathering with any EOS 35mmm lens on the xl-1 is always very good. Figure, the eos lens was made to cover 35mmm film, not a small CCD, so you're using the middle of the lens most of the time, and a lens aperature of 5.6 gives you PLENTY of light. Exposure is never a problem for me. Most of the time I'm shooting around 1/900 sec. at f8 or so. There's a LOT of exposure latitude available- it's not an issue at all. Mike

Canon 100-400mm IS lens
 

I looked at one today at my camera store, and figure that spending $1200 for a lens that won't provide auto-focus or auto-exposure when conected to the xl-1, probably isn't worth it, as I don't need it other types of shooting. I saw a Tamron 200-400mm for half the money that might provide
the level of quality I want- anyone know about Tamron's quality, or lack of it? Hoping to make some decisions soon- I may take the xl down to the store and shoot some stuff i their parking lot. Will let you know how that comes out. Mike Rupp

That would be great. I too would really love to try out the newest
generation of IS USM lens like the 70-200 with the EOS adapter
before plunking down $2500.00.

Hey Mr. Hurd,
is there anyway you could inquire with your cohorts at usa.canon.com
about having an EOS/EF telephoto package at NAB? Barring that, some
actual tests to see how the new '3rd' generation of image stabilizer USM
lens works with the XL1 :)

I have used the Canon 75-300mm IS, The Sigma 170-500mm, and the Canon 35-350mm L lens on the XL-1s. The 35-350L lens is significantly sharper than the Sigma lens. The 75-300 IS has good image quality but is more prone to problems from vibration unless IS is used, but surprisingly the IS works fairly well especially if one is touching the tripod handle. I do prefer the 35-350L except for its weight. The lenses are not auto focus with the EF adapter but auto exposure works. One must have the lever on the left side of the adapter pulled back toward the camera, but the change in exposure level may not be as smooth as with the normal lens. I prefer to use this control much as the push auto focus button is used on the 16x lens, leaving it in the forward position and just pushing in on the button when lighting conditions change. I bought my 35-350 used from B&H for$1,200. Do I feel it's worth it? The answer is an emphatic yes.
Will

Mike and I are of like mind. The el cheapo 75 -300mm works great, sometime I battle to focus when in low light situations and that on the pod you obviously loose the OIS feature.

The original post referred to footage of the Grey Heron so lets go back there. If you can get close, great. In my experience which is limited to wildlife footage is that I run out of lens. If you are into birding then I am told that the SIGMA 170 - 500mm F5,6 is superb. I am busy investigating this at present. The fact that autofocus will not be present is also not a problem for me as I am often focussing past twigs leaves etc. and could not work with AF. The lens has had rave reviews.

Has anyone got experience on the SIGMA? I know in South Africa they were selling for R 7000 which could mean about $500, not too shure.

Andrew

I have been looking closely at the 70-200mm 2.8 IS USM.
I want as fast a lens as I can afford. Much of the action
happens at dawn and sunset, so I want to go with the
best low light lens that's under $2K.
I'd love it if I could spend only $500, but I've found you get
what you pay for, and $500 for a telephoto worries me.

This new Canon lens also has the "3rd generation" image stabilizer, which claims you can choose to only stabilizer up/down motion, thus enabling
better pans. Though how smooth could a pan be at full zoom
even with a good tripod? (I have a Vinten Vision 3.)

Seems like a 500mm (~3500mm w/ EOS adapter) is so long
that it would be hard to get a steady image or even find
anything as the slightest movement (wind) would send you all over
the place.

Hello Jacques

You are right, in most instances it costs to have what you want. I have met a couple of professional wildlife photographers in the Kruger National Park (one of Africa's best). In most cases they use exclusively Canon equipment and Canon Ultrasonic lenses. The lenses used are often these superfast telphoto lenses that cost what my car does think one was F2,8 at 400mm.

One of the pro's happened to have the SIGMA lens I spoke of and he spoke highly of it, thats how my interest was aroused.

Apart from the 16X I use the 75 - 300mm ultrasonic, yeah, probably not the best but affordable. I do not generate any income from my hobby.

As a matter of interest have seen filming crews in KNP using betacams and a Novoflex 600mm with 1,6X extender and large bean bags. I don't know what the ratio is for Betacam is.

At 200mm I would not have enough lens, no question. One may not alight from ones vehicle owing to the danger and you may also not leave the road to get closer to the subject.

Regards
Andrew

telephoto lenses
 

Andrew and Jacques- I really think that anything beyond 300mm (2150mm on the XL) puts you in "no-man's land". I've shot extensively, and really smooth, professional results are difficult at this focal length. I've tried various tripods and heads, including Millers, and CSI's and still, it's difficult to get a perfectly smooth pan. Close, real close, but you're right about even wind affecting the shot.I've been looking at the Tamron 200-400mm, and might give that a try, but my quest for longer, longer, actually translates into "harder, harder". I'm looking at using camo like some friends here, to try to close the gap in distance to the bird somewhat, rather than go longer on the focal length. This has some promise.
On another subject, I've been posting to the "audio and mics" forum as well about shotgun mics to cancel lateral and rear audio out during shooting- either of you have a suggestion on this, as the ME67 Sennheiser I just tested did poorly at that. Parabolic? Gosh, how much stuff can one drag into the field? Mike

Folks,

I agree with Mike that these longer lenses are very difficult to adapt to. I've been using the 100-400mm on a very good head and sticks. Other than the equipment the main thing that helped me was to practice often. I breath like I was doing Qigong (from the stomach) and developed a steady hand. You would be surprised how much better you will be after several hours a day for a week. Not much you can do if you are caught in the open if it's windy though. But in the end the shots are well worth the trouble. Kind of opens a whole other world.

While the Sigma 170-500mm is a good lens for 35mm use it is less than ideal for video use. In low light conditions the image at the longer telephoto lenghts becomes very soft at the edges. This is very noticeable both in the viewfinder and on the monitor. As the light fadaes one must continually drop to a lower focal lenght in order to obtain acceptably sharp images. I originally bought this lens because of the 500mm upper end and it does quite well in good light but would I buy it again? No! I would rather put the money toward a 35-300, 100-400. or 70-200 Canon lens, all of course the L series. There is a definite difference. Surprisingly, the 170-500mm is not all that hard to control at the 500mm length. The lens is very rigid and resists wind vibration etc. very well. I am not completely condemning this lens but I seldom use mine anymore and I think most serious videographers will find themselves considering replacing the lens after a time as they become more irritated with its short-comings.
Will

The 16x lens does not do it for me. I need a more extreme backblur effect. But with a focal length of let's say 2000mm (an ef lens with xl1) should do it i hope. I need to shoot full figure people with total blur in the background. Anyone tried this out with an ef lens?

Thanks in advance

Regards,


Erik T.

I need an extreme backblur effect. But with a focal length of let's say 2000mm (an ef lens with xl1) I should make it i hope. I need to shoot full figure people with total blur in the background. Anyone tried this out with an ef lens? Is it possible?

Thanks in advance

Regards,


Erik T.

Canon EF 75-300 IS USM lens
 

Is anyone using this lens with the EF adapter? As I understand it, the image stabilizer and auto-exposure will work on the XL1S, but not the auto-focus, is this correct? Does the front element rotate, or is it stationary? Macro focus capability? Any information would be greatly appreciated.

I have used this lens and it would not be my first choice. I found the 100 to 400 to balance a little nicer and it is smaller. You might want to check out the specs at Canon's site but I don't recall the 35 to 350 having IS or the front element rotating. The EOS lenses do not AF when on the EF adapter.

Jeff

Jeff -

You are correct, I was getting the 35-350 confused with the 75-300 (Canon P/N 2570A003) which is image stabilized. The 100-400 is $1000 more than the 75-300 which puts it way out of my range.

Steve (stevenyc1@aol.com) uses the 75 - 300 and i believe he is quite pleased with it. You may want to email him or wait and see if he replies here.

Jeff

Hi,

I use the 75 - 300mm USM IS lens and have had good results. I tend to use it in full manual as the as I find the "fluttering sound" of the iris / motor as it hunts for the correct aperture a little irritating.

This lens has allowed me to get shots that I normally would not have managed. I do find it difficult at times to focus but that would be true for any longer lens.

I only use this lens when on a tripod and consequently turn off the IS. The IS works when mounted to EOS adaptor as does the auto exposure, the auto focus does not. The great thing is that I bought a EOS camera and only need one set of lenses.

Macro focus, not to sure what you would consider macro focus. If I think back some months ago I went for a walk in the bush determined to "film all the little things". If I recall correctly it is possible to full frame a 1" long spider, the only problem is you need to be about 6 or 7 ' away.

Will have to check the lens to see if the front element rotates. e-mail me should you need any other info. aleigh@iafrica.com

Cheers
Andrew

How about the Sigma lenses? the 70-200mm 2.8 Apo gets very nice reviews, that lens combine with the 1.6Converter should be a nice cheap solution. and you get f2.8 at '1440mm' :)

<a href "http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_83598_3128crx.aspx#reviews">

Hi,

The 1.6x convertor works with XL lenses only, it will not work with Canon EOS EF lenses or lenses made for EOS mount. Instead, try the Canon EF adapter. It allows Canon EOS EF lenses to be used on the XL. There is an effective gain in image size by a factor of 7.2x. This is the result of going from 35mm film size to 1/3" chips. So, my 100-400 Canon EOS zoom becomes 720-2880 zoom or a magnification of 58x.

Jeff

Hi,

The 1.6x convertor works with XL lenses only, it will not work with Canon EOS EF lenses or lenses made for EOS mount. Instead, try the Canon EF adapter. It allows Canon EOS EF lenses to be used on the XL. There is an effective gain in image size by a factor of 7.2x. This is the result of going from 35mm film size to 1/3" chips. So, my 100-400 Canon EOS zoom becomes 720-2880 zoom or a magnification of 58x.

oh jtdonald i meant '1.6x extender' sorry! i know you have to use a EF adaptor,.

if you use a 'EOS 1.6x Extender' with a EOS lens instead of the 'XL Extender', could that work?

> XL1s > EF adapter > EOS 1.6x Extender > EOS EF- lens ?
or
> XL1s > EF adapter > XL 1.6 Extender > EOS EF -lens ?

.

XL 1.6 adapter should not be used with EOS lenses. Instead use Canon EOS EF 1.4x or 2x extenders

XL>EF adpt.>EOS 1.4/2x> EOS lens

Jeff

I was just wondering if the image stabilizer is of any use when the 70-300 is used with the XL1s; i.e. could you handhold even at 70mm which is 500mm on the XL1s? I'm guessing it wouldn't. I don't have a Canon still camera so whatever lens I buy would only be used on the XL1s.

im dizzy today lol , i meant 1.4x Ef,,,,

Not for hand holding. However, most peoples tripod won't hold it steady at the 300mm position. I would say try it both ways and see what works best for your particular subject matter and camera/tripod combination.

jeff

Hmmm... I'm wondering if the Canon 28-135 might be a better choice. It would be 200-972 on the XL1s. Leaves less of a gap with the standard lens, and from past experience with 1000mm lenses, 972 is about it. Really difficult working with anything longer.