EF Lens adapter / EF Lenses / EOS Lens

Henry Cho · September 26th, 2005, 03:15 PM

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

Jeff Donald · September 26th, 2005, 03:44 PM

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.

Clint Grant · September 26th, 2005, 03:51 PM

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~

Tom Hardwick · October 7th, 2005, 11:14 AM

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.

Mekhael Trepanier · October 16th, 2005, 03:43 PM

thanks for the link seems like a good alternative

Jean-Philippe Archibald · October 16th, 2005, 05:43 PM

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.

Chris Hurd · October 16th, 2005, 06:12 PM

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

Meryem Ersoz · October 16th, 2005, 08:49 PM

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.

Willard Hill · October 21st, 2005, 10:00 PM

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.

Meryem Ersoz · October 22nd, 2005, 10:39 AM

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.

Ron Armstrong · October 23rd, 2005, 09:26 PM

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

Meryem Ersoz · November 7th, 2005, 09:49 AM

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!

Ron Armstrong · November 11th, 2005, 12:19 AM

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.

Meryem Ersoz · November 11th, 2005, 08:51 PM

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...!

Ron Armstrong · November 11th, 2005, 10:24 PM

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!!!!!

September 26th, 2005, 03:44 PM	#377
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	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. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

October 16th, 2005, 03:43 PM	#380
Mekhael Trepanier Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 144	thank you thanks for the link seems like a good alternative

October 16th, 2005, 05:43 PM	#381
Jean-Philippe Archibald Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Saguenay, Québec, Canada Posts: 1,051	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. __________________ Jean-Philippe Archibald http://www.jparchibald.com - http://www.vimeo.com/jparchib

October 16th, 2005, 06:12 PM	#382
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Mekhael, see http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article10.php -- written for the XL2 but also applies to XL1. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

October 21st, 2005, 10:00 PM	#384
Willard Hill Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 191	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. __________________ Willard http://pawildlifephotographer.blogspot.com/

September 26th, 2005, 03:15 PM	#376
Henry Cho Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: NYC Posts: 516	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

September 26th, 2005, 03:51 PM	#378
Clint Grant Regular Crew Join Date: May 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 125	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~

October 7th, 2005, 11:14 AM	#379
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	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.

October 16th, 2005, 08:49 PM	#383
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	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.

October 22nd, 2005, 10:39 AM	#385
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	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.

October 23rd, 2005, 09:26 PM	#386
Ron Armstrong Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kent, Washington, USA Posts: 113	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

November 7th, 2005, 09:49 AM	#387
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	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!

November 11th, 2005, 12:19 AM	#388
Ron Armstrong Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kent, Washington, USA Posts: 113	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.

November 11th, 2005, 08:51 PM	#389
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	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...!

November 11th, 2005, 10:24 PM	#390
Ron Armstrong Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kent, Washington, USA Posts: 113	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!!!!!