I've used the 28-135 and it works well for me. I have to reconfigure the camera a little, too back heavy, but otherwise a joy to use.

Jeff

Jeff -

Are you using the 28-135 IS? If so, are you able to handhold at the shorter focal lengths? When you say "reconfigure the camera", what exactly are you doing?

I use the 28-135 now and then for certain shots. It is not as big and heavy as the 16x XL lens. Normally I have the CH910 on the back with 2 batteries. The lighter lens on the front throws the balance off too much so I remove the CH910and attach a smaller battery to the XL body. It lowers the center of gravity, makes it more comfortable to hold and it counter balances on the tripod better.

Jeff

I'm a big fan of using EOS lenses with the EF adapter- the resulting video is usually super sharp (you can't get better!!) and very well saturated....possibilities are numerous (macro-tele etc), even with the less expensive lenses....the biggest problem is no-image stabilization- so anything longer than 100mm will likely require a tripod.....

..Sigma makes a 50-500 lens that's i'd love to try...what a focal range!

..have fun.

Ron,

you have not mentioned why you need "more" lens in terms of increased focul length. Perhaps if the forum could get a better idea of your requirements more focused opinions could be offered.

e.g. My requirement left me with no other option but to get more lens. I do almost all my serious shooting in the Kruger National Park where one may not leave your vehicle. This in essence means at most times you may end up far from the subject matter. I have a VW Microbus which, with the middle seat removed, allows for the full installation of a heavy duty tripod and 5" monitor, with the sliding door open the opportunities are great. I would prefer the 100 - 400mm but don't think it was available when I was in the market, and truth be told could not have afforded it. I find it almost impossible to hand hold the 75 - 300mm but with a bean bag you can get reasonable off tripod results. What I like about the 100 - 400mm is the option of variably selecting the mode of stabilisation.

Even on a solid tripod I rarely try pan or touch the camcorder when in the exended zoom ranges. It is O' so easy to introduce vibrations. I use the remote to start and stop.

<<Sigma makes a 50-500 lens that's i'd love to try...what a focal range!>>

Steve I too have lusted for, courted and fondled such lens. Having done this I posted for other users to offer opinions, can't remember the forum but think it was here, have a look for my posts. The result was not that promising. It would appear as if the lens is not that sharp and shows severe drop in resolution at full zoom. In fact there was gardly a good mention so I gave up my quest knowing the advice is good. Canon glass still kicks butt.

Cheers
Andrew

Andrew -

My needs are opposite of yours. I sometimes make training videos for electronic assembly. The stock lens works fine for table shots, but doesn't work for closeups of small parts, etc. Often this has to be done handheld as well which means an image stabilizer is a plus and the less weight I'm holding the better. The more working distance, the better since I often have to stand to the side or on the opposite side of the bench. There are also long shots of multiple workstations or though windows in areas where I am not allowed to go. It looks like the 28-135 IS USM might fill the bill. Money is always an issue and I believe this lens is about as cheap as you can get for an "IS".

Hi Ron,

can't help here.....good luck.

Cheers
Andrew

Which EOS lenses should I try?
 

This coming winter I shall be undertaking a project that involves filming wild geese, which from past experience will be far away and completely unapproachable. So I have decided to take the plunge and get an EF adapter and EOS lens. But which lens?
I've had a chat with my local camera shop who who have said they will get the lenses I want to try so I can have a play before I part with my money.
I've so far, thanks to the info contained on this boards mainly, ask them to get me the Canon 75 - 300mm USM IS and the 100-400mm to try.
Dose any body have any suggestions of other lenses I should ask to try?
I've been involved in multimedia and video editing for a good few years now but have only recently started to shoot my own video footage and the wonders cameras and lenses are still make my head hurt, therefor any advice will be gratefully received.

Thanks

Several of the past threads here address wildlife video questions. You might browse them for ideas and contacts.

I own both lenses and with out a doubt the 100 - 400mm is the better lens. It also carries the better price, probably 3x what the 70 - 300mm IS costs. Is it 3x better optically? No, but if you're after the best optically and have a tripod to support it, the 100 - 400mm wins. I've tried many other lenses and I can discount the 35 - 350mm (too heavy, doesn't balance well) 28 -135mm IS (not enough telephoto) and 100 - 300 (too slow). The 100 - 400mm is an L series lens, uses Cannon's best glass. You will be able to see the difference.

Jeff

I really wouldn't discount the 35-350 Canon L lens so quickly, at least for many uses such as larger animals such as deer and elk.
The 100-400 would probably be better for geese to a certain extent. No one is a greater fan of the EF adapter and telephoto lenses than I, but I hate changing lenses and often larger wildlife does get too close for a lens with a bottom end of 75 or 100mm while the 35-350 gives more margin on the closer shots. There isn't all that much difference in handling characteristics, just compare the specifications. I have handled both lenses and can tell little difference in that respect.
35-350 100-400
weight 3.05 lb. 3.0 lb.
diameter 3.3" 3.6"
length 6.6" 7.4"
min. focus 2.0' 5'9"
In summary both are heavy, well made lenses of nearly equal physical proportions with the 100-400 being somewhat sharper and more powerful and the 35-350 focusing to closer range and working better on close encounters with the larger animals. Both are excellent choices. I have also used the 75-300 IS extensively and it is not as sharp as either of the L lenses mentioned but it is
an excellent choice for the price.
Will

You are correct about the specs. But the feel of the 35 - 350mm is not as nice as the 100 - 400mm. Now that's just me. Everybody is going to feel and hold equipment differently. But look at the MTF charts on Canon's site and you'll see the 100 - 400mm performs much better. But it should, it's a newer lens. I also didn't mention the 100 - 400mm is an Image Stabilization lens. As Will points out, the 100mm range can get you too close to large mammals. But with birds it's a different story. You can almost never get too close to a wild bird. So, it may boil down to how you feel about changing lenses. If you hate it, get the 35 - 350mm, if not, the 100 - 400mm IS. Either way you'll get great shots of your geese.

Jeff

Anyone try a Sigma 50-500mm looks killer and would seem a blast to use- anyone try one?

(seems very versatile)

There was a post here recently mentioning the Sigma 50-500mm and I just searched and couldn't find his post. Lost in the crash, I guess. But, if I remember correctly, he was not overall pleased with the Sigma lens. But I can't remember if it was size, weight, sharpness or what, that he didn't like. You could probably try one at B & H. Shoot some things with the stock lens, the Canon 70-300mm and the Sigma. I would think it would match the 70-300mm Canon pretty well.

Jeff

I just purchased the 100-400 USM.
Worth every extra penny IMO.

I have to mention, as everyone usually does, a GOOD
tripod is vital. You won't be hand holding this combo at 400
and getting anything but trash.

I use a vinten vision 3 and I can good footage (when I'm good
and lucky) following Osprey in flight. I've been to NAB and
tried every single tripod made. I chose vinten.

The weakness of the vinten vision 3 is the tripod plate and the
way it attaches. It is pretty poor considering the rest of the unit.

Also, plan on making a plate that will enable you to bolt not only
the XL1 to it, but the lens to it as well. The vinten plate attaches to
that plate.

Good luck!

Thanks for all the advice.

I've asked to test the Canon 75 to 350mm, 100-400mm and the Sigma 50-500mm.

With reference to Jacques post. I recall reading somewhere – I though it was this forum but can't find the post - that the 75-350mm, unlike the 100-400mm and I assume the Sigma, does not need a the extra support of a tripod plate to bolt onto both the lens and xl1. In other words its safe just hanging from the front of the camera.

Is this correct? As I would like to have the option of changing lenses quickly, which a plate attached to both lens and camera would hinder.

Thanks again.

It can be mounted without additional support. The lens does not have it's own tripod mounting adapter. However, from expierence, I would recommend building your own lens support. Maximum sharpness can only be attained through the use of additional support. At 300mm (that's over 40x magnification) a breeze can vibrate the lens.

Jeff

As Jeff says, the 75-300 will work without a plate between the camera and the lens. I haven't compared the specs., but it is about like the normal lens as far as physical characteristics go except that the front barrel section has some play to it and the combination of this and the high magnification results in vibration in strong wind, but it works quite well in most conditions and the IS feature can help eliminate much of the jiggle. The camera is very easy to carry with this lens attached.

few other lenses
 

Well I've just tried the Canon 50mm USM and Canon 100 Macro lenses- I found the Macro to be a bit less useful in that it magnifies the images too much and quite a distance is needed to keep the objects in focus- the Canon 75-300 USM seems to do much the same but with less effort and closer focusing......the 50mm is an excellent alternative to the stock lens but with a marked improvement in sharpness- it's probably an awesome lens for interviews and can be handheld....so far the 75-300mm remains my favorite- although I hear the 100-400 is the true "star" amongst the EOS lenses...I'm gonna try a few Sigma macros and get back to you guys......

Steve

Can you tell a little more about your expierence with the 100 macro? I was considering that lens. It is supposed to be one of the sharpest Canon makes. Any comments or impressions would help.

Jeff

Been very busy at work lately (I'm an airbrush artist)- I'll mount up the 100 macro and shoot it outdoors and see what benefits or drawbacks there are to using it- i'll post soon.

Which EOS Lenses should I Try?
 

It seems to me, that you are perhaps missing a better option than a longer lens.

Every june, I set out feeders for the species that I am going to tape.

Unless your birds are far different from those here in the Adirondack Mountains, of New York State, after you feed them for a while, they practically eat out of your hands.

I am about to tape a quartet of hummingbirds, from a distance of 2 feet, using the stock 16-1 on my XL-1s.

Last august, I shot them at about the same distance, at 1/8,000 of a second, and shorter.

Stunning photographic ballet! They are full frame to head's only.

While I am not familiar with your laws, might I suggest, that if it is possible, plant some wild rice.

If you can do it in a secluded spot, they will come in to feed.

Most super long lenses are best used on dangerous situations. And, yes, I do use them………, often.

Bob

p.s.: Even at its highest speed setting, the hummingbirds wings are still a blur. Maybe the ?XL-2? will bring the speed up to a "decent" level.

I don't think a super high shutter speed alone can do what you want.

AFAIK, no manufacturer makes a high speed (slo mo) video camera under $50K.

That is why I personally want 720P to take root
as the HD format of choice. At least you
get a full 60 frames per second, as opposed
to 24P or 1080i. Panasonic is on the right
track with their varicam.

More frames provides more options. To reduce
bandwidth or if you want that stutter look, you can always repeat frames, but
if the number of frames is only 24, the options
are limited.

24Pdv will be an improvement over interlace, but
temporal resolution will remain weak. Fast pans
will still strobe.

Which EOS lenses should I try?
 

I don't disagree with your conclusions, as to the format, such as digital HD.

Mine was just a wistful desire for a perfect camera (sic).

As we progress toward a truly solid state system, (no tape, disc, etc.), the progression to a fluid shutter system, such as the army has used for many years, seems to me quite likely.

I continue to dream on.

Bob

A perfect camera would have better contrast handling.

I am currently working on an Osprey documentary here near Ann Arbor, MI. These birds are beautiful. Their backs and the mask that cover their eyes are
dark brown. The top of their heads and most of their face is pure white.

If I turn my exposure down to where none of image is clipping, the rest of the
image is so dark that it is unusable. I done some experiments,
but my conclusion is with the XL1 filming these creatures, you gotta clip
their heads some or you have nothing.

JVC claims that their higher bit depth allows for in-camera processing to have better contrast control, so not only whites, but shadows.

I would love to see the XL1-HD not only have 720 P, but some kind of
in camera processing to control and level the whites better than any
other video camera made. Contrast at least as good as film would be
nice.

I've got a heckuva lot of older Canon HD lenses. Has anyone tried these? I'm thinking of using a Canon EOS adapter and an HD to EF adapter sold by B&H photo coupled together. Does anyone know if this combo works?

To the best of my knowledge it works. The viewfinder probably will show no lens and it'll be manual focus and manual exposure. Somebody here had an OpTex one, but I think it's a lot more money than the B &H adapter.

Jeff

Just doing some research on my question, above, I found an article explaining that the HD lenses are very difficult to adapt to the EF mount because of geometrical considerations. There is a rather rare canon adapter(available on ebay) that contains an optic(like a tele-converter) except that this optic isn't perfect(duh). In the end, the author does not recommend this ...;-(

Hi

Would have jumped in earlier but was on vacation.

T'was I who had mentioned that the Sigma 500 lens was not a good buy based on a couple of inputs. It would appear as if the the lens at the farther reaches vignettes badly and that the the lens is not crisp.

I have just returned from the bush where my 75 - 300mm lens was a much used item. I would love the 100 - 400mm but the price is too steep for me. I have no problems with the lens other than at times it is hard to focus in low light conditions. Very hard to keep steady, for me pans at full zoom are not possible and the slightest touch causes problems. Have to believe the 400 at full zoom must be even worse, don't know how one would keep a 500mm lens steady at full zoom. On a sturdy bench with sandbages you could get it right but would be unable to follow subject matter.

On the other hand I regularly run out of lens. Have come to the conclusion looser framed good steady footage is better than tightly framed bad shaky footage.

Jacques

I have used the XL-1 for birds to great effect. At the risk of stating the obvious a couple of techniques I have used involve, where possible moving the angle to include the background foilage this facilitates better exposure. Full and tight framing. Moving angle to lessen the sun glare. When you say you have done everything on the exposure side I assume this means you have also used the AE Shift wheel. Use of a good polariser. Changing the time of day (not always possible) late afternoon sunlight from behind softens the harshness and helps greatly.

Cheers
Andrew

EOS lenses on xl-1s
 

Anyone had any experience using these?


These lenses are ALOT cheaper and easier to find around here... especially the large array of used lenses floating around.


I understand a fast lense would be needed... i was wondering if anyone has used these, could explain their experience with these.

Also, i am totally new to all this, are there other lense brands that fit the eos mount/holder/attachmen?

And has anybody used these... please be as specific as u could...

thanx
kermie

Kermie,

do a search on 'EOS lenses' and I think you will find what you are looking for.

One thing to remember though, when using 35mm still lenses that the focal length is multiplied by a factor of 7.2 which means a standard 50mm becomes a telephoto 360mm.

I did a search but found no actual example pictures...

or really much useful information....

i was hoping that people would talk about their experiences using them, the quality of output, which ones to look for... if other lenses fit the adapter...


i found very very little info on that... more talks of wild life shoots and what i should get...

rather than actual discussion of the lenses.

kermie

Hi,

the first thing to know about the EOS adapter is there is
a magnification factor of 7.2X. So, a 100mm becomes a
720. Great for wildlife shooting where you need long lens,
but not so great for wanting a wide zoom to remain a
wide zoom.

That said, good glass makes all difference. My EV 100-400mm IS
35mm lens is sharper and has better color saturation than either
the 16X and 3X video lens I own.

There is another adapter called the PS Technik ($8,000)
that allows the use of all kinds of lens, including film lens,
without magnification. Incredible images, but at a very
high cost.

There are many posts and threads concerning this issue, so
get a cup of coffee and check them out.

Are there any very small lenses available , that are very fast...

the reason i want one of these lenses, if more the improved images... relative cheapness involved in this process vs the mini35 solutions... and also the ease of controlling DOF with these (inherently having a much shallower DOF).

Has anyone had experience with very small lenses... that are fast... for my use i wouldn't really need something bigger than a 20-88 or something similar....

anyways

kermie

Hi Kermie,

It sounds like what your looking for is small, fast and cheap. Unfortunatly it doesn't exist. Fast lenses are never cheap. For the complete line up of EOS EF lenses look here http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lineup/index.html They even show MTF charts.

It also sounds like your trying to get shallow depth of field and your thinking that using 35mm lenses will achieve it. Unfortunatly, it will not. They do not inherently have more DOF. Review the two ongoing threads and you'll see that just switching to 35mm lenses won't affect DOF the way you hope.

Jeff

Yep. Kermie, I think you are going down the wrong track here my friend. Even if you got that 20-88 lens you mentioned, you are still looking at an equivalent of around 140-600mm once it's on the XL1.

no i meant a lense that would equal a 20-88mm focal length on the xl1.....

kermie


ohh well............ there is no easy solution to a difficult problem :)

Kermie, that would mean you would need a 2.7-12mm lens.

I'm not a Canon rep, but the smallest EF lens I've seen was a 14mm, which will be about 100mm on the XL1.
Oh, and it's about $2300us.

You are half right, there are easy solutions, just very, very expensive. :)

HAHAH :)


I think ANYTHING can be done with enough money thrown at it.

The resoning i want these lenses is obvious, they are capable of producing a nicer image for me.

What is funny is, i could never spend $8000 on a mini35 if my output was still in the end PAL resolution, i cant see the worth.

But maybe something will come along, i don't have to get a canon branded lens, and who knows some browning rusted 25 yr old lense may come my way that produces some wonderful image that i could never imagine.

kermie

Kermie,

If you go to Optex's site you will find a number of adapters for various lenses like Nikon, Canon FD and a few others. The problem with these adapters is they are only mechnical adapters, ie mount to mount, and do not communicate electronically with the XL1. You will always have the 'no lens' warning blinking in your VF and will not be able to use the digital effects, slow shutter speeds and digi zoom.

If this in not a problem for you then I'd suggest Canons FD range of lenses, quality glass at superseeded prices. I've seen 300/f4L lenses for about $200 in various secondhand camera stores in Brisbane.