I use the IS very sparingly. I do a lot of flight shots and IS on a tripod just doesn't work under those conditions. I've had some luck with using it in supposedly stable vehicles. I prefer bean bags to tripods if I'm shooting out of the top of the vehicle. Shoots out of the windows are tough because of the contortions you go through to get your eye near the viewfinder. However, I have had limited success using the IS under both those situations.

<<<<I use the IS very sparingly. I do a lot of flight shots and IS on a tripod just doesn't work under those conditions.

- Flight shots??? Please clarify. Also, which lens were you using at the time and what were the typical focal lengths you were using (wide/ mid or tele)?

>>>>I've had some luck with using it in supposedly stable vehicles. I prefer bean bags to tripods if I'm shooting out of the top of the vehicle.

- This is a not such a bad idea to use a beanbag as a substitute for a tripod in this scenario. Just make sure you handhold that camera in a "quickdraw-style" padded case when you are in transit. I wouldn't recommend using a beanbag as a substitute for a tripod when you aren't in a vehicle though, I'd much rather prefer to use a professional level fluid head on some lightweight low-profile sticks, especially if you are planning on doing any elegant pans of vistas, animals, people, etc. When we were in the Sudan we used a set of lightweight photo tripod sticks with a decent head as a substitute for the much bulkier and heavier Sachtler as we were doing a lot of hiking around for miles on end, in addition to traveling about in the back of a 4x4 pickup. Having just a beanbag and no tripod would have comprimised the types of shots we were able to pull off with the smooth pan/ tilt head we used.

>>>>Shoots out of the windows are tough because of the contortions you go through to get your eye near the viewfinder.

- Not necessarily if you are using a B&W viewfinder with the Tiffen Tele-2x
http://www.tiffen.com/tele2x.htm
Using a Tele-2x makes these type of shots from windows of vehicles significantly easier, and cranking up the peaking control a bit helps to indicate when you have a sharp focus. Don't forget to be on top of the White Balance for every different shot. Also, when I shoot from a window in these types of situations, I will replace the standard 'plastic' sunhood with a rubberized sunhood - that way it is easier to hold the camera steady against the glass if you need to get right up to the window to avoid any reflections - due to the rubber being a bit flexible and 'sticky' against the glass. Sometimes I will also use a monopod with a simple pan/ tilt head mounted on the top to help stabilize the camera in these situations. One last thing, if shooting from a vehicle with a lot of potential for interior reflections to show on the window glass, I have sometimes used a piece of black cloth taped to the outer edges of the window with gaff tape and draped the cloth over my head (and the camera) which effectively eliminates those reflections. I have found this overall combo makes it significantly easier and possible to pull off a great deal of highly useable shots when shooting from a vehicle window. Having the IS switched on during these times has helped considerably at certain focal lengths.

Don't forget to pack a small bottle of glass cleaner and a chamois cloth to keep the area of the window you are shooting through clean and smudge-free.

- don

A flight shot is when you try to follow a large bird in flight. I use the 100 - 400mm sometimes, other times a slightly smaller zoom, maybe the 16X or 14X Canon XL lenses or the 28 - 135mm EF IS lens. In my experience, IS on a tripod just doesn't work well.

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for all the pointers. A lot of them I have already thought of and currently do.
I nearly always use Av Mode and have the Zebra turned on and constantly use the AE Shift, Gain and various filters to control my shots.
White Balance I am constantly monitoring manually. I too have learnt from experience with this one!
I have a mediumish beanbag which I am taking. I must admit I haven't used it much but I do like the idea of using it as another alternative. I might just invest in another slightly larger one and do a little practice before I go.
Paint brush maybe. I normally use soft cleaning cloths but I guess for it's cost, size & weight I might aswell pack one. Living out in Africa you are far the best judge of the conditions. At the moment I can only imagine what it's like.
I like the idea of a few white towells which I think Don suggested too. Very simple and practical but that's one thing I wouldn't have thought of. Likewise with the rubber sunhood. I have one but wasn't going to take it. Hopefully though I won't be shooting much,if at all, through the glass of a vehicle window.
I haven't heard of a Frezzi Mini Dimmer. I assume it is some sort of light? Anyway I'm taking a Paglight C6 for any situation where I might need it. I mainly taking it for the evenings back in the tent. Thought I might do a little video diary while I'm there. Might aswell. It's not a trip one can afford to repeat too often if at all.
I was planning on taking about 20 tapes. Got one 915, two 930's and two 945's. I'm still undecided if I have enough batteries. I have the standard battery charger and have just bought the Dual battery charger just incase one packs up. I really would be stuck then! I'm out there for 11 days.
I have today for the first time properly used the 100-400mm lens on the camera. More difficult than I thought it would be. I still have no extra support for it. I'll keep practicing using it but I must admit in Kenya it will probably have more time on my E03 than the XL1.

Gareth

tripod heads for 100-400zoom
 

For what it's worth, and posting rather late to this thread- I've used a 100-300 lens for three years on nature videos, and believe me, NO Bogen head will give you the ability to pan or tilt with the lens zoomed out. Don't waste your money- get a much more professional head like O'Conner's 2030 or smaller.I think 400mm is a bit much too, except when you have to get a still shot. Heat waves will be a major factor when the ground heats up- so much so that with 400mm the shot may be ruined. My 100-300 works well, but it takes some fine handling to get pans, and only with an expensive head- the "amateurish" stuff won't cut it with this focal length. Mike Rupp

Canon 100-400
 

I am also rather late for a reply. I am using the afore mentioned lens on my Bogen 516 head with the PLONG plate. My TP is the Manfrotto ARTS. The PLONG plate gives me a longer base for ballancing the camera/lens/assesories.

The major problem that I have encontered is strong wind conditions in these mountains. Even with the IS, it is hard to control at 400mm. I so far have not come up with a solution to this problem, other than stop shooting, which, is most impossible under out back considerations. Can't carry more than the 42 lbs. that I am doing now. So, no screens, etc.

Other than that, I am quite well satisfied with my outfit. Of course, like everyone else, I am always looking to improve.

Robert,

I'm not sure how your rig might support this, but in those conditions I put one or two sand bags on top of the camera/lens combination. I also don't set it up all the way. I leave the legs alone (un-extended) and just spread them. I've used that combination up in the Rockies, shooting Big Horns and Mtn.Goats. with great success.. If the tripod is locked down I also turn on the IS. If I'm going to try and pan or tilt I leave it off.

Canon 100-400
 

Jeff,

My problem is not so much HOW to "bag" the beast, but the added weight on my back. When I can motor in, I use a couple of 2 1/2 & 5 gallon plastic water carriers for both weight on my equipment, and, hi-gene. Since water weights in the vicinity of 8 lbs./gallon, you can reallly lock down the TP extremely well.

But. I still find that a very strong breeze or wind, will over ride the stablilizer of the lens.

Also, even empty bags, easily filled up on site, are too heavy for the few times that I would be using them.

As I mentioned, I am at 42 lbs. now. Frankly, I am at my weight limit. I will consider a volunteer unpaid bearer. (Proper gender, of course.)

Thanks for the thought, Jeff.

Canon EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6 "L" USM Lens
 

Hi,

I'm sitting here ready to buy the 35-350 lens. Has anyone used this lens? Is it as cool as the 100-400 (quality)?

I have read some of the stuff on the 100-400 and looked at the pics here: http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images09.php


Also, I am familiar with the 7.2 mag of the adapter. And I have lots of filters.

So, I am with a Magnum XL mount from ZGC. What will I need more for this lens. New head, tripod, mounting plate, etc.?

Also, some of ya mentioned the .7 Century Adapter. I have ordered on from Chris at ZGC. I hear they are worth the money, any comments. I will be using the .7 on the 16XMF as a center camera for my interviews. I will be using my other two cameras on the sides. If anyone has used this WA adapter, have you found an optimum distance for shooting with it (interview types).

I also use the .3X WA which is okay.

Thanks,

Hi Bob, what are you going to shoot with the 35 - 350mm EF lens? In my opinion it is slightly sharper than the 100 - 400, but doesn't handle as well. I'm not a big fan of push - pull lenses, they throw off the center of gravity. As far as tripods, it depends on what you're going to shoot.

Birds - Golden Eagles in my backyard!
 

Jeff,

I have about 5 eagles running around the mountains in back.

I made a mount for my Celestron 8" telescope but it is just not worth taking the chances of screwing up the XL mount on the camera. So I bought the adapter form ZGC and now I want a lens.

We also have deer and typical creatures running around the ranch.

My wife has a Canon 35mm body that she wants to use with this lens also.

But for $1,500.00 I need to find something and I like that 35mm vs the 100mm. I think I might be happy with a 70-300 but I have heard good reports on the 35-350.

???

The 100 - 400 has IS which is a big plus for still photographers. It is generally sharper than the 35 - 350 except at maximum zoom, where I would give the edge to the 35 - 350. The 35 - 350 is a stop faster (F3.5 vs. F4.5), but they both end up at F5.6

Either lens will require a mount to support the front of the lens. I had mine custom built at a machine shop. I've used the 70 - 300 IS and it is a good lens also. Not as sharp as the other zooms mentioned but fine for video. I wouldn't go much larger than an 8 X10 for still work.

35-350
 

Thanks,

I'm going to get the 35-350 and play with it for a while.

Here in Tucson we have plenty of light and I can stop the lens with nice filters. ZGC sold me 3 sets of their 7 filters.

One of the reasons I chose the 35-350 over the 400 is simply the size of the lens. I can use the 72mm filters I have for the 16XMF on the zoom. That saves me a few hundred bucks.

Also the Chrosziel 4X4s I have will fit on that lens the the current adapters.

This lens is mostly for my wife. She wants to learn the XL-1 and keep it in the car in a cooler bag. I still get my 3 's' models for production. Figuring out something to do with these cameras and software is tuff. Well, besides shooting a few vets.

Later

100-400
 

I use the 100-400 regularly and the only tripod that has any satisfaction is the Miller (Australian brand). I have tried Manfrottos etc and had no satisfaction. I now mount lens only on tripod.

The sticks haven't been as important as the head
when using a long lens on the XL-1. I do use
Manfritto sticks, and have tried several heads, the only one working well with such long focal lengths being the O'conner and another pro brand I can't remember the name of. I use the Canon EOS 100-300 lens, so the camera is mounted to the head, not the lens. I tried the 100-400 IS and
found it a bit too long, and very much larger and heavier than the EOS 100-300 lens. I can work faster and easier with the smaller lens, with less hassle. Mike Rupp

Canon 100-400mm Lens
 

Good Morning Mike, Rick, and everyone.

My problem is not the Manfrotto TP. It is working better than expected. The problem with the lens is weather related. The IS is not effective with sustained winds of 40 to 50 mph, here in the mountains. My observations over the past 7 months using the ARTS TP & 516 head with the XL-1s, are very positive. They make a great combo. I have had no problems other than the usual minor stiffness at -40?F. That is common to any head I have used. (Other than a fully mechanical head such as the old Houston-Feerless, which usually needed a pan handle used as a persuader, to "loosen" it up.)

If you are refering to mounting the lens on a separate TP, I believe that my use of the Plong plate on the 516 is a better solution. It alows me to mount the camera & lens as a one piece unit on the Manfrotto.

The solution to my problem with the weather, is to screen the set up from the effects of the wind. Again, back to the fact that humping the equipment up and down the Adirondack Mountains, limits how much I can carry.

100-400
 

I spend many hours just on daylight and dark in damp bush for my deer filming with xl1s and have it slung over my right shoulder on strap, ready at an instant to lift to my shoulder like a six gun should an animal apperar. I have it tied to the shoulder strap of a small backpack with a standard army slide clasp with standard lens. I carry the 100-400, a light tripod and bean bag. My asssocitate has an XM1 and it is much easier to "creep" up on animals with, doesn't catch so much in the bush. I sometimes wish for his and sometimes vice versa!
The xl1s is really a difficult camera to keep dry and safe and still be ready in an instant for filming. (See my fall and camera smash!) I would like to soon try and mould a case in the exact shape, that is quickly accessible, but safe in a fall.
(re: fall I fixed the camera with araldaite type glue called den...?,(broken viewfinder, broke tripod out of camera, now put tripod on 100-400lens only). Was amazed camera and lens survived.

Rick Banfield

100-400 (Carrying)
 

Rick,

I cringe at your word "smash". I use a small daypack on my back, that fits the XL-1s with about 6 inches of excess all around. I am using 4 inch foam at the bottom of this pack to dampen any sudden shock when putting it down. On the 4 sides and the top, I am using 3 inch foam. It's a bit tight when securing the straps, but it sure cuts down on abuse to the cam and lens. The stuff weights next to nothing.

I might add, that I made a cover for my TP's head out of the same foam. Glues together rather easily. Does a nice job protecting the head. I secure the foam to the head with a simple tie down.

I don't know about your neck of the world, but here in the states, you can buy the foam at just about any furniture store. It's reasonably priced.

I always buy more than I need, to replace any of it that gets soggy or dirty.

EF 35-350
 

Bob,

I would suggest the difference between the 35-300, and the 100-400 Canon lenses, are mostly academic.

I use the 100-400 on my Xl-1s, chasing Eagles, deer, field mice, butterflies, etc. The ability to use IS was a factor in my purchase of this lens.

My personel observations are that the full telephoto position on the lens is only used for very small objects at a distance. Larger bird/deer critters I probably shoot around the 300mm setting at 150 yards or so, for full frame to chest up shots.

A TP of excellence is to my mind, a far more important tool, than a few more mm's.

Get the one that most appeals to you. Ignore the slight difference in "mm power".

35-350
 

Thanks,

That was what I did. I considered all the facts and went with the 350 vs the 400.

The eagles are a distance away. About 300 meters.

So I will see what happens. I should have the lens this week.

Later,

Bob, please let us all know how that works out for you. If you get some good still frames of those eagles, please send a few of them to me along with some stills of the camera and lens set-up, as I would love to add them to the Images Gallery on the XL1 Watchdog site. Thanks,

Should be good shots
 

Okay,

But but for now, just for kicks this is of a Coopers Hawk taken through a double glass super UV Window and the screen. Standard 16X IS on XL-1. Subject in tree was about 6 meters fr the lens.

http://robertdeming.mystarband.net/

Couldn't get a good focus due to the conditions. But I got close.

I can't remember if this was a still or shot in frame mode.

I forgot I had this site that starband provides.

I also have some shots of the eagles I'll lset you look at. They were shot though a Celestron F8 telescope. I made my own mount for the XL-1 to the Celestron mount. I'll take a shot of the mounting adapter.

Oh, ya. BH sent the wrong lens. They sent the "import" or "grey market" lens instead of the USA. So I will have the lens next week.

I will get some shots with the XL-1S with the 16XMS Lens and then do a few shots with the 350mm.

Shallow DOF with XL1, EF EOS Adapter and T/S lenses
 

I don't know how well this will work, but for those interested in shallow DOF, the following will be your best shot at achieving it.

I will first preface this by saying I have not attempted this. Three pieces of equipment are need, in addition to an XL1. For this experiment you'll need the Canon EF XL adapter to adapt Canon EOS EF lenses, Canon 24mmEOS T/S lens and a wide angle convertor.

A lens with Tilt allows the user to control DOF. Normally the tilt function is used to maximize the DOF in 35mm work. However, negative tilt could be used to achieve much shallower DOF than normally obtained with 1/3 inch video chips.

The EF XL adapter would allow the 24mm T/S lens to be attached to the XL1. A .6X wide angle adapter would make the effective focal length about 100mm (slight telephoto on 35mm). By my estimation, very shallow DOF would be able to be obtained with reasonable working distances from the subject.

Wouldn't you introduce distortions in the picture with all that
glass etc.?

I would say it's possible Rob. However, the EF 24mmT/S is an "L" series lens. I rented the lens when I lived in Cincinnati and for 35mm film was very sharp. So, the question is would the Century WA adapter introduce excessive aberrations or vignetting into the optical system. If the WA adapter can't be used, the lens would end up around 170mm. A little long but I've used longer lenses for portraits. However, I don't have the 24 T/S to test and there are none for rent in Tampa/St. Pete.

If you have a 50 mm, T2 (close to F2) lens that you're using with 1/3" chip, it does not matter if it is a lens made for that format, or for 35 mm still format, the DOF will be identical, as seen by the chip. So on the Canon camcorder this 50 mm lens will be extreme telephoto and will have the same DOF as a normal focal length on 35 mm still camera. There is no way around it.

Use 21 mm lens on a 35 mm camera -- it is extreme wide angle on that format -- and everything will be pretty much in focus. Set your Canon lens to 21 mm, which will be telephoto, and you'll get the same DOF -- practically everything will be in focus.

The Mini 35 adaptor changes the target size and therefore you need a lot longer lens for the same angle of view as with the small CCD size. That's how they achieve shallow DOF.

The Canon shift lens changes it's focal length for different areas of the picture. If you shoot building from the ground, the focal length (and magnification) will be higher at the top of the picture, which will change the perspective.

Joseph, without getting into a discussion of DOF, you don't understand how tilt or shift works. Tilt changes the areas of the picture that will be included in the DOF. Your assumptions on DOF are only partially correct. If you have additional thoughts or comments on DOF, please post them in this thread after taking the time to read it.

The focal length of a shift lens does not change, nor does the perspective change. A shift lens has a greater angle of view than a non shift lens. This greater coverage allows the photographer to control the perspective, but it does not change. Perspective changes when the camera (film or chip) is moved, not the lens.

Jeff, I agree with you. I just want to say that there are 3 facors that affect DOF:

frame size (film, CCD)

angle of view

lens F-stop.

If you have the same angle of view and lens F-stop, then changing the target area is the only solution. Here comes the mini 35 with an ingeneous solution.

Yes, the mini 35 is a great way to get DOF similar to 35mm film. However, it costs upwards of $8,000 and no lenses. The point of this thread was a more economical way to achieve a similar effect (shallower DOF). The 24mm T/S lens, new, is around $1,100, the EF XL adapter, is around $450, and the Century WA adapter is around $600. Total investment is less than a quarter of a mini 35 with lenses.

The 24mm is limiting, but for some XL1 users, it may be worth the experiment. I already have the EF XL adapter and Century WA adapter. In larger, metropolitan areas the lens rents fairly inexpensively (I rented it for $20 a day). The mini 35 rents for hundreds a day and no lenses. If a project required just a few shots with shallower DOF, this might be a viable alternative for some XL1 shooters.

Please let us know, Jeff, if you ever manage to test this thing
out!

I'm just really interested to know what picture quality improvements can be made using an EOS lens, instead of a made-for-XL1 lens (16x, 3x, etc).

Can anyone direct me to some footage captured using such a hookup?

I noticed Bob Denning's post in a nother thread, and he pointed to the PappasSystem article: http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article21.htm

This is what you're attempting to do, yes?

Hi Andrew,

The Pappas System goes about putting EOS lenses on an XL1 series camera for some of the same reasons. But the effects would be accomplished differently.

One of the reasons to use Canon EOS EF lenses is they are sharper (resolve more paired lines) than the standard XL lenses. They only use the center portion of the lens and the center offers the most optical correction for aberrations. The center is also the sharpest part of the lens.

However, beyond sharpness and optical correction, the Tilt/Shift (T/S) lenses offer the ability to control DOF through the tilt mechanism. Large format view cameras have the ability to tilt, swing, shift etc. Canon's lenses don't offer all the controls or as great a degree of movement as view cameras. But to control DOF, only tilt (swing) would be required.

The basics of how Tilt works is out lined in the Scheimpflug Principal. You can read about it and see examples on the Zork site. The page details how to use the Scheimpflug Principal to increase DOF (something desirable in large format photography). However, if you go against the principal, you can make DOF decrease dramatically. Of course it's the dramatic reduction that would be of interest to video users.

Jeff:

I used swing and shift lens setups when they were in vogue for commercials and music videos a few years back. I'm sure you are familiar with the image characteristics but I find the images on the Zork site a bit misleading for those who haven't used the technology before--they seem to present the notion that you can decrease the overall depth of field of the image as opposed to creating selective focus. The example with the teeth could easily get folks excited but one should be aware that with this image, the effect being shown would look similar if it was shot with shallow focus OR a swing/shift effect. Other situations would net different results.

For example--if you had a subject in the middle of the frame, one could, with a swing/shift setup, soften the background to one side of the subject, but not both. In fact, if there was a foreground element on the other side, it would come into focus along with the subject! This is not the same, of course, as being able to throw the entire background out of focus.

It would be a fun setup to play around with (myself, I'd be perfectly happy not to dick around with swing/shift ever again, I found it fiddly!) but I think if someone thought they would be able to achieve classic shallow depth of field with this, they'd probably be disappointed.

Agreed, the tooth images weren't what I was referring to. I should have been more specific in my post, thanks for the correction. I was referring to the images of the tiles at the bottom of the page (below the teeth). The DOF would swing and you would have to be careful about blocking your scenes etc., as you point out. But on a small chip camera the degree of tilt and shift would be much greater than 35mm, because of the smaller target.

I think, short of a mini 35, this would present the only way to really control DOF with the camera. It certainly isn't ideal by any stretch of imagination, though.

Jeff, Of course the EOS lens resolution is a lot higher, but the frame size is about 6x less on the camcorder, if I'm correct. So unless the EOS lenses can resolve more than 6x more lines in the center, you may not actually see any sharpness improvement. Plus the XL1 lenses may have higher resolution that the format requires. I think the horizontal on the chip is only about 6 mm and the format has 530 line resolution. Let's say that the XL1 lenses resolve at least 100 lines per mimeter. IMHO the EOS lenses would have problem resolving this much, unless I'm missing something, like use of .5 extender between the lens and the camera or something.

It's pretty well acknowledged that EOS EF lenses are sharper. More goes into sharpness than resolution. EOS EF lenses don't have to be 7.2X (difference in chip sizes) sharper. Resolution is target size independent.

I have the XL EF adapter and frequently use many of my EOS lenses on the XL1. The difference is very noticeable to me. If you search the topic you'll find that I'm not alone in my opinion.

Hmm errr hmm...

Jeff, I haven't used the Canon EOS setup but I am pretty sure I understand what it does in terms of utilizing the center section of the lens to fill the DV target, please correct me if I am wrong.

If this is the case, the swing and tilt effect would be very greatly MINIMIZED for a DV setup. I used a 35mm setup on a 16mm camera a few times and found I had to rack the tilt all the way and shoot wide open to get any real effect, and it was much less than if it had been on a 35mm camera. If you think about it, the further from the center, the further out of focus you can get, so if you are only using the center...

Do you think it might be more accurate to describe this effect in terms of manipulating the plane of focus rather than the depth of field...?

The way a tilt or shift lens works (any large format lens) is with excess coverage of the target area (CCD chip). What is excess coverage? Imagine your target area (24mm X 36mm film, 1/3 inch chip etc.) and then draw a circle much larger than the target. A typical 35mm T/S lens will have 10mm to 14mm extra coverage on the top, bottom and both sides. The coverage area would be much larger than a 1/3 inch chip (4.8mm X 3.6mm). The image circle of the Canon EOS EF 24mm T/S is 58.6mm dia.

The image can be shifted (not tilted) up, down and side to side. The shift mechanism is used to control perspective, i.e. make parallel lines parallel..

The tilt mechanism is used to control DOF. This is accomplished by the tilt controls (on the EOS lens, knobs are rotated). By following the Scheimpflug Principal DOF, can be controlled.. Rather than restate the principal, those interested should download this PDF from the Arri site. The title of the document is Tilt Focus and deals with the principals involved here. It is a 256k document and you'll need Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Most of the article talks about tilt (extending DOF). Well, small chip DV users have plenty of DOF and what we're interested in is Swing. A current trend is to call Swing, Negative Tilt. They mean the same. On page 15 are diagrams of no tilt and tilt. On page 16 is a diagram of negative tilt, or swing. The DOF is actually decreased, not just moved or shifted from side to side. Yes, it is greater on one side than the other.

Charles, your question is basically my question. Would the greater amount of excess coverage help reduce the extreme DOF on smaller formats? Your experience with it on 16mm would seem to indicate that it wouldn't be enough control. Do you recall what focal length lens you used?

The principal works. I made extensive use of it on my view cameras. So, the question remains, how effective are T/S lenses on DV?

Isn't there an EOS lens w/F1.0? I think that there is a 50 mm? one. It will be an extreme telephoto on the camcorder, but would have shallow enough DOF for nice film look; but would probably be limited to outdoors work.

Xl1s to Canon EF mount (only 2x magnification)??
 

I saw this on eBay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2933116229&category=undefined

I would love to buy it because I've always wanted the option of using different lenses but I've never heard of this, I thought only Canon made an adapter. And it claims that the adapter only magnifies the image by 2x! Has anyone here used it? One more thing: I'm assuming if I bought this and used Canon EF lenses, it would produce a higher quality image than just using the 16x lens that came with the xl1s. Am I right?

Thanks!
Corey