These are old posts and answers have probably already been resolved: But I have the solution to your EOS and FD lens mounting problems. I also have a sight that is very useful in capturing the subjects that are hard to find with the limited FOV inherent with the long lenses. Take a look at my website at www.ronsrail.com

Canon XL1S with EF lenses for sports
 

Okay, I have just sold my two Sony PD 150's and have decided to move to Canon gear simply for the opportunity to be able to use my Canon EF lenses. I am a sports photographer as well and I already have a very nice collection of Canon "L" glass.

24-70L 2.8 - 50 1.4 - 85 1.8 - 70-200L 2.8 - 135L 2.0 - 300L 4.0 - 300L 2.8 - 400L 2.8.

I have read these threads and re-read these threads regarding the use on EF lenses and I keep coming to a different conclusion. I can't find anybody posting who uses this setup to shoot sports, some of the landscape and wildlife guys seem to love using these lenses while others seem to feel that they are so long they are useless do to camera shake.

I understand that I need an adaptor and the magnification factor is about 7x. I also lose auto focus? Will my fast apertures still work to enable a nice bokeh background blur and help in low light situations?

A ton of my video sales are youth team sports highlight video and college recruiter videos.

Anybody out there shooting sports can give your view of using these lenses.

Thanks,

Woody

They will probably be too long. The DOF will increase 7X also, because of the magnification. You could get by with the 24~70 (173~504), but why? The normal Canon XL lens will retain AF and has IS, probably resulting in more usable shots.

Woody I primarily shoot wildlife; But have shot some soccer and baseball using the Canon XL lens as well as the 70-200 2.8 EOS lens.The problem with the EOS lens is the ability to focus quickly and hi magnification,so it depends on where you are in the stadium.I think the new 20X lens would be ideal for sports, as Jeff stated.
My prime lens for wildlife is a Canon 50-300 4.5 FD L lens,quite often with a 1.4 converter. resulting in about 3000mm - (35mm equivilent) It is also not unusual to use a 600mm lens for long distance shots.Most wildlife people I know are not adverse to using these long lenses on sturdy tripods and stable fluid heads. Some of them use the 150-600mm Canon FD L lens. A commercialy available converter is used to attach the lens to the XL series cameras. Approx. price $400. I built mine, but don't recommend others try it!
There is also another problem which is seldom mentioned. In the older EOS lenses, there is an unusual amount of motor noise that is picked up by the microphone. It may not be too apparent in sports with all the background noise. The newer lenses are considerably quieter.

Jeff & Bob ... thanks for the replys.

Maybe I should clarify my sports style. I don't shoot entire games where I pan with the action. I have a shot list and follow it. For example what I was thinking I could do with the extra reach is set up beyond the center field fence on a platform of some sort and get a great shot of the hitter catcher, and umpire. Once the batter starts to run to first he runs out of the frame, I don't follow him. I was wanting to sit on particular players looking for extreme closeup emotion shots. The look of a pitcher after a big strikeout, the dejection of giving up a big hit, the excitement of a coach after a big play, etc ... and I need to do it from a distance to keep me out of the way of the game.

Picking up sound from the lens isn't at all an issue as I don't use any sound from these shots, when I use ambiant sound(which is seldom), I get it from the close in cameras like my VX2000 and the majority of the video is backed with a high tempo music track anyway.

I really wasn't thinking about the two big lenses the 300 & 400 2.8's but more like the 70-200, the 135 and even the light weight 300 4.0.

So really the EF lenses is not an option that will be viable for me, it's really only an advantage for landscape, wildlife type of stuff?

My exitement baloon has been punctured!

But thanks,

Woody

Woody The 70-200 would be a great lens for tjhis application. You would get the closeups as well as being able to pan if you wished. Continual focus would not be a problem. You could set up a little to one side of center field and possibly be able to get first base and the batter, pitcher combo without too much panning.
Depending on whether a rt or lft handed batter!! I do alot of panning with a 420 FD lens, and Ive done baseball from first base with a 300 2.8 with great results. The picture quality is excellent.

Check out my website at www.ronsrail.com for the various lens combinations.

Good luck!!

Best

Mini35 vs. Canon's EF Adapter?
 

I'm having trouble seeing the difference between the two.. couldn't I just mount my EOS lens on an EF adapter and save tons of money? What difference would it make?

These are two completely different tools.

The EF adapter is for mounting PHOTO lenses and the resulting field of view is equal to seven times the focal length (50mm x 7.2 = 360mm on an XL1 / XL1S). See this link.

The Mini35 is for mounting MOTION PICTURE lenses and it preserves the original focal length and depth of field (20mm = 20mm on an XL1 / XL1S). See this link.

Canon EF Adaptor Instructions
 

I have the EF adaptor but seem to have lost the instruction booklet that came with it. Does anyone have any idea where I can get another one, or could someone possibly photocopy one for me. Any help would be much appreciated. I live in the UK.

Many Thanks

Andy Paul

You can download the manual from the Canon site, go here:

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...1#New%20Window

Go to the link under "Product User Guides & Manuals" and on
the next page select "English manuals". The fifth link down will
be for the EF adapter:

EF Adapter Instruction Manual
ins_xl_ef_adapter.pdf

You are a star !!! Thank You very much.

You're welcome :)

What I have been looking everywhere for
 

Ron,

I have been looking for your product for two years but just never found it till now. We shoot XL-1's with EF lens all the time, and are never happy with the balance or the stability of our cobbled together setups. Your product looks like exactly what we need here at Fish and Game. Poachers beware!

Matt

For those Shakey long shots....
 

If you use Premier Pro or even premier 6x and or After Effects, there is a company called 2d3 that makes a stabilization plug in that works really really well. I had a 600mm Sports lens in front of my XL-1 on a cobbled together adapter to a solid tripod. Wind out of my 2 o'clock position at 15 knots, and man the image showed it.

After digitzing the shots, I dropped the filter on it, rendered it and it was almost like I had set the thing in concrete!!!! Very little motion and yet did not seem to affect pans or tilts much, it understood the difference. The killer part.......... $99 usd. Luck you say?....

OK , another shoot, Hand held on a 40' boat in San Francisco Bay, 20 knots of wind in my shooters face, zoomed in most if not all the way on the Canon 16x, you know the shot is completely unuseable, need dramamine just to watch it, I was able to not only salvage the shot, the client wanted to know how I got a gyro stablized lens for the XL. Dang it, I should'a billed him for one!

But seriously, it is nothing short of amazing, and it can save your behind even faster than DV RACK!

check them out at http://www.2d3.com/jsp/index.jsp

canon ef 100-400mm f-4.5-5.6 L I S USM-support
 

i have a canon xl 1s--and i have purchased the subject lense---need to know what would be the ideal lense support if one is needed---i am doing wildlife video---any help will be appreciated--thanks, kal

Paging Ron Armstrong... Ron Armstrong to the front counter please.

Hi Kal;
Thanks Chris. As I recall, Kal and I have had discussions on something similar to this before. Nice to hear from you Kal.
The 100-400 mm lens is an excellent lens used by many XL* owners. I have, however heard some comment on the lack of sharpness at the long end, above 300mm, in particular with the use of the 1.4 converter. I have not used the lens myself, so this is mere speculation. Kal should be able to confirm this as he uses the lens.
Now for suport for the camera lens combination. As the subject lens changes balance during zoom, loading weight at the front in the 400mm range, it requires a change in position to balance properly on the tripod. Also, being much heavier than the standard 16x lens, it has to be mounted at its foot to relieve pressure on the camera lens mount, therefor allowing the occurance of vibration and movement between the camera and lens, the weakest point in the assembly.
The RONSRAIL solves these problems by tying the camera and lens together through a rail and clamp system that also allows the combo to be balanced on the tripod by moving the whole assembly fore and aft.
Kal , I believe, has seen my website showing some of the lenses used.
Chris has given me opportunity to again present my website to those who have not had the chance to view it.

Thanks again Chris!!!

Ron

<<<-- Originally posted by Ron Armstrong : Hi Kal;
Thanks Chris. As I recall, Kal and I have had discussions on something similar to this before. Nice to hear from you Kal.
The 100-400 mm lens is an excellent lens used by many XL* owners. I have, however heard some comment on the lack of sharpness at the long end, above 300mm, in particular with the use of the 1.4 converter. I have not used the lens myself, so this is mere speculation. Kal should be able to confirm this as he uses the lens.
Now for suport for the camera lens combination. As the subject lens changes balance during zoom, loading weight at the front in the 400mm range, it requires a change in position to balance properly on the tripod. Also, being much heavier than the standard 16x lens, it has to be mounted at its foot to relieve pressure on the camera lens mount, therefor allowing the occurance of vibration and movement between the camera and lens, the weakest point in the assembly.
The RONSRAIL solves these problems by tying the camera and lens together through a rail and clamp system that also allows the combo to be balanced on the tripod by moving the whole assembly fore and aft.
Kal , I believe, has seen my website showing some of the lenses used.
Chris has given me opportunity to again present my website to those who have not had the chance to view it.

Thanks again Chris!!!

Ron -->>>

Thanks again Ron for good hints, I will be using this and other canos lenses for next five monts in alaska - let everybody know about lens performance. As far as lens support comes I leaned from previous threads ; according to canon this and other canon's white lenses with their own lens mount can be safely installed on tripot... the XL1 body just hangs off the back of the lens . I can see the safety difference in between this consept and you RONSRAIL , but I am going to see how this is going to work for me. Thanks again - kal

Hi Kal:
"The XL1 body just hangs off the back of the lens." Very true. However there are only four very small machine screws that hold it there. It cannot stand much abuse and the environment it will be subject to in Alaska may be severe. The adapter is not very robust, and I don't think it was designed strong enough for the uses we put upon it.
I completetly severed the viewfinder from its mount at the swivel in Denali, and that happened on the bus!!
Be carefull and protect your gear, you will have much success and an enjoyable experience; But be very carefull with your system in Alaska.
Don't forget to consider the RONSIGHT for those long shots at birds, moose and bear.

Best of luck and keep us posted.

Ron

EF lenses?
 

So are are all of the EF photo lenses compatible with my XL1s or do I need an adapter to fit them?

You need the Canon EF-XL adapter. The adapter makes all of them compatible.

See http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article58.php#ceos for more info.

"The adapter makes all of them compatible" ...

That is, physically mountable. Remember, the lenses' respective fields-of-view will be narrowed by a factor of 7.2x, because of the size of the camera's chips.

EOS Lens Adapter question
 

I read Jeff Donald's excellent post, The Ultimate Depth of Field Skinny.

But I still have a couple of questions on the XL 1 and its EF adapter.

If you analyse the construction of the Canon EF adapter you'll notice a piece of glass in the actual adaapter. If you look through the end where the camera body connects to it, everything is blown up, as if you were looking through a magnifying glass.

What role does this play in the image size conversion from the EOS lens to the 1/3" CCD?

Second question.

Would using a lens to shrink the light stream to fit the CCD work?

Thanks in advance. =)

I'm not really sure, but the glass inside the adapter is probably focussing the
light beam for the proper distance. It is definitely not doing something like
a ground glass to get that 35mm depth-of-field.

I have no idea what you mean when you say "sing a lens to shrink the light stream"

I'm asking cause I recently bought one of those home made adapters on ebay, just out of curiosity to compare with the Canon EF Adapter I have. The first thing that I noticed is that the Canon Adapter has lens in its adapter and the home made Adapter didn't.

The results were the same. I noticed no loss in quality, no vignetting, etc.

Except for the annoying no lens error I got it looks like the Conon adapter does nothing.

I was also wondering if someone were to add a lens of some sort that would shrink the light signal on one of these adapters, would that negate the 7.2X inflation of the image size; sort of like reverse magnification.

I understand that this would probably take more futzing around than adding something in front of the lens like the mini 35.

That is the difficulty with the XL series indeed. Personally I would go with the
35mm adapter in front of the lens. Much simpler. Check the imaging forum for
threads on that subject.

Anyone Using Canon EF 70-300 mm DO IS?
 

Hello all!

I have now used a number of different Canon EF-lenses (with the EF-Adapter, of course) on my XL-1s. While image quality has always been excellent, the weight of any but the shortest of these lenses poses problems (particularly with the 100-400 mm IS fully extended).

Ever since it's been released, I've been pondering purchasing the Canon EF 70-300 mm f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM (not to be confused with the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM). Due to its Diffractive Optics (DO) design, this lens is short and light - just what I'm looking for.

Since Canon states that this lens is NOT compatible with the 1.4x and 2.0x EF-extenders, I'm worried that there could be problems using it in conjunction with the EF-adapter on my XL-1s rig.

Any feedback from people using this lens on their XL-1/2 rigs would be highly appreciated! I'd primarily be using it for wildlife shooting, and any feedback regarding it's usability in that area would very welcome, too.

TIA for your feedback!

Warm regards,

Ron

Hi Ron,

I'm not exactly sure why that lens isn't compatible with the Canon EF extenders, but there should be no problem using it with the XL adapter.

Some lenses are not compatible because the extenders have a front element that protrudes right into the barrel of the lens, i.e. it's a simple mechanical problem. For example, the EF 24-70mm f2.8 USM is not compatible. When you try to attach the extender, you would damage the last lens element.

On the other hand, the XL adapter does not have a protruding front element. Thanks for the explanation, Rainer -- much appreciated,

i have used this lens on my d300, its a bit soft zoomed out but i don't think that softness will effect video resolution as much as a 6mpx still...i thought the lens was well contructed but i ended returning it in favor of a 70-200 which gave my photos better contrast and was much sharper throughout the zoom, i owna 100-400 as well and i thought it was sharper then the do lens, with much better color rendition...i also thought the do lens was a bit pricey for what you get quality wise, but that is subjective...

Thanks to everyone for their feedback!

@ Chris and Rainer: yes, it's most likely a construction-related issue that prevents the extenders from working with the lens. As you have mentioned, this is true for quite a few EF-lenses, I now remember. But if someone knows differently (i.e. it's due to the diffractive optics), I'd be very interested to find out!

@ Robert: thanks a bunch for the input regarding image quality! Since kicking-off this thread, I've looked around a bit on the Net, and have found a number of resources that attest the lens good but not stellar image quality, and you seem to corroborate this fact. Since I'm a stickler for image quality, I'll research further!

I'd still be very interested in feedback (better yet: frame grabs) from people using this lens on their XL-1/2 rigs. And just to note: image quality is important to me, but it's not everything. Usability goes a long way, which is partly why I'm considering this lens...

Cheers,

Ron

Both of Roberts lenses are L glass whereas the 70-300 is not. Hardly surprising there is an image quality difference!

Robert certainly has taste when it comes to lenses! (and budget to match, lucky devil!!!)

@ Richard: True, but Canon seems to put the DO lenses in a different category altogether (green ring instead of the red one on the L-series) - at least so far.

And don't think that anything non-L is inferior to L. For example, the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM provides better image quality than the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM at 100 mm and identical apertures (and at a much lower price). Granted, not the fairest comparison, since the former is faster and a prime and the latter is a zoom lens.

But my point here is that price isn't everything. You have to really evaluate each lens purchase from all angles (image quality, usability, price) to see if it fits your bill - just what I'm trying to do now... :-)

Cheers,

Ron

EF Lenses for weddings - need suggestions!
 

I use an XL1S and have an EF Adaptor that I would like to use for wedding ceremonies. What are some lenses that you would recommend that could handle the potentially low light and long distances of a wedding ceremony? What I'm looking for is something that could rival the 16x manual servo lens in its versatility for this type of venue.

My photographer friends say to go at least f2.8 on the lens because of the low light (but I'm sort of thinking that increasing the gain can at least compensate for some of the low-light issues I might face.) Obviously I'd like a telephoto (and maybe a wide angle for some ext/int establishing shots)

I'm looking forward to a rack focus lens that will work well with subjects coming toward me (e.g., bride walking down the aisle toward my camera) and not have to deal with the back focus problem of losing the sharpness as I zoom as the stock 16x IS II is infamous for.

Is my hypothesis correct? Will using an EF lens with an EF adaptor take care of these issues for me?
Lastly, what about generic Canon adaptable lenses like Sigma brand lenses? Is the decrease glass quality of a generic lens severe enough to avoid using it even for video? Of course cost is an issue, as it is for all of us!

Thanks for your help!

I am totally out of my league here (not owning an XL1) but I recall reading the when using the EF adapter there is a 7.2X magnification factor in place?
So a standard lens like a 24-70mm F2.8 would be the equivalent of a 202-504mm lens?
If so that would be pretty useless in a church I imagine.

An XL camcorder with any EF lens becomes a telescope. See this page:

http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article10.php

Written for the XL2 but the same basic principles apply for XL1 / XL1S.

The fast EF lenses at f/2.8 or so are pretty high up there in cost. They will not be as responsive in low light as any of the XL lenses, which have a max. aperture of f/1.6. The EF lenses certainly have some amazing applications but I don't think wedding videography is one of them.

See also http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article58.php.

Chris,
Thanks for the links. Now that I looked at those links I remember reading them in the past - thanks for the reminder. It's exactly what I needed.

Also, it seems that using a Sigma telephoto lens in conjunction with an EF adaptor would not be a bad solution for an outdoor wedding where darkness is less of an issue. I would love to get extreme closeups of the exchange or rings, for example, that a good photographer gets but to get it in actual, moving video. What a concept!

Two more questions for the unflappable Chris Hurd:
1) Do you know if the Sigma Canon adaptable lenses will cause the 'check the lens' error on the XL1S? Also, do you have experience with the less expensive 'Phoenix' and 'Vivitar' brand Canon lenses?

2) I have tried an L series Canon lens on my XL1S before and it seemed to have the same back-focus problem as my stock 16X IS II. That is, full zoom and focus; go full wide and lose focus along the way. I didn't expect this to happen with a Canon Photo lens. Is there an inherent problem with using a photo lens with a videocamera? Is there no way to compensate for the difference in distance between the lenses and the camera's sensor? There was no back focus adjustment on the L series lens I was borrowing so does that mean I'm out of luck? What am I doing wrong?

(yes, I know, that was way more than two questions. But Chris Hurd being Chris Hurd, I'm sure he can handle it. ;-)

Thanks,

Andrew Hsu
Morning Star Videography

Hi Andrew,
The trouble with that Andrew is that you're using a still photo tool in a video application. With an EF lens, you lose autofocus, motorized zoom, and wide angle, which are three things generally needed for event work. As fast as things occur in a wedding, I would not want to change lenses in a middle of a shoot like that.

I can confirm that using a Sigma lens with the EF adapter will NOT cause a "check lens" warning. Be aware that inexpensive third-party lenses usually suffer from chromatic abberation (the dreaded purple fringe) at long focal lengths. You can see this in my FOV Comparison page in the Sigma images. Your best bet from a quality standpoint is to stick with genuine Canon optics.

You're doing nothing wrong. This is a by-product of using the EF adapter. The thickness of the adapter itself represents a change in the optical path which throws off back-focus. This is not considered a fault; it's not a "problem" as much as it is a "gotcha." It's part of the price you're paying for using a still-photo tool in a video application.

The EF lens adapter and associated still-photo lenses is a very cool feature of the Canon XL series, but really not very practical for many forms of videography, including weddings. Its usefulness is limited to some specialized types of work such as surveillance and long-distance wildlife recording. Hope this helps,

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I also think switching lenses in event videography is a much harder and riskier task than switching lenses in scripted work (or event photography, for that matter) but on the occasion that my second or third camera have good shots, I can switch lenses for dramatic effect.

Another interesting note: I used an extreme fisheye lens once on my XL1S/EF adaptor and it didn't give the effect you would expect. The 7.2X factor in the EF adaptor pretty much negated any 'wide angleness' you would have expected. For those of you considering getting a fish for extablishing shots and stuff (like I did) I would recommend going into your local camera store to try the lens and its effects on your video.

Thanks,
Andrew Hsu
Morning Star Videography