|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 28th, 2002, 06:13 PM
|
#16 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: detroit, mi
Posts: 187
|
had a quick question and didn't want to start another thread for it. for shooting a college marching band performance, would the manual or stock xL1s lens be better? i was thinking the manual would be because of all the different bodies in different formations might make the stock lens's focus "jump"? i'll be up in the stands shooting. thanks for any help.
matt |
|
|
|
August 28th, 2002, 06:33 PM
|
#17 |
|
Slash Rules!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 5,472
|
True, but with the manual lens you might have to constantly pull your focus to keep stuff from going blurry. It depends whether you want to zoom in or not (seems to me). If you stay wide all the time, and shoot at f8 or so (I'm told that stopped down any more and you start to lose sharpness-- f8 will maximize your depth of field while allowing you to maintain sharpness) then should be able to avoid refocusing. If you want to zoom in however, perhaps the stock lens might be better, as it would instantly focus on your subject.
To Chris Hurd: would it be possible to change my. . .erm slogan from "Master Control Sucks" to "Everything I've just written is probably wrong"? |
|
|
|
|
August 28th, 2002, 07:08 PM
|
#18 |
|
Warden
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 8,287
|
Pretty good advice from where I sit Josh. The only thing I would add is the ability of the stock16x (white) to enable Image stabilization. IS wouldn't make much difference when your wide, but if you want any tighter shots the IS is almost mandatory. If you try to zoom to 88mm (about 12x) every little movement will be magnified.
Jeff |
|
|
|
|
August 28th, 2002, 11:03 PM
|
#19 |
|
Wrangler
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 8,314
|
If you are shooting handheld, just forget about using the manual lens right now. The IS on the stock lens will save your butt on anything from a 50% zoom and closer.
Of course if you are using a tripod (which would be a better choice) then it isn't as important. |
|
|
|
|
August 29th, 2002, 12:18 AM
|
#20 |
|
Slash Rules!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 5,472
|
Yes, I totally forgot to think of that. You are correct. Unless you are the steadiest shooter alive and can pull your own focus, go stock lens on this job.
|
|
|
|
|
August 29th, 2002, 12:25 AM
|
#21 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
And Josh, you can change your, um, slogan to whatever you want from your user control panel (the "user cp" button at the top of the page).
|
|
|
|
|
September 6th, 2002, 10:35 AM
|
#22 |
|
Tourist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2
|
how about the Canon 14x zoom?
I have an XL1s and am considering getting a second manual zoom. B&H has a nice prices 14x Canon lense and a more expensive 16x. For the money, I like the 14x but i'm curious if anyone out there has used it. I assume the zoom and focus are manual but what about the iris? Of the scanty information provided by B&H, there is a mention of "electrical connections" on the lense. Does this mean the camera can controll the iris automatically if needed.
If anyone has used this lense before and can provide some answers, let me know. Adam |
|
|
|
|
September 6th, 2002, 11:52 AM
|
#23 |
|
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston, MA (travel frequently)
Posts: 837
|
The 14x Full Manual lens is a sweet lens for filmmaking where you are doing setups and need precise iris control, however, it is completely manual. That means manual zoom too, no servo zoom - which the 16X Manual/ Servo lens does provide. If you plan on doing more run and gun shooting such as ENG-style, then you'll probably appreciate the servo zoom control provided on the newer 16X M/S lens. Both have follow-focus attachment capability. There is no significant difference regarding sharpness or quality between the two. I actually really like the 14X Full Manual lens, it's the type of lens I grew up with and am most comfortable with.
On the 14x, there is an actual manual iris on the lens, like any other full manual lens provides,,, very analog ;o) On the 16x M/S lens, the "iris control" is the exposure wheel on the left next to the shutter speed controls. That means that there is no iris control on the lens, it is done on camera. The 16x M/S lens DOES provide you with two stages of ND, where the 14x Full Manual lens does not. How much is the 14X Full Manual lens selling for these days? - don
__________________
DONALD BERUBE - noisybrain. Productions, LLC Director Of Photography/ Producer/ Consultant http://noisybrain.com/donbio.html CREATE and NETWORK with http://www.bosfcpug.org and also http://fcpugnetwork.org |
|
|
|
|
September 6th, 2002, 04:01 PM
|
#24 |
|
Slash Rules!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 5,472
|
Doesn't the 14x sell for around 1000 nowadays? I also remember reading that you can buy a servo attachment for that particular lens---but don't know why you'd want to.
|
|
|
|
|
October 3rd, 2002, 10:20 PM
|
#25 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, England
Posts: 87
|
14x manual and anamorphic adaptor
I've been thinking of getting one of them century optics anamorphic adapters.
Has anyone here used them on an XL-1 yet? I was gonna rent one from a shop in town to try out, but they don't have the step ring, like the package deal on ZGC.com. I know that it'll work fine on internal focus lens, like manual 16x and IS-16x. I was wondering if there was a way to rig the adapter to a 14x lens, since I prefer to shoot with that all manual feel, and don't have money/access to a 16x. I have a 15mm rail/mattebox system, and was wondering if I should just talk to zgc about it. Any info would be great. Thanks Adrian |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
